Dynamic dimensions sue

That's my Aether.

TomGee wrote:
Way to go, Mike. Stick it in his face and shove it deep! No one
(except mebbe Bilge) deserves it more.


Way to go, tom, "shove it in deep" eh? You're getting excited and
letting more of yourself show than you realize, calm down and wipe your
screen off..

"Sue..." wrote in message
ps.com...
|
| 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.

Not exactly the railway lines and local environment are stationery relative
to the station but not the train.{:-)

Sig0

|
|
| 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...
|

Perspicacious:
There are subtleties in the twin paradox that can't be
avoided unless you're competent in high school algebra
and can follow carefully stated mathematical reasoning,
line by line. I only know of one paper that properly
resolves the "twin paradox." It is carefully detailed
and is written by a mathematician. Let me know if you
have any questions.

OK, were you born stupid or did you have to work at it?

"Sue..." wrote in message
ps.com...
|
| 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...

What? No Easter bunny? Now I'm gonna cwy... sob, sob.
Mum!!! Sue said there was no Easter bunny!

Androcles

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

True, but I have difficulty getting the pencil to go fast enough

sr


Sue...



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

Steve Ralph wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

True, but I have difficulty getting the pencil to go fast enough

sr


"Experience is a dear teacher but fools will have no other"
--Benjamin Franklin

Sue...
http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm



Sue...



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

Rage Bilge wrote:
Perspicacious:
There are subtleties in the twin paradox that can't be
avoided unless you're competent in high school algebra
and can follow carefully stated mathematical reasoning,
line by line. I only know of one paper that properly
resolves the "twin paradox." It is carefully detailed
and is written by a mathematician. Let me know if you
have any questions.

OK, were you born stupid or did you have to work at it?

I am simply a misunderstood genius trying to defend
misunderstood genius mathematicians.

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his.../Poincare.html
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

In sci.physics, TomGee

wrote
on 6 Aug 2005 22:42:20 -0700
. com:

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?


So did I. I've seen descriptions of the experiment but I have no data
here. AFAIK, though, the results are consistent with the Lorentz
timetwist -- but that's inadmissible in court since it's hearsay.

There are some other interesting anomalies, though; the LHC is
apparently sensitive enough to detect nearby maglev trains.
However, I don't remember precisely where I saw that.

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

"Sue..." wrote in message
ps.com...

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...

Whatever you do, Sue, please, I beg you, don't go near Sanat Claus!

James