Time dilatation in circular motion
El Enrrabadore-mor
the stay-at-home clock, because (if already speeding) it is
running at a slower rate. Or else, because it had run at a
slower rate when it was speeding, assuming now it is
stopped near the stay-at-home clock.
The funny thing about this is that time and length change
at the same time, but not the ratio between both (velocity).
If we keep length constant, the only possible solution is
uniform circular motion. That is a twin travelling in circles,
of constant radius r, around the first twin assumed to be
stopped at the center of rotation.
Let's say the radius r is a constant value of 100 light-seconds
(r = 100c).
The speeding twin goes on a spaceship at 0.999c.
Therefore, the angular speed 'omega' is v/r = 0.999c/100c
= 0.01 rad/s.
The speeding twin takes 628 seconds to have a complete turn
of 360 degrees.
For small values of t, the speeding twin is almost going in
a straight line, but is fact it has a centripetal force f = m c^2/r
= m c/100, being the centripetal acceleration c/100, towards
the first stopped twin in the center of rotation.
Both twins have powerful antennas that broadcast radio
spherically around the entire space. Both twins are tuned
to each other frequency/radio-station.
Since the distance r = 100c between the emitter and the
receptor is constant, obviously that both twin will hear
each other radio (music) in perfect conditions.
Nevertheless, relativity says that the clock synchronising
the emission of the speeding twin must be running at
a clock rate close to zero. Theoretically, the speeding
twin won't have any trouble receiving the stay-at-home
radio emission, but the stay-at-home twin cannot
receive the speeding twin radio emission, because
the speeding clock is running near zero.
The speeding twin radio emission will take infinite
time to broadcast one single spoken word. The
stay-at-home will be dead by the time the speeding
twin could say a single word.
The trouble seams to be the acceleration:
a = (0.999)^2 c/100 which is about c/100.
(Here the number 100 means 100 seconds).
That's a huge gravity field of 300,000g at
a radius of 100 light-seconds, just imagine
the value it will be at Earth radius based
on the inverse-square Law.)
I presume that such acceleration of 300,000g will
be responsible for a clock speed up rate that
should keep time unchanged after all.
Any comments welcome.
Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
news:683p1fF...@mid.individual.net...
Install an atomic clock at Ross Island, McMurdo Sound.
Antarctica's largest science base, the United States' McMurdo Station, as
well as New Zealand’s Scott Base are located on the island’s south shore.
"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly,
by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of
the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
I haven't heard anyone screaming about how Einstein was proved right and it
would be quite easy to do.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
message news:683p1fF...@mid.individual.net...
> Any comments welcome.
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/rigid_disk.html
David A. Smith
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:IG3Tj.8992$DG....@newsfe10.phx...
The prat Koks writes
"How could a physicist like Born, mathematically sophisticated, have made
such an elementary error?"
What he should have written was
How could a jerk like Einstein, mathematically unsophisticated, have made
such an
obvious error as:
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the time each way is the same?
How could cretins like Koks and Smiffy believe such garbage?
Uncle Al
>
> It is said that a speeding clock shows less elapsed time than
> the stay-at-home clock, because (if already speeding) it is
> running at a slower rate. Or else, because it had run at a
> slower rate when it was speeding, assuming now it is
> stopped near the stay-at-home clock.
>
> The funny thing about this is that time and length change
> at the same time, but not the ratio between both (velocity).
>
> If we keep length constant, the only possible solution is
> uniform circular motion. That is a twin travelling in circles,
> of constant radius r, around the first twin assumed to be
> stopped at the center of rotation.
The experiment was done with Mossbauer spectroscopy in an
ultracentrifuge, rim to hub. READ IT.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v129/i6/p2371_1
Fe-57 14.4-keV Mossbauer absorption line traversing an ultracentrifuge
rotor was measured versus angular velocity omega. Fe-57 absorber
placed at 9.3 cm radius. Co-57 source mounted on a hub piezoelectric
transducer. Triangular voltage wave was applied to the transducer to
move source relative to absorber. The entire resonance line was
observed at various omega values. Measured transverse Doppler shift
agreed within 1.1% experimental error with relativity predictions.
> Let's say the radius r is a constant value of 100 light-seconds
> (r = 100c).
[snip crap]
Precision measurement over an artifical 18.7 million mile radius? Not
clever.
> Any comments welcome.
1) Due diligence in a literature search lest you make a public fool
of yourself.
2) Fit performed experiments on a lab bench unless nature is
picking up the tab.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
mitch.nico...@gmail.com
> This message is brought to you by Androcles
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
>
But centrifigul force cancels gravity weight at the equator.
You weigh less.
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote
news:481CD2B3...@hate.spam.net...
If not clever, why did you bring up the Mossbauer argument,
that you have qualify as "not clever" for a 100 second-light radius?
Do you pretend to measure resonance lines too?
Any frequency that is a multiple of the natural frequency will
cause resonance. So the 46 Years old experiment can only
be horse dung.
BTW, what's relativity prediction?
El Enrrabadore-mor
I've read the links. Let me tell you that my horse dung
detector exploded due to overload.
Both are total nonsense.
The first article blames on rapidity.
What is rapidity?
The second, besides all excuses made, says that:
quote:
"Einstein doesn't give an explicit formula for the spacetime
metric of the rigid spinning disk, but here's one obvious
candidate (assuming the angular speed is omega): "
Tell me please, is it d(theta squared), or the square of
d(theta)?
Also:
"The events along a particle's worldline are parametrized
by 'tau'."
Since worldlines are time like curves in spacetime, the
equation given:
d(tau)^2 = dt^2-dz^2-dr^2-r^2d(theta)^2/(1-r^2omega^2)
not even meets simple dimension requirements.
Some terms have time dimension and others lenght
dimensions, mixed, and cannot be a valid equation.
Only a fool buys that.
>
> David A. Smith
>
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> "Uncle Al" <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrotenews:481CD2B3...@hate.spam.net...
Mossbauer is clever.
>
> Do you pretend to measure resonance lines too?
> Any frequency that is a multiple of the natural frequency will
> cause resonance. So the 46 Years old experiment can only
> be horse dung.
It doesn't work that way. The energy has to be exactly the energy of
the resonance - not just any "multiple".
>
> BTW, what's relativity prediction?
Well, glad we got that out of the way - you didn't even pretend to
read the paper.
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:ad4fa1c0-3e8a-46b5...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 3:31 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrrabad...@mail.docaracas>
wrote:
>> Any frequency that is a multiple of the natural frequency will
>> cause resonance. So the 46 Years old experiment can only
>> be horse dung.
>
> It doesn't work that way. The energy has to be exactly the energy of
> the resonance - not just any "multiple".
What the hell is "energy of resonance"?
I've been working with resonant systems for Years
(mechanical and electrical) and never thought about
any "energy of resonance".
A system in resonance is a closed system that exchanges
no energy with surroundings.
Energy is conserved in resonance.
Go back to the classic mechanics class, where you shouldn't
ever get out without knowing the minimum.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
...
> Only a fool buys that.
Only a troll thinks it is for sale.
David A. Smith
YBM
> How could a jerk like Einstein, mathematically unsophisticated, have made
> such an
> obvious error as:
> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> the time each way is the same?
Good question. He didn't.
Let's see the question again :
> "How could a physicist like [whoever], mathematically sophisticated, have made
> such an elementary error?"
Any sane people would add "I should have deeply misunderstood something,
probably some elementary issue".
Of course anyone know that "Androcles" is insane.
Greg Neill
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of
tuning in radio receivers.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> escreveu na mensagemnews:ad4fa1c0-3e8a-46b5...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On May 3, 3:31 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrrabad...@mail.docaracas>
> wrote:
>
> >> Any frequency that is a multiple of the natural frequency will
> >> cause resonance. So the 46 Years old experiment can only
> >> be horse dung.
>
> > It doesn't work that way. The energy has to be exactly the energy of
> > the resonance - not just any "multiple".
>
> What the hell is "energy of resonance"?
If only there was something like a search engine or a nuclear physics
textbook you could read.
> I've been working with resonant systems for Years
> (mechanical and electrical) and never thought about
> any "energy of resonance".
Nuclear resonance is not mechanical resonance or electrical resonance.
A nucleus can absorb certain energies and emit at those energies. The
energies absorbed/emitted are very specific.
> A system in resonance is a closed system that exchanges
> no energy with surroundings.
That's equilibrium, but nice try.
> Energy is conserved in resonance.
It is? I'll remember that the next time I use my microwave to melt a
beer bottle.
> Go back to the classic mechanics class, where you shouldn't
> ever get out without knowing the minimum.
How is nuclear physics "classical mechanics" ?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossb.html
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> escreveu na mensagem
news:481d2bef$0$26463$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
Is that a joke?
Can you please explain Gisse that one can tune
a radio amoung several stations, not just one.
Can you address the original question, besides
trying to create smoke?
It is obvious that a simple circular motion, seen all
around the Universe (every celestial body is spinning
and orbiting) cannot be solved by relativity.
Actually, a minimum deviation from straight line
looks reason enough for relativity to get in trouble.
El Enrrabadore-mor
On May 3, 6:13 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrrabad...@mail.docaracas>
wrote:
>> Energy is conserved in resonance.
>
> It is? I'll remember that the next time I use my microwave to melt a
> beer bottle.
Energy is conserved in resonance.
The fact that you use a microwave to melt a beer bottle
only proves that you are nuts.
Adress the original question and avoid smoke.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
And the answer is...
You are yet another babbling lunatic.
*PLONK*
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Tom Roberts
> It is said that a speeding clock shows less elapsed time than
> the stay-at-home clock, because (if already speeding) it is
> running at a slower rate. Or else, because it had run at a
> slower rate when it was speeding, assuming now it is
> stopped near the stay-at-home clock.
While that may be "said", it is wrong in SR. In SR, the motion of a
clock does not affect its rate. But when one compares identical clocks
that have traveled different paths, their elapsed proper times can
differ, due to their different trajectories, not due to any change in
their tick rates.
> [... circular motion]
Bailey et al put muons into a storage ring and measured their lifetime
for their circular path. Within experimental resolutions, they have the
same lifetime as muons traveling in a straight line, so their circular
path did NOT affect the internal "clock" that controls their decay. They
were subject to an acceleration of about 10^18 g (1 g = 9.8 m/s^2),
which is FAR greater than claimed in your example. Note this experiment
is a direct implementation of the circular twin scenario, when combined
with measurements of muon decay at rest.
Tom Roberts
Prof Barnhart
theoretical physics.
Specifically, why must so many equate the concept of a designed and created
universe with
religious fanatacism. I will probably encounter the usual attacks and go
away again for several years, but here goes. see below
"El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
news:683p1fF...@mid.individual.net...
> It is said that a speeding clock shows less elapsed time than
> the stay-at-home clock, because (if already speeding) it is
> running at a slower rate. Or else, because it had run at a
> slower rate when it was speeding, assuming now it is
> stopped near the stay-at-home clock.
>
> The funny thing about this is that time and length change
> at the same time, but not the ratio between both (velocity).
>
> If we keep length constant, the only possible solution is
> uniform circular motion. That is a twin travelling in circles,
> of constant radius r, around the first twin assumed to be
> stopped at the center of rotation.
First as I recall, Einstein (he wasn't an idiot) equates gravity and
acceleration. I must say here that if gravity affects the path of EMR then
it is logical to assume that it is a form of electromagnetism. Gravity
"bends space." I feel that one of the problems with space/time theory in
general is the confusing of mathematical analogy (in this case the bending
of free space) with reality. Space is not actually bent, curved, or warped
by gravity. It is expressed this way in Gaussian mathematics.
What is actually happening is that the path of EMR is affected by gravity
such as to change the vectors of the propagation of EMR. The plural of
vector is used here because
the mass/energy relationships with sublight velocities in relation to all
other mass/energy(gravitational) fields are relativistic. That is, they
depart from Newtonian mechanics in to the realm of the incomprehensible.
What I am trying to say is that since there is a constant change in
direction and also an associated acceleration toward the twin standing at
the center of motion there will be a field set up in free space that may
give far different results than depicted in your description of the
situation.
The increase in mass due to rotational velocity will become a prominent
factor. This will create a rotating gravitational field. What are the
directional characteristics of the gravitational field? I doubt that they
are non-existant.
When EMR is released from a source, no matter what the velocity of the
source, it then travels at speed c. This is the standard of reference for
space/time theory. There is a set propagation velocity in free space for
EMR no matter what the frequency. The velocity c could also be perceived as
propagation delay. This strongly indicates that free space is not empty.
It is some sort of EM fabric with qualities that keep light transmission to
a reference standard.
The direction of the radio waves from one twin to another is uncertain. The
gravitational effects are uncertain. A quanta of light may gain mass due to
some aspect of curvature within the confined system. If matter is in
actuality a form of light then the EM system with light as its essence can
be accelerated such as to increase its mass.
What the gravitational field would be within your theoretical system I
cannot say. What I do suspect is that this is a simplified model of what is
known as an atomic particle.
That is, a rotating system that "bends" space such that a self-perpetuating
identity is formed. Space is not bent. What is actually happening is
possibly something along the lines of a complex electomagnetic relationship
that could only be understood if the true nature of gravity was known.
The actual transmission mechanism for the various forms of EMR are quite
complex and rely on the propagation delay incorporated into free space. To
comprehend what gravity does to the vector relationships of EMR is,
well...........not even Einstein could understand it.
Would both clocks tick at the same rate in this situation? Possibly,
because they are confined within the same gravitational effect.
End of attempt to speculate upon something that is beyond human
comprehension, at least for now. Mark
Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Prof Barnhart" <mar...@XXXnetscape.com> wrote in message
news:481d74c8$0$560$c5fe...@reader.usenet4all.se...
|I don't usually post here because I don't agree with the present state of
| theoretical physics.
| Specifically, why must so many equate the concept of a designed and
created
| universe with
| religious fanatacism. I will probably encounter the usual attacks and go
| away again for several years, but here goes. see below
| First as I recall, Einstein (he wasn't an idiot) equates gravity and
Einstein said:
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" for each journey is the same and you have to believe me
because I'm Einstein the chief theoretical physicist, numero uno, top dog.
I agree with you that he wasn't an idiot. He was a raving lunatic and so are
his disciples.
Prof Androcles
Greg Neill
>> tuning in radio receivers.
>
> Is that a joke?
No. It is an observation. But I will admit that
some may find the observation humorous.
>
> Can you please explain Gisse that one can tune
> a radio amoung several stations, not just one.
