"Darwin123" escreveu na mensagem
...
On May 4, 2:07 pm, "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.
Not really. There is no such thing as resonance in a system
comprised of electromagnetic radiation only. By being in resonance we
are referring to the frequency of the elecromagnetic radiation
matching a resonance frequency in a bound system comprised of electric
charges. There is some type of displacement associated with the
electric charges.

Do you mean the electric field of electromagnetic radiation
is made of charges, or are there any sensor (coil) to be "induced"
by the radiation magnetic field?


No, we you solve the equation for displacement of the bound
system being acted upon by the electromagnetic radiation, the solution
has at least two components: a transient component and an
"equilibrium" component. In the theory of differential equations, the
transient component is called the homogenous solution and the
equilibrium component is called the inhomogenous component.
The exact strength and phase of the transient component vary on
the initial conditions on the displacement. The equilibrium solution
does not vary with initial conditions. Generally, if the displacement
starts at zero, the transient part dies away after a short time. Hence
it is often called the transient solution. The equilibrium component
never dies away.
I believe that you are referring to the equilibrium solution
when you say that "the system exchanges no energy with its
surroundings." The system usually refers to the bound system of
charges, which has a Q-factor. The transient part of course does
exchange energy with its surroundings. Otherwise it would never die
away. However, the equilibrium part is constant.
I think what you are ignoring is that the transient solution and
the equilibrium solution can cancel each other out when t=0. What
appears to be a build up of energy can also be described as the
transient part dying away. It took a second or two for that beer
bottle of yours to accumulate enough heat to melt, right? It also took
a few seconds for the energy of the microwaves to build up from the
oscillator in the microwave oven. You can't say that a system in
resonance doesn't exchange energy with its environment. In fact, your
example would seem to indicate the opposite of your conclusions. Your
microwave was plugged in, right? The socket supplied the power.

Ahhh. You must ask to Eric Gisse about the microwave.
Damn, I'm lost so far.


The bound system is partly characterized by what is called the Q-
factor. As Q increases, the time it takes for the transient component
to die increases. As Q increases, the amplitude of the equilibrium
part increases.
The time it takes takes for the transient solution die away
increases with the Q factor, The amplitude of the equilibrium solution
increases.
Some of your comments lead me to believe that you are trying to
develop a perpetual motion machine.

A perpetual motion machine?


If I misunderstood, then I
apologize. If I do understand you, then I have criticize your
presentation. Melting beer bottles in microwaves does not demonstrate
the creation of energy, or even the destruction of entropy.

It is Eric Gisse that melts beer bottles in microwaves, not me.


It
demonstrates the exchange of energy between an oscillator in the
microwave, the electromagnetic field in the microwave, and the
electric charges in your beer bottle. I recommend some other analogy.
I don't mean burning ants with the sun and a magnifying lens. Although
similar in some of the physics, it doesn't create energy either.

You said:
"There is no such thing as resonance in a system comprised of
electromagnetic radiation only."
That's what I thought in first place, but since Uncle Al come up
with that idea and Eric Gisse followed, I was afraid to say so.
Therefore, I've said that, for zero damping, energy is
conserved for a system in resonance.

On May 11, 7:57 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Darwin123" escreveu na ...



On May 4, 2:07 pm, "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.
Not really. There is no such thing as resonance in a system
comprised of electromagnetic radiation only. By being in resonance we
are referring to the frequency of the elecromagnetic radiation
matching a resonance frequency in a bound system comprised of electric
charges. There is some type of displacement associated with the
electric charges.

