relativistic protons

Wikipedia does not have information on relativistic protons (that I can
find). Can anyone give information on this? The article I am looking
at more or less says they are the energy pushing the universe apart. I
know what protons are but what are relativistic protons? thank you for
any info !!

Theodora Deski wrote:
Wikipedia does not have information on relativistic protons (that I can
find). Can anyone give information on this? The article I am looking
at more or less says they are the energy pushing the universe apart. I
know what protons are but what are relativistic protons? thank you for
any info !!



Try this for a primer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Nothing about protons though.

High energy protons are included in the set of particles that make up
cosmic rays. However I've never heard of a connection to dark energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays


Shawn

On Sep 2, 4:01 pm, shawn wrote:
Theodora Deski wrote:
Wikipedia does not have information on relativistic protons (that I can
find). Can anyone give information on this? The article I am looking
at more or less says they are the energy pushing the universe apart. I
know what protons are but what are relativistic protons? thank you for
any info !!


Try this for a primer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Nothing about protons though.

High energy protons are included in the set of particles that make up
cosmic rays. However I've never heard of a connection to dark energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays

Shawn

The only primer he will ever need is the 'Time Machine ' science
fiction novel from 1898 -

"Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause
required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well that
Time is only a kind of Space" H.G. Well's narrative

http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html

All that relativistic cobblers of the last century goes right back to
the original error created by Flamsteed and built on by Newton -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

So,it all goes back to the Equation of Time,the 24 hour day and the
natural noon cycles.Although Newton accurately expresses the Equation
of Time in his idiosyncratic absolute/relative time way,his framework
was the astrological framework of Flamsteed.

In short,grow up,if people's concerns at the beginning of the last
centuries were time travel machines ect,this era is concerned with
climate and a deep need to understand what is going on.To understand
global climate and the seasons you have to know the difference between
the total length of the natural noon cycles and hemispherical
variations in daylight/darkness or the common seasonal term
'lengthening and shortening ' of civil daylight.

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 07:10:06 -0700, (Theodora Deski)
wrote:

Wikipedia does not have information on relativistic protons (that I can
find). Can anyone give information on this? The article I am looking
at more or less says they are the energy pushing the universe apart. I
know what protons are but what are relativistic protons? thank you for
any info !!


Relativistic protons means protons that are moving close to the speed
of light. Let us have a reference to the article. Which magazine,
date of publication, etc.

Bud

--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.

On Sep 2, 8:08 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Theodora Deski wrote:
Wikipedia does not have information on relativistic protons (that I can
find). Can anyone give information on this? The article I am looking
at more or less says they are the energy pushing the universe apart. I
know what protons are but what are relativistic protons? thank you for
any info !!


Relativistic protons, such as found in cosmic rays and particle
accelerators, have little to do with the vacuum energy of *virtual*
particles... which may or may not contribute to cosmic expansion.

Relativistic refers to relative velocities that are typical a
significant fraction of the speed of light for a given observer.

How long do you think you can peddling that self-serving
mathematical nonsense that nobody really cares about ?.I am sure the
observational astrologers would be all too happy to leave you to your
'relativistic' devices because they are too lazy or too silly to do
real astronomy . In an era which needs closer links between astronomy
and terrestrial disciplines such as climatology and geology there is
little time for indulgences like Newtonian and the exotic 20th century
mathematical attempts to be astronomers.

Like a pyramid perched on its apex,the empirical involvement in
astronomy has become very unstable insofar as at the core of Newton's
original agenda (and the symptoms really surfaced in the early 20th
century) is an error in principle,specifically an astrological
core.You should listen to the words of a great mathematician,Pascal in
this case, who knew what happens when such an error is made -

"But in the intuitive mind the principles are found in common use and
are before the eyes of everybody. One has only to look, and no effort
is necessary; it is only a question of good eyesight, but it must be
good, for the principles are so subtle and so numerous that it is
almost impossible but that some escape notice. Now the omission of one
principle leads to error; thus one must have very clear sight to see
all the principles and, in the next place, an accurate mind not to
draw false deductions from known principles."

http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/p...s-SECTION.html

My sympathy to the many people who still continue to follow Newton's
agenda never mind the exotic 20th century nonsense but it is time to
sober up and look at what you are really missing - the ability to mesh
astronomy with climate studies,geological dynamics and many other
productive avenues.

oriel36 wrote:

On Sep 2, 4:01 pm, shawn wrote:
Theodora Deski wrote:
Wikipedia does not have information on relativistic protons (that I can
find). Can anyone give information on this? The article I am looking
at more or less says they are the energy pushing the universe apart. I
know what protons are but what are relativistic protons? thank you for
any info !!


Try this for a primer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Nothing about protons though.

High energy protons are included in the set of particles that make up
cosmic rays. However I've never heard of a connection to dark energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays

Shawn

The only primer he will ever need is the 'Time Machine ' science
fiction novel from 1898 -

"Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause
required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well that
Time is only a kind of Space" H.G. Well's narrative

http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html

All that relativistic cobblers of the last century goes right back to
the original error created by Flamsteed and built on by Newton -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

So,it all goes back to the Equation of Time,the 24 hour day and the
natural noon cycles.Although Newton accurately expresses the Equation
of Time in his idiosyncratic absolute/relative time way,his framework
was the astrological framework of Flamsteed.

