Re: New impoved facts part 1v02

From: Sue... (suzysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 03/29/05 

Date: 29 Mar 2005 05:25:50 -0800

"Dr ***" <paulpsremove@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:1112082624.32462.0@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net...
>
> "jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3argoeF6c4c07U1@individual.net...
> |
> | "Dr ***" <paulpsremove@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:1112048541.13959.0@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
> | >
> | > "jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> | > news:3arav9F65pqobU1@individual.net...
> | > |
> | > | "Dr ***" <paulpsremove@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> | > news:1112041655.16840.2@lotis.uk.clara.net...
> | > | >
> | > | [snip /n]
> | > | >
> | > | > THe zero ring experiment ?
> | > |
> | > | No
> | > | http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muonex.html
> | > | Ya mean :
> | > | http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/research/theory/jfachapter.ps.gz
> | > | ?
> | > | I'm not likely to reload my ghostscript reader for something
> | > | that gets only one google hit. Is it really earth shaking ?
> | >
> | > With other back up, yes when you think about it and have time to
> integrate.
> | OK ... I'll give it a look.
> | >
> | > | (I picked a bad day for that metaphor) ;-)
> | >
> | > Yes just heard did it rattle your cups ?
> | It knocked the energy pea down 5 positions.
> |
> | >
> | > |
> | > | [snip /n]
> | > | > | > the decay rates of short half life thingys.:-)
> | > | > | > The bell example was means......
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Oh! Ya wanna play that way?
> | > | > | Put a clock on Jupiter have both twins view it over CCTV
with
> equal
> | > | > | lengths of cable. The cable properties don't depend on any
region
> of
> | > | > | space. The twins will eat, sleep and watch Dr. Who on 16mm
film
> | > | > | according to the same clock.
> | > | >
> | > | > If you could do what you say then each twin would view the
same
> things
> | > but
> | > | > one would age faster than the other due to the effects I
described
> and
> | > the
> | > | > moving twin would experience the data run more slowly and any
clock
> he
> | > had
> | > | > would show a delay against the other. For example say the DR
Who
> film
> | > was
> | > | > 2hrs long by the clock of the non moving twin. The moving
twin would
> | > | > experience the same data over for example over 1 hr because
the
> cosmos
> | > has
> | > | > speeded up for him from his pov
> | > |
> | > | What proof can you offer that the cosmos is speeding up ?
> | >
> | > This is just from the pov of a moving body relative to a less
moving
> body so
> | > if I see the cosmos as speeding up its the same as me saying I'm
slowing
> | > down. See experiments on the links you posted although I have not
had a
> | > chance to look yet I'm fairly sure they will confirm what I
write? Also
> I
> | > gave it a few turns on the clockwork the other day and that
always
> speeds
> | > things up :-)
> |
> | I am not familiar with the term "less moving body".
> | Particles have relative motion or they don't.
> | If I measure your speed at 30km/hr then you will
> | measure my speed at 30km/hr.
> |
>
> Againts the vacuum background and it depend how you measure it.
> Mind you we might be moving into the realm and confusion of dodgey
light
> clocks with the latter.

If the combined fields of local charges is what you consider to be
"vacuum background" then there will exist an object which you can
use as a point of reference. Lets call it REF.
So your bicycle might be moving 20km/hr wrt REF and
my bicycle might be moving 10 km/hr wrt REF.
We will both age less because cycling is good for your
health...
Not because we consider the local bulk matter's
contribution to the dielectric when flashing light signals
to each other.