I am sure that Eric is quite aware of that, and
further, that he knows why. It is also clear from
your posts that you do not seem to be familiar
with the physics.
Can you expound upon the Q-factor of a resonant
circuit (or mechanical oscillator)?
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> escreveu na mensagem
> Can you expound upon the Q-factor of a resonant
> circuit (or mechanical oscillator)?
Sure, the quality factor Q has no precise definition, but
basically is a measurement (or calculation) of the
sharpness of the oscillator.
Q = natural frequency / damping.
The smaller the damping the smaller the bandwidth
and larger the Q-factor will be (the larger the
sharpness of the oscillator).
Now it's your turn.
Can you expound upon the "energy of resonance"
of the resonator himself, based on the Q-factor,
or whatever? (to save your friend Gisse).
Greg Neill
> news:481da360$0$26508$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>
>> Can you expound upon the Q-factor of a resonant
>> circuit (or mechanical oscillator)?
>
> Sure, the quality factor Q has no precise definition, but
> basically is a measurement (or calculation) of the
> sharpness of the oscillator.
> Q = natural frequency / damping.
No, it has a very specific definition:
2*pi*(energy stored)/(energy dissipated) [per cycle]
>
> The smaller the damping the smaller the bandwidth
> and larger the Q-factor will be (the larger the
> sharpness of the oscillator).
"Larger the sharpness"? That's horrible, imprecise
word salad. Still, how do you reconcile your idea
that at resonance there is no energy loss to the fact
that resonant systems have a Q-factor?
>
> Now it's your turn.
No, I think you still need a few more attempts.
> Can you expound upon the "energy of resonance"
> of the resonator himself, based on the Q-factor,
> or whatever? (to save your friend Gisse).
Eric doesn't need my help here; he knows what's
what.
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> escreveu na mensagem
news:jkbTj.2149$J16....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> El Enrrabadore-mor wrote:
>> It is said that a speeding clock shows less elapsed time than
>> the stay-at-home clock, because (if already speeding) it is
>> running at a slower rate. Or else, because it had run at a
>> slower rate when it was speeding, assuming now it is
>> stopped near the stay-at-home clock.
>
> While that may be "said", it is wrong in SR. In SR, the motion of a clock
> does not affect its rate. But when one compares identical clocks that have
> traveled different paths, their elapsed proper times can differ, due to
> their different trajectories, not due to any change in their tick rates.
It looks like you have a new theory here.
Instead of velocity being the cause of time dilatation, now
it is the trajectory the cause of time dilatation.
Below, you say that circular motion and linear motion
causes exactly the same muons lifetime. Since circular
and linear motions are the extreme limits of possible
trajectories, it looks like that you have contradicted
yourself.
>> [... circular motion]
>
> Bailey et al put muons into a storage ring and measured their lifetime for
> their circular path. Within experimental resolutions, they have the same
> lifetime as muons traveling in a straight line, so their circular path did
> NOT affect the internal "clock" that controls their decay. They were
> subject to an acceleration of about 10^18 g (1 g = 9.8 m/s^2), which is
> FAR greater than claimed in your example. Note this experiment is a direct
> implementation of the circular twin scenario, when combined with
> measurements of muon decay at rest.
This one is extraordinary.
You claim that Bailey et al experiment showed that muons
lifetime doesn't depend on the acceleration.
It is said that one single experiment that falsifies GRT is
reason enough to discard a theory.
So there you are. You've presented an experiment that
simply falsifies GRT.
Why don't you discard GRT based on evidence like that?
> Tom Roberts
Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
news:6860aqF...@mid.individual.net...
You want the Pope to give up virgin births?
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> escreveu na mensagem
"El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
news:685u04F...@mid.individual.net
>> "Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> escreveu na mensagem
>> news:481da360$0$26508$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>>> Can you expound upon the Q-factor of a resonant
>>> circuit (or mechanical oscillator)?
>>
>> Sure, the quality factor Q has no precise definition, but
>> basically is a measurement (or calculation) of the
>> sharpness of the oscillator.
>> Q = natural frequency / damping.
>
> No, it has a very specific definition:
>
> 2*pi*(energy stored)/(energy dissipated) [per cycle]
That's from the EXTERNAL point of view.
Not the resonator INTERNAL point of view.
>> The smaller the damping the smaller the bandwidth
>> and larger the Q-factor will be (the larger the
>> sharpness of the oscillator).
>
> "Larger the sharpness"? That's horrible, imprecise
> word salad. Still, how do you reconcile your idea
> that at resonance there is no energy loss to the fact
> that resonant systems have a Q-factor?
Look at a mass-spring system without friction.
Friction is EXTERNAL to the system here,
as usual.
The mass-spring system oscillates at its natural
frequency forever, if no damping exists.
Damping is EXTERNAL.
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> escreveu na mensagem
> news:jkbTj.2149$J16....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>> El Enrrabadore-mor wrote:
>>> It is said that a speeding clock shows less elapsed time than
>>> the stay-at-home clock, because (if already speeding) it is
>>> running at a slower rate. Or else, because it had run at a
>>> slower rate when it was speeding, assuming now it is
>>> stopped near the stay-at-home clock.
>> While that may be "said", it is wrong in SR. In SR, the motion of a clock
>> does not affect its rate. But when one compares identical clocks that have
>> traveled different paths, their elapsed proper times can differ, due to
>> their different trajectories, not due to any change in their tick rates.
>
> It looks like you have a new theory here.
> Instead of velocity being the cause of time dilatation, now
> it is the trajectory the cause of time dilatation.
No. I am discussing standard SR.
It seems your perception of SR is wrong. In particular, motion does NOT
affect the proper tick rate of clocks, but clocks that travel different
trajectories can differ in their elapsed proper times between meetings
of their trajectories. This is very basic SR, discussed in:
Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.
> Below, you say that circular motion and linear motion
> causes exactly the same muons lifetime. Since circular
> and linear motions are the extreme limits of possible
> trajectories, it looks like that you have contradicted
> yourself.
Nope. What this shows is that acceleration does not affect the decay
rate of muons, and by implication, the tick rate of their internal "clock".
>>> [... circular motion]
>> Bailey et al put muons into a storage ring and measured their lifetime for
>> their circular path. Within experimental resolutions, they have the same
>> lifetime as muons traveling in a straight line, so their circular path did
>> NOT affect the internal "clock" that controls their decay. They were
>> subject to an acceleration of about 10^18 g (1 g = 9.8 m/s^2), which is
>> FAR greater than claimed in your example. Note this experiment is a direct
>> implementation of the circular twin scenario, when combined with
>> measurements of muon decay at rest.
>
> This one is extraordinary.
> You claim that Bailey et al experiment showed that muons
> lifetime doesn't depend on the acceleration.
> It is said that one single experiment that falsifies GRT is
> reason enough to discard a theory.
This does not "falsify GRT" at all!
You seem to be using a "sound bite" approach, and seem fixated on
"clocks running slow" (due to motion, or due to gravity). That's overly
naive.
Bailey et al does not refute GR because when one applies GR to their
physical situation and computes what they should observe, one obtains
agreement. It does show that the acceleration does not affect the muon
decay rate.
One can analyze their experiment (including comparison to muon decay at
rest) in two different ways:
a) use the overall inertial frame of their storage ring
and apply SR.
b) use the equivalence principle of GR, and treat the LOCAL
acceleration of the stored muons as a gravitational field
and compute the gravitational time dilation in LOCAL
coordinates in which the stored muon is at rest.
These obtain the same answer.
Tom Roberts
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Prof Barnhart" <mar...@XXXnetscape.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:481d74c8$0$560$c5fe...@reader.usenet4all.se...
>I don't usually post here because I don't agree with the present state of
> theoretical physics.
> Specifically, why must so many equate the concept of a designed and
> created
> universe with
> religious fanatacism. I will probably encounter the usual attacks and go
> away again for several years, but here goes. see below
Dear Mark, in the matter of Physics it looks like
we are twins.
Me too, I don't usually post here because I don't agree
with the present state of theoretical physics.
Yes, its is religious fanatacism.
I've been gone for Years too, not because of attacks,
since I can screw then all, but because I've loosed my
faith on Physics.
Here you cannot do the minimum irrelevant mistake.
If you write something that could leads to a mistake
you are in big trouble. The attack will be demolish,
perpetuated by tens of fanatic religious (a huge loud
speaker).
I used to post with my name. Last time, last Year,
I've been serious on a discussion about classic
mechanics, for instance.
Today I don't want to post with my name.
Last week I was the Phantom, this week I'm the
Enrrabadore-mor (the master of ass-fucking).
Next week I'll be gone (maybe Today, since
I don't see fit here).
My speciality are top/gyroscopes and circular
motion.
No clue on top/gyroscopes exist, believe me.
Greg Neill
> news:481dc61d$0$26483$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
> news:685u04F...@mid.individual.net
>>> "Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> escreveu na mensagem
>>> news:481da360$0$26508$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>>>
>>>> Can you expound upon the Q-factor of a resonant
>>>> circuit (or mechanical oscillator)?
>>>
>>> Sure, the quality factor Q has no precise definition, but
>>> basically is a measurement (or calculation) of the
>>> sharpness of the oscillator.
>>> Q = natural frequency / damping.
>>
>> No, it has a very specific definition:
>>
>> 2*pi*(energy stored)/(energy dissipated) [per cycle]
>
> That's from the EXTERNAL point of view.
> Not the resonator INTERNAL point of view.
Nonsense. You know not of which you speak.
>
>
>>> The smaller the damping the smaller the bandwidth
>>> and larger the Q-factor will be (the larger the
>>> sharpness of the oscillator).
>>
>> "Larger the sharpness"? That's horrible, imprecise
>> word salad. Still, how do you reconcile your idea
>> that at resonance there is no energy loss to the fact
>> that resonant systems have a Q-factor?
>
> Look at a mass-spring system without friction.
Ideal case (does not exist in the real world);
Infinite Q.
> Friction is EXTERNAL to the system here,
> as usual.
No, in the ideal case there is *no* friction.
In the real world all materials exhibit friction
upon flexure, no inductor is without some
non-inductive impedance whether resistive or
capacitive, or capacitive and inductive coupling
to its environment.
>
> The mass-spring system oscillates at its natural
> frequency forever, if no damping exists.
> Damping is EXTERNAL.
Unadulterated crap. Show me a real-life material
of which a spring could be constructed that exhibits
no energy loss when flexed. Similarly, show me a
mass that doesn't at least radiate gravitational
waves as it oscillates as a spring-mass system!
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> escreveu na mensagem
>> The mass-spring system oscillates at its natural
>> frequency forever, if no damping exists.
>> Damping is EXTERNAL.
>
> Unadulterated crap. Show me a real-life material
> of which a spring could be constructed that exhibits
> no energy loss when flexed. Similarly, show me a
> mass that doesn't at least radiate gravitational
> waves as it oscillates as a spring-mass system!
Fine.
All you've said is fine.
Congratulations, you've succeeded to deviate from
the main issue.
The main issue is about electromagnetic radiation,
based on Uncle Al post that starts the topic.
Now, tell me about electromagnetic radiation
damping factor, friction and so on?
Can you see how much out-of-topic you are?
El Enrrabadore-mor
> El Enrrabadore-mor wrote:
>> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> escreveu na mensagem
>> news:jkbTj.2149$J16....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>>> El Enrrabadore-mor wrote:
>>>> It is said that a speeding clock shows less elapsed time than
>>>> the stay-at-home clock, because (if already speeding) it is
>>>> running at a slower rate. Or else, because it had run at a
>>>> slower rate when it was speeding, assuming now it is
>>>> stopped near the stay-at-home clock.
>>> While that may be "said", it is wrong in SR. In SR, the motion of a
>>> clock does not affect its rate. But when one compares identical clocks
>>> that have traveled different paths, their elapsed proper times can
>>> differ, due to their different trajectories, not due to any change in
>>> their tick rates.
>>
>> It looks like you have a new theory here.
>> Instead of velocity being the cause of time dilatation, now
>> it is the trajectory the cause of time dilatation.
>
> No. I am discussing standard SR.
>
> It seems your perception of SR is wrong. In particular, motion does NOT
> affect the proper tick rate of clocks, but clocks that travel different
> trajectories can differ in their elapsed proper times between meetings of
> their trajectories. This is very basic SR, discussed in:
I guess I'm not alone.
The facts are that no one with good mental faculties
can find any logic in your contraditory trajectory claim.
> Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.
How many books are wrong?
>> Below, you say that circular motion and linear motion
>> causes exactly the same muons lifetime. Since circular
>> and linear motions are the extreme limits of possible
>> trajectories, it looks like that you have contradicted
>> yourself.
>
> Nope. What this shows is that acceleration does not affect the decay rate
> of muons, and by implication, the tick rate of their internal "clock".
That's my point.
If that's what experiment says why not take that as
a fact and discard GRT at once?
>>>> [... circular motion]
>>> Bailey et al put muons into a storage ring and measured their lifetime
>>> for their circular path. Within experimental resolutions, they have the
>>> same lifetime as muons traveling in a straight line, so their circular
>>> path did NOT affect the internal "clock" that controls their decay. They
>>> were subject to an acceleration of about 10^18 g (1 g = 9.8 m/s^2),
>>> which is FAR greater than claimed in your example. Note this experiment
>>> is a direct implementation of the circular twin scenario, when combined
>>> with measurements of muon decay at rest.
>>
>> This one is extraordinary.
>> You claim that Bailey et al experiment showed that muons
>> lifetime doesn't depend on the acceleration.
>> It is said that one single experiment that falsifies GRT is
>> reason enough to discard a theory.
>
> This does not "falsify GRT" at all!
Saying it is not enough.
There's a huge evidence that GRT was falsified on
its most basic postulate: The Equivalence Principle.
Gravity = Acceleration
> You seem to be using a "sound bite" approach, and seem fixated on "clocks
> running slow" (due to motion, or due to gravity). That's overly naive.
The truth is that I don't know nothing about clocks
running fast or slow, like billions of people.
> Bailey et al does not refute GR because when one applies GR to their
> physical situation and computes what they should observe, one obtains
> agreement. It does show that the acceleration does not affect the muon
> decay rate.
Since the result was zero time dilatation, you've said that
the computed physical situation was the one that obtains
agreement.
How can I understand this? Does anyone understand?
> One can analyze their experiment (including comparison to muon decay at
> rest) in two different ways:
> a) use the overall inertial frame of their storage ring
> and apply SR.