Do you mean the electric field of electromagnetic radiation
is made of charges, or are there any sensor (coil) to be "induced"
by the radiation magnetic field?
The resonance exists between a system of electric charges and
the electromagentic field. For instance, consider an antennae attached
to a coil of wire. The antenae is designed to collect energy from the
electormagnetic field. The antennae and coil system has a resonance
frequency mostly determined by the length of the antennae, and a Q
factor mostly determined by the impedances in the coil.The antennae
and coil are comprised of atoms, which are themselves comprised of
nucleii and electrons. The nucleii are positively charged, the
electrons are negatively charged. Thus, the antennae and coil are not
considered as having been made out of photons. They are a system made
of electrically charged particles.
The term resonance refers to the coincidence in value between the
resonance frequency of the electric charges (antenaae and coil) and
the frequency of the electromagnetic field (let us say the frequency
of part of the electromagnetic field).
I was not at all referring to the electromagnetic field being
comprised of electric charges. I was merely referring to the Maxwell
equation - classical particle model of an antennae.
Your statement was that, "A system in resonance is a closed
system that exchanges no energy with surroundings. Energy is conserved
in resonance." It obviously makes no sense in terms of an antennae,
since by definition the antennae exchanges energy with the
electromagnetic field.
Your statement that "obviously you must agree that for a case o
electromagnetic radiation I'm right." has even less meaning. It sounds
like you are referring to electromagnetic field with no antennae.
There is no resonance without an antennae or something like an
antennae. Resonance is a relationship BETWEEN a system of electric
charges (e.g., antennae) and a background of electromagnetic radiation
(e.g., radio wave radiation).
A less patient person (or me in a less mellow mood) could take
your statements as displaying minimum comprehension and maximum
hostility. Some of your comments about the Euler equations seem to
make a little bit of sense to me, but when you start talking about the
electromagnetic field you seem to lose it.



Ahhh. You must ask to Eric Gisse about the microwave.
Damn, I'm lost so far.
Then you never solved a differential equation for a forced
harmonic oscillator. That is all the word "resonance" refers to. A
system that is like a forced harmonic oscillator. All the other stuff
you are referring to can be interpreted as a type of mysticism, not
science. The two solutions come out of the analysis of any system
that is analogous to a forced harmonic oscillator. The microwave
cavity, as most physicists and engineers see it, is a forced harmonic
oscillator.
The bound system is partly characterized by what is called the Q-
factor. As Q increases, the time it takes for the transient component
to die increases. As Q increases, the amplitude of the equilibrium
part increases.
The time it takes takes for the transient solution die away
increases with the Q factor, The amplitude of the equilibrium solution
increases.
Some of your comments lead me to believe that you are trying to
develop a perpetual motion machine.

A perpetual motion machine?

If I misunderstood, then I
apologize. If I do understand you, then I have criticize your
presentation. Melting beer bottles in microwaves does not demonstrate
the creation of energy, or even the destruction of entropy.

It is Eric Gisse that melts beer bottles in microwaves, not me.
Oh, sorry, that makes more sense. Yes, energy is exchanged
between the microwaves and the bottle. That is how the bottle got
melted. This is a resonant system. How can you claim that there is no
energy exchanged in a resonance? The bottle melted, so obviously
energy was exchanged. The bottle is acting like an antennae. The
bottle contains electric charges (even if it is an insulator). So how
can this system NOT exchange energy, even if it is "in resonance."



You said:
"There is no such thing as resonance in a system comprised of
electromagnetic radiation only."
That's what I thought in first place, but since Uncle Al come up
with that idea and Eric Gisse followed, I was afraid to say so.
Then what you came up with is much worse.
A system of electric charges that is in resonance with an
electromagnetic field CAN exchange energy with the electromagnetic
field. You said originally the system CAN'T exchange energy with an
electromagnetic field.
Therefore, I've said that, for zero damping, energy is
conserved for a system in resonance.
OOOOOYYYYY!!!!!!!
A system (of electric charges always) in resonance with a
component of the electromagnetic field CANNOT ever come to equilibrium
with an electromagnetic field UNLESS there is nonzero damping. In the
hypothetical case that that antennae and coil have zero impedance, and
they are bombarded with EM radiation at their resonant frequency, they
will keep on absorbing energy with no limit until they reach whatever
energy level will make the system come apart. Without damping, the
resonant system ALWAYS takes or gives energy to the electromagnetic
field. There is never a balance between taking and giving energy in
the case of zero damping.
Your statement says quite the opposite. I am at this moment in
full sympathy with Eric Gisse. No wonder he yells at you.
It sounds like you are confusing the words "resonance" with
"balance." A resonant system is not a balanced system.If an opera
singer hits a high note, and a wine glass breaks, it is not because
the wine glass system is in balance with the acoustic field. The wine
glass system is in resonance with the acoustic field.
In the case of his beer bottle system, it kept on taking energy
from the electromagnetic radiation until it melted. It came apart. It
never reached a balance until it was destroyed. I suspect the melted
bottle was still absorbing energy after it melted. Without damping,
the system is always pulling energy from the field (or pushing it, in
the time reversed situation).

