Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #689307

Re: Texas A&M request— Speed of breakup of molecules into atoms-- is it 1095km/sec, of atoms into subatomic particles-- is it 37500km/sec //48-TRUE CHEMISTRY textbook

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/7/2018 2:32 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> I was really excited tonight coming home, for i thought of a nice experiment to prove the speed limit for rest mass particles was c/8
> 
> Simply place alpha particles in accelerator, get them up to a speed of c/8 and observe no more alpha particles but rather instead observe subatomic particles since the alpha particles disintegrated into subatomic particles once c/8 was reached.

This is good to a point, you come up with an idea as well as an 
experiment to test for it. However, you assumed the conclusion (common 
mistake). What a real scientist would write is something like this:

 > Simply place alpha particles in accelerator, get them up to a speed 
of c/8 and observe whether there are alpha particles or subatomic 
particles. If there is debris, the idea has support. If  there are still 
alpha particles, the idea is refuted. This is 100% bog standard science, 
the scientific method, falsification.

> 
> So all i needed to find was a anomaly disappearance of alpha particles at c/8 speed.
> 
> The above site at Texas A&M says the contrary with a 280 MeV alphas or 40% c
> 
> Unless however Texas A&M made a mistake in thinking their endproduct was still “intact alpha particles” when in truth they were a debris field of subatomic particles from the busted up alpha particles.

Again you assumed the conclusion. The experiment was performed, it did 
not match your predictions, so your predictions were wrong. Standard 
science is to either modify the hypothesis with the new data or simply 
accept the fact the hypothesis is wrong. Scientists do this all the 
time, day in day out.
> 
> So, respectfully asking that Texas A&M make a review of their results— see whether their end results were a debris field of broken up alpha particles.

Do you have a reason why you think there was a problem with the Texas 
A&M tests? Do you see a flaw in their method? Do you see sloppiness that 
affects the results?

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Texas A&M request— Speed of breakup of molecules into atoms-- is it 1095km/sec, of atoms into subatomic particles-- is it 37500km/sec //48-TRUE CHEMISTRY textbook Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 23:32 -0700
  concept of “attendant” in physics //48-TRUE CHEMISTRY textbook Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 01:39 -0700
  Re: Texas A&M request— Speed of breakup of molecules into atoms-- is it 1095km/sec, of atoms into subatomic particles-- is it 37500km/sec //48-TRUE CHEMISTRY textbook "Anon Y. Mouse" <nobody@home.invalid> - 2018-06-07 10:45 -0400
    Re: Texas A&M request— Speed of breakup of molecules into atoms-- is it 1095km/sec, of atoms into subatomic particles-- is it 37500km/sec //48-TRUE CHEMISTRY textbook Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 12:40 -0700
      Re: Texas A&M request— Speed of breakup of molecules into atoms-- is it 1095km/sec, of atoms into subatomic particles-- is it 37500km/sec //48-TRUE CHEMISTRY textbook "Anon Y. Mouse" <nobody@home.invalid> - 2018-06-07 21:56 -0400

csiph-web