Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:

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".

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".

David A. Smith

On May 5, 9:58 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" escreveu na ...

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".

It is good to know that observers can agree on
something.
You've made some good points Ken.
Regards.

Thanks, you can do a lot of relativity with
easy algebra.
Calculus applications in relativity has the
experts stumped, in view of QT.
Best to learn using increments in place of
differentials, and understand it well.
You pretty much need to have a good Master
standing in Math & Physics to know how fast
things can go wrong applying calculus to
relativity.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

"Dono" escreveu na mensagem
...

No, it isn't. This means that you are both an imbecile and a troll.

No pictures then?
Arguments are something that is strange to you,
as predicted by everybody's large experience.
That's great because Sagnac is so boring.

"dlzc" escreveu na mensagem
...
Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:

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

Dear Greg Neill:

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
om...
...
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.

That is what pushing electrons (with their mass... remember simple
harmonic motion?) does.

When you are pushing electrons, like if it were
an harmonic motion, you are pushing reactive
power only, back and forth, without any energy
loss, nor any energy converted.
It's harmonic motion of a system at its natural frequency.
It's a coil+capacitor set up (zero resistance).
It's a motor without rotor.

To really push electrons out of the system and
generate net electricity (real power on a resistor
P = R I^2 for instance) you must move towards a
situation where the electric and magnetic fields
become in-phase.

Only in-phase you got zero reactive power and
100% real power converted.

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message

"dlzc" escreveu na mensagem
...
Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:

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

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.

That is what pushing electrons (with their mass... remember simple
harmonic motion?) does.

When you are pushing electrons, like if it were
an harmonic motion, you are pushing reactive
power only, back and forth, without any energy
loss, nor any energy converted.
It's harmonic motion of a system at its natural frequency.
It's a coil+capacitor set up (zero resistance).
It's a motor without rotor.

This is true only if you consider full cycles
at a time. Or are you arguing that electrons
don't move at all when voltageis applied to an
inductor? If so, from whence comes the
electromagnetic field that couples the coils
of a transformer?

For a pendulum given an initial displacement,
are you arguing that no work is done in the
gravitational field as the bob falls and then
the same energy is transformed back to potential
energy as it subsequently rises again?


To really push electrons out of the system and
generate net electricity (real power on a resistor
P = R I^2 for instance) you must move towards a
situation where the electric and magnetic fields
become in-phase.

Only in-phase you got zero reactive power and
100% real power converted.

Methinks you're hung up on electrical impedance.

"dlzc" escreveu na mensagem
...
Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:

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.

Put the theory written on paper aside.
Look only for real world experiments.
If you're in trouble to find where the absolute frame
of reference is, call me and I'll tell 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.
You always need a background frame of reference and
that same frame is assumed to be something that carries
absoluteness.


David A. Smith

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message


Whatever.
You always need a background frame of reference and
that same frame is assumed to be something that carries
absoluteness.

Silly. There's nothing absolute about the common
inertial frame; one's as good as another as far as
the physics is concerned. Nothing absolute about
it!

On May 5, 12:51 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Darwin123" escreveu na ...



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
...
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.
N. The velocity and the acceleration don't cancel out in a stable
orbit. Or rather, the statement is meaningless.
I think what you are saying is that the centrifugal force and the
gravitational force balance in a stable orbit. The centrifuagal force
is one of the fictional forces that I referred to.
The rate of ticking of a clock has nothing to do with the stability
of the clocks orbit. If the ticking of the clock has sped up or slowed
down relative to another clock, that does nothing to either the
velocity or the acceleration. You reversed my statement.
You seem to think that if the ticking of the clock changes, then
its velocity and acceleration have to change. Not true. What I said
was the opposite.
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?

That's what you've said (your words below):
"The clock with the largest acceleration ticks the fastest."
And you keep saying it now, plenty of times, above and
below.
I was talking specifically about the Hefele-Keating experiment. In
that experiment, the ticking of three atomic clocks was compared. In
that experiment, it happened to be that the fastest ticking clock had
the largest acceleration.
I am sorry to have confused you. I slipped into one very specific
experiment, one where all factors were kept the same except the
centripetal acceleration.
I have to make a qualifier for direction of acceleration. When
there are two clocks, and one accelerates, the accelerating clock
increases its ticking compared to the unaccelerated clock by an amount
proportional to the acceleration in the direction toward the
unaccelerated clock. Now that I have included direction, there is of
course the possibility of negative acceleration.