> b) use the equivalence principle of GR, and treat the LOCAL
> acceleration of the stored muons as a gravitational field
> and compute the gravitational time dilation in LOCAL
> coordinates in which the stored muon is at rest.
> These obtain the same answer.
The model and mathematical means to treat a problem
requires some basic Physics, without random postulates.
The facts are that muons lifetime was directly related
with muons velocity on the "muon experiment" which
is a relativity flag:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html
in agreement with your a).
Now, your b) says that "the equivalence principle of GR,
and treat the LOCAL acceleration of the stored muons
as a gravitational field and compute the gravitational time
dilation in LOCAL coordinates in which the stored muon
is at rest.", obtains the same answer.
In the case of circular motion you got both applied
at the same time. That is, not only you have the velocity
factor involved on the muon lifetime, but also an ADDED
acceleration/gravity factor, that no one can dennie.
For straight motion you have zero acceleration
and a finite momentum.
In circular motion you have acceleration (a gravity
like field) and zero motion relative to the center of
rotation, assumed to be stopped. Nevertheless, the
muon is speeding close to c, relative to the LAB frame.
According to your point we can't have then both
at the same time.
My point is that, LOGIC, will say that since linear
motion and circular motion are different motions,
in the case of circular motion both effects (velocity
and acceleration) will cancel out and no time
dilatation will be seen on circular motion.
Prove: Sagnac.
> Tom Roberts
El Enrrabadore-mor
> One can analyze their experiment (including comparison to muon decay at
> rest) in two different ways:
> a) use the overall inertial frame of their storage ring
> and apply SR.
> b) use the equivalence principle of GR, and treat the LOCAL
> acceleration of the stored muons as a gravitational field
> and compute the gravitational time dilation in LOCAL
> coordinates in which the stored muon is at rest.
> These obtain the same answer.
Moreover:
Your a) appeals on velocity as the cause of
time dilatation.
Your b) appeals on acceleration (or gravity
by equivalence principle) to be the cause on
time dilatation.
Physics say:
c) Acceleration is the time derivative of velocity.
My c) proves your a) and b) to be incompatible,
since time used on the derivative is ABSOLUTE
TIME.
How can a time derivative be based on absolute time
and the time himself not being absolute time?
>
> Tom Roberts
Greg Neill
Hey, *you're* the one who posted the nonsense,
"A system in resonance is a closed system that
exchanges no energy with surroundings. Energy
is conserved in resonance." I just pointed out
your misconceptions and errors.
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> escreveu na mensagem
>> Can you see how much out-of-topic you are?
>
> Hey, *you're* the one who posted the nonsense,
> "A system in resonance is a closed system that
> exchanges no energy with surroundings. Energy
> is conserved in resonance." I just pointed out
> your misconceptions and errors.
Obviously you must agree that for a case of
electromagnetic radiation I'm right.
So, why not blame Gisse for the cause of the
nonsense?
When one refuses to address the topic:
"Time dilatation in circular motion"
the nonsense becomes inevitable.
I won't reply out-of-topic again on this
nonsense resonance branch.
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> escreveu na mensagemnews:iCkTj.172$8i5...@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> > One can analyze their experiment (including comparison to muon decay at
> > rest) in two different ways:
> > a) use the overall inertial frame of their storage ring
> > and apply SR.
> > b) use the equivalence principle of GR, and treat the LOCAL
> > acceleration of the stored muons as a gravitational field
> > and compute the gravitational time dilation in LOCAL
> > coordinates in which the stored muon is at rest.
> > These obtain the same answer.
>
> Moreover:
> Your a) appeals on velocity as the cause of
> time dilatation.
> Your b) appeals on acceleration (or gravity
> by equivalence principle) to be the cause on
> time dilatation.
>
> Physics say:
> c) Acceleration is the time derivative of velocity.
>
> My c) proves your a) and b) to be incompatible,
> since time used on the derivative is ABSOLUTE
> TIME.
I think Roberts is right, and I think you
should think in terms of Action where relativity
is concerned, then it smoothly interfaces with
Quantum Theory.
Ken
Prof Barnhart
"El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
If and when a child is born into this mixed up world that is capable of
taking the mathematics of Lorentz, Maxwell, and Einstein to a new level, I
hope that there will be enough open-minded and rational people to surround
him or her and shield from the assaults by those who seek to destroy for
pleasure.
Such a person would not be able to fight about non-sense. It is my
understanding that Einstein entered space/time theory through the equations
of Lorentz and Maxwell. He then sought to apply the results conceptually.
He did an impeccable job and dutifully indicated that he didn't know how to
interpret certain relationships.
To progress further requires conceptualization, not about more transient
particles, but about the true electromagnetic nature of reality.
Mankind is locked out of advancement because of the assault squad that knows
no real achievement. They don't understand that confounding someone's words
is not the same thing as proving them wrong.
As I understand the situation, Einstein's wife was equally if not more
responsible for his achievements.
Time Will Tell, Mark
>
>
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> escreveu na mensagem
news:ba1a412f-e9a6-49cd...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Hi Ken.
I know that Tom Roberts is honest and someone
that usually knows what he says.
Quantum Theory is a very strange approach
and looks like a magic box where everything is
possible.
Maybe, there's one possible understandable
situation where the above three situations a), b)
and c) can be made compatible.
My best candidate are gyroscopes.
Gyroscope equations, based on Newton and
Lagrange, produce two orthogonal independent
axes where equalities between acceleration and
terms like 1/2 v^2 exist, plus a minus sign to make
both effects cancel each other out on a Conservation
of Energy equation.
Action over a gyroscope (force = mass*acceleration)
always cause a reaction on an orthogonal axis, called
precession, which is a velocity without any force
(acceleration) involved around it.
The effect is due to the fact that torque equals the
rate of change of angular momentum, so that action
and reaction are placed on orthogonal axis.
Gravity should be the force that makes orbiting mass
to behave like if it was a rigid body. Such rigid body
like must be quantized, since mass is always located
where the gravitation force cancel the centrifugal force
(do you remember that?).
But the above is pure speculations, which I've pulled
out of my hat this afternoon, so...
Nevertheless, there are two pillar stones in
Physics:
1 - Conservation of Angular Momentum.
(No matter if it is circular motion or linear
motion. For circular motion the conservation
only exists relative to the center of rotation, but
for linear motion conservation exists relative to
every point in space);
2 - Conservation of Energy.
Now, energy is the time derivative of the
angular momentum, and that time is an
absolute time.
How can the above two pillar stones of
Physics survive in view of time dilatation
(and time not being absolute after all)?
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> escreveu na mensagemnews:481df31e$0$26509$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com..."El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrrabad...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
>
> news:6867tsF...@mid.individual.net
>
> >> Can you see how much out-of-topic you are?
>
> > Hey, *you're* the one who posted the nonsense,
> > "A system in resonance is a closed system that
> > exchanges no energy with surroundings. Energy
> > is conserved in resonance." I just pointed out
> > your misconceptions and errors.
>
> Obviously you must agree that for a case of
> electromagnetic radiation I'm right.
Why?
Microwave ovens have a nonunity Q factor.
> So, why not blame Gisse for the cause of the
> nonsense?
Or go to straight to the source - blame yourself for not knowing what
you are talking about while saying things that are clearly wrong and/
or stupid.
> When one refuses to address the topic:
> "Time dilatation in circular motion"
> the nonsense becomes inevitable.
When one tries to discuss physics with an idiot, nonsense becomes
inevitable. It isn't our fault you don't know what the hell you are
talking about.
>
> I won't reply out-of-topic again on this
> nonsense resonance branch.
Bet you will!
Eric Gisse
> I don't usually post here because I don't agree with the present state of
> theoretical physics.
Idiot alert.
> Specifically, why must so many equate the concept of a designed and created
> universe with
> religious fanatacism. I will probably encounter the usual attacks and go
> away again for several years, but here goes. see below
/Creationist/ idiot alert. This'll be fun!
>
> "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrraban...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
>
> news:683p1fF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > It is said that a speeding clock shows less elapsed time than
> > the stay-at-home clock, because (if already speeding) it is
> > running at a slower rate. Or else, because it had run at a
> > slower rate when it was speeding, assuming now it is
> > stopped near the stay-at-home clock.
>
> > The funny thing about this is that time and length change
> > at the same time, but not the ratio between both (velocity).
>
> > If we keep length constant, the only possible solution is
> > uniform circular motion. That is a twin travelling in circles,
> > of constant radius r, around the first twin assumed to be
> > stopped at the center of rotation.
>
> First as I recall, Einstein (he wasn't an idiot) equates gravity and
> acceleration. I must say here that if gravity affects the path of EMR then
> it is logical to assume that it is a form of electromagnetism.
Does that mean a prism is a form of electromagnetism?
[snip remaining stupidity]
I have to ask...professor of WHAT?
Greg Neill
[aka "Phantom"?]
> Now, energy is the time derivative of the
> angular momentum, and that time is an
> absolute time.
Huh? The time derivative of angular momentum is torque.
Remember T = dL/dt? Just because the units of Torque
can be equated to Joules does not mean that it is
appropriate to interpret them in such a way. Rotational
kinetic energy is still given by (1/2)*I*w^2, the analog
of the linear (1/2)*m*v^2. I'm surprised that you would
attempt to perpetrate such a flimsy subterfuge.
Also remember that kinetic energy is frame dependent,
even for Newtonian physics, so time dilation poses no
conceptual problems for energy in this regard.
You'll no doubt be even more disturbed to learn that
General Relativity essentially discards nonlocal
conservation of energy.
El Enrrabadore-mor
On May 4, 10:07 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrrabad...@mail.docaracas>
wrote:
>> "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> escreveu na
>> mensagemnews:481df31e$0$26509$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com..."El
>> Enrrabadore-mor" <enrrabad...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6867tsF...@mid.individual.net
>>
>> >> Can you see how much out-of-topic you are?
>>
>> > Hey, *you're* the one who posted the nonsense,
>> > "A system in resonance is a closed system that
>> > exchanges no energy with surroundings. Energy
>> > is conserved in resonance." I just pointed out
>> > your misconceptions and errors.
>>
>> Obviously you must agree that for a case of
>> electromagnetic radiation I'm right.
>
> Why?
>
> Microwave ovens have a nonunity Q factor.
I'll tell you why.
Because no friction, dissipation, or damping exists
in electromagnetic radiation (or Maxwell equations).
The Q factor is a direct measurement of the
dissipation factor.
Dissipation is the CAUSE that limits the theoretical
infinite displacement value of resonance.
Did you know? Or do I need to draw you a picture?
Like I said, NO MORE RESONANCE please.
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> escreveu na mensagem
[aka "Phantom"?]
>> Now, energy is the time derivative of the
>> angular momentum, and that time is an
>> absolute time.
>
> Huh? The time derivative of angular momentum is torque.
> Remember T = dL/dt? Just because the units of Torque
> can be equated to Joules does not mean that it is
> appropriate to interpret them in such a way. Rotational
> kinetic energy is still given by (1/2)*I*w^2, the analog
> of the linear (1/2)*m*v^2. I'm surprised that you would
> attempt to perpetrate such a flimsy subterfuge.
You've missed the fact that during a given amount
of time a torque T = dL/dt have moved the body a
given angle theta (which is a basic coordinate).
You forget the fact that derivatives are of the form:
d/dt f(x(t)) = x df/dt
x - is an angular displacement
Energy = Torque . angular displacement (dot product)
Power = Torque . angular velocity (dot product)
Power = Time derivative of energy
This is hard stuff.
Uniform circular motion and uniformly accelerated
motions have somehow the same basic equations:
displacement = 1/2 g t^2
velocity = g t
acceleration = g
Gravity is an uniformly accelerated motion.
> Also remember that kinetic energy is frame dependent,
> even for Newtonian physics, so time dilation poses no
> conceptual problems for energy in this regard.
Sure, that's why I keep the point about the
center of rotation being a fixed point in space.
> You'll no doubt be even more disturbed to learn that
> General Relativity essentially discards nonlocal
> conservation of energy.
If so, the mystery is solved.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> escreveu na mensagemnews:cf5236ad-ea6a-4c57...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Yes, let's go back to you not understanding the Mossbauer effect.
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Prof Barnhart" <mar...@XXXnetscape.com> escreveu na mensagem
> To progress further requires conceptualization, not about more transient
> particles, but about the true electromagnetic nature of reality.
I'm not sure about a "true electromagnetic nature of reality".
Sure there are lots of important "mechanisms" into electromagnetism,
that show effects acting instantaneously at orthogonal directions (axis).
Light is an electric field acting 90 degrees out-of-phase from
the associated magnetic field.
(90 degrees out-of-phase means orthogonal to my understanding).
Reality is made of mass and electromagnetism (massless).
Both don't seam to mix quite well.
In terms of mass behaviour, orthogonal like phenomenon only in
gyroscopes.
Darwin123
wrote:
> It is said that a speeding clock shows less elapsed time than
> the stay-at-home clock, because (if already speeding) it is
> running at a slower rate. Or else, because it had run at a
> slower rate when it was speeding, assuming now it is
> stopped near the stay-at-home clock.
>
> The funny thing about this is that time and length change
> at the same time, but not the ratio between both (velocity).
>
> If we keep length constant, the only possible solution is
> uniform circular motion. That is a twin travelling in circles,
> of constant radius r, around the first twin assumed to be
> stopped at the center of rotation.
>
> (r = 100c).
> The speeding twin goes on a spaceship at 0.999c.
> Therefore, the angular speed 'omega' is v/r = 0.999c/100c
> = 0.01 rad/s.
> The speeding twin takes 628 seconds to have a complete turn
> of 360 degrees.
>
> For small values of t, the speeding twin is almost going in
> a straight line, but is fact it has a centripetal force f = m c^2/r
> = m c/100, being the centripetal acceleration c/100, towards
> the first stopped twin in the center of rotation.
>
> Both twins have powerful antennas that broadcast radio
> spherically around the entire space. Both twins are tuned
> to each other frequency/radio-station.
>
> Since the distance r = 100c between the emitter and the
> receptor is constant, obviously that both twin will hear
> each other radio (music) in perfect conditions.
>
> Nevertheless, relativity says that the clock synchronising
> the emission of the speeding twin must be running at
> a clock rate close to zero. Theoretically, the speeding
> twin won't have any trouble receiving the stay-at-home
> radio emission, but the stay-at-home twin cannot
> receive the speeding twin radio emission, because
> the speeding clock is running near zero.