"Darwin123" escreveu na mensagem
...
On May 11, 7:57 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Darwin123" escreveu na
...



On May 4, 2:07 pm, "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.
Not really. There is no such thing as resonance in a system
comprised of electromagnetic radiation only. By being in resonance we
are referring to the frequency of the elecromagnetic radiation
matching a resonance frequency in a bound system comprised of electric
charges. There is some type of displacement associated with the
electric charges.

Do you mean the electric field of electromagnetic radiation
is made of charges, or are there any sensor (coil) to be "induced"
by the radiation magnetic field?
The resonance exists between a system of electric charges and
the electromagentic field. For instance, consider an antennae attached
to a coil of wire. The antenae is designed to collect energy from the
electormagnetic field. The antennae and coil system has a resonance
frequency mostly determined by the length of the antennae, and a Q
factor mostly determined by the impedances in the coil.The antennae
and coil are comprised of atoms, which are themselves comprised of
nucleii and electrons. The nucleii are positively charged, the
electrons are negatively charged. Thus, the antennae and coil are not
considered as having been made out of photons. They are a system made
of electrically charged particles.
The term resonance refers to the coincidence in value between the
resonance frequency of the electric charges (antenaae and coil) and
the frequency of the electromagnetic field (let us say the frequency
of part of the electromagnetic field).
I was not at all referring to the electromagnetic field being
comprised of electric charges. I was merely referring to the Maxwell
equation - classical particle model of an antennae.
Your statement was that, "A system in resonance is a closed
system that exchanges no energy with surroundings. Energy is conserved
in resonance." It obviously makes no sense in terms of an antennae,
since by definition the antennae exchanges energy with the
electromagnetic field.

All you've said sounds perfect, but I still say the same for zero
damping.
A system with zero damping (an ideal system) has no dissipative
forces and, therefore energy is conserved.


Your statement that "obviously you must agree that for a case o
electromagnetic radiation I'm right." has even less meaning. It sounds
like you are referring to electromagnetic field with no antennae.

Of course it is with no antennae, coil, whatever.
No dissipation, was what I had in mind and still have in mind.


There is no resonance without an antennae or something like an
antennae. Resonance is a relationship BETWEEN a system of electric
charges (e.g., antennae) and a background of electromagnetic radiation
(e.g., radio wave radiation).

I knew it all the time.


A less patient person (or me in a less mellow mood) could take
your statements as displaying minimum comprehension and maximum
hostility. Some of your comments about the Euler equations seem to
make a little bit of sense to me, but when you start talking about the
electromagnetic field you seem to lose it.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the electromagnetic field, but
I believe I do know enough to discuss it above the average.

What's strange is that I haven't discussed it so far. The last time
I did it was time ago, say 1/2 Year maybe.

Look, I was suppose to reply Uncle AL about the following,
which came from nowhere and sounds exactly like this (about
time dilation and circular motion):
QUOTE:
The experiment was done with Mossbauer spectroscopy in an
ultracentrifuge, rim to hub. READ IT.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v129/i6/p2371_1

Fe-57 14.4-keV Mossbauer absorption line traversing an ultracentrifuge
rotor was measured versus angular velocity omega. Fe-57 absorber
placed at 9.3 cm radius. Co-57 source mounted on a hub piezoelectric
transducer. Triangular voltage wave was applied to the transducer to
move source relative to absorber. The entire resonance line was
observed at various omega values. Measured transverse Doppler shift
agreed within 1.1% experimental error with relativity predictions.
END QUOTE.

All I have is the above abstract which leads no where.
Read it where? Can't read the paper. I don't have a clue
on what Uncle Al said, as everybody else, since that's
exactly the point.

Now, put yourself in my place, what would you say?