I've a strong feeling they must balance out for a stable orbit.
Stable orbits always balance centrifugal force with the
force of gravity.
"I've got a strong feeling" Is that the basis of your argument? I
don't believe it. Whether the ticking of the clock speeds up or slows
down can have nothing to do with the stability of the orbit.

1 - Absolute time?
No such thing.

I meant that for a perfect balance among a) and b).

2 - Partially absolute time?
What is that?

That's the case where a perfect balance doesn't exist.
According to your above statements, that should
be the most probable case.
Sorry. I never heard or read the statement, "partially absolute
time." The meaning was not self evident. The statement looked self-
contradictory, and I could not make a connection between anything I
(or Einstein, or Lorentz, or anyone) said and the phrase. It was clear
in your own head, I am sure. Read it again and consider how someone
else would interpret it.

3 - Discard one of the effects and have relativity
time dilatation solution?
Yes. Discard the acceleration and you have the Lorentz
time dilation formula.

Now I'm puzzled.
You've been talking about accelerations all the time.
Now you discard acceleration and step forward?
I am puzzled that you are puzzled. You seem to know something
about the Lorentz time dilation formula. The larger the magnitude of
the relative velocity, the slower the ticking of one clock relative to
the other. This is one effect, as I thought I made clear. The formula,
as I thought I made clear, is not exactly true in the presence of
acceleration. That is another effect, as I made clear. If there is
both acceleration and velocity, one has to multiply the two factors.
However, if the acceleration is zero the acceleration factor is one.
The Lorentz dilation formula is then valid.

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.

That's an Invention without any bases.
No such fictional force exists.
I bet "your" fiction requires motion.
No motion, zero work done.
"No such fictional force exists." That is correct. By definition,
a fictional force does not exist :-)
You are confused. Centrifugal force is a frictional force. Look
it up. Google "Centrifugal" and "fictional force". You should get lots
of hits. Even outside of relativity. This is a well known Newtonian
concept. The "centrifugal force" is fictional. Figure out what that
means in Newtonian terms, and then go back to analyzing SR.

Is it the centrifugal force you are talking about?
That and some others. Learn about that one and then we can discuss
the others.

No one, ever, could prove Newton wrong, nor
prove any violation of Energy Conservation.
Again, please get to know Newton before you read Einstein. Really,
Newton's theory is a bit deeper than what you claim. There is no
excuse for saying "I have a feeling."
You don't even know how Newton was right, so how could you claim
he was never proven wrong?

Potential fields are just that: A potential.
No work will be done if no motion exists.
But energy is the potential to do work. That is the definition.
What do you think energy is? Potential energy is a general term for
any energy not stored by the motion of the body (i.e., kinetic
energy). You do know the difference between potential energy and
kinetic energy? PreEinstein definitions, I mean.

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 should be another relativistic invention.
The word "fictional" says it all.
Google "centrifugal" and "fictional force" and "Newtonian". This
is not a relativistic invention. Read "Principia." Read any physics
book that is preEinstein.

You need to explain this much better, so that I can
understand what you're talking about.

You can imagine whatever you want, the problem is
to prove that imagination a true fact.

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.

I'm still to see a true violation of Newton's Law,
or a violation on "Energy conservation".
There is no "true violation." There is a violation as seen by the
accelerating observer. His observations are not considered true.
If you had an energy lost during acceleration,
during de-acceleration you've reverted the sign.
Mathematics and simple logic says you should see
a gain in energy.
The quantity called energy is observer dependent. This was well
know even before Einstein. There is a type of energy called kinetic
energy. An object moving has an energy due to the fact it is moving.
If an observer decides to follow the object and match the objects
speed, he has changed the objects kinetic energy to zero. Got that?
Observer 1 is moving relative to the object and sees 100 Joules of
kinetic energy. Observer 2 matches the velocity of the object and sees
0 Joules of kinetic energy. The object hasn't changed. The only thing
that changed is the observer. This has NOTHING to do with SR.
This is a well know effect in both Newtonian and Einsteinian
physics. Your problem is that you don't know ANY physics, including
Newtonian. Learn Newtonian physics and get back to me.

Please respond.

"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.
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.

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.