> The speeding twin radio emission will take infinite
> time to broadcast one single spoken word. The
> stay-at-home will be dead by the time the speeding
> twin could say a single word.
>
> The trouble seams to be the acceleration:
> a = (0.999)^2 c/100 which is about c/100.
> (Here the number 100 means 100 seconds).
> That's a huge gravity field of 300,000g at
> a radius of 100 light-seconds, just imagine
> the value it will be at Earth radius based
> on the inverse-square Law.)
>
> I presume that such acceleration of 300,000g will
> be responsible for a clock speed up rate that
> should keep time unchanged after all.
Ys, Einstein proposed this as a thought experiment. However, his
analysis was done using the inertial frame as seen by an observer at
the center of the earth. The moving clock on the edge of the circle
will seem to be slowed down relative to the clock at the center of the
circle, the one that is not accelerating. The clock in the center will
seem speeded up compared to the clock on the circle. However, this
clock is not accelerating.
Yes, the assymmetry come from the centripetal force. The twin in
the center does not experience the centripetal force as the twin on
the circle.
The clocks relative to each other will see differences in the
rate of ticking. The clock with the largest acceleration ticks the
fastest. The other clocks lag behind. However, the clock that
accelerates least (i.e., moves at the slowest tangential speed on the
circle) lags behind the clocks with more acceleration.
>
> Any comments welcome.
This is a description of the Hafele-Keating experiment. The
experiment was performed, and matched Einsteins predictions. Hafele
had two articles in Nature that describe both the experiment and the
analysis of the results. The experiment was performed with atomic
clocks. It is a classic validation of special relativity.
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:24f29f1f-1c68-4e3c...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Clearly, your arguments blame acceleration to be the
cause of time dilatation. Fine.
The circular motion at constant angular velocity and
constant radius adds something more.
Not only you have acceleration, but also velocity
relative to any inertial frame of reference nearby.
You cannot add both effects: Velocity + Acceleration
If you sum both effects chances are that you come up
with the conclusion that they cancel each other out.
That's what happens for a stable orbit anyway.
a) - Acceleration causes the clock to speed up.
b) - Velocity causes the clock to speed down.
Summing both a) and b) will give what ?
1 - Absolute time?
2 - Partially absolute time?
3 - Discard one of the effects and have relativity
time dilatation solution?
I bet on conservation of energy, but I was already
told that General Relativity essentially discards nonlocal
conservation of energy. That simply shots down a
Physics pillar stone, but who cares?
Unfortunately, the local process looks to be
irreversible. If it was reversible, non-conservation
of energy locally leads to local free-energy generation.
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> El Enrrabadore-mor wrote:
> > It is said that a speeding clock shows less elapsed time than
> > the stay-at-home clock, because (if already speeding) it is
> > running at a slower rate. Or else, because it had run at a
> > slower rate when it was speeding, assuming now it is
> > stopped near the stay-at-home clock.
>
> clock does not affect its rate. But when one compares identical clocks
> that have traveled different paths, their elapsed proper times can
> differ, due to their different trajectories, not due to any change in
> their tick rates.
>
>
> Bailey et al put muons into a storage ring and measured their lifetime
> for their circular path. Within experimental resolutions, they have the
> same lifetime as muons traveling in a straight line, so their circular
> path did NOT affect the internal "clock" that controls their decay. They
> were subject to an acceleration of about 10^18 g (1 g = 9.8 m/s^2),
> which is FAR greater than claimed in your example. Note this experiment
> is a direct implementation of the circular twin scenario, when combined
> with measurements of muon decay at rest.
>
Roberts Roberts how exactly do you measure the lifetime of muons at
rest? When cosmic-ray muons bump into an obstacle so that their speed
instantly changes from about 300000km/s to zero, their forced
disintegration makes Einsteinians sing "Divine Einstein" and go into
convulsions. Simply because in Einstein zombie world, when a muon
undergoes a terrible crash, this muon is "at rest" during the crash
and, in pefect accordance with Divine Albert's Divine Theory,
disintegrates more quickly than another muon that has not undergone a
crash:
http://web.mit.edu/c_hill/www/muons_paper.pdf "In this experiment, we
measure two of the basic properties of the muon, namely, its mean
lifetime and mass in its rest frame. We measure the decay curve of
cosmic-ray muons that have come to rest in a plastic scintillator by
looking for electrons produced in their decay."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Greg Neill
> news:481e2ccb$0$26505$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
> news:686mp0F...@mid.individual.net
>
> [aka "Phantom"?]
>
>>> Now, energy is the time derivative of the
>>> angular momentum, and that time is an
>>> absolute time.
>>
>> Huh? The time derivative of angular momentum is torque.
>> Remember T = dL/dt? Just because the units of Torque
>> can be equated to Joules does not mean that it is
>> appropriate to interpret them in such a way. Rotational
>> kinetic energy is still given by (1/2)*I*w^2, the analog
>> of the linear (1/2)*m*v^2. I'm surprised that you would
>> attempt to perpetrate such a flimsy subterfuge.
>
> You've missed the fact that during a given amount
> of time a torque T = dL/dt have moved the body a
> given angle theta (which is a basic coordinate).
No, I didn't miss anything. A torque doesn't have to
be accompanied by an angular movement any more than
a static force does.
>
> You forget the fact that derivatives are of the form:
> d/dt f(x(t)) = x df/dt
> x - is an angular displacement
>
> Energy = Torque . angular displacement (dot product)
No. Work is torque x displacement.
> Power = Torque . angular velocity (dot product)
> Power = Time derivative of energy
>
> This is hard stuff.
Not for everyone.
bz
>
> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> escreveu na mensagem
> news:iCkTj.172$8i5...@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
>> One can analyze their experiment (including comparison to muon decay at
>> rest) in two different ways:
>> a) use the overall inertial frame of their storage ring
>> and apply SR.
>> b) use the equivalence principle of GR, and treat the LOCAL
>> acceleration of the stored muons as a gravitational field
>> and compute the gravitational time dilation in LOCAL
>> coordinates in which the stored muon is at rest.
>> These obtain the same answer.
>
> Moreover:
> Your a) appeals on velocity as the cause of
> time dilatation.
> Your b) appeals on acceleration (or gravity
> by equivalence principle) to be the cause on
> time dilatation.
It is not the velocity or the acceleration (in SR) that explains the time
difference.
It is the different trajectory.
Trajectory through space-time.
>
> Physics say:
> c) Acceleration is the time derivative of velocity.
>
> My c) proves your a) and b) to be incompatible,
> since time used on the derivative is ABSOLUTE
> TIME.
a = dv/dt says nothing about ABSOLUTE time.
Where did you get the impression that it did?
dt is CHANGE in time.
>
> How can a time derivative be based on absolute time
> and the time himself not being absolute time?
>
>
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
>
>
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Greg Neill
> news:481e0c93$0$559$c5fe...@reader.usenet4all.se...
>
>> To progress further requires conceptualization, not about more
>> transient particles, but about the true electromagnetic nature of
>> reality.
>
> I'm not sure about a "true electromagnetic nature of reality".
> Sure there are lots of important "mechanisms" into electromagnetism,
> that show effects acting instantaneously at orthogonal directions
> (axis). Light is an electric field acting 90 degrees out-of-phase from
> the associated magnetic field.
> (90 degrees out-of-phase means orthogonal to my understanding).
No, in a propagating transverse electromagnetic wave
the electric and magnetic fields may be orthogonal,
but they are in phase.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:481e5cc1$0$16041$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
...
> No, in a propagating transverse electromagnetic
> wave the electric and magnetic fields may be
> orthogonal, but they are in phase.
In a vacuum they are in phase. As a medium in interposed, the
phase relationship changes. When bound to a conductor, and
"pushing" charges around, they are 90 degrees out-of-phase.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
David A. Smith
Sam Wormley
> It is said that a speeding clock shows less elapsed time than
> the stay-at-home clock, because (if already speeding) it is
> running at a slower rate. Or else, because it had run at a
> slower rate when it was speeding, assuming now it is
> stopped near the stay-at-home clock.
>
In the case od satellite clocks, whether the time dilation
is dependent on altitude in the gravity well as well as
relative velocity. See graph in second link.
Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png
Take some time to learn what really happens.
Sam Wormley
> It is said that a speeding clock shows less elapsed time than
> the stay-at-home clock, because (if already speeding) it is
> running at a slower rate. Or else, because it had run at a
> slower rate when it was speeding, assuming now it is
> stopped near the stay-at-home clock.
>
What I meant to say is... for satellite clocks in orbits
approximating circular motion, time dilation is dependent
Ken S. Tucker
(check your spelling of "dilation").
On May 4, 2:05 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrrabad...@mail.docaracas>
wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> escreveu na mensagemnews:ba1a412f-e9a6-49cd...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Well Roberts example is a good way of relating
SR and GR.
> Quantum Theory is a very strange approach
> and looks like a magic box where everything is
> possible.
Ok :-), I meant only to use Planck's constant
"h", that is invariant. It is the product of
energy and time, and has units of action and/or
angular momentum.
> Maybe, there's one possible understandable
> situation where the above three situations a), b)
> and c) can be made compatible.
>
> My best candidate are gyroscopes.
> Gyroscope equations, based on Newton and
> Lagrange, produce two orthogonal independent
> axes where equalities between acceleration and
> terms like 1/2 v^2 exist, plus a minus sign to make
> both effects cancel each other out on a Conservation
> of Energy equation.
> Action over a gyroscope (force = mass*acceleration)
> always cause a reaction on an orthogonal axis, called
> precession, which is a velocity without any force
> (acceleration) involved around it.
> The effect is due to the fact that torque equals the
> rate of change of angular momentum, so that action
> and reaction are placed on orthogonal axis.
> Gravity should be the force that makes orbiting mass
> to behave like if it was a rigid body. Such rigid body
> like must be quantized, since mass is always located
> where the gravitation force cancel the centrifugal force
> (do you remember that?).
Ok, that's fair, and Angular Momentum is
both quantized and invariant, and expressible
in terms of "h" and arbituary constants.
> But the above is pure speculations, which I've pulled
> out of my hat this afternoon, so...
>
> Nevertheless, there are two pillar stones in
> Physics:
> 1 - Conservation of Angular Momentum.
> (No matter if it is circular motion or linear
> motion. For circular motion the conservation
> only exists relative to the center of rotation, but
> for linear motion conservation exists relative to
> every point in space);
> 2 - Conservation of Energy.
Agreed.
> Now, energy is the time derivative of the
> angular momentum, and that time is an
> absolute time.
> How can the above two pillar stones of
> Physics survive in view of time dilatation
> (and time not being absolute after all)?
Use h = energy*time, = E*t = E'*t' then
E' = (t/t')*E,
Fortunately "h" is a universal constant and
invariant.
Two different observers can disagree on the
measurement of E and E', and t and t', but
they agree on the product "h".
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Prof Barnhart
"El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
>
> "Prof Barnhart" <mar...@XXXnetscape.com> escreveu na mensagem
> news:481e0c93$0$559$c5fe...@reader.usenet4all.se...
>
> > To progress further requires conceptualization, not about more transient
> > particles, but about the true electromagnetic nature of reality.
>
> I'm not sure about a "true electromagnetic nature of reality".
It is best to disregard anything that I have said. I am coming from the
position that this universe was built by a superior race. It surely didn't
spontaneously generate. I strongly suspect that a vast portion of this
universal system is hidden from our view.
As a line segment is a point if viewed 90 degree out of phase, there is an
electromagnetic sub-system that we cannot perceive except when looking at
space/time effects. There is a Doppler effect: red or blue shift, but there
is also a more complex Doppler (for lack of a better term) effect that is
responsible for time dilation. This effect involves a rotation into a part
of the whole system that is not normally perceived.
I don't expect anyone to agree, but there is considerable evidence of this
in Einstein's writings (from my perspective). Unfortunatley, my greatest
talent seems to be driving myself into a state of confusion, but I do make
progress.
This unseen sub-system is a source of energy, among other things. Right or
wrong it is what I look for. It is best that I pursue this alone. If for
no other reason than because I am almost always at a loss for words.
One of the things that started this search is Einstien"s explanation that
the electric and magnetic fields are one in the same viewed from two
different positions 90 degrees apart.
Couple the above with the 3 mechanisms for EM propagation. All one can do
is try. There is no way that this happened spontaneously. This place was
built.
Thanks to all of you for not ripping my face off. Have Fun, Mark
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in
message news:686mp0F...@mid.individual.net...
...
> Nevertheless, there are two pillar stones in
> Physics:
> 1 - Conservation of Angular Momentum.
> (No matter if it is circular motion or linear
> motion. For circular motion the conservation
> only exists relative to the center of rotation, but
> for linear motion conservation exists relative to
> every point in space);
> 2 - Conservation of Energy.
>
> Now, energy is the time derivative of the
> angular momentum, and that time is an
> absolute time.
No, energy is the path integral of momentum. The energy is a
function of the observer's frame, so it clearly involves
*nothing* absolute.
> How can the above two pillar stones of
> Physics survive in view of time dilatation
> (and time not being absolute after all)?
Because "absolute" is something artificially impressed by *human*
expectation.
David A. Smith
Dono
wrote:
>
> Any comments welcome.
Word salad.
Alie...@gmail.com
> "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrrabad...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
>
> news:686rvvF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > "Prof Barnhart" <mar...@XXXnetscape.com> escreveu na mensagem
> >news:481e0c93$0$559$c5fe...@reader.usenet4all.se...
>
> > > To progress further requires conceptualization, not about more transient
> > > particles, but about the true electromagnetic nature of reality.
>
> > I'm not sure about a "true electromagnetic nature of reality".
I might have said "wave nature of reality".
> It is best to disregard anything that I have said. I am coming from the
> position that this universe was built by a superior race. It surely didn't
> spontaneously generate. I strongly suspect that a vast portion of this
> universal system is hidden from our view.
I agree completely with that last sentence but I consider the
immediately preceding to be unnecessary speculation.
But that's just me.
I also do not quite see that reality must necessarily have an EM
basis. There are plenty of EM-neutral phenomena that nonetheless
display all sorts of interesting orthogonal-gyroscopic effects.
I replied because some of your thinking meshes nicely with some of
mine. Seems to me it does, anyway.
> As a line segment is a point if viewed 90 degree out of phase, there is an
> electromagnetic sub-system that we cannot perceive except when looking at
> space/time effects. There is a Doppler effect: red or blue shift, but there
> is also a more complex Doppler (for lack of a better term) effect that is
> responsible for time dilation. This effect involves a rotation into a part
> of the whole system that is not normally perceived.