I've said:
QUOTE:
Do you pretend to measure resonance lines too?
Any frequency that is a multiple of the natural frequency will
cause resonance. So the 46 Years old experiment can only
be horse dung.
BTW, what's relativity prediction?
END QUOTE

Notice my comment about resonance on electromagnetism.
How can I have resonance between electromagnetic waves
was my thought? Electromagnetic waves don't interfere one
to each other (more or less like you said too).
Next, some beer bottles melted in the microwave...because
of Uncles Al post, so...should I sing or dance?

I cannot understand why you pretend to disagree with me
on that matter, but...





Ahhh. You must ask to Eric Gisse about the microwave.
Damn, I'm lost so far.
Then you never solved a differential equation for a forced
harmonic oscillator. That is all the word "resonance" refers to.

Actually I did, and I do solve them very carefully.
What I cannot understand is what does the fact that Eric Gisse
melts beer bottles in microwaves has to do with my skills to
solve, or not, a differential equation for a forced harmonic oscillator.

Nobody ever talked about "forced" and "damping".

Without external forces and zero internal damping energy is
conserved. All I see is an ideal mass-spring system that swings
forever... and energy is conserved.


A
system that is like a forced harmonic oscillator. All the other stuff
you are referring to can be interpreted as a type of mysticism, not
science. The two solutions come out of the analysis of any system
that is analogous to a forced harmonic oscillator. The microwave
cavity, as most physicists and engineers see it, is a forced harmonic
oscillator.

The Sun-Earth system also is a forced harmonic oscillator.


The bound system is partly characterized by what is called the Q-
factor. As Q increases, the time it takes for the transient component
to die increases. As Q increases, the amplitude of the equilibrium
part increases.
The time it takes takes for the transient solution die away
increases with the Q factor, The amplitude of the equilibrium solution
increases.
Some of your comments lead me to believe that you are trying to
develop a perpetual motion machine.

A perpetual motion machine?

If I misunderstood, then I
apologize. If I do understand you, then I have criticize your
presentation. Melting beer bottles in microwaves does not demonstrate
the creation of energy, or even the destruction of entropy.

It is Eric Gisse that melts beer bottles in microwaves, not me.
Oh, sorry, that makes more sense. Yes, energy is exchanged
between the microwaves and the bottle. That is how the bottle got
melted. This is a resonant system. How can you claim that there is no
energy exchanged in a resonance? The bottle melted, so obviously
energy was exchanged. The bottle is acting like an antennae. The
bottle contains electric charges (even if it is an insulator). So how
can this system NOT exchange energy, even if it is "in resonance."

Well, I didn't say anything like that.
Discussions with Eric Gisse are always a mess, because he never
focus on the subject and keeps saying things like "melting beer
bottles" on a discussion about circular motion and time dilation.





You said:
"There is no such thing as resonance in a system comprised of
electromagnetic radiation only."
That's what I thought in first place, but since Uncle Al come up
with that idea and Eric Gisse followed, I was afraid to say so.
Then what you came up with is much worse.
A system of electric charges that is in resonance with an
electromagnetic field CAN exchange energy with the electromagnetic
field. You said originally the system CAN'T exchange energy with an
electromagnetic field.
Therefore, I've said that, for zero damping, energy is
conserved for a system in resonance.
OOOOOYYYYY!!!!!!!

What's the buzz?
Yes, for zero damping, energy is conserved for a system in resonance.
I'm not assuming external forces too, because there are none on
the main topic I was discussing "Time dilation in circular motion".
Ahhhh, I get the point, by resonance you assume that external
forces must exist. Yes, you right.
Look, What really troubles me is a mass-spring system that
must oscillate at its natural frequency w0=sqrt(k/m). The external
source are Ocean waves, which have some constant frequency,
but are not that regular. This is a key point on wave energy conversion
and I always see the mass-spring system decoupled (k-mw^2=0)
from the power extraction system: Force term = damping term.
Therefore, to me, a mass-spring system once oscillating will
oscillate forever at the resonance frequency. I've wrongly
called that system in resonance, because by "resonance" you
mean that an external force must exist. Sorry.
To me, a system oscillates at its natural frequency which is
also its main resonance frequency. Double, triple and so on
also causes resonance of the system. That's how industrial
machinery vibration spectrum analysis work (a field where
I'm an expert, wrote a small book, and so on).


