"Greg Neill" escreveu na mensagem
m...

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.

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message
...
|
| "Greg Neill" escreveu na mensagem
| m...
|
| 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 ****ing sledge hammer trying to force a square peg in a round hole.
Totally useless.

"Androcles" escreveu na mensagem
...

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message
...
|
| "Greg Neill" escreveu na mensagem
| m...
|
| 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 ****ing 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.
Why you still addicted to this ****? That has been a puzzle
to me for many Years.
As usual, you won't hear from me.

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message

"Greg Neill" escreveu na mensagem
m...

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.

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

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


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...5682911&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.

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message
...
|
| "Androcles" escreveu na mensagem
| ...
|
| "El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "Greg Neill" escreveu na mensagem
| | m...
| |
| | 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 ****ing 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 ****head, 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, ****head?
You don't qualify for any kind of discussion, ****head, you are
(pretending to be) a newbie, one the thousands that Deer Smiffy thinks
lurk here and never write anything.
*plonk*

Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:

On May 6, 8:10*am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" escreveu na .. .
"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message
...
...
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/b.../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

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message


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.

Why would you say that? The necessary torque to
result in a precession can be about the sphere's
center of mass, and a gravitational field can
provide that for a sphere spinning on a mount
attached to one of its poles -- such a mount is
not coincident with the center of mass.

The Earth is another matter, since it is not
a perfect sphere -- the equatorial bulge
provides a "handle" for torques.

Tom Roberts wrote:
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.

Realizing the only way to resolve the twin’s paradox is to prove
either or both time dilation or the principle of relativity wrong
since the twin’s paradox is a manifestation of both time dilation and
the principle of relativity. In doing so, relative simultaneity must
be wrong, and thus absolute time must hold by each frame of reference
collectively in coherence. Since the Loretnz transform has abandoned
the absolute time, to keep the mysticism alive, you (plural) choose to
invent what you call the ‘proper time’ to function and behave like the
absolute time.

To you, MYSTICISM IS WISDOM. shrug

[... 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.

So, the principle of relativity must not hold in this experiment.
shrug

[...] motion does NOT
affect the proper tick rate of clocks,

According to the Lorentz transform, any motion of the observed
manifests a time slow down of the observed by the observer. shrug

but clocks that travel different
trajectories can differ in their elapsed proper times between meetings
of their trajectories.

Here you go again with your proper time nonsense. Your proper time is
nothing more than spacetime itself. Given the spacetime of the
observed, it should be observed to be the same by any observers.
shrug Unfortunately for you, time flow is always time not spacetime
or proper time. shrug

This is very basic SR, discussed in:

Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.

This is MYSTICISM. The Lorentz transform must be wrong. Since SR is
an interpretation to the Lorentz transform, SR must be wrong as well.
shrug

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"..

Thus, gravitational acceleration does not manifest gravitational time
dilation. Gravitational time dilation involves more mystery --- more
mysticism. Not that this would help to resolve the twin’s paradox,
accelerating twin thus does not benefit from the mysticism of broken
symmetry in the Lorentz transform.

Of course, this does not bother you because MYSTICISM IS WISDOM.
shrug

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.

sigh

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.

This makes no sense. The local coordinate cannot tell you
gravitational time dilation. Only using your coordinate to observe a
local phenomenon can you decide if gravitational time dilation. So,
we have more mysticism at hand, and this is good because more
MYSTICISM IS more WISDOM. shrug

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


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.

Why would you say that? The necessary torque to
result in a precession can be about the sphere's
center of mass, and a gravitational field can
provide that for a sphere spinning on a mount
attached to one of its poles -- such a mount is
not coincident with the center of mass.

My point was that, if the only tool you have
to make the analysis are the "Euler's equation of
motion", hence, for a sphere where I1=I2=I3,
you got nothing to work with:

T1 = I1 dw1/dt + (I3-I2) W2 W3
T2 = I2 dw2/dt + (I1-I3) W3 W1
T3 = I3 dw3/dt + (I2-I1) W1 W2
The result will be:
T1 = I1 dw1/dt
T2 = I2 dw2/dt
T3 = I3 dw3/dt
From which nothing can be said about precession.

I've started to work with Euler's equations
and I've noticed that the link you've provided
is an old page updated.
Equate terms like:
dw2/dt = W3 W1
only happen to be true for the "horizontal",
where theta is 90 degrees.
The link is honest about that and no errors
exist (didn't read about earth).

We only miss the other 180 degree spectrum.
(the remaining 180 is symmetric).

The equation for precession w2 due to
torque T1 is:
T1 = I1 dw1/dt + I3 w3 sin(theta) +
+ (I3-I2) w2^2 sin(theta) cos(theta)
(since I3 and I2 don't mix, there are
4-torque terms).
Theta is the angle to the vertical.
Everything else is obvious to you, for sure.


The Earth is another matter, since it is not
a perfect sphere -- the equatorial bulge
provides a "handle" for torques.

I've had an interesting discussion about that
about half a Year ago.