*SPECULATION WARNING*
Consider a Minkowski space-time diagram scaled such that the speed
of light is a line sloping at 45 degrees to both the space and time
axes. Draw upon it the trajectory of an extended object which has no
motion; it will be a (slightly thick) straight line "upward" into the
future.
Consider that we now can mathematically describe the location and
momentum of a physical object as a "matter wave". Notice the straight
line depicts the path of propagation of the object's matter wave
through spacetime.
Now accelerate the object to a constant (less than c) velocity to
the right and watch its trajectory describe a (thick) curve blending
into a (thick) line with a constant slope.
Let the slope of that line approach the speed of light and the
extension of the object in the direction of travel becomes noticeably
smaller. That might be viewed as the rotation of the object's physical
extension out of the space dimension and into the "time" dimension. (I
say "might be", but pretty much everyone else views it as "unnecessary
speculation".)
Well, I consider it absolutely necessary speculation. Without
speculation we might as well spend forever searching only under the
streetlamp as the saying goes.
It is (AFAIK solely) my opinion that tachyons exist, and are
perfectly ordinary particles like leptons and quarks (and composites
thereof) and assorted massive bosons. However they are not detectable
as such by us because not only are their physical extensions at right
angles to those of particles we can detect but so are their detectable
fields (IOW a tachyon's matter wave is propagating at right angles to
the trajectories of all ordinary matter's waves- no big deal) For that
matter, so-called "point" particles _have_ no spatial extension except
for their fields, including those of their matter waves.
Hence they exist but we cannot detect them.
What's the point of postulating something forever undetectable? None
of course, but that assumes that word "forever" to be an inescapable
consequence of c being an unbreakable speed barrier.
I do not so assume. I speculate that it _is_ possible to exceed c,
not because I'm an anti-Einstein nutcase but because it has not been
conclusively demonstrated that spacetime is _not_ quantized. I
speculate that it is and that therefore so must velocity be quantized.
Hence exceeding c is subject to tunneling.
(Note that Einstein at first resisted quantum theory, then gave in
and tried to reconcile it with the Relativities but died first.)
Fortunately my speculation is AFAIK not directly contradicted by any
empirical evidence. Unfortunately I have yet to think of a way to
empirically test it, IOW to get something to tunnel past c. I suspect
it'll require a fairly unusual set of circumstances involving fairly
exotic states of matter, like say a programming accident involving
doing high-power NMR on a BEC of Cooper-paired neutrons or similar.
Why should I care? For one, same as you; it'd be a dandy way to
store and retrieve energy. Then there's FTL communications and
travel... but that's a set of speculations for later. And yes I know
about generalizations of the Grandfather Paradox, but notice that
there can be whole classes of FTL trajectories that do not generate
paradoxes, and ISTM those will be the only ones possible to use.
> I don't expect anyone to agree, but there is considerable evidence of this
> in Einstein's writings (from my perspective). Unfortunatley, my greatest
> talent seems to be driving myself into a state of confusion, but I do make
> progress.
In my opinion confusion results from failing to recognize one's
stubbornness; don't insist that reality match your opinions.
How do I reconcile that with my speculations? I'm a big fan of
symmetries, and tachyons' existence would be a huge symmetry.
> This unseen sub-system is a source of energy, among other things. Right or
> wrong it is what I look for. It is best that I pursue this alone. If for
> no other reason than because I am almost always at a loss for words.
If by that you mean that you have a hard time supporting your
position in the face of arguments (which easily get vitriolic here in
sci.physics) perhaps you'd care to continue elsewhere, say in
rec.arts.sf.science? I'm quite serious; even though that group exists
to discuss the science in science fiction, speculation is generally
quite welcome if there's any possibility of wrapping a story around
it. I should warn you that it's very difficult to suggest a concept
there that a regular won't be able to mention a published story that
uses it. Also many posters there have rather better educations (not to
mention better manners) than many here; you'll likely get better
feedback there than here.
> One of the things that started this search is Einstien"s explanation that
> the electric and magnetic fields are one in the same viewed from two
> different positions 90 degrees apart.
Yep. Whatever the entities we call "matter waves" are, and those of
tachyons, same same.
> Couple the above with the 3 mechanisms for EM propagation. All one can do
> is try. There is no way that this happened spontaneously. This place was
> built.
I don't see how that last part follows. Is it the sheer complexity
of it that convinces you it is a construct? How about the abode of the
constructors? Would theirs thus necessarily be more, or less complex
than ours? Was _it_ constructed? How do you avoid the "turtles all the
way down" trap?
> Thanks to all of you for not ripping my face off. Have Fun, Mark
Do my best!
> > Sure there are lots of important "mechanisms" into electromagnetism,
> > that show effects acting instantaneously at orthogonal directions (axis).
> > Light is an electric field acting 90 degrees out-of-phase from
> > the associated magnetic field.
> > (90 degrees out-of-phase means orthogonal to my understanding).
As mentioned elsewhere, that depends on whether in vacumm or a
refractive medium.
> > Reality is made of mass and electromagnetism (massless).
> > Both don't seam to mix quite well.
>
> > In terms of mass behaviour, orthogonal like phenomenon only in
> > gyroscopes.
Speaking of which, I suggest you (and he-who-names-himself-rudely)
investigate nuclear magnetic resonance.
Mark L. Fergerson
Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Prof Barnhart" <mar...@XXXnetscape.com> wrote in message
news:481e8f22$0$557$c5fe...@reader.usenet4all.se...
|
| "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
| news:686rvvF...@mid.individual.net...
| >
| > "Prof Barnhart" <mar...@XXXnetscape.com> escreveu na mensagem
| > news:481e0c93$0$559$c5fe...@reader.usenet4all.se...
| >
| > > To progress further requires conceptualization, not about more
transient
| > > particles, but about the true electromagnetic nature of reality.
| >
| > I'm not sure about a "true electromagnetic nature of reality".
|
| It is best to disregard anything that I have said. I am coming from the
| position that this universe was built by a superior race.
Ok. *plonk*
Fucking lunatic.
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:tcwTj.181805$nr1....@newsfe13.phx...
| Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:
|
| "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in
| message news:686mp0F...@mid.individual.net...
| ...
| > Nevertheless, there are two pillar stones in
| > Physics:
| > 1 - Conservation of Angular Momentum.
| > (No matter if it is circular motion or linear
| > motion. For circular motion the conservation
| > only exists relative to the center of rotation, but
| > for linear motion conservation exists relative to
| > every point in space);
| > 2 - Conservation of Energy.
| >
| > Now, energy is the time derivative of the
| > angular momentum, and that time is an
| > absolute time.
|
| No, energy is the path integral of momentum.
Right. Well done, Smiffy.
| The energy is a
| function of the observer's frame,
Wrong. Energy is relative to something, it need not be any stinking
"observer".
Darwin123
wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagemnews:24f29f1f-1c68-4e3c...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
acceleration at some point wins out over the effect of speed.
Where did you get the impression they speed up?
A good approximation of the effect of acceleration on time,
derived from the Lorentz transformation (i.e., SR), is by a
factor (1+ax/c^2). Note this is independent of relative velocity.
>
> a) - Acceleration causes the clock to speed up.
> b) - Velocity causes the clock to speed down.
> Summing both a) and b) will give what ?
same, the effect is nothing at all. If the factor for acceleration
is bigger, then there is a total speed up. If the factor for
acceleration is smaller, there is an effective slow down. This is
a problem that must be solved quantitatively. You can't wave
your hand and say "they balance out."
> 1 - Absolute time?
No such thing.
> 2 - Partially absolute time?
> 3 - Discard one of the effects and have relativity
> time dilatation solution?
time dilation formula.
>
> I bet on conservation of energy, but I was already
> told that General Relativity essentially discards nonlocal
> conservation of energy.
accelerating frame of reference, according to Principia,
observes a fictional force that violates the Third Law of
Motion. This fictional force creates a fictional potential
energy that creates a fictional violation of the conservation
of energy and momentum. Key qualifier here is fictional.
Newton's Laws are defined only in nonaccelerating reference
frames. Therefore, the accelerating observer sees a "fictional"
increase in energy, nonlocally.
In GR, they replace the words "accelerating reference frame"
by curve in "space-time path". Basically the same thing. The
observer on the curved space time path sees "fictional" changes
in energy.
> That simply shots down a
> Physics pillar stone, but who cares?
Bad metaphor. There was never a "physics pillar stone"
like "nonlocal conservation of energy." See above comment on
Newton's Laws and nonlocal conservation.
> Unfortunately, the local process looks to be
> irreversible. If it was reversible, non-conservation
> of energy locally leads to local free-energy generation.
Actually, it is easily reversible. The rocket enegines turn
off, the observer is no longer accelerating, and energy is
conserved once more even on a nonlocal basis.
Please respond.
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:tXtTj.96038$TT4.72561@attbi_s22...
What really happens looks to be the following:
- 98% is Sagnac effect (a non relativistic effect that is said
to contradict SR on its most basic postulate about light)
- 2% is due to all other effects (relativity, excentricities, and so on).
References:
- A QUOTE (from your link):
"GPS can be used to compare times on two earth-fixed clocks when a single
satellite is in view from both locations. This is the "common-view" method
of comparison of Primary standards, whose locations on earth's surface are
usually known very accurately in advance from ground-based surveys. Signals
from a single GPS satellite in common view of receivers at the two locations
provide enough information to determine the time difference between the two
local clocks. The Sagnac effect is very important in making such
comparisons, as it can amount to hundreds of nanoseconds, depending on the
geometry. In 1984 GPS satellites 3, 4, 6, and 8 were used in simultaneous
common view between three pairs of earth timing centers, to accomplish
closure in performing an around-the-world Sagnac experiment. The centers
were the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) in Boulder, CO,
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Braunschweig, West Germany,
and Tokyo Astronomical Observatory (TAO). The size of the Sagnac correction
varied from 240 to 350 ns. Enough data were collected to perform 90
independent circumnavigations. The actual mean value of the residual
obtained after adding the three pairs of time differences was 5 ns, which
was less than 2 percent of the magnitude of the calculated total Sagnac
effect [4]."
El Enrrabadore-mor
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> escreveu na mensagem
news:BMtTj.535$kQ3...@newsfe11.phx...
> Dear Greg Neill:
>
> "Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:481e5cc1$0$16041$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> ...
>> No, in a propagating transverse electromagnetic
>> orthogonal, but they are in phase.
>
> In a vacuum they are in phase. As a medium in interposed, the phase
> relationship changes. When bound to a conductor, and "pushing" charges
> around, they are 90 degrees out-of-phase.
From my knowledge on power generation, the electric and
magnetic fields are 90 degrees out-of-phase if no mechanical
energy is converted into electric power.
For instance, a coil fed by AC current consumes no
power and has the electric field 90-degrees out-of-phase
from the magnetic field (if no mechanical power is
involved).
When mechanical power is converted into electricity
the fields (inside the air-gap where everything happens)
become 180-degrees out of phase for an unitary power
factor. A trivial power factor of 0.866 causes 150-degrees
out-of-phase.
What I didn't know was that in vacuum they are in-phase.
I guess it will be the other way around of the problem.
Light is converted into electricity, or mechanical action,
or whatever the sensor does to capture it, in-phase for
an unitary power factor.
Basically, being in-phase is the same as being 180-degrees
out-of-phase, since the directions of positive and negative
fields haven't been defined yet.
When both fields (electric and magnetic) are in phase, being
the electric field analogue to a potential (a sine wave voltage)
and the magnetic field analogue to a sine wave current, power
will be a sine square wave. Power is the product between
voltage and current and that's a sine square wave, which is a
wave with double frequency and half amplitude of the
original waves.
Concluding, if the fields are in-phase, light power will be
zero twice per cycle in vacuum.
What are the bases behind the claim that in vacuum
the electric and magnetic fields are in-phase?
Couldn't it be the case that electromagnetic radiation
in vacuum interacts with sensors in-phase for an
unitary power factor (and zero losses)?
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> escreveu na mensagem
>> You've missed the fact that during a given amount
>> of time a torque T = dL/dt have moved the body a
>> given angle theta (which is a basic coordinate).
>
> No, I didn't miss anything. A torque doesn't have to
> be accompanied by an angular movement any more than
> a static force does.
You did miss exactly what you're saying now, but
never mind.
>> You forget the fact that derivatives are of the form:
>> d/dt f(x(t)) = x df/dt
>> x - is an angular displacement
>>
>> Energy = Torque . angular displacement (dot product)
>
> No. Work is torque x displacement.
I understand if you blame the 'dot product' and replace
it by a simple multiplication sign.
Actually, I've the strong feeling that I've messed up something
about the derivative argument, because what I can get
is a power balance, not an energy balance. Hence,
it is a velocity that comes out, not an angular displacement.
For circular motion:
Work (Kg m^2 s^-2) = Torque (Kg m^2 s^-2) *
* angular displacement (rad)
(relative to the center of rotation).
El Enrrabadore-mor
> Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:
>
> "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
> news:686mp0F...@mid.individual.net...
> ...
>> Nevertheless, there are two pillar stones in
>> Physics:
>> 1 - Conservation of Angular Momentum.
>> (No matter if it is circular motion or linear
>> motion. For circular motion the conservation
>> only exists relative to the center of rotation, but
>> for linear motion conservation exists relative to
>> every point in space);
>> 2 - Conservation of Energy.
>>
>> Now, energy is the time derivative of the
>> angular momentum, and that time is an
>> absolute time.
>
> No, energy is the path integral of momentum. The energy is a function of
> the observer's frame, so it clearly involves *nothing* absolute.
You are right. My mistake, sorry.
It is the other way around:
Momentum is the derivative of energy, or like you
said: "energy is the path integral of momentum".
For linear motion:
Momentum = d/dt Energy
m v = d/dt (1/2 m v^2)
For circular motion:
Angular momentum = d/dt Energy
I w = d/dt (1/2 I w^2)
You're also right about energy being frame dependent.
Nevertheless, for circular motion, in the given example,
I've clearly implied that the center of rotation is a
fixed point in space and it's the origin of the coordinates.
Hence, relative to the center of rotation, my argument
holds 100% :
"Angular momentum is the time derivative of energy
and that time is an absolute time."
>> How can the above two pillar stones of
>> Physics survive in view of time dilatation
>> (and time not being absolute after all)?
>
> Because "absolute" is something artificially impressed by *human*
> expectation.