A system (of electric charges always) in resonance with a
component of the electromagnetic field CANNOT ever come to equilibrium
with an electromagnetic field UNLESS there is nonzero damping.

Who said anything about equilibrium?
Without dissipative force the system ever come to equilibrium.
You need to introduce a nonzero damping to get a Q factor.

Look, Q = w0 / gamma = sharpness of oscillator
gamma - damping factor
w0 - natural frequency of the system - sqrt(k/m) for instance.
(Don't need an external force to define the Q factor).


In the
hypothetical case that that antennae and coil have zero impedance, and
they are bombarded with EM radiation at their resonant frequency, they
will keep on absorbing energy with no limit until they reach whatever
energy level will make the system come apart. Without damping, the
resonant system ALWAYS takes or gives energy to the electromagnetic
field. There is never a balance between taking and giving energy in
the case of zero damping.

I don't agree.
I give you an antenna with zero damping.
A 2 meter copper wire suspended by a plastic string with
infinite resistance, inductance and capacitance. That is, a
perfect ideal insulator and a wire, only.
Those 2 meters of wire will receive billions of billions of
electromagnetic waves and won't explode, nor do anything else.

How can a system absorb energy if it has zero damping?
(in electromagnetism only).
Can you increase the energy content of an already existent
electromagnetic wave? You cannot, simply because electromagnetic
waves never, ever, interfere one to each other.

Electromagnetic waves don't obey the Maximum Power
Transfer Theorem (Yep,...this is a good one).


Your statement says quite the opposite. I am at this moment in
full sympathy with Eric Gisse. No wonder he yells at you.

Ahhh, I see.
You trying to clean up... ...never mind.


It sounds like you are confusing the words "resonance" with
"balance." A resonant system is not a balanced system.If an opera
singer hits a high note, and a wine glass breaks, it is not because
the wine glass system is in balance with the acoustic field. The wine
glass system is in resonance with the acoustic field.
In the case of his beer bottle system, it kept on taking energy
from the electromagnetic radiation until it melted. It came apart. It
never reached a balance until it was destroyed. I suspect the melted
bottle was still absorbing energy after it melted. Without damping,
the system is always pulling energy from the field (or pushing it, in
the time reversed situation).

I'm not confusing anything.

What confuses me, so far, is the reason why you've written several
lines of text about a subject which I was not discussing, pretending
to be correcting me about something that I never discussed.

Do you want to talk about complex conjugate control? which is a
special case of resonance under forced oscillation.
Want to talk about the Maximum Power Transfer Theorem?
I've an interest on those subjects.
If you feel like having enough background to keep the discussion
on a good level, I'm sure we can learn some news from each other,
about power transfer, wave energy power transfer, and so on.
Besides that, power transfer was what you've been talking all
the time so far.

On May 13, 10:20 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Darwin123" escreveu na ...



On May 11, 7:57 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Darwin123" escreveu na
...

On May 4, 2:07 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Greg Neill" escreveu na
sting.com..."El
Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message




Look, I was suppose to reply Uncle AL about the following,
which came from nowhere and sounds exactly like this (about
time dilation and circular motion):
QUOTE:
The experiment was done with Mossbauer spectroscopy in an
ultracentrifuge, rim to hub. READ IT.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v129/i6/p2371_1

