"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in
message ...
....
Only a fool buys that.

Only a troll thinks it is for sale.

David A. Smith

Androcles wrote:
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.

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Prof Barnhart" wrote in message
. ..
|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
| 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
|
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

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message

"Greg Neill" escreveu na mensagem

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of
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)?

"Greg Neill" escreveu na mensagem
m...

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).

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message

"Greg Neill" escreveu na mensagem
m...

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.

"Tom Roberts" escreveu na mensagem
t...
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

"Greg Neill" escreveu na mensagem
m...
"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message

"Greg Neill" escreveu na mensagem
m...

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.

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message
...
|
| "Tom Roberts" escreveu na mensagem
| t...
| 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?
|
|
You want the Pope to give up virgin births?

El Enrrabadore-mor wrote:
"Tom Roberts" escreveu na mensagem
t...
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