Unfortunately for you, you cannot solve any Physical
problem without that "absolute fixed frame of reference".
You simply cannot solve problems in thin air.
You need a paper for that, where you place an
absolute fixed frame of reference.
>
> David A. Smith
>
El Enrrabadore-mor
That's what you've said (your words below):
"The clock with the largest acceleration ticks the fastest."
And you keep saying it now, plenty of times, above and
below.
> A good approximation of the effect of acceleration on time,
> derived from the Lorentz transformation (i.e., SR), is by a
> factor (1+ax/c^2). Note this is independent of relative velocity.
>>
>> a) - Acceleration causes the clock to speed up.
>> b) - Velocity causes the clock to speed down.
>> Summing both a) and b) will give what ?
> Depends on their relative magnitude. If the factors were the
> same, the effect is nothing at all. If the factor for acceleration
> is bigger, then there is a total speed up. If the factor for
> acceleration is smaller, there is an effective slow down. This is
> a problem that must be solved quantitatively. You can't wave
> your hand and say "they balance out."
I've a strong feeling they must balance out for a stable orbit.
Stable orbits always balance centrifugal force with the
force of gravity.
>> 1 - Absolute time?
> No such thing.
I meant that for a perfect balance among a) and b).
>> 2 - Partially absolute time?
> What is that?
That's the case where a perfect balance doesn't exist.
According to your above statements, that should
be the most probable case.
>> 3 - Discard one of the effects and have relativity
>> time dilatation solution?
> Yes. Discard the acceleration and you have the Lorentz
> time dilation formula.
Now I'm puzzled.
You've been talking about accelerations all the time.
Now you discard acceleration and step forward?
>> I bet on conservation of energy, but I was already
>> told that General Relativity essentially discards nonlocal
>> conservation of energy.
> The same goes for Newton's Laws. An observer in an
> accelerating frame of reference, according to Principia,
> observes a fictional force that violates the Third Law of
> Motion. This fictional force creates a fictional potential
> energy that creates a fictional violation of the conservation
> of energy and momentum. Key qualifier here is fictional.
> Newton's Laws are defined only in nonaccelerating reference
> frames. Therefore, the accelerating observer sees a "fictional"
> increase in energy, nonlocally.
That's an Invention without any bases.
No such fictional force exists.
I bet "your" fiction requires motion.
No motion, zero work done.
Is it the centrifugal force you are talking about?
No one, ever, could prove Newton wrong, nor
prove any violation of Energy Conservation.
Potential fields are just that: A potential.
No work will be done if no motion exists.
> In GR, they replace the words "accelerating reference frame"
> by curve in "space-time path". Basically the same thing. The
> observer on the curved space time path sees "fictional" changes
> in energy.
That should be another relativistic invention.
The word "fictional" says it all.
You need to explain this much better, so that I can
understand what you're talking about.
You can imagine whatever you want, the problem is
to prove that imagination a true fact.
>> That simply shots down a
>> Physics pillar stone, but who cares?
> Bad metaphor. There was never a "physics pillar stone"
> like "nonlocal conservation of energy." See above comment on
> Newton's Laws and nonlocal conservation.
I'm still to see a true violation of Newton's Law,
or a violation on "Energy conservation".
>> Unfortunately, the local process looks to be
>> irreversible. If it was reversible, non-conservation
>> of energy locally leads to local free-energy generation.
> Actually, it is easily reversible. The rocket enegines turn
> off, the observer is no longer accelerating, and energy is
> conserved once more even on a nonlocal basis.
If you had an energy lost during acceleration,
during de-acceleration you've reverted the sign.
Mathematics and simple logic says you should see
a gain in energy.
> Please respond.
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> escreveu na mensagem
news:92cf1bfa-1220-4399...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Use h = energy*time, = E*t = E'*t' then
> E' = (t/t')*E,
> Fortunately "h" is a universal constant and
> invariant.
> Two different observers can disagree on the
> measurement of E and E', and t and t', but
> they agree on the product "h".
It is good to know that observers can agree on
something.
You've made some good points Ken.
Regards.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
El Enrrabadore-mor
"bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> escreveu na mensagem
news:Xns9A94C1E395DF0WQ...@130.39.198.139...
> "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in
> news:6869njF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> escreveu na mensagem
>> news:iCkTj.172$8i5...@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>
>>> One can analyze their experiment (including comparison to muon decay at
>>> rest) in two different ways:
>>> a) use the overall inertial frame of their storage ring
>>> and apply SR.
>>> b) use the equivalence principle of GR, and treat the LOCAL
>>> acceleration of the stored muons as a gravitational field
>>> and compute the gravitational time dilation in LOCAL
>>> coordinates in which the stored muon is at rest.
>>> These obtain the same answer.
>>
>> Moreover:
>> Your a) appeals on velocity as the cause of
>> time dilatation.
>> Your b) appeals on acceleration (or gravity
>> by equivalence principle) to be the cause on
>> time dilatation.
>
> It is not the velocity or the acceleration (in SR) that explains the time
> difference.
> It is the different trajectory.
> Trajectory through space-time.
And that space-time is a Gaussian coordinate
system made of curved lines like two orthogonal
mirror spirals?
Please explain Bob.
>>
>> Physics say:
>> c) Acceleration is the time derivative of velocity.
>>
>> My c) proves your a) and b) to be incompatible,
>> since time used on the derivative is ABSOLUTE
>> TIME.
>
> a = dv/dt says nothing about ABSOLUTE time.
>
> Where did you get the impression that it did?
>
> dt is CHANGE in time.
I wonder how derivatives will be if the said changing
time had been already affected by time dilatation.
Just imagine that velocity changes.
Time dilatation will change too.
You get a derivative where time himself changes.
What a mess I presume.
Dono
> What really happens looks to be the following:
> - 98% is Sagnac effect (a non relativistic effect that is said
> to contradict SR on its most basic postulate about light)
The Sagnac effect does not contradict SR. You are an imbecillic troll
Sam Wormley
> - 98% is Sagnac effect (a non relativistic effect that is said
> to contradict SR on its most basic postulate about light)
> - 2% is due to all other effects (relativity, excentricities, and so on).
>
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> looking for an Enrrabadore spew in the message:
news:a722be3e-247e-45e6...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> The Sagnac effect does not contradict SR. You are an imbecillic troll
In Sagnac experiment, light speed is *measured* not to be
independent from either, the source and the observer.
That's so obvious and so many times proved, by
so many, that it should hurt very bad. Doesn't it Dono?
Of course, nothing that one cannot re-arrange, like
making 1+1=3 should be easy for any good relativist
using a convenient coordinate system, perfectly engineered
for the show-off.
Now, please send the "jpg" pictures. Got new ones?
Dono
wrote:
> "Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> looking for an Enrrabadore spew in the message:news:a722be3e-247e-45e6...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The Sagnac effect does not contradict SR. You are an imbecillic troll
>
> In Sagnac experiment, light speed is *measured* not to be
> independent from either, the source and the observer.
No, it isn't. This means that you are both an imbecile and a troll.
dlzc
On May 5, 9:19 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrrabad...@mail.docaracas>
wrote:
> "N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> escreveu na mensagemnews:BMtTj.535$kQ3...@newsfe11.phx...
>
> > Dear Greg Neill:
>
> > "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:481e5cc1$0$16041$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> > ...
> >> No, in a propagating transverse electromagnetic
> >> wave may be orthogonal, but they are in phase.
>
> > In a vacuum they are in phase. As a medium in
> > interposed, the phase relationship changes.
> > When bound to a conductor, and "pushing" charges
> > around, they are 90 degrees out-of-phase.
>
> From my knowledge on power generation, the electric
> and magnetic fields are 90 degrees out-of-phase
> if no mechanical energy is converted into electric
> power.
That is what pushing electrons (with their mass... remember simple
harmonic motion?) does.
...
> Couldn't it be the case that electromagnetic
> radiation in vacuum interacts with sensors
> in-phase for an unitary power factor (and zero
> losses)?
No. The rest of the physics doesn't work.
David A. Smith
dlzc
On May 5, 9:19 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrrabad...@mail.docaracas>
wrote:
> "N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> escreveu na mensagemnews:tcwTj.181805$nr1....@newsfe13.phx...
...
> >> How can the above two pillar stones of
> >> Physics survive in view of time dilatation
> >> (and time not being absolute after all)?
>
> > Because "absolute" is something
> > artificially impressed by *human*
> > expectation.
>
> Unfortunately for you, you cannot solve
> any Physical problem without that "absolute
> fixed frame of reference".
I do it all the time. "substitution of variables", "selecting a
coordinate frame", everything starts with "the difference between here
and there".
> You simply cannot solve problems in thin air.
> You need a paper for that, where you place an
> absolute fixed frame of reference.
It is not absolute. It is "bond".
David A. Smith
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> escreveu na mensagemnews:92cf1bfa-1220-4399...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Use h = energy*time, = E*t = E'*t' then
> > E' = (t/t')*E,
> > Fortunately "h" is a universal constant and
> > invariant.
> > Two different observers can disagree on the
> > measurement of E and E', and t and t', but
> > they agree on the product "h".
>
> It is good to know that observers can agree on
> something.
> You've made some good points Ken.
> Regards.
Thanks, you can do a lot of relativity with
easy algebra.
Calculus applications in relativity has the
experts stumped, in view of QT.
Best to learn using increments in place of
differentials, and understand it well.
You pretty much need to have a good Master
standing in Math & Physics to know how fast
things can go wrong applying calculus to
relativity.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> escreveu na mensagem
news:13ae55c2-8ffa-48a2...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> No, it isn't. This means that you are both an imbecile and a troll.
No pictures then?
Arguments are something that is strange to you,
as predicted by everybody's large experience.
That's great because Sagnac is so boring.
El Enrrabadore-mor
"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> escreveu na mensagem
news:b2304ce3-a6a7-4e96...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:
On May 5, 9:19 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrrabad...@mail.docaracas>
wrote:
>> "N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> escreveu na
>> mensagemnews:BMtTj.535$kQ3...@newsfe11.phx...
>>
>> > Dear Greg Neill:
>>
>> > "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> >news:481e5cc1$0$16041$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>> > ...
>> >> No, in a propagating transverse electromagnetic
>> >> wave may be orthogonal, but they are in phase.
>>
>> > In a vacuum they are in phase. As a medium in
>> > interposed, the phase relationship changes.
>> > When bound to a conductor, and "pushing" charges
>> > around, they are 90 degrees out-of-phase.
>>
>> From my knowledge on power generation, the electric
>> and magnetic fields are 90 degrees out-of-phase
>> if no mechanical energy is converted into electric
>> power.
>
> That is what pushing electrons (with their mass... remember simple
> harmonic motion?) does.
When you are pushing electrons, like if it were
an harmonic motion, you are pushing reactive
power only, back and forth, without any energy
loss, nor any energy converted.
It's harmonic motion of a system at its natural frequency.
It's a coil+capacitor set up (zero resistance).
It's a motor without rotor.
To really push electrons out of the system and
generate net electricity (real power on a resistor
P = R I^2 for instance) you must move towards a
situation where the electric and magnetic fields
become in-phase.
Only in-phase you got zero reactive power and
100% real power converted.
Greg Neill
news:6892k3F...@mid.individual.net
This is true only if you consider full cycles
at a time. Or are you arguing that electrons
don't move at all when voltageis applied to an
inductor? If so, from whence comes the
electromagnetic field that couples the coils
of a transformer?
For a pendulum given an initial displacement,
are you arguing that no work is done in the
gravitational field as the bob falls and then
the same energy is transformed back to potential
energy as it subsequently rises again?
>
> To really push electrons out of the system and
> generate net electricity (real power on a resistor
> P = R I^2 for instance) you must move towards a
> situation where the electric and magnetic fields
> become in-phase.
>
> Only in-phase you got zero reactive power and
> 100% real power converted.
Methinks you're hung up on electrical impedance.
El Enrrabadore-mor
"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> escreveu na mensagem
news:715eee0b-beb7-41ab...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:
On May 5, 9:19 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrrabad...@mail.docaracas>
wrote:
>> "N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> escreveu na
>> mensagemnews:tcwTj.181805$nr1....@newsfe13.phx...
>...
>> >> How can the above two pillar stones of
>> >> Physics survive in view of time dilatation
>> >> (and time not being absolute after all)?
>>
>> > Because "absolute" is something
>> > artificially impressed by *human*
>> > expectation.
>>
>> Unfortunately for you, you cannot solve
>> any Physical problem without that "absolute
>> fixed frame of reference".
>
> I do it all the time. "substitution of variables", "selecting a
> coordinate frame", everything starts with "the difference between here
> and there".
In theory that's fine.
In practice you're bond by the experimental set up,
made here on Earth, or nearby.
Put the theory written on paper aside.
Look only for real world experiments.
If you're in trouble to find where the absolute frame
of reference is, call me and I'll tell you.
>> You simply cannot solve problems in thin air.
>> You need a paper for that, where you place an
>> absolute fixed frame of reference.
>
> It is not absolute. It is "bond".
Whatever.
You always need a background frame of reference and
that same frame is assumed to be something that carries
absoluteness.
> David A. Smith
Greg Neill
> Whatever.
> You always need a background frame of reference and
> that same frame is assumed to be something that carries
> absoluteness.
Silly. There's nothing absolute about the common
inertial frame; one's as good as another as far as
the physics is concerned. Nothing absolute about
it!
Darwin123
wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagemnews:6b88aa4e-1c40-4e23...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 7:31 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrrabad...@mail.docaracas>
> > wrote:
> >> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> escreveu na
> >> mensagemnews:24f29f1f-1c68-4e3c...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On May 3, 2:25 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrraban...@mail.docaracas>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> It is said that a speeding clock shows less elapsed time than
> >> >> the stay-at-home clock, because (if already speeding) it is
> >> You cannot add both effects: Velocity + Acceleration
> >> If you sum both effects chances are that you come up
> >> with the conclusion that they cancel each other out.
> >> That's what happens for a stable orbit anyway.
orbit. Or rather, the statement is meaningless.
I think what you are saying is that the centrifugal force and the
gravitational force balance in a stable orbit. The centrifuagal force
is one of the fictional forces that I referred to.
The rate of ticking of a clock has nothing to do with the stability
of the clocks orbit. If the ticking of the clock has sped up or slowed
down relative to another clock, that does nothing to either the
velocity or the acceleration. You reversed my statement.
You seem to think that if the ticking of the clock changes, then
its velocity and acceleration have to change. Not true. What I said
was the opposite.