Fe-57 14.4-keV Mossbauer absorption line traversing an ultracentrifuge
rotor was measured versus angular velocity omega. Fe-57 absorber
placed at 9.3 cm radius. Co-57 source mounted on a hub piezoelectric
transducer. Triangular voltage wave was applied to the transducer to
move source relative to absorber. The entire resonance line was
observed at various omega values. Measured transverse Doppler shift
agreed within 1.1% experimental error with relativity predictions.
END QUOTE.
The abstract alone, even without any details the article may
provide, addresses some of your questions. It describes an experiment
concerning real systems (atoms) in resonance with real electromagnetic
radiation (the gamma rays). The systems (the atoms) are accelerated,
and are not in inertial frames. There is no "gravitational potential"
except what is simulated by the radial acceleration. The results are
consistent with what the authors perceive of as special relativity.
This article explains exactly what these experimenters think the
"time" in SR means. Being experimenters, they are not likely to stick
to abstract concepts of "space-time continuum" that no one but
Minkowski could understand. They will explain what they know about
relativity on a technicians level. Therefore, before you insult any
other scientist, I suggest you read this article. Let me also
recommend a few articles by Hefele on the Hefele-Keating experiment.
You need a few experimentalist descriptions of special relativity.
Now, you may think the authors don't know a thing about special
relativity. For this, you have to read the article and see how they
did their calculations and experiments. However, be warned. What these
authors think of as special relativity is probably pretty close to
what most physicists think is special relativity. If you claim they
used the Lorentz transformation wrong, then someone out there will
claim it is you who misunderstood the Lorentz transformation. I
suspect they also know a thing or two about forced harmonic
oscillators.

All I have is the above abstract which leads no where.
Read it where? Can't read the paper. I don't have a clue
on what Uncle Al said, as everybody else, since that's
exactly the point.
Above the abstract is a Buy This Article. For $20.00, you can
download a copy of the article. Get your credit card out, or debit
card (which is much safer) and buy that article. You will get your own
electronic copy of the file, in Adobe Acrobat format (pdf file) which
you can print on paper or read directly off the screen. I will not buy
it for you, and Uncle Al probably won't either.
If you don't want to pay the money, and have the time, I would
recommend a visit to the closest college or university library where
copies of that journal may be available for reference. I have always
been fortunate enough to live near a large university. The university
library often allows nonstudents to use their reference stacks. You
can buy the article for $0.05 per page. This is probably cheaper than
the download, but takes a bit more time. However, you may find paper
hardcopy has its advantages.
You have the abstract. The thing is, the abstract doesn't present
as much detail as the article. In the article, the authors may reveal
how they solved the very details that you find troubling. For example,
they may show you how acceleration enters special relativity. And not
in terms of "space-time curvature," I mean in real nut/bolt terms.
I have bought a lot of articles (more than $1000) for research
that I am doing at home on fish. I feel it is worth it even if I am
not sure the information in the article is useful. Often, I find
someone has already solved the problem I want to solve. If not, I have
evidence that the scientific community really is as backwards as I
want to believe. In any case, a little commitment of time or money
would make your bad-mouthing of scientists more convincing. Right now,
you don't sound like you know enough about relativity to even be
wrong, let alone right.


Now, put yourself in my place, what would you say?

I've said:
QUOTE:
Do you pretend to measure resonance lines too?
Any frequency that is a multiple of the natural frequency will
cause resonance.
That is not exactly true. You are talking here about nonlinear
effects. These are gamma ray lines. Trust me, there was no source of
gamma rays that are exactly integral multiples of the natural
frequency of those lines.
So the 46 Years old experiment can only
be horse dung.
There were no sources of gamma rays at integral multiples of the
natural frequency 46 years ago either. Not even in horse dung.
BTW, what's relativity prediction?
You plug some experimental parameters into an equation, and
calculate some theoretical values. The theoretical values are
predictions. You then do a new experiment and measure experimental
values to compare with the theoretical values.
If the theory you use is relativity, the theoretical values are
relativity predictions. Doh! I deserve at least three Nobel prizes for
this correlation.



Notice my comment about resonance on electromagnetism.
How can I have resonance between electromagnetic waves
was my thought? Electromagnetic waves don't interfere one
to each other (more or less like you said too).
Next, some beer bottles melted in the microwave...because
of Uncles Al post, so...should I sing or dance?
How about think?

Actually I did, and I do solve them very carefully.
What I cannot understand is what does the fact that Eric Gisse
melts beer bottles in microwaves has to do with my skills to
solve, or not, a differential equation for a forced harmonic oscillator.
How is energy being conserved in the beer bottles? Think...

Nobody ever talked about "forced" and "damping".

