Dear Greg Neill:

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
m...
....
No, in a propagating transverse electromagnetic
wave the electric and magnetic fields may be
orthogonal, but they are in phase.

In a vacuum they are in phase. As a medium in interposed, the
phase relationship changes. When bound to a conductor, and
"pushing" charges around, they are 90 degrees out-of-phase.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

David A. Smith

Hi El, I think you're in good shape.
(check your spelling of "dilation").

On May 4, 2:05 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" escreveu na ...

On May 4, 10:22 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Tom Roberts" escreveu na
...

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.

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.

I think Roberts is right, and I think you
should think in terms of Action where relativity
is concerned, then it smoothly interfaces with
Quantum Theory.
Ken

Hi Ken.
I know that Tom Roberts is honest and someone
that usually knows what he says.

Well Roberts example is a good way of relating
SR and GR.

Quantum Theory is a very strange approach
and looks like a magic box where everything is
possible.

Ok :-), I meant only to use Planck's constant
"h", that is invariant. It is the product of
energy and time, and has units of action and/or
angular momentum.

Maybe, there's one possible understandable
situation where the above three situations a), b)
and c) can be made compatible.

My best candidate are gyroscopes.
Gyroscope equations, based on Newton and
Lagrange, produce two orthogonal independent
axes where equalities between acceleration and
terms like 1/2 v^2 exist, plus a minus sign to make
both effects cancel each other out on a Conservation
of Energy equation.
Action over a gyroscope (force = mass*acceleration)
always cause a reaction on an orthogonal axis, called
precession, which is a velocity without any force
(acceleration) involved around it.
The effect is due to the fact that torque equals the
rate of change of angular momentum, so that action
and reaction are placed on orthogonal axis.
Gravity should be the force that makes orbiting mass
to behave like if it was a rigid body. Such rigid body
like must be quantized, since mass is always located
where the gravitation force cancel the centrifugal force
(do you remember that?).

Ok, that's fair, and Angular Momentum is
both quantized and invariant, and expressible
in terms of "h" and arbituary constants.

But the above is pure speculations, which I've pulled
out of my hat this afternoon, so...

Nevertheless, there are two pillar stones in
Physics:
1 - Conservation of Angular Momentum.
(No matter if it is circular motion or linear
motion. For circular motion the conservation
only exists relative to the center of rotation, but
for linear motion conservation exists relative to
every point in space);
2 - Conservation of Energy.

Agreed.

Now, energy is the time derivative of the
angular momentum, and that time is an
absolute time.
How can the above two pillar stones of
Physics survive in view of time dilatation
(and time not being absolute after all)?

Use h = energy*time, = E*t = E'*t' then
E' = (t/t')*E,
Fortunately "h" is a universal constant and
invariant.
Two different observers can disagree on the
measurement of E and E', and t and t', but
they agree on the product "h".
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in
message ...
....
Nevertheless, there are two pillar stones in
Physics:
1 - Conservation of Angular Momentum.
(No matter if it is circular motion or linear
motion. For circular motion the conservation
only exists relative to the center of rotation, but
for linear motion conservation exists relative to
every point in space);
2 - Conservation of Energy.

Now, energy is the time derivative of the
angular momentum, and that time is an
absolute time.

No, energy is the path integral of momentum. The energy is a
function of the observer's frame, so it clearly involves
*nothing* absolute.

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.

David A. Smith

On May 3, 11:25 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:


Any comments welcome.

Word salad.

"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".

It is best to disregard anything that I have said. I am coming from the
position that this universe was built by a superior race. It surely didn't
spontaneously generate. I strongly suspect that a vast portion of this
universal system is hidden from our view.

As a line segment is a point if viewed 90 degree out of phase, there is an
electromagnetic sub-system that we cannot perceive except when looking at
space/time effects. There is a Doppler effect: red or blue shift, but there
is also a more complex Doppler (for lack of a better term) effect that is
responsible for time dilation. This effect involves a rotation into a part
of the whole system that is not normally perceived.

I don't expect anyone to agree, but there is considerable evidence of this
in Einstein's writings (from my perspective). Unfortunatley, my greatest
talent seems to be driving myself into a state of confusion, but I do make
progress.

This unseen sub-system is a source of energy, among other things. Right or
wrong it is what I look for. It is best that I pursue this alone. If for
no other reason than because I am almost always at a loss for words.

One of the things that started this search is Einstien"s explanation that
the electric and magnetic fields are one in the same viewed from two
different positions 90 degrees apart.

Couple the above with the 3 mechanisms for EM propagation. All one can do
is try. There is no way that this happened spontaneously. This place was
built.


Thanks to all of you for not ripping my face off. Have Fun, Mark


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 4, 11:37 pm, "Prof Barnhart" wrote:
"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".

I might have said "wave nature of reality".

It is best to disregard anything that I have said. I am coming from the
position that this universe was built by a superior race. It surely didn't
spontaneously generate. I strongly suspect that a vast portion of this
universal system is hidden from our view.

I agree completely with that last sentence but I consider the
immediately preceding to be unnecessary speculation.

But that's just me.

