"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message
...
|
| "Darwin123" escreveu na mensagem
| ...
|
| 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.

On May 5, 5:10*pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Darwin123" escreveu na ...

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.

You must be a sockpuppet to Albert****o.
Or it must something in the Spanish water that makes both of you early
imbeciles.

Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in
message ...

"dlzc" escreveu na mensagem
...

On May 5, 9:19 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"

wrote:
"N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" escreveu na
.. .
...
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

On May 5, 12:19 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Sam Wormley" 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/...3-1&page=node5....
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...-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)
The Sagnac effect does not contradict SR. It is very much a
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.

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in message
...
| Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:
|
| "El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in
| message ...
|
| "dlzc" escreveu na mensagem
|
...
|
| On May 5, 9:19 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
|
| wrote:
| "N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" escreveu na
| .. .
| ...
| 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".

Yes. In some way it carries "absoluteness".
(T'was a joke, if not terribly clever. And you are not.)

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" escreveu na mensagem
...
Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message
...

"dlzc" escreveu na mensagem
...

On May 5, 9:19 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" escreveu na
.. .
...
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.

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?

"Darwin123" escreveu na mensagem
...
On May 5, 8:10 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Darwin123" escreveu na
...

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.

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.

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.

Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in
message ...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" escreveu na
mensagem ...
....
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

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message


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.

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" escreveu na mensagem
...
Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" escreveu na mensagem
...
...
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/b.../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