TomGee wrote:
Sue, that was funny too.

Here is a better one.
Einstein made use of an artificial time axis to correct
a little oversight with Maxwell's equations:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node46.html
Weber wrote fully relativsitc field equations that didn't
require such a bandaid so is is clearly just one mathematical
approach vs. another.

So if some cosmologist wants to use Einstein's funny notion
of time to support a theory, then the rules of fairness
obligate him to fill the universe with little Maxwells
making little oversights. )

Sue...
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034

Sam Wormley wrote:
Perspicacious wrote:
Shubert's paper doesn't reproduce Einstein's
outdated and tortured way of reasoning.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf


I've asked Shubert to show us his derivation for time dilation for say
a GPS satellite with observed velocity of 3.9 km/s using both SR and
his theory, but he can't do it, because his "alternative" is just smoke
and dung. It has also been pointed out to Eugene that this theory is
contradicted by empirical results of observation and experiment, in that
No object can travel faster than the speed of light.

xxein: Let's see now. (accept the M and R as arbitrary). M =
4.43886008345489E-03 Meters. R = 6378170.00000000 Meters.

So you say that you measure the velocity of a circularly orbiting
satellite as 3.90000000000000 km/sec? According to GR, our timerate on
this surface is about .999999999304054:1. That makes its velocity (in
non-relative terms) as
3900.00000271419 m/s because our clocks are slow.

Its orbit radius is not 26229115.3174668 meters, but is
26229115.3052975 meters.

We can both calculate the timerate of the satellite with M and R and
compare that to our timerate. You can use GR with 3900 m/s and
26229115.3174668 meters of radius. I can use 3900.00000271419 m/s and
26229115.3052975 meters of radius. My method is (escape velocity^2 +
orbit velocity^2)^.5 gives a velocity (as in SR) to figure the time
dilation. Take my result and BIAS it with our surface timerate and you
get the exact same answer. (liberties to extend 3.9 km/sec et al to 15+
significant digits).

What we end up with is a physics entangled with (mathematical)
relationships instead of a straight-forward physics of objective logic.
It's not my fault - I'm not Einstein whom you chose to believe and
follow.

Do you ever think by yourself? Can you? Or do you have to be led by
other people's theories (opinions)?

In sci.physics, TomGee

wrote
on 6 Aug 2005 16:33:30 -0700
. com:
"Emprical idiot" UA, so the farther you go the less you age? How
stoooopid is that?


A variant of the Twin Paradox is extremely easy to
demonstrate if one has the following:

[1] A muon source.
[2] A storage ring.
[3] Appropriate detection equipment.


Briefly put, muons at rest don't last as long as muons
in motion (as observed by the guy in the long white coat,
anyway).

Admittedly, this experiment isn't quite the Twin Paradox,
as the muons die while moving, but it does show time
dialation. The only other thing I can think of is a
SLAC-like affair which has two accelerators connected
end-to-end. The muons enter the one accelerator, exit
it, then enter the other accelerator which functions as
a *decelerator*, then an accelerator again, firing the
muons back at the first accelerator, which decelerates
them again.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, TomGee

wrote
on 6 Aug 2005 16:33:30 -0700
. com:
"Emprical idiot" UA, so the farther you go the less you age? How
stoooopid is that?


A variant of the Twin Paradox is extremely easy to
demonstrate if one has the following:

[1] A muon source.
[2] A storage ring.
[3] Appropriate detection equipment.


Briefly put, muons at rest don't last as long as muons
in motion (as observed by the guy in the long white coat,
anyway).

The guy in the white coat is not a passive observer
he is moving a big Coulomb coupled laboratory wrt
the particle... which makes it one of the few legitimate
tests of relativity.


Admittedly, this experiment isn't quite the Twin Paradox,
as the muons die while moving, but it does show time
dialation.

....nor should it. Time tricks are un-necessary for
relativistic field equations. Weber produced them.

The only other thing I can think of is a
SLAC-like affair which has two accelerators connected
end-to-end. The muons enter the one accelerator, exit
it, then enter the other accelerator which functions as
a *decelerator*, then an accelerator again, firing the
muons back at the first accelerator, which decelerates
them again.

A paradox in physics is an error in math or logic.
Multi $$$ accelerators are not necessary to produce them.
All you need is pencil and paper.

Sue...



--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

The solution to the twin phenomenon is that
relativstic effects are not reciprocal.

Only the twin that is *moving through space*
relative to the one thats not will have its clock
slow down.

Its the moving through space that does it.
The one on earth has only a small motion
through space compared to the other.

No reciprocity of effect.

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, TomGee

wrote
on 6 Aug 2005 16:33:30 -0700
. com:
"Emprical idiot" UA, so the farther you go the less you age? How
stoooopid is that?


A variant of the Twin Paradox is extremely easy to
demonstrate if one has the following:

[1] A muon source.
[2] A storage ring.
[3] Appropriate detection equipment.


Briefly put, muons at rest don't last as long as muons
in motion (as observed by the guy in the long white coat,
anyway).

Admittedly, this experiment isn't quite the Twin Paradox,
as the muons die while moving, but it does show time
dialation.


I missed it: Where does it show the time dilation effect?

Nick, I hope you get help real soon.

Nick wrote:
The solution to the twin phenomenon is that
relativstic effects are not reciprocal.

If the train comes to the station then
the station comes to the train.


Only the twin that is *moving through space*
Not "space" as we know it Space time...
.... imaginary space.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node13.html
relative to the one thats not will have its clock
slow down.
The clock in space-time is not a measure of time.
It measures displacment on a non Euclidean axis.

Its the moving through space that does it.
It is not a physical effect.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node12.html
The one on earth has only a small motion
through space compared to the other.

No reciprocity of effect.
....And there is no Easter bunny either.

Sue...

Sue... wrote:
Nick wrote:
The solution to the twin phenomenon is that
relativstic effects are not reciprocal.

Sue:
If the train comes to the station then
the station comes to the train.
Mitch:
Nope. Only one is moving through space.
The station's movement is only relative
the train that's an absolute.

The situation aint equal sue...




Only the twin that is *moving through space*
Not "space" as we know it Space time...
... imaginary space.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node13.html
relative to the one thats not will have its clock
slow down.
The clock in space-time is not a measure of time.
It measures displacment on a non Euclidean axis.

Its the moving through space that does it.
It is not a physical effect.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node12.html
The one on earth has only a small motion
through space compared to the other.

No reciprocity of effect.
...And there is no Easter bunny either.

Sue...

wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Nick wrote:
The solution to the twin phenomenon is that
relativstic effects are not reciprocal.

Sue:
If the train comes to the station then
the station comes to the train.
Mitch:
Nope. Only one is moving through space.
The station's movement is only relative
the train that's an absolute.

The situation aint equal sue...

Enjoy your Cartesian ether.

Sue...





Only the twin that is *moving through space*
Not "space" as we know it Space time...
... imaginary space.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node13.html
relative to the one thats not will have its clock
slow down.
The clock in space-time is not a measure of time.
It measures displacment on a non Euclidean axis.

Its the moving through space that does it.
It is not a physical effect.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node12.html
The one on earth has only a small motion
through space compared to the other.

No reciprocity of effect.
...And there is no Easter bunny either.

Sue...