I also do not quite see that reality must necessarily have an EM
basis. There are plenty of EM-neutral phenomena that nonetheless
display all sorts of interesting orthogonal-gyroscopic effects.

I replied because some of your thinking meshes nicely with some of
mine. Seems to me it does, anyway.

As a line segment is a point if viewed 90 degree out of phase, there is an
electromagnetic sub-system that we cannot perceive except when looking at
space/time effects. There is a Doppler effect: red or blue shift, but there
is also a more complex Doppler (for lack of a better term) effect that is
responsible for time dilation. This effect involves a rotation into a part
of the whole system that is not normally perceived.

*SPECULATION WARNING*

Consider a Minkowski space-time diagram scaled such that the speed
of light is a line sloping at 45 degrees to both the space and time
axes. Draw upon it the trajectory of an extended object which has no
motion; it will be a (slightly thick) straight line "upward" into the
future.

Consider that we now can mathematically describe the location and
momentum of a physical object as a "matter wave". Notice the straight
line depicts the path of propagation of the object's matter wave
through spacetime.

Now accelerate the object to a constant (less than c) velocity to
the right and watch its trajectory describe a (thick) curve blending
into a (thick) line with a constant slope.

Let the slope of that line approach the speed of light and the
extension of the object in the direction of travel becomes noticeably
smaller. That might be viewed as the rotation of the object's physical
extension out of the space dimension and into the "time" dimension. (I
say "might be", but pretty much everyone else views it as "unnecessary
speculation".)

Well, I consider it absolutely necessary speculation. Without
speculation we might as well spend forever searching only under the
streetlamp as the saying goes.

It is (AFAIK solely) my opinion that tachyons exist, and are
perfectly ordinary particles like leptons and quarks (and composites
thereof) and assorted massive bosons. However they are not detectable
as such by us because not only are their physical extensions at right
angles to those of particles we can detect but so are their detectable
fields (IOW a tachyon's matter wave is propagating at right angles to
the trajectories of all ordinary matter's waves- no big deal) For that
matter, so-called "point" particles _have_ no spatial extension except
for their fields, including those of their matter waves.

Hence they exist but we cannot detect them.

What's the point of postulating something forever undetectable? None
of course, but that assumes that word "forever" to be an inescapable
consequence of c being an unbreakable speed barrier.

I do not so assume. I speculate that it _is_ possible to exceed c,
not because I'm an anti-Einstein nutcase but because it has not been
conclusively demonstrated that spacetime is _not_ quantized. I
speculate that it is and that therefore so must velocity be quantized.
Hence exceeding c is subject to tunneling.

(Note that Einstein at first resisted quantum theory, then gave in
and tried to reconcile it with the Relativities but died first.)

Fortunately my speculation is AFAIK not directly contradicted by any
empirical evidence. Unfortunately I have yet to think of a way to
empirically test it, IOW to get something to tunnel past c. I suspect
it'll require a fairly unusual set of circumstances involving fairly
exotic states of matter, like say a programming accident involving
doing high-power NMR on a BEC of Cooper-paired neutrons or similar.

Why should I care? For one, same as you; it'd be a dandy way to
store and retrieve energy. Then there's FTL communications and
travel... but that's a set of speculations for later. And yes I know
about generalizations of the Grandfather Paradox, but notice that
there can be whole classes of FTL trajectories that do not generate
paradoxes, and ISTM those will be the only ones possible to use.

I don't expect anyone to agree, but there is considerable evidence of this
in Einstein's writings (from my perspective). Unfortunatley, my greatest
talent seems to be driving myself into a state of confusion, but I do make
progress.

In my opinion confusion results from failing to recognize one's
stubbornness; don't insist that reality match your opinions.

How do I reconcile that with my speculations? I'm a big fan of
symmetries, and tachyons' existence would be a huge symmetry.

This unseen sub-system is a source of energy, among other things. Right or
wrong it is what I look for. It is best that I pursue this alone. If for
no other reason than because I am almost always at a loss for words.

If by that you mean that you have a hard time supporting your
position in the face of arguments (which easily get vitriolic here in
sci.physics) perhaps you'd care to continue elsewhere, say in
rec.arts.sf.science? I'm quite serious; even though that group exists
to discuss the science in science fiction, speculation is generally
quite welcome if there's any possibility of wrapping a story around
it. I should warn you that it's very difficult to suggest a concept
there that a regular won't be able to mention a published story that
uses it. Also many posters there have rather better educations (not to
mention better manners) than many here; you'll likely get better
feedback there than here.

One of the things that started this search is Einstien"s explanation that
the electric and magnetic fields are one in the same viewed from two
different positions 90 degrees apart.

Yep. Whatever the entities we call "matter waves" are, and those of
tachyons, same same.

Couple the above with the 3 mechanisms for EM propagation. All one can do
is try. There is no way that this happened spontaneously. This place was
built.

I don't see how that last part follows. Is it the sheer complexity
of it that convinces you it is a construct? How about the abode of the
constructors? Would theirs thus necessarily be more, or less complex
than ours? Was _it_ constructed? How do you avoid the "turtles all the
way down" trap?

