"Tom Roberts" escreveu na mensagem
...
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:

I guess I'm not alone.
The facts are that no one with good mental faculties
can find any logic in your contraditory trajectory claim.


Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.

How many books are wrong?


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".

That's my point.
If that's what experiment says why not take that as
a fact and discard GRT at once?


[... 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!

Saying it is not enough.
There's a huge evidence that GRT was falsified on
its most basic postulate: The Equivalence Principle.
Gravity = Acceleration


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.

The truth is that I don't know nothing about clocks
running fast or slow, like billions of people.


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.

Since the result was zero time dilatation, you've said that
the computed physical situation was the one that obtains
agreement.
How can I understand this? Does anyone understand?


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.

The model and mathematical means to treat a problem
requires some basic Physics, without random postulates.

The facts are that muons lifetime was directly related
with muons velocity on the "muon experiment" which
is a relativity flag:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ativ/muon.html
in agreement with your a).

Now, your b) says that "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.", obtains the same answer.

In the case of circular motion you got both applied
at the same time. That is, not only you have the velocity
factor involved on the muon lifetime, but also an ADDED
acceleration/gravity factor, that no one can dennie.

For straight motion you have zero acceleration
and a finite momentum.
In circular motion you have acceleration (a gravity
like field) and zero motion relative to the center of
rotation, assumed to be stopped. Nevertheless, the
muon is speeding close to c, relative to the LAB frame.

According to your point we can't have then both
at the same time.

My point is that, LOGIC, will say that since linear
motion and circular motion are different motions,
in the case of circular motion both effects (velocity
and acceleration) will cancel out and no time
dilatation will be seen on circular motion.
Prove: Sagnac.


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" escreveu na mensagem
...

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.

How can a time derivative be based on absolute time
and the time himself not being absolute time?



Tom Roberts

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message

"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?

Hey, *you're* the one who posted the nonsense,
"A system in resonance is a closed system that
exchanges no energy with surroundings. Energy
is conserved in resonance." I just pointed out
your misconceptions and errors.

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


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

Hey, *you're* the one who posted the nonsense,
"A system in resonance is a closed system that
exchanges no energy with surroundings. Energy
is conserved in resonance." I just pointed out
your misconceptions and errors.

Obviously you must agree that for a case of
electromagnetic radiation I'm right.
So, why not blame Gisse for the cause of the
nonsense?
When one refuses to address the topic:
"Time dilatation in circular motion"
the nonsense becomes inevitable.

I won't reply out-of-topic again on this
nonsense resonance branch.

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

"Ken S. Tucker" escreveu na mensagem
...
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.
Quantum Theory is a very strange approach
and looks like a magic box where everything is
possible.
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?).

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.

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)?

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

"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.

If and when a child is born into this mixed up world that is capable of
taking the mathematics of Lorentz, Maxwell, and Einstein to a new level, I
hope that there will be enough open-minded and rational people to surround
him or her and shield from the assaults by those who seek to destroy for
pleasure.

Such a person would not be able to fight about non-sense. It is my
understanding that Einstein entered space/time theory through the equations
of Lorentz and Maxwell. He then sought to apply the results conceptually.
He did an impeccable job and dutifully indicated that he didn't know how to
interpret certain relationships.

To progress further requires conceptualization, not about more transient
particles, but about the true electromagnetic nature of reality.

Mankind is locked out of advancement because of the assault squad that knows
no real achievement. They don't understand that confounding someone's words
is not the same thing as proving them wrong.

As I understand the situation, Einstein's wife was equally if not more
responsible for his achievements.

Time Will Tell, Mark

On May 4, 10:07*am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Greg Neill" escreveu na sting.com..."El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message



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

Hey, *you're* the one who posted the nonsense,
"A system in resonance is a closed system that
exchanges no energy with surroundings. Energy
is conserved in resonance." *I just pointed out
your misconceptions and errors.

Obviously you must agree that for a case of
electromagnetic radiation I'm right.

Why?

Microwave ovens have a nonunity Q factor.

So, why not blame Gisse for the cause of the
nonsense?

Or go to straight to the source - blame yourself for not knowing what
you are talking about while saying things that are clearly wrong and/
or stupid.

When one refuses to address the topic:
"Time dilatation in circular motion"
the nonsense becomes inevitable.

When one tries to discuss physics with an idiot, nonsense becomes
inevitable. It isn't our fault you don't know what the hell you are
talking about.


I won't reply out-of-topic again on this
nonsense resonance branch.

Bet you will!

On May 4, 2:32*am, "Prof Barnhart" wrote:
I don't usually post here because I don't agree with the present state of
theoretical physics.

Idiot alert.

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

/Creationist/ idiot alert. This'll be fun!


"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.

Does that mean a prism is a form of electromagnetism?

[snip remaining stupidity]

I have to ask...professor of WHAT?

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message


[aka "Phantom"?]

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

Huh? The time derivative of angular momentum is torque.
Remember T = dL/dt? Just because the units of Torque
can be equated to Joules does not mean that it is
appropriate to interpret them in such a way. Rotational
kinetic energy is still given by (1/2)*I*w^2, the analog
of the linear (1/2)*m*v^2. I'm surprised that you would
attempt to perpetrate such a flimsy subterfuge.

Also remember that kinetic energy is frame dependent,
even for Newtonian physics, so time dilation poses no
conceptual problems for energy in this regard.

You'll no doubt be even more disturbed to learn that
General Relativity essentially discards nonlocal
conservation of energy.