In short,grow up,if people's concerns at the beginning of the last
centuries were time travel machines ect,this era is concerned with
climate and a deep need to understand what is going on.To understand
global climate and the seasons you have to know the difference between
the total length of the natural noon cycles and hemispherical
variations in daylight/darkness or the common seasonal term
'lengthening and shortening ' of civil daylight.

To you there is much gobble de gouk! Shove lambs head up
ass. Sure curre!

oriel36 wrote:

On Sep 2, 8:08 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Theodora Deski wrote:
Wikipedia does not have information on relativistic protons (that I can
find). Can anyone give information on this? The article I am looking
at more or less says they are the energy pushing the universe apart. I
know what protons are but what are relativistic protons? thank you for
any info !!


Relativistic protons, such as found in cosmic rays and particle
accelerators, have little to do with the vacuum energy of *virtual*
particles... which may or may not contribute to cosmic expansion.

Relativistic refers to relative velocities that are typical a
significant fraction of the speed of light for a given observer.

How long do you think you can peddling that self-serving
mathematical nonsense that nobody really cares about ?.I am sure the
observational astrologers would be all too happy to leave you to your
'relativistic' devices because they are too lazy or too silly to do
real astronomy . In an era which needs closer links between astronomy
and terrestrial disciplines such as climatology and geology there is
little time for indulgences like Newtonian and the exotic 20th century
mathematical attempts to be astronomers.

Like a pyramid perched on its apex,the empirical involvement in
astronomy has become very unstable insofar as at the core of Newton's
original agenda (and the symptoms really surfaced in the early 20th
century) is an error in principle,specifically an astrological
core.You should listen to the words of a great mathematician,Pascal in
this case, who knew what happens when such an error is made -

"But in the intuitive mind the principles are found in common use and
are before the eyes of everybody. One has only to look, and no effort
is necessary; it is only a question of good eyesight, but it must be
good, for the principles are so subtle and so numerous that it is
almost impossible but that some escape notice. Now the omission of one
principle leads to error; thus one must have very clear sight to see
all the principles and, in the next place, an accurate mind not to
draw false deductions from known principles."

http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/p...s-SECTION.html

My sympathy to the many people who still continue to follow Newton's
agenda never mind the exotic 20th century nonsense but it is time to
sober up and look at what you are really missing - the ability to mesh
astronomy with climate studies,geological dynamics and many other
productive avenues.

You did not use lamb. You put camel up there instaed.
BIG MISTAKE!

Theodora Deski wrote:
I
know what protons are but what are relativistic protons?

A relativistic proton is simply a proton that moves so quickly that
the effects predicted by the Special Theory of Relativity are
noticeable.

This web page

http://resources.yesican-science.ca/..._general2.html

shows two graphs of the energy of a proton in electron volts against
its velocity as a fraction of the speed of light:

According to the second of those graphs, a proton with an energy of 1
GeV travels at 80% of the speed of light.

John Savard

oriel36 wrote:
My sympathy to the many people who still continue to follow Newton's
agenda never mind the exotic 20th century nonsense

If the Special Theory of Relativity were "exotic 20th century
nonsense" instead of merely the simple truth, our particle
accelerators would not work.

Perhaps you would call that shameless empiricism? The purpose of
science is to remain in contact with reality, and it succeeds in this
purpose when it makes accurate predictions, even if we may, through
empiricism, allow our theories to run ahead of having a philosophical
basis, or we may simplify matters by looking at things through
perspectives other than our own.

John Savard

On Sep 4, 1:47 pm, Quadibloc wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
My sympathy to the many people who still continue to follow Newton's
agenda never mind the exotic 20th century nonsense

If the Special Theory of Relativity were "exotic 20th century
nonsense" instead of merely the simple truth, our particle
accelerators would not work.

Perhaps you would call that shameless empiricism? The purpose of
science is to remain in contact with reality, and it succeeds in this
purpose when it makes accurate predictions, even if we may, through
empiricism, allow our theories to run ahead of having a philosophical
basis, or we may simplify matters by looking at things through
perspectives other than our own.

John Savard

So now you know that Newton's relative/absolute space is nothing more
than his false view of retrogrades and their resolution -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which
those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation
of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion"

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/...tions.htm#time

The exotic early 20th century concepts managed to dump aether on Isaac
as 'absolute space' anyway even though Isaac explicitly rejected such
a notion ,in short,they lied to get the 'relativity' concept to fly -

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Optics 1704 Newton


The early 20th century nonsense is useful for highlighting what Isaac
was up to with those relative/absolute definitions and then trace
things back even further to Flamsteed where the really big error in
principle occured.Of course some are going to find that passage from
Newton disconcerting insofar as the whole scenario of 'relativity' was
dispensing with an aether which Albert associates with Newton's
'absolute space' -

" In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; Albert 1920


Not even close Albert,Newton had something else in mind with absolute/
relative space and time but then again few appear to be listening.It
is now more satisfying to show how Copernicus,Kpler and Galileo
thought than it is to untangle the twisted threads which Newton
contrived to get his agenda to work.Again,the a ballistic agenda
applied to planetary motion is a valid way to approach planetary
motion but for goodness sake,do not turn astronomy on its head to do
it.