> > No they don't. They don't exactly speed up. In fact, the
> > acceleration at some point wins out over the effect of speed.
> > Where did you get the impression they speed up?
>
> That's what you've said (your words below):
> "The clock with the largest acceleration ticks the fastest."
> And you keep saying it now, plenty of times, above and
> below.
that experiment, the ticking of three atomic clocks was compared. In
that experiment, it happened to be that the fastest ticking clock had
the largest acceleration.
I am sorry to have confused you. I slipped into one very specific
experiment, one where all factors were kept the same except the
centripetal acceleration.
I have to make a qualifier for direction of acceleration. When
there are two clocks, and one accelerates, the accelerating clock
increases its ticking compared to the unaccelerated clock by an amount
proportional to the acceleration in the direction toward the
unaccelerated clock. Now that I have included direction, there is of
course the possibility of negative acceleration.
>
> I've a strong feeling they must balance out for a stable orbit.
> Stable orbits always balance centrifugal force with the
> force of gravity.
don't believe it. Whether the ticking of the clock speeds up or slows
down can have nothing to do with the stability of the orbit.
>
> >> 1 - Absolute time?
> > No such thing.
>
> I meant that for a perfect balance among a) and b).
>
> >> 2 - Partially absolute time?
> > What is that?
>
> That's the case where a perfect balance doesn't exist.
> According to your above statements, that should
> be the most probable case.
time." The meaning was not self evident. The statement looked self-
contradictory, and I could not make a connection between anything I
(or Einstein, or Lorentz, or anyone) said and the phrase. It was clear
in your own head, I am sure. Read it again and consider how someone
else would interpret it.
>
> >> 3 - Discard one of the effects and have relativity
> >> time dilatation solution?
> > Yes. Discard the acceleration and you have the Lorentz
> > time dilation formula.
>
> Now I'm puzzled.
> You've been talking about accelerations all the time.
> Now you discard acceleration and step forward?
about the Lorentz time dilation formula. The larger the magnitude of
the relative velocity, the slower the ticking of one clock relative to
the other. This is one effect, as I thought I made clear. The formula,
as I thought I made clear, is not exactly true in the presence of
acceleration. That is another effect, as I made clear. If there is
both acceleration and velocity, one has to multiply the two factors.
However, if the acceleration is zero the acceleration factor is one.
The Lorentz dilation formula is then valid.
>
> >> I bet on conservation of energy, but I was already
> >> told that General Relativity essentially discards nonlocal
> >> conservation of energy.
> > The same goes for Newton's Laws. An observer in an
> > accelerating frame of reference, according to Principia,
> > observes a fictional force that violates the Third Law of
> > Motion. This fictional force creates a fictional potential
> > energy that creates a fictional violation of the conservation
> > of energy and momentum. Key qualifier here is fictional.
> > Newton's Laws are defined only in nonaccelerating reference
> > frames. Therefore, the accelerating observer sees a "fictional"
> > increase in energy, nonlocally.
>
> That's an Invention without any bases.
> No such fictional force exists.
> I bet "your" fiction requires motion.
> No motion, zero work done.
a fictional force does not exist :-)
You are confused. Centrifugal force is a frictional force. Look
it up. Google "Centrifugal" and "fictional force". You should get lots
of hits. Even outside of relativity. This is a well known Newtonian
concept. The "centrifugal force" is fictional. Figure out what that
means in Newtonian terms, and then go back to analyzing SR.
>
> Is it the centrifugal force you are talking about?
the others.
>
> No one, ever, could prove Newton wrong, nor
> prove any violation of Energy Conservation.
Newton's theory is a bit deeper than what you claim. There is no
excuse for saying "I have a feeling."
You don't even know how Newton was right, so how could you claim
he was never proven wrong?
>
> Potential fields are just that: A potential.
> No work will be done if no motion exists.
What do you think energy is? Potential energy is a general term for
any energy not stored by the motion of the body (i.e., kinetic
energy). You do know the difference between potential energy and
kinetic energy? PreEinstein definitions, I mean.
>
> > In GR, they replace the words "accelerating reference frame"
> > by curve in "space-time path". Basically the same thing. The
> > observer on the curved space time path sees "fictional" changes
> > in energy.
>
> That should be another relativistic invention.
> The word "fictional" says it all.
is not a relativistic invention. Read "Principia." Read any physics
book that is preEinstein.
>
> You need to explain this much better, so that I can
> understand what you're talking about.
>
> You can imagine whatever you want, the problem is
> to prove that imagination a true fact.
>
> >> That simply shots down a
> >> Physics pillar stone, but who cares?
> > Bad metaphor. There was never a "physics pillar stone"
> > like "nonlocal conservation of energy." See above comment on
> > Newton's Laws and nonlocal conservation.
>
> I'm still to see a true violation of Newton's Law,
> or a violation on "Energy conservation".
accelerating observer. His observations are not considered true.
> > If you had an energy lost during acceleration,
> during de-acceleration you've reverted the sign.
> Mathematics and simple logic says you should see
> a gain in energy.
know even before Einstein. There is a type of energy called kinetic
energy. An object moving has an energy due to the fact it is moving.
If an observer decides to follow the object and match the objects
speed, he has changed the objects kinetic energy to zero. Got that?
Observer 1 is moving relative to the object and sees 100 Joules of
kinetic energy. Observer 2 matches the velocity of the object and sees
0 Joules of kinetic energy. The object hasn't changed. The only thing
that changed is the observer. This has NOTHING to do with SR.
This is a well know effect in both Newtonian and Einsteinian
physics. Your problem is that you don't know ANY physics, including
Newtonian. Learn Newtonian physics and get back to me.
>
> > Please respond.
El Enrrabadore-mor
> Your problem is that you don't know ANY physics, including
> Newtonian. Learn Newtonian physics and get back to me.
OK, Darwin, I promise I will study Newton one day.
I'm only 17 Years old, you know... I'm a liar too.
When I grown up I'm going to be a relativistic
rocket ship constructor, you know?
Thanks for explaining me Physics, specially that
centrifugal force doesn't exist.
I'm going to pick my friend motorcycle (100CV)
and I'm going to make the coffee turn (a 90 degrees
curve) at 250 Km/h. No problem, it doesn't exist.
Darwin123
wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagemnews:f80da62a-5d4c-480a...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Make sure you have enough centripetal force, though. Centripetal force
does exist. If you don't have enough centripetal force, you won't make
that coffee turn. You will go in a straight line which will intersect
a wall. Then you will be dead. So make sure about that centripetal
force.
Dono
wrote:
> "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagemnews:f80da62a-5d4c-480a...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
You must be a sockpuppet to AlbertShito.
Or it must something in the Spanish water that makes both of you early
imbeciles.
Androcles
"El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
|
| "Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
| news:f80da62a-5d4c-480a...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
|
| > Your problem is that you don't know ANY physics, including
| > Newtonian. Learn Newtonian physics and get back to me.
|
| OK, Darwin, I promise I will study Newton one day.
| I'm only 17 Years old, you know... I'm a liar too.
Mentally that may be true.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in
message news:6893e3F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> escreveu na mensagem
> news:715eee0b-beb7-41ab...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> On May 5, 9:19 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
> <enrrabad...@mail.docaracas>
> wrote:
>>> "N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> escreveu na
>>> mensagemnews:tcwTj.181805$nr1....@newsfe13.phx...
>>...
>>> >> How can the above two pillar stones of
>>> >> Physics survive in view of time dilatation
>>> >> (and time not being absolute after all)?
>>>
>>> > Because "absolute" is something
>>> > artificially impressed by *human*
>>> > expectation.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately for you, you cannot solve
>>> any Physical problem without that "absolute
>>> fixed frame of reference".
>>
>> I do it all the time. "substitution of
>> variables", "selecting a coordinate frame",
>> everything starts with "the difference
>> between here and there".
>
> In theory that's fine.
> In practice you're bond by the experimental
> set up, made here on Earth, or nearby.
Or light sources 1.7 Gy away. Still all these things are
relative to "here and now".
> Put the theory written on paper aside.
> Look only for real world experiments.
They are only experiments if Nature is challeged / queried.
> If you're in trouble to find where the absolute
> frame of reference is, call me and I'll tell you.
We've got 100+ years of experimental results, and we have moved
more than 946 billion miles in that time. "Here and now" does
not really work as an "absolute frame".
So I am calling you.
>>> You simply cannot solve problems in thin air.
>>> You need a paper for that, where you place an
>>> absolute fixed frame of reference.
>>
>> It is not absolute. It is "bond".
>
> Whatever.
"Bond" is a type of paper. T'was a joke, if not terribly clever.
> You always need a background frame of
> reference and that same frame is assumed
> to be something that carries absoluteness.
No. It in no way assumes "absoluteness".
David A. Smith
Darwin123
wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> escreveu na mensagemnews:tXtTj.96038$TT4.72561@attbi_s22...
>
>
>
> > El Enrrabadore-mor wrote:
> >> It is said that a speeding clock shows less elapsed time than
> >> the stay-at-home clock, because (if already speeding) it is
> >> running at a slower rate. Or else, because it had run at a
> >> slower rate when it was speeding, assuming now it is
> >> stopped near the stay-at-home clock.
>
> > What I meant to say is... for satellite clocks in orbits
> > approximating circular motion, time dilation is dependent
> > on altitude in the gravity well as well as relative velocity.
> > See graph in second link.
>
> > Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
>
> > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png
>
> > Take some time to learn what really happens.
>
> What really happens looks to be the following:
> - 98% is Sagnac effect (a non relativistic effect that is said
> to contradict SR on its most basic postulate about light)
relativistic effect.
One way to see this is to express the formula for the beats in
the Sagnac effect in terms of radial acceleration rather than
velocity. Writing the formulas in terms of velocity is misleading,
since by definition the only velocity that effects the Sagnac
interferometer is the velocity along a curved path. Velocity in a
straight line can not effect the Sagnac interferometer.
Androcles
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:HSNTj.112257$497....@newsfe14.phx...
Yes. In some way it carries "absoluteness".
(T'was a joke, if not terribly clever. And you are not.)
El Enrrabadore-mor
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> escreveu na mensagem
news:HSNTj.112257$497....@newsfe14.phx...
Does Hubble red shift (the expansion of the Universe)
hold as a good Nature challenge? For instance.
>> If you're in trouble to find where the absolute
>> frame of reference is, call me and I'll tell you.
>
> We've got 100+ years of experimental results, and we have moved more than
> 946 billion miles in that time. "Here and now" does not really work as an
> "absolute frame".
>
> So I am calling you.
Take Pioneer 11, for example.
Pioneer 11 experienced, during almost ten years, a perfect
constant acceleration (a perfect straight line) directed towards
the Sun, whose mearured acceleration is exatly the
acceleration of Hubble constant.
Hubble constant is an acceleration, since it's a velocity taken
per a distance (Megaparcec). So that, we know that during
the time it takes for light to travel that distance (1 Mpc) the
velocity of celestial bodies increase 85 m/s - we have a "dv".
So the time it takes for light to travel the distance of 1 Mpc
can be calculated - it will be our "dt".
dv / dt = 85m/s / 1Mpc = Pioneer 11 acceleration.
It's a perfect match.
Don't tell me it was blueshift.
I know it was blueshift.
What else could it be?
El Enrrabadore-mor
All right Darwin.
To have that centriptal force you're talking about,
required to balance a new born centrifugal force,
you need a fixed point, with infinite rigidity, at the center
of rotation.
When such point exists, the centrifugal force exists.
When there's no such point, the mass becomes a rocket
and no centrifugal force exists, nor it makes any sense
to exist, nor we have any means to suspect that it
could possibly exist. You will go in a straight line,
as you said.
The Sun could be taken as a fixed point in space,
(with very high accuracy, since the Sun moves only
a very small distance in the process) so that Earth
experiences a centrifugal force. That was exactly
what Newton explained in Principia.
Einstein called it free-fall, based on the Equivalence
Principle.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in
message news:68a0g5F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> escreveu na
> mensagem news:HSNTj.112257$497....@newsfe14.phx...
...
>>> Put the theory written on paper aside.
>>> Look only for real world experiments.
>>
>> They are only experiments if Nature is
>> challeged / queried.
>
> Does Hubble red shift (the expansion of
> the Universe) hold as a good Nature
> challenge? For instance.
Sure. Comparisons of intensity, duration of events, subtended
size (over some very limited distance), agree with redshift as a
measure of distance. Temperature of the CMBR at various ages
agrees with expansion.
Real oddball is the "aged" objects close to the CMBR, but that
will be for another lifetime to work out. I suspect it is due to
the very hot CMBR increasing stellar temperatures by 2000 to
3000K (and hence aging rates), just as temperature speeds up a
chemical reaction.
We compare observation to what it would take local events to look
like that.
>>> If you're in trouble to find where the absolute
>>> frame of reference is, call me and I'll tell you.
>>
>> We've got 100+ years of experimental results,
>> and we have moved more than 946 billion
>> miles in that time. "Here and now" does not
>> really work as an "absolute frame".
>>
>> So I am calling you.
>
> Take Pioneer 11, for example.
> Pioneer 11 experienced, during almost ten
> years, a perfect constant acceleration (a
> perfect straight line) directed towards the Sun,
Don't get hung up on "perfect", "straight line", or "constant".
The error bars do not support any of those. Sunward, constant to
within our ability to measure, OK.
> whose mearured acceleration is exatly the
> acceleration of Hubble constant.
It isn't. It at least has the wrong sign.
> Hubble constant is an acceleration,
No, it is not. It is a rate of change of "dimension"... it is
1/t. Distance factors out.
> since it's a velocity taken per a distance
> (Megaparcec). So that, we know that during
> the time it takes for light to travel that
> distance (1 Mpc) the velocity of celestial
> bodies increase 85 m/s - we have a "dv".
> So the time it takes for light to travel the
> distance of 1 Mpc can be calculated - it will
> be our "dt". dv / dt = 85m/s / 1Mpc = Pioneer
> 11 acceleration.
> It's a perfect match.
It is *not* perfect.
> Don't tell me it was blueshift.
> I know it was blueshift.
> What else could it be?
Thrust of Mankind's first photonic drive, powered by the RTGs.
Radiated out of the heat exchanger that "keeps the electronics
cool" under a constant power draw. Always pointed away from the
Sun.
I don't know why people hang their entire belief system on a
probe that has fairly well understood *problems* in design.
Casinni has travelled some of the same "turf", and showed none of
the requisite signs. It was designed without those suspected
problems.