Thanks to all of you for not ripping my face off. Have Fun, Mark

Do my best!

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).

As mentioned elsewhere, that depends on whether in vacumm or a
refractive medium.

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.

Speaking of which, I suggest you (and he-who-names-himself-rudely)
investigate nuclear magnetic resonance.


Mark L. Fergerson

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

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in message
...
| Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:
|
| "El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in
| message ...
| ...
| Nevertheless, there are two pillar stones in
| Physics:
| 1 - Conservation of Angular Momentum.
| (No matter if it is circular motion or linear
| motion. For circular motion the conservation
| only exists relative to the center of rotation, but
| for linear motion conservation exists relative to
| every point in space);
| 2 - Conservation of Energy.
|
| Now, energy is the time derivative of the
| angular momentum, and that time is an
| absolute time.
|
| No, energy is the path integral of momentum.


Right. Well done, Smiffy.


| The energy is a
| function of the observer's frame,

Wrong. Energy is relative to something, it need not be any stinking
"observer".

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

"Prof Barnhart" wrote in message
. ..
|
| "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".
|
| It is best to disregard anything that I have said. I am coming from the
| position that this universe was built by a superior race.

Ok. *plonk*
****ing lunatic.

On May 4, 7:31 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Darwin123" escreveu na ...



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.
No they don't. They don't exactly speed up. In fact, the
acceleration at some point wins out over the effect of speed.
Where did you get the impression they speed up?
A good approximation of the effect of acceleration on time,
derived from the Lorentz transformation (i.e., SR), is by a
factor (1+ax/c^2). Note this is independent of relative velocity.

a) - Acceleration causes the clock to speed up.
b) - Velocity causes the clock to speed down.
Summing both a) and b) will give what ?
Depends on their relative magnitude. If the factors were the
same, the effect is nothing at all. If the factor for acceleration
is bigger, then there is a total speed up. If the factor for
acceleration is smaller, there is an effective slow down. This is
a problem that must be solved quantitatively. You can't wave
your hand and say "they balance out."
1 - Absolute time?
No such thing.
2 - Partially absolute time?
What is that?
3 - Discard one of the effects and have relativity
time dilatation solution?
Yes. Discard the acceleration and you have the Lorentz
time dilation formula.

I bet on conservation of energy, but I was already
told that General Relativity essentially discards nonlocal
conservation of energy.
The same goes for Newton's Laws. An observer in an
accelerating frame of reference, according to Principia,
observes a fictional force that violates the Third Law of
Motion. This fictional force creates a fictional potential
energy that creates a fictional violation of the conservation
of energy and momentum. Key qualifier here is fictional.
Newton's Laws are defined only in nonaccelerating reference
frames. Therefore, the accelerating observer sees a "fictional"
increase in energy, nonlocally.
In GR, they replace the words "accelerating reference frame"
by curve in "space-time path". Basically the same thing. The
observer on the curved space time path sees "fictional" changes
in energy.

That simply shots down a
Physics pillar stone, but who cares?
Bad metaphor. There was never a "physics pillar stone"
like "nonlocal conservation of energy." See above comment on
Newton's Laws and nonlocal conservation.
Unfortunately, the local process looks to be
irreversible. If it was reversible, non-conservation
of energy locally leads to local free-energy generation.
Actually, it is easily reversible. The rocket enegines turn
off, the observer is no longer accelerating, and energy is
conserved once more even on a nonlocal basis.
Please respond.

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

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
m...
...
No, in a propagating transverse electromagnetic
wave may be
orthogonal, but they are in phase.

In a vacuum they are in phase. As a medium in interposed, the phase
relationship changes. When bound to a conductor, and "pushing" charges
around, they are 90 degrees out-of-phase.

From my knowledge on power generation, the electric and
magnetic fields are 90 degrees out-of-phase if no mechanical
energy is converted into electric power.
For instance, a coil fed by AC current consumes no
power and has the electric field 90-degrees out-of-phase
from the magnetic field (if no mechanical power is
involved).

When mechanical power is converted into electricity
the fields (inside the air-gap where everything happens)
become 180-degrees out of phase for an unitary power
factor. A trivial power factor of 0.866 causes 150-degrees
out-of-phase.

What I didn't know was that in vacuum they are in-phase.
I guess it will be the other way around of the problem.
Light is converted into electricity, or mechanical action,
or whatever the sensor does to capture it, in-phase for
an unitary power factor.

Basically, being in-phase is the same as being 180-degrees
out-of-phase, since the directions of positive and negative
fields haven't been defined yet.

When both fields (electric and magnetic) are in phase, being
the electric field analogue to a potential (a sine wave voltage)
and the magnetic field analogue to a sine wave current, power
will be a sine square wave. Power is the product between
voltage and current and that's a sine square wave, which is a
wave with double frequency and half amplitude of the
original waves.

Concluding, if the fields are in-phase, light power will be
zero twice per cycle in vacuum.

What are the bases behind the claim that in vacuum
the electric and magnetic fields are in-phase?

Couldn't it be the case that electromagnetic radiation
in vacuum interacts with sensors in-phase for an
unitary power factor (and zero losses)?


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

David A. Smith