"Eric Gisse" escreveu na mensagem
...
On May 4, 10:07 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Greg Neill" escreveu na
sting.com..."El
Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message



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.

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


[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.

On May 4, 1:49*pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Eric Gisse" escreveu na ...
On May 4, 10:07 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:



"Greg Neill" escreveu na
sting.com..."El
Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message



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.

Yes, let's go back to you not understanding the Mossbauer effect.

"Prof Barnhart" 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.

On May 3, 2:25 pm, "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.

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.
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.

"Darwin123" escreveu na mensagem
...
On May 3, 2:25 pm, "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.

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.
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.


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.

On May 4, 6:53*am, Tom Roberts wrote in
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.

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

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

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in
:


"Tom Roberts" escreveu na mensagem
...

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.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message

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


[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.

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.

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message

"Prof Barnhart" 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).

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


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.