"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message

"Greg Neill" escreveu na mensagem

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

Is that a joke?

No. It is an observation. But I will admit that
some may find the observation humorous.


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

I am sure that Eric is quite aware of that, and
further, that he knows why. It is also clear from
your posts that you do not seem to be familiar
with the physics.

Can you expound upon the Q-factor of a resonant
circuit (or mechanical oscillator)?

"Greg Neill" escreveu na mensagem
m...

Can you expound upon the Q-factor of a resonant
circuit (or mechanical oscillator)?

Sure, the quality factor Q has no precise definition, but
basically is a measurement (or calculation) of the
sharpness of the oscillator.
Q = natural frequency / damping.

The smaller the damping the smaller the bandwidth
and larger the Q-factor will be (the larger the
sharpness of the oscillator).

Now it's your turn.
Can you expound upon the "energy of resonance"
of the resonator himself, based on the Q-factor,
or whatever? (to save your friend Gisse).

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message

"Greg Neill" escreveu na mensagem
m...

Can you expound upon the Q-factor of a resonant
circuit (or mechanical oscillator)?

Sure, the quality factor Q has no precise definition, but
basically is a measurement (or calculation) of the
sharpness of the oscillator.
Q = natural frequency / damping.

No, it has a very specific definition:

2*pi*(energy stored)/(energy dissipated) [per cycle]


The smaller the damping the smaller the bandwidth
and larger the Q-factor will be (the larger the
sharpness of the oscillator).

"Larger the sharpness"? That's horrible, imprecise
word salad. Still, how do you reconcile your idea
that at resonance there is no energy loss to the fact
that resonant systems have a Q-factor?


Now it's your turn.

No, I think you still need a few more attempts.

Can you expound upon the "energy of resonance"
of the resonator himself, based on the Q-factor,
or whatever? (to save your friend Gisse).

Eric doesn't need my help here; he knows what's
what.

"Tom Roberts" escreveu na mensagem
t...
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.

It looks like you have a new theory here.
Instead of velocity being the cause of time dilatation, now
it is the trajectory the cause of time dilatation.

Below, you say that circular motion and linear motion
causes exactly the same muons lifetime. Since circular
and linear motions are the extreme limits of possible
trajectories, it looks like that you have contradicted
yourself.


[... 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.

This one is extraordinary.
You claim that Bailey et al experiment showed that muons
lifetime doesn't depend on the acceleration.
It is said that one single experiment that falsifies GRT is
reason enough to discard a theory.
So there you are. You've presented an experiment that
simply falsifies GRT.
Why don't you discard GRT based on evidence like that?


Tom Roberts

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

"Greg Neill" escreveu na mensagem
m...

Can you expound upon the Q-factor of a resonant
circuit (or mechanical oscillator)?

Sure, the quality factor Q has no precise definition, but
basically is a measurement (or calculation) of the
sharpness of the oscillator.
Q = natural frequency / damping.

No, it has a very specific definition:

2*pi*(energy stored)/(energy dissipated) [per cycle]

That's from the EXTERNAL point of view.
Not the resonator INTERNAL point of view.


The smaller the damping the smaller the bandwidth
and larger the Q-factor will be (the larger the
sharpness of the oscillator).

"Larger the sharpness"? That's horrible, imprecise
word salad. Still, how do you reconcile your idea
that at resonance there is no energy loss to the fact
that resonant systems have a Q-factor?

Look at a mass-spring system without friction.
Friction is EXTERNAL to the system here,
as usual.

The mass-spring system oscillates at its natural
frequency forever, if no damping exists.
Damping is EXTERNAL.

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

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message
...
|
| "Tom Roberts" escreveu na mensagem
| t...
| 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.
|
| It looks like you have a new theory here.
| Instead of velocity being the cause of time dilatation, now
| it is the trajectory the cause of time dilatation.
|
| Below, you say that circular motion and linear motion
| causes exactly the same muons lifetime. Since circular
| and linear motions are the extreme limits of possible
| trajectories, it looks like that you have contradicted
| yourself.
|
|
| [... 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.
|
| This one is extraordinary.
| You claim that Bailey et al experiment showed that muons
| lifetime doesn't depend on the acceleration.
| It is said that one single experiment that falsifies GRT is
| reason enough to discard a theory.
| So there you are. You've presented an experiment that
| simply falsifies GRT.
| Why don't you discard GRT based on evidence like that?
|
|
You want the Pope to give up virgin births?