>
> |
> | >
> | > |
> | > | and so when they compered clocks the moving
> | > | > clock would show -1 hr against the relatively stationary
clock
> assuming
> | > they
> | > | > had been in sync at the start. This is assuming that they
were at
> all
> | > times
> | > | > in the same region of influence of the same dielectric
properties .
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > | The universe can then do what it pleases with it's
?metabolism?
> and
> | > | > | they don't have to be bothered by it.
> | > | >
> | > | > 'Metabolism ' in this context means the particular process
rate for
> a
> | > given
> | > | > region of space
> | > | > But they do because they started off being part of that same
> metabolic
> | > rate
> | > | > of that region, if they had been in sync to start with.
> | > | > Cosmic metabolism is the base rate of this system and is
equal to
> ????
> | > | > working.............
> | > | >
> | > | > | I can hardly wait for you analysis of the Insulin and
Kuiper
> belts.
> | > ;-)
> | > | >
> | > | > Hit me with the data baby.:-)
> | > | >
> | > | > | BTW most space ships carry an on-board dielectric for the
> aspiratory
> | > | > | aspirations of the inhabitants.
> | > | >
> | > | > Yes and you wrote it 'the dielectric properties of the region
'
> define
> | > the
> | > | > metabolic rate of that region in relation to other regions
although
> | > *within*
> | > | > a region c will still be c.
> | > |
> | > | Ahhhhem... You are the first to refer to dielectrics as
*metabolism* .
> | > | I don't think my metabolism changes when the barometer drops
but
> | > | the speed of light changes measurably..
> | >
> | > Check your metabolism next time it happens :-) perhaps I can be
clearer,
> the
> | > process rate for any event set will be dependant on its
relationship
> with
> | > any given dielectric condition.? process rate any better ?
> |
> | I have heard some pretty desperate attempts to preserve Dr. Who's
> | Tardis but you might just win an award with that one. ;-)
> | http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Dielectric.html
> |
>
> I don't feel at all desperate to defend my transport as you cant get
more
> real than a cop box :-) I have not yet looked at your links yet but
will.
> There seems to be three of four main groups within this group. Theirs
your
> group, the practalists who've got a grip on the vacuum but have some
> difficulty with real time shift. Theirs the SRists who have become
lost in
> dodgy clocks and math. Theirs the aetherists who have been ridiculed
into
> confusion and some where but hiding are the don't knows, perhaps.

They are all *aetherists* unless they can make a light path work with
fewer than two charges. ;-)

>
> | >
> | > |
> | > | > That's why you need three regions to describe
> | > | > the actions of stars from planets. Star region/frame, vacuum
> | > region/frame
> | > | > and planet region/frame. You can get away with experiment on
planet
> that
> | > | > have only two region/frames with some loss of data.
Spaceships can
> take
> | > the
> | > | > place of planets with the atmosphere striped of and in the
case of
> | > | > spaceships equipment outside the hull if you like.
> | > |
> | > | Actually critical path calculations are sometimes broken into 3
or
> | > sometimes
> | > | even 5 regions so near-field effects can be better modeled.
> | > | regions
> | > Good O! I thought because this group seemed unable to count above
two
> frames
> | > that the rest of physics had the same handicap but if your saying
the
> | > majority of phyisists can count above two frames then this is a
great
> relief
> | > to me. But why am I finding book by establishment profs. full of
> confused
> | > inaccurate stuff on relativity ?
> |
> | A wagon can get purdy fer off the trail if ya keep it moving the
wrong
> | way for a 100 years.
>
> Wrong way? This is just the more scenic and humours route :-)

Oh ya mean:

x' +/- tau ----> jump frame to accelerated counter-twin's FoR
excluding space-like null co-ordinates on odd numbered birthdays.
Then slow syncing and E-syncing apparent clocks 'till lightning
kills observer. ;-)

>
> |
> | Eh! Who said anything about physicists? I saw that in a protocol
for
> | testing weather radars that *have* to work whether the book says
they
> | should or not.
>
> O, all right then this species then :-)
>
> |
> | >
> | >
> | > | Star - ether - planet
> | > | equals
> | > | near - far - near
> | > |
> | > | Yep!
> | >
> | > How about near far far far near?
> | Actually I saw:
> | nearest near far near nearest
> | To accomodate elaborate structures.
>
> Yes but this is local and I lost my cyclotron some years back in the
jungle
> so am a bit dated on nearest data although I think that individual
electron
> are collapsed negative far field half cycles with just a touch of
positive
> to keep then vaguely stable and the opposite for positrons.

Well... I can't offer argument against that PoV. It sounds as good as
the rest I have heard.

