"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.

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message

"Eric Gisse" escreveu na mensagem
...
On May 3, 3:31 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:

Any frequency that is a multiple of the natural frequency will
cause resonance. So the 46 Years old experiment can only
be horse dung.

It doesn't work that way. The energy has to be exactly the energy of
the resonance - not just any "multiple".

What the hell is "energy of resonance"?
I've been working with resonant systems for Years
(mechanical and electrical) and never thought about
any "energy of resonance".
A system in resonance is a closed system that exchanges
no energy with surroundings.
Energy is conserved in resonance.
Go back to the classic mechanics class, where you shouldn't
ever get out without knowing the minimum.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of
tuning in radio receivers.

On May 3, 6:13*pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Eric Gisse" escreveu na ...
On May 3, 3:31 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:

Any frequency that is a multiple of the natural frequency will
cause resonance. So the 46 Years old experiment can only
be horse dung.

It doesn't work that way. The energy has to be exactly the energy of
the resonance - not just any "multiple".

What the hell is "energy of resonance"?

If only there was something like a search engine or a nuclear physics
textbook you could read.

I've been working with resonant systems for Years
(mechanical and electrical) and never thought about
any "energy of resonance".

Nuclear resonance is not mechanical resonance or electrical resonance.
A nucleus can absorb certain energies and emit at those energies. The
energies absorbed/emitted are very specific.

A system in resonance is a closed system that exchanges
no energy with surroundings.

That's equilibrium, but nice try.

Energy is conserved in resonance.

It is? I'll remember that the next time I use my microwave to melt a
beer bottle.

Go back to the classic mechanics class, where you shouldn't
ever get out without knowing the minimum.

How is nuclear physics "classical mechanics" ?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ear/mossb.html

"Eric Gisse" escreveu na mensagem
...
On May 3, 6:13 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:

Energy is conserved in resonance.

It is? I'll remember that the next time I use my microwave to melt a
beer bottle.

Energy is conserved in resonance.

The fact that you use a microwave to melt a beer bottle
only proves that you are nuts.

Adress the original question and avoid smoke.

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

"Eric Gisse" escreveu na mensagem
...
On May 3, 3:31 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:

Any frequency that is a multiple of the natural frequency will
cause resonance. So the 46 Years old experiment can only
be horse dung.

It doesn't work that way. The energy has to be exactly the energy of
the resonance - not just any "multiple".

What the hell is "energy of resonance"?
I've been working with resonant systems for Years
(mechanical and electrical) and never thought about
any "energy of resonance".
A system in resonance is a closed system that exchanges
no energy with surroundings.
Energy is conserved in resonance.
Go back to the classic mechanics class, where you shouldn't
ever get out without knowing the minimum.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of
tuning in radio receivers.

Is that a joke?

Can you please explain Gisse that one can tune
a radio amoung several stations, not just one.

Can you address the original question, besides
trying to create smoke?

It is obvious that a simple circular motion, seen all
around the Universe (every celestial body is spinning
and orbiting) cannot be solved by relativity.
Actually, a minimum deviation from straight line
looks reason enough for relativity to get in trouble.

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

In sci.physics El Enrrabadore-mor wrote:

"Eric Gisse" escreveu na mensagem
...
On May 3, 6:13 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:

Energy is conserved in resonance.

It is? I'll remember that the next time I use my microwave to melt a
beer bottle.

Energy is conserved in resonance.

The fact that you use a microwave to melt a beer bottle
only proves that you are nuts.

Adress the original question and avoid smoke.

And the answer is...

You are yet another babbling lunatic.

*PLONK*

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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

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

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




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.

Any comments welcome.

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