David A. Smith
Greg Neill
> Take Pioneer 11, for example.
> Pioneer 11 experienced, during almost ten years, a perfect
> constant acceleration (a perfect straight line) directed towards
> the Sun, whose mearured acceleration is exatly the
> acceleration of Hubble constant.
> Hubble constant is an acceleration, since it's a velocity taken
> per a distance (Megaparcec). So that, we know that during
> the time it takes for light to travel that distance (1 Mpc) the
> velocity of celestial bodies increase 85 m/s - we have a "dv".
> So the time it takes for light to travel the distance of 1 Mpc
> can be calculated - it will be our "dt".
> dv / dt = 85m/s / 1Mpc = Pioneer 11 acceleration.
> It's a perfect match.
>
> Don't tell me it was blueshift.
> I know it was blueshift.
> What else could it be?
My god that was awful in more ways than I care
to think about. Stop! Before you murder more
physics.
El Enrrabadore-mor
> Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:
>
> "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
> news:68a0g5F...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> escreveu na mensagem
>> news:HSNTj.112257$497....@newsfe14.phx...
> ...
>>>> Put the theory written on paper aside.
>>>> Look only for real world experiments.
>>>
>>> They are only experiments if Nature is
>>> challeged / queried.
>>
>> Does Hubble red shift (the expansion of
>> the Universe) hold as a good Nature
>> challenge? For instance.
>
> Sure. Comparisons of intensity, duration of events, subtended size (over
> some very limited distance), agree with redshift as a measure of distance.
> Temperature of the CMBR at various ages agrees with expansion.
>
> Real oddball is the "aged" objects close to the CMBR, but that will be for
> another lifetime to work out. I suspect it is due to the very hot CMBR
> increasing stellar temperatures by 2000 to 3000K (and hence aging rates),
> just as temperature speeds up a chemical reaction.
>
> We compare observation to what it would take local events to look like
> that.
Dear David A. Smith :
I have here about 10 scientific papers, from
the "arXiv", relating the anomalous acceleration
with Hubble's Redshift.
>>>> If you're in trouble to find where the absolute
>>>> frame of reference is, call me and I'll tell you.
>>>
>>> We've got 100+ years of experimental results,
>>> and we have moved more than 946 billion
>>> miles in that time. "Here and now" does not
>>> really work as an "absolute frame".
>>>
>>> So I am calling you.
>>
>> Take Pioneer 11, for example.
>> Pioneer 11 experienced, during almost ten
>> years, a perfect constant acceleration (a
>> perfect straight line) directed towards the Sun,
>
> Don't get hung up on "perfect", "straight line", or "constant". The error
> bars do not support any of those. Sunward, constant to within our ability
> to measure, OK.
When I say a "perfect" "constant" "straight line"
I mean exactly that, see last page of the
scientific article below (from the JPL scientist
responsible for the operation/investigation):
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19551/1/98-0979.pdf
>> whose mearured acceleration is exatly the
>> acceleration of Hubble constant.
>
> It isn't. It at least has the wrong sign.
No, it has just the right sign to cancel out
what doesn't hold true - Universe expansion.
>> Hubble constant is an acceleration,
>
> No, it is not. It is a rate of change of "dimension"... it is 1/t.
> Distance factors out.
Such dimension is called "velocity".
The rate of change of "velocity" is called acceleration.
Your argument is nonsense.
Hubble constant is an acceleration, as everybody
knows.
>> since it's a velocity taken per a distance
>> (Megaparcec). So that, we know that during
>> the time it takes for light to travel that
>> distance (1 Mpc) the velocity of celestial
>> bodies increase 85 m/s - we have a "dv".
>> So the time it takes for light to travel the
>> distance of 1 Mpc can be calculated - it will
>> be our "dt". dv / dt = 85m/s / 1Mpc = Pioneer
>> 11 acceleration.
>> It's a perfect match.
>
> It is *not* perfect.
I call it perfect.
So perfect that it almost hurts.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9808/9808081v2.pdf
>> Don't tell me it was blueshift.
>> I know it was blueshift.
>> What else could it be?
>
> Thrust of Mankind's first photonic drive, powered by the RTGs. Radiated
> out of the heat exchanger that "keeps the electronics cool" under a
> constant power draw. Always pointed away from the Sun.
>
> I don't know why people hang their entire belief system on a probe that
> has fairly well understood *problems* in design. Casinni has travelled
> some of the same "turf", and showed none of the requisite signs. It was
> designed without those suspected problems.
Anderson, the number one JPL/NASA responsible for the
operation and the investigation, says otherwise:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9906/9906113v1.pdf
Cassini went to a Saturn mission, which is inside the solar
system, and doesn't qualify to compare with Pioneer
10/10, Ulysses and Galileo, the only 4 spacecraft that
get out of the solar system.
All the 4 spacecraft confirm the anomalous acceleration.
Only blind religious cannot see evidence.
Some papers explaining Hubble's redshift based
on the Pioneer anomalous acceleration:
9808051
9809029
9809075
9810085
9906031
9907363
9910105
0005017
> David A. Smith
>
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> escreveu na mensagem
news:481fdb3b$0$26486$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
> My god that was awful in more ways than I care
> to think about. Stop! Before you murder more
> physics.
1 - Relativity is not wrong.
2 - Relativity is just a tool.
3 - Physics is just a kid with a new tool (relativity).
When the only tool one has is a hammer, every
problem looks like a nail.
Some times Physics has no tool for a given
problem, say top/gyroscope for instance.
The fact that Nutation and Precession axes
are independent (as you said) and because
no such Physics tool exist, leaves the
problem unsolved Today.
If you have a minimum of 100 hours available
I can prove you what I'm saying and you will
travel deep inside a gyroscope, right to its
heart.
Androcles
"El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
|
| "Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> escreveu na mensagem
| news:481fdb3b$0$26486$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
|
| > My god that was awful in more ways than I care
| > to think about. Stop! Before you murder more
| > physics.
|
| 1 - Relativity is not wrong.
Idiot.
| 2 - Relativity is just a tool.
Yeah, a fucking sledge hammer trying to force a square peg in a round hole.
Totally useless.
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> escreveu na mensagem
news:Hb%Tj.41596$2Y1....@newsfe30.ams2...
Androcles, you don't qualify for any kind of discussion.
I've tried to make that explicit to you hundreds of time.
Why you still addicted to this shit? That has been a puzzle
to me for many Years.
As usual, you won't hear from me.
Greg Neill
A book covering gyroscopic precession:
"Rotating Coordinates as Tools for Calculating Circular
Geodesics and Gyroscopic Precession"
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h5pr743851871810/
A web page with relevant mathematical analysis:
El Enrrabadore-mor
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> escreveu na mensagem
>> Some times Physics has no tool for a given
>> problem, say top/gyroscope for instance.
>> The fact that Nutation and Precession axes
>> are independent (as you said) and because
>> no such Physics tool exist, leaves the
>> problem unsolved Today.
>> If you have a minimum of 100 hours available
>> I can prove you what I'm saying and you will
>> travel deep inside a gyroscope, right to its
>> heart.
>
> A book covering gyroscopic precession:
>
> "Rotating Coordinates as Tools for Calculating Circular
> Geodesics and Gyroscopic Precession"
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/h5pr743851871810/
>
> A web page with relevant mathematical analysis:
>
> http://mb-soft.com/public/precess.html
Many thanks for the links.
The book looks to deal only with precession.
I need precession and nutation in a row.
Nevertheless, I see a (phi-wt) like in my work too,
which is a key feature I've learn from the book
below. Also I see the said 4-accelerations (which
are torques so to speak, since mass doesn't vanishes
from the problem).
There are 4-acceleration for Precession and
5-accelerations for Nutation.
If you have the book, I can point you the
said 4-accelerations and you can compare
then with the book.
My reference is this book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Classical-Mechanics-Problems-Solutions/dp/0521876222/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205682911&sr=1-1
I have the "pdf" file with the relevant stuff of
the book as the main reference.
The link you provide fall into Euler's equation
of motion, which I've deduced easy.
Euler's equation of motion cannot solve the
problem, nor it seams to work for a sphere.
If the gyroscopic mass is a sphere, all its
mass inertia moments are equal and you
end up with nothing.
Physically, the result for a sphere will be that
a sphere won't precess, contrary to evidence.
Clearly, something is missing.
The best way to solve it is to follow Newton's,
Lagrange and a vectorial method.
Those work perfectly fine for a sphere and
include Nutation + Precession and show the
harmonic motion seen in experiment.
I'm going to print and read the link.
However my starting point seams to be
far beyond that link, and relativity is not
involved, it's simply classic mechanics.
Many thanks.
Androcles
"El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
|
| "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> escreveu na mensagem
| news:Hb%Tj.41596$2Y1....@newsfe30.ams2...
| >
| > "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrra...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
| > news:68bco8F...@mid.individual.net...
| > |
| > | "Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> escreveu na mensagem
| > | news:481fdb3b$0$26486$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
| > |
| > | > My god that was awful in more ways than I care
| > | > to think about. Stop! Before you murder more
| > | > physics.
| > |
| > | 1 - Relativity is not wrong.
| >
| >
| > Idiot.
| >
| > | 2 - Relativity is just a tool.
| >
| > Yeah, a fucking sledge hammer trying to force a square peg in a round
| > hole.
| > Totally useless.
|
| Androcles, you don't qualify for any kind of discussion.
| I've tried to make that explicit to you hundreds of time.
Hey fuckhead, this the first time I've answered El Enrrabadore-mor.
El Enrrabadore-mor has never said anything to me before.
Can it be you don't know who you are, fuckhead?
You don't qualify for any kind of discussion, fuckhead, you are
(pretending to be) a newbie, one the thousands that Deer Smiffy thinks
lurk here and never write anything.
*plonk*
dlzc
On May 6, 8:10 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrrabad...@mail.docaracas>
wrote:
> "N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> escreveu na mensagemnews:h0RTj.112308$497....@newsfe14.phx...
> > "El Enrrabadore-mor" <enrrabad...@mail.docaracas> wrote in message
> >news:68a0g5F...@mid.individual.net...
...
> >> Does Hubble red shift (the expansion of
> >> the Universe) hold as a good Nature
> >> challenge? For instance.
...
> > We compare observation to what it would
> > take local events to look like
> > that.
>
> I have here about 10 scientific papers, from
> the "arXiv", relating the anomalous acceleration
> with Hubble's Redshift.
Anything by Anderson is well researched and thorough. Others may not
be.
...
> >> Take Pioneer 11, for example.
> >> Pioneer 11 experienced, during almost ten
> >> years, a perfect constant acceleration (a
> >> perfect straight line) directed towards the Sun,
>
> > Don't get hung up on "perfect", "straight
> > line", or "constant". The error bars do not
> > support any of those. Sunward, constant to
> > within our ability to measure, OK.
>
> When I say a "perfect" "constant" "straight line"
> I mean exactly that, see last page of the
> scientific article below (from the JPL scientist
> responsible for the operation/investigation):
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19551/1/98-0979.pdf
OK. Now consider that the distance doubled, but the Sunward-
acceleration did not change. Hubble-effect is different at different
distances.
> >> whose mearured acceleration is exatly the
> >> acceleration of Hubble constant.
>
> > It isn't. It at least has the wrong sign.
>
> No, it has just the right sign to cancel out
> what doesn't hold true - Universe expansion.
What kind of black magic are you practising? Do you note that the
acceleration did not change with distance? Do you realize that there
are *no* "mundane" explanations for Hubble red shift, that agree with
all observations?
> >> Hubble constant is an acceleration,
>
> > No, it is not. It is a rate of change of
> > "dimension"... it is 1/t. Distance
> > factors out.
>
> Such dimension is called "velocity".
No. Velocity requires distance.
> The rate of change of "velocity" is called
> acceleration. Your argument is nonsense.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
> Hubble constant is an acceleration, as everybody
> knows.
km/sec / megaparsec = distance / time / distance = 1/time
You might want to start a study in "dimensional analysis". The 1700's
and 1800's were a productive time.
> >> since it's a velocity taken per a distance
> >> (Megaparcec). So that, we know that during
> >> the time it takes for light to travel that
> >> distance (1 Mpc) the velocity of celestial
> >> bodies increase 85 m/s - we have a "dv".
> >> So the time it takes for light to travel the
> >> distance of 1 Mpc can be calculated - it will
> >> be our "dt". dv / dt = 85m/s / 1Mpc = Pioneer
> >> 11 acceleration.
> >> It's a perfect match.
>
> > It is *not* perfect.
>
> I call it perfect.
> So perfect that it almost hurts.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9808/9808081v2.pdf
So funny that *you* are about to call *me* a religious nut...
> >> Don't tell me it was blueshift.
> >> I know it was blueshift.
> >> What else could it be?
>
> > Thrust of Mankind's first photonic drive,
> > powered by the RTGs. Radiated out of the
> > heat exchanger that "keeps the electronics
> > cool" under a constant power draw. Always
> > pointed away from the Sun.
>
> > I don't know why people hang their entire
> > belief system on a probe that has fairly
> > well understood *problems* in design.
> > Casinni has travelled some of the same
> > "turf", and showed none of the requisite
> > signs. It was designed without those
> > suspected problems.
>
> Anderson, the number one JPL/NASA responsible for the
> operation and the investigation, says otherwise:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9906/9906113v1.pdf
He specifically identifies certain causes that he has discounted.
Radiation from the RTGs themselves sprays more or less uniformly in
all directions. Heat radiated from the electronics package itself
does not.
> Cassini went to a Saturn mission, which is
> inside the solar system,
Pioneer anomalous sunward acceleration was first noticed after it
passed Jupiter. Cassini applies.
> and doesn't qualify to compare with Pioneer
> 10/10, Ulysses and Galileo, the only 4
> spacecraft that get out of the solar system.
... and Anderson identified mechanical causes in two, and *expects*
mundane causes to yet be the cause of Pioneer's acceleration. And
like Uncle Al would say, "We Need To Look."
> All the 4 spacecraft confirm the anomalous
> acceleration.
>
> Only blind religious cannot see evidence.
Only blind relgious belief juxtaposes a rate of change in time with
acceleration. And ignores the sign. And reads only selected text
from the papers he cites. And ignores other spacecraft that do not
express this same acceleration... as "incovenient".
> Some papers explaining Hubble's redshift based
> on the Pioneer anomalous acceleration:
And the ones by Anderson do not support your religious belief in this
case.
David A. Smith