Without external forces and zero internal damping energy is
conserved.
But energy can be concentrated. The energy density changes. There
is a limit in real materials as to how much energy density the
material will support. So the system can't be static.
Energy is always conserved, with or without resonance. However,
without damping, the energy density will never reach an upper bound
until the system breaks. Your energy being conserved is a general
statement that is always true. Your implication that the energy
density is constant without damping is always false.
Yes, I know you never said "energy density." In any case, the
amplitude can't be constant. It will increase until the system is no
longer in resonance. In some cases, the system melts. Then the
resonance stops.
The amplitude can not be conserved. Is that better?

All I see is an ideal mass-spring system that swings
forever... and energy is conserved.
Without damping, the ideal mass-spring system won't merely swing
forever. The amplitude gets bigger and bigger with time. There is no
upper bound to the amplitude of the ideal system without damping. The
amplitude increases to the point where the "ideal mass-spring system"
stops being ideal.


The Sun-Earth system also is a forced harmonic oscillator.
No its not. It is a free harmonic oscillator. If there was no
other planets, then there would not be a resonance.
I don't think you were thinking about other planets, so don't drag
them in now. There are resonances between objects in the solar system.
However, there is no resonance in the sun-earth system. The sun-earth
system is a harmonic oscillator. With no other objects around, there
can be no resonance.
Suppose we did have a resonance in the solar system. Suppose
there was another planet (planet R), the size of Jupiter, that was
exactly the same distance from the sun as the earth. It had exactly
the same period as the earth, but had an orbit at right angles to the
orbit of the earth. Then there would be a resonance between the earth
sun system and the R - sun system. Planet R would pull at the earth,
and boost its orbit larger and larger. At some point, the earth would
be so far from the sun that its period would be much longer. And then,
there goes the resonance.
What exactly was conserved? It wasn't the resonance. Energy was
conserved. Energy went from planet R to earth. However, the amplitude
increased.
The real problem: Saying the earth-sun system is at resonance
doesn't really mean anything. Saying energy is conserved doesn't mean
anything. In fact, if one system is at resonance with another, energy
will pass from one system to the other. Energy is NOT conserved in the
individual system.
I am getting tired. I don't think I will stick to this topic much
longer. Just let me point out the fallacy in your analogy, and I'll
stop.
One can't talk about the earth-sun system "being at resonance"
without mentioning what the other system is that it is "in resonance"
with. Equating "resonance" with "conservation of energy" isn't helpful
either, since any conservative force has to conserve energy. You are
starting to sound scientifically illiterate. You may be scientifically
literate, but you are not showing it with garbled language.
Boy, I have to melt a beer bottle now.


Well, I didn't say anything like that.
Discussions with Eric Gisse are always a mess, because he never
focus on the subject and keeps saying things like "melting beer
bottles" on a discussion about circular motion and time dilation.
Because you keep saying things like "a system at resonance
conserves energy." Every time you say that, he is going to melt a beer
bottle. The ones I will mail him.

On May 3, 1:13*pm, wrote:
On May 3, 11:52*am, "Androcles" wrote:





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

"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.
|
| 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.

Install an atomic clock at Ross Island, McMurdo Sound.
Antarctica's largest science base, the United States' McMurdo Station, as
well as New Zealand’s Scott Base are located on the island’s south shore.

"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly,
by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of
the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
Ref: *http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

But centrifigul force cancels gravity weight at the equator.

You weigh less.





I haven't heard anyone screaming about how Einstein was proved right and it
would be quite easy to do.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No length contraction.
No flat atoms.
No flat universe.

Mitch Raemsch

"bz" escreveu na mensagem
98.139...
"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in
:


All I have is the above abstract which leads no where.
Read it where? Can't read the paper. I don't have a clue
on what Uncle Al said, as everybody else, since that's
exactly the point.

I will e-mail you a copy.
e-mail me at bz plus nanae at chem dot lsu dot edu

Many thanks, but I don't have nor time nor enough
interest to read it.

I was just looking for someone that could make any sense
explaining how relativity deals with the most common
problems of all - rotations.

Rotations might sound something irrelevant to most of
the readers, nevertheless no one, ever, had pointed me
a celestial body which is not rotating and orbiting.

Besides that, gyroscopes are still unexplained.
Gravity and inertia are still the major source of speculation.

