Re: New impoved facts part 1v02

From: Dr *** (paulpsremove_at_freeuk.com)
Date: 03/29/05 

Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:44:25 +0100

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1112102750.876599.194530@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| "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...

Very true :-) but I will be growing older slower than you because I'm a
faster cyclist wrt to REF and the faster I cycle wrt to ref and you the
younger I will be, wrt to you.

| Not because we consider the local bulk matter's
| contribution to the dielectric when flashing light signals
| to each other.

No. I never said that it was that's the other posters on this group I don't
agree with them. I thought that was pretty obvious:-)
But having said that the local dielectric will effect EMR travelling within
its domain and although if measured within any domain the SOL will be c the
measurement if compared against a REF. may very well be different. Blasphemy
will I be struck by lightning? still here:-)
|
|
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | 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. ;-)

But will they admit it ? :-)

|
| >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > 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. ;-)

Sounds good any ice cream breaks ?

|
| >
| > |
| > | 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.

You brighten my day, no joke.
|
| >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > <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? ;-)

Will anti grav be enough ?

| 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.

Ye I try to keep a slim system too, will have to download the reader. 9 meg
20 mins that will cost me all of GBP 0.60p ye gods, the expense, my hairs
gone grey, is the world worth it? :-)
|
| Sue...
| BTW I started new thead "