>
> | >
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > <snip>
> | > | > | > | Any two points can be synchronized with two equal
length
> cables.
> | > No
> | > | > | > | room for independant time Eh?
> | > | >
> | > | > See above and what you say is a very local view.
> | > |
> | > | I have a rich uncle in the coax cable business. ;-)
> | > |
> | > | Take the case of one twin
> | > | Carry your own case.
> | >
> | > It was full of rich pickings and you left it behind. What a waste
I
> think
> | > you should go and find it:-)
> | >
> | > | > on ground with pulse geny set to produce 1 sec on pulse
followed by
> 1
> | > sec
> | > | > off pulse from pov of ground based twin with counters to
count own
> | > pulses
> | > | > and those from twin same for other twin cable up to other
twin
> whipping
> | > | > round earth at 1 sec per rotation per pov ground based twin.
Start
> run
> | > | > stationary sync counters first rotation. Orbital twin runing
slow
> due to
> | > | > motion
> | > |
> | > | Who says it runs slow ?
> | > See your experimental links above.
> | No warranty on the links I post. Caviar Escargo!
>
> Don't use warranties as they are usually not worth the paper they are
> printed on but do use Occams and logic which seem to work a lot
better so
> reread the second link and be convinced or its another smack on bum
:-)
>
> | > |
> | > | so one sec from his pov will be two secs on ground so will see
> | > | > pulses coming faster and will transmit pulses more slowly. So
from
> the
> | > pov
> | > | > of the orbit twin the pulses from the ground are coming
faster so
> from
> | > his
> | > | > pov the ground based twin has speeded up. From the pov of the
ground
> | > twin
> | > | > the pulses from the orbit twin are coming slower as the orbit
twin
> is
> | > going
> | > | > slow from the ground pov because the orbiting twin has been
slowed
> down.
> | > So
> | > | > after two rotations from the ground twin pov he has output
one on
> pulses
> | > and
> | > | > one off pulses and received from orbit one on and no off
pulse.
> From
> | > the
> | > | > orbit twin pov he has done two rotations and received one on
pulse
> and
> | > one
> | > | > off pulse and has output one on pulse and no off pulse. So
the
> counter
> | > in
> | > | > orbit records output as on, for input as on off. The ground
base
> counter
> | > | > records as output on off for input as on.
> | > | > So the counter in orbit has counted itself as slower than the
earth
> | > counter
> | > | > and the counter on ground as faster than the orbit counter.
No
> tricks
> | > just
> | > | > simple
> | > | > fact. This result is qualified by the experiment being
performed in
> a
> | > | > uniform common dielectric.
> | > |
> | > | Sorry... I can't even identify your paths in all that.
> | >
> | > Your not trying because you dont want to lose your cable orders
:-)
> there
> | > are two paths that why it can be confusing.
> | Well... "see your links" is not adaquate explanation why something
other
> | than a light-clock should behave like a light-clock. I'll try to
> | find the paths if you can iron out that detail.
>
> See the second link to be convinced of real slowed ageing at the
micro micro
> micro fine level and then the above should seem pretty clear but can
be as
> slippery as frequency and wavelength are to some. There may be a
postscript
> converter in word, have to check. No. Will try and find in more
digestable
> format but cant remember where I read it as it was a while back.

Can I put you on the clock and invoice for this? ;-)
I have a reader. I just didn't reload it after my last bout with
the CWS trojan 'cause it slows the virus scanner down a lot.

Sue...
BTW I started new thead "Alice slays Mad Hatter"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Twin Paradox explained from the moving twin ?
    ... Is it possible to explain the Twin Experiment from the moving point of view ... The clock of the moving observer runs behind. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Twin Paradox explained from the moving twin ?
    ... Is it possible to explain the Twin Experiment from the moving point of view ... The clock of the moving observer runs behind. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
    ... >> physical length of a moving ruler is the same as that of the ... we observe that a clock records different elapsed time after a journey. ... >> different length in different frames. ... >> do physics will result different physical laws for different frames. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Why relativists dont understand Einsteins 1905 mathematics.
    ... I pointed out to him that Einstein began his ... mathematical physicist where the symbol alpha in the first equation on ... in which dx' is the distance between clock A and clock B as plotted by ... if the moving point A was at x = 0 and the moving point B ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • OT: Einssteins BooBoos - A^2
    ... In his seminal 1905 paper - title "On the Electrodynamics of Moving ... of the BEER to argue that a moving clock slows (dilates) ... stationary system observer "sees" that the moving clock "says' at some ... Every single-value examination of the time transformation equation demands ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
Loading