Lost my faith on physics. It become a religion.
Once more, I've just take some time to show how
pathetic physicists are about rotations.
Physics rely on Euler's equations which fail on spheres,
the shape of all celestial bodies (proven in this thread).
Besides that, since nobody had said or pointed
anything relevant on what really matters to me, which
are "Gyroscopes and Waves Power Transfer", I'm going
back to my painful work deluded about physics and
it's inability to explain by equations the most basic
of all - "The Wheel Invention".

Regards.
(I won't even take time to reply Darwin123)

"bz" escreveu na mensagem
98.139...
"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in
:


All I have is the above abstract which leads no where.
Read it where? Can't read the paper. I don't have a clue
on what Uncle Al said, as everybody else, since that's
exactly the point.

I will e-mail you a copy.
e-mail me at bz plus nanae at chem dot lsu dot edu

Many thanks, but I don't have nor time nor enough
interest to read it.

I was just looking for someone that could make any sense
explaining how relativity deals with the most common
problems of all - rotations.

Rotations might sound something irrelevant to most of
the readers, nevertheless no one, ever, had pointed me
a celestial body which is not rotating and orbiting.

Besides that, gyroscopes are still unexplained.
Gravity and inertia are still the major source of speculation.

Lost my faith on physics. It become a religion.
Once more, I've just take some time to show how
pathetic physicists are about rotations.
Physics rely on Euler's equations which fail on spheres,
the shape of all celestial bodies (proven in this thread).
Besides that, since nobody had said or pointed
anything relevant on what really matters to me, which
are "Gyroscopes and Waves Power Transfer", I'm going
back to my painful work deluded about physics and
it's inability to explain by equations the most basic
of all - "The Wheel Invention".

Regards.
(I won't even take time to reply Darwin123)

On May 15, 9:39 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"bz" escreveu na mensagemnews:Xns9A9E5F878EB4AWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@ 130.39.198.139...

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in
:

All I have is the above abstract which leads no where.
Read it where? Can't read the paper. I don't have a clue
on what Uncle Al said, as everybody else, since that's
exactly the point.

I will e-mail you a copy.
e-mail me at bz plus nanae at chem dot lsu dot edu

Many thanks, but I don't have nor time nor enough
interest to read it.
The abstract tells you what it is about. The article is on an
experiment involving rotation that the authors claim proves special
relativity.

I was just looking for someone that could make any sense
explaining how relativity deals with the most common
problems of all - rotations.
Yet, you don't have the time or the interest in reading about an
experiment where the investigators have claimed to prove relativity
with rotation.

Rotations might sound something irrelevant to most of
the readers,
Except for the articles of authors of that article you don't
want to read. These authors seem to feel rotations are very important.
Also look up the Hefele-Keating experiment. The clocks in this
experiment are subjected to rotation around the center of the earth.

nevertheless no one, ever, had pointed me
a celestial body which is not rotating and orbiting.
How is that relevant? Rotation is anlyzed in just about every
physics course I have taken. Einstein describes rotating systems in
his articles. Why are you ignoring all that research?

Besides that, gyroscopes are still unexplained.
Gravity and inertia are still the major source of speculation.
Nonsense. The problem is that you don't have the background or the
interest to look up the relevant articles.
Regards.
(I won't even take time to reply Darwin123)
Thank you!

"Darwin123" escreveu na mensagem
...
On May 15, 9:39 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:

(I won't even take time to reply Darwin123)
Thank you!

You welcome.
I've already read enough about relativity to see that it
can't lead nowhere, with something that could make
any sense, or have any use that could be good to me.
Besides that, I've collected tens of arguments against.

Since you've presented yourself as a master on physics,
perhaps you should want to take some time to
lecture about what nobody else have so far explained
successfully.
Namely:
- Pioneer issue in this thread.
- The gyroscopes issue (you gone).
- New thread I've started Today:
"Calculation of Earth's precession"
- The thread from 11-5-2008 called:
"A simpler question about rotating frames" started
by your friend Dono.
- And the topic: "Time dilation in circular motion".
What's relativity prediction? Equation?

Once I learn your kind of music I will dance accordingly.