On May 13, 10:20 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Darwin123" escreveu na ...



On May 11, 7:57 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Darwin123" escreveu na
...

On May 4, 2:07 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Greg Neill" escreveu na
sting.com..."El
Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message




Look, I was suppose to reply Uncle AL about the following,
which came from nowhere and sounds exactly like this (about
time dilation and circular motion):
QUOTE:
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.
END QUOTE.
The abstract alone, even without any details the article may
provide, addresses some of your questions. It describes an experiment
concerning real systems (atoms) in resonance with real electromagnetic
radiation (the gamma rays). The systems (the atoms) are accelerated,
and are not in inertial frames. There is no "gravitational potential"
except what is simulated by the radial acceleration. The results are
consistent with what the authors perceive of as special relativity.
This article explains exactly what these experimenters think the
"time" in SR means. Being experimenters, they are not likely to stick
to abstract concepts of "space-time continuum" that no one but
Minkowski could understand. They will explain what they know about
relativity on a technicians level. Therefore, before you insult any
other scientist, I suggest you read this article. Let me also
recommend a few articles by Hefele on the Hefele-Keating experiment.
You need a few experimentalist descriptions of special relativity.
Now, you may think the authors don't know a thing about special
relativity. For this, you have to read the article and see how they
did their calculations and experiments. However, be warned. What these
authors think of as special relativity is probably pretty close to
what most physicists think is special relativity. If you claim they
used the Lorentz transformation wrong, then someone out there will
claim it is you who misunderstood the Lorentz transformation. I
suspect they also know a thing or two about forced harmonic
oscillators.

All I have is the above abstract which leads no where.
Read it where? Can't read the paper. I don't have a clue
on what Uncle Al said, as everybody else, since that's
exactly the point.
Above the abstract is a Buy This Article. For $20.00, you can
download a copy of the article. Get your credit card out, or debit
card (which is much safer) and buy that article. You will get your own
electronic copy of the file, in Adobe Acrobat format (pdf file) which
you can print on paper or read directly off the screen. I will not buy
it for you, and Uncle Al probably won't either.
If you don't want to pay the money, and have the time, I would
recommend a visit to the closest college or university library where
copies of that journal may be available for reference. I have always
been fortunate enough to live near a large university. The university
library often allows nonstudents to use their reference stacks. You
can buy the article for $0.05 per page. This is probably cheaper than
the download, but takes a bit more time. However, you may find paper
hardcopy has its advantages.
You have the abstract. The thing is, the abstract doesn't present
as much detail as the article. In the article, the authors may reveal
how they solved the very details that you find troubling. For example,
they may show you how acceleration enters special relativity. And not
in terms of "space-time curvature," I mean in real nut/bolt terms.
I have bought a lot of articles (more than $1000) for research
that I am doing at home on fish. I feel it is worth it even if I am
not sure the information in the article is useful. Often, I find
someone has already solved the problem I want to solve. If not, I have
evidence that the scientific community really is as backwards as I
want to believe. In any case, a little commitment of time or money
would make your bad-mouthing of scientists more convincing. Right now,
you don't sound like you know enough about relativity to even be
wrong, let alone right.


Now, put yourself in my place, what would you say?

I've said:
QUOTE:
Do you pretend to measure resonance lines too?
Any frequency that is a multiple of the natural frequency will
cause resonance.
That is not exactly true. You are talking here about nonlinear
effects. These are gamma ray lines. Trust me, there was no source of
gamma rays that are exactly integral multiples of the natural
frequency of those lines.
So the 46 Years old experiment can only
be horse dung.
There were no sources of gamma rays at integral multiples of the
natural frequency 46 years ago either. Not even in horse dung.
BTW, what's relativity prediction?
You plug some experimental parameters into an equation, and
calculate some theoretical values. The theoretical values are
predictions. You then do a new experiment and measure experimental
values to compare with the theoretical values.
If the theory you use is relativity, the theoretical values are
relativity predictions. Doh! I deserve at least three Nobel prizes for
this correlation.



Notice my comment about resonance on electromagnetism.
How can I have resonance between electromagnetic waves
was my thought? Electromagnetic waves don't interfere one
to each other (more or less like you said too).
Next, some beer bottles melted in the microwave...because
of Uncles Al post, so...should I sing or dance?
How about think?

Actually I did, and I do solve them very carefully.
What I cannot understand is what does the fact that Eric Gisse
melts beer bottles in microwaves has to do with my skills to
solve, or not, a differential equation for a forced harmonic oscillator.
How is energy being conserved in the beer bottles? Think...

Nobody ever talked about "forced" and "damping".

Without external forces and zero internal damping energy is
conserved.
But energy can be concentrated. The energy density changes. There
is a limit in real materials as to how much energy density the
material will support. So the system can't be static.
Energy is always conserved, with or without resonance. However,
without damping, the energy density will never reach an upper bound
until the system breaks. Your energy being conserved is a general
statement that is always true. Your implication that the energy
density is constant without damping is always false.
Yes, I know you never said "energy density." In any case, the
amplitude can't be constant. It will increase until the system is no
longer in resonance. In some cases, the system melts. Then the
resonance stops.
The amplitude can not be conserved. Is that better?

All I see is an ideal mass-spring system that swings
forever... and energy is conserved.
Without damping, the ideal mass-spring system won't merely swing
forever. The amplitude gets bigger and bigger with time. There is no
upper bound to the amplitude of the ideal system without damping. The
amplitude increases to the point where the "ideal mass-spring system"
stops being ideal.


The Sun-Earth system also is a forced harmonic oscillator.
No its not. It is a free harmonic oscillator. If there was no
other planets, then there would not be a resonance.
I don't think you were thinking about other planets, so don't drag
them in now. There are resonances between objects in the solar system.
However, there is no resonance in the sun-earth system. The sun-earth
system is a harmonic oscillator. With no other objects around, there
can be no resonance.
Suppose we did have a resonance in the solar system. Suppose
there was another planet (planet R), the size of Jupiter, that was
exactly the same distance from the sun as the earth. It had exactly
the same period as the earth, but had an orbit at right angles to the
orbit of the earth. Then there would be a resonance between the earth
sun system and the R - sun system. Planet R would pull at the earth,
and boost its orbit larger and larger. At some point, the earth would
be so far from the sun that its period would be much longer. And then,
there goes the resonance.
What exactly was conserved? It wasn't the resonance. Energy was
conserved. Energy went from planet R to earth. However, the amplitude
increased.
The real problem: Saying the earth-sun system is at resonance
doesn't really mean anything. Saying energy is conserved doesn't mean
anything. In fact, if one system is at resonance with another, energy
will pass from one system to the other. Energy is NOT conserved in the
individual system.
I am getting tired. I don't think I will stick to this topic much
longer. Just let me point out the fallacy in your analogy, and I'll
stop.
One can't talk about the earth-sun system "being at resonance"
without mentioning what the other system is that it is "in resonance"
with. Equating "resonance" with "conservation of energy" isn't helpful
either, since any conservative force has to conserve energy. You are
starting to sound scientifically illiterate. You may be scientifically
literate, but you are not showing it with garbled language.
Boy, I have to melt a beer bottle now.


Well, I didn't say anything like that.
Discussions with Eric Gisse are always a mess, because he never
focus on the subject and keeps saying things like "melting beer
bottles" on a discussion about circular motion and time dilation.
Because you keep saying things like "a system at resonance
conserves energy." Every time you say that, he is going to melt a beer
bottle. The ones I will mail him.