El Enrrabadore-mor wrote:
"Tom Roberts" escreveu na mensagem
t...
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.

It looks like you have a new theory here.
Instead of velocity being the cause of time dilatation, now
it is the trajectory the cause of time dilatation.

No. I am discussing standard SR.

It seems your perception of SR is wrong. In particular, motion does NOT
affect the proper tick rate of clocks, but clocks that travel different
trajectories can differ in their elapsed proper times between meetings
of their trajectories. This is very basic SR, discussed in:

Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.


Below, you say that circular motion and linear motion
causes exactly the same muons lifetime. Since circular
and linear motions are the extreme limits of possible
trajectories, it looks like that you have contradicted
yourself.

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".


[... 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.

This one is extraordinary.
You claim that Bailey et al experiment showed that muons
lifetime doesn't depend on the acceleration.
It is said that one single experiment that falsifies GRT is
reason enough to discard a theory.

This does not "falsify GRT" at all!

You seem to be using a "sound bite" approach, and seem fixated on
"clocks running slow" (due to motion, or due to gravity). That's overly
naive.

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.
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.


Tom Roberts

"Prof Barnhart" escreveu na mensagem
. ..
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

Dear Mark, in the matter of Physics it looks like
we are twins.
Me too, I don't usually post here because I don't agree
with the present state of theoretical physics.
Yes, its is religious fanatacism.
I've been gone for Years too, not because of attacks,
since I can screw then all, but because I've loosed my
faith on Physics.

Here you cannot do the minimum irrelevant mistake.
If you write something that could leads to a mistake
you are in big trouble. The attack will be demolish,
perpetuated by tens of fanatic religious (a huge loud
speaker).

I used to post with my name. Last time, last Year,
I've been serious on a discussion about classic
mechanics, for instance.
Today I don't want to post with my name.
Last week I was the Phantom, this week I'm the
Enrrabadore-mor (the master of ass-****ing).
Next week I'll be gone (maybe Today, since
I don't see fit here).

My speciality are top/gyroscopes and circular
motion.
No clue on top/gyroscopes exist, believe me.

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message

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

"Greg Neill" escreveu na mensagem
m...

Can you expound upon the Q-factor of a resonant
circuit (or mechanical oscillator)?

Sure, the quality factor Q has no precise definition, but
basically is a measurement (or calculation) of the
sharpness of the oscillator.
Q = natural frequency / damping.

No, it has a very specific definition:

2*pi*(energy stored)/(energy dissipated) [per cycle]

That's from the EXTERNAL point of view.
Not the resonator INTERNAL point of view.

Nonsense. You know not of which you speak.



The smaller the damping the smaller the bandwidth
and larger the Q-factor will be (the larger the
sharpness of the oscillator).

"Larger the sharpness"? That's horrible, imprecise
word salad. Still, how do you reconcile your idea
that at resonance there is no energy loss to the fact
that resonant systems have a Q-factor?

Look at a mass-spring system without friction.

Ideal case (does not exist in the real world);
Infinite Q.

Friction is EXTERNAL to the system here,
as usual.

No, in the ideal case there is *no* friction.
In the real world all materials exhibit friction
upon flexure, no inductor is without some
non-inductive impedance whether resistive or
capacitive, or capacitive and inductive coupling
to its environment.


The mass-spring system oscillates at its natural
frequency forever, if no damping exists.
Damping is EXTERNAL.

Unadulterated crap. Show me a real-life material
of which a spring could be constructed that exhibits
no energy loss when flexed. Similarly, show me a
mass that doesn't at least radiate gravitational
waves as it oscillates as a spring-mass system!

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


The mass-spring system oscillates at its natural
frequency forever, if no damping exists.
Damping is EXTERNAL.

Unadulterated crap. Show me a real-life material
of which a spring could be constructed that exhibits
no energy loss when flexed. Similarly, show me a
mass that doesn't at least radiate gravitational
waves as it oscillates as a spring-mass system!

Fine.
All you've said is fine.

Congratulations, you've succeeded to deviate from
the main issue.

The main issue is about electromagnetic radiation,
based on Uncle Al post that starts the topic.

Now, tell me about electromagnetic radiation
damping factor, friction and so on?

Can you see how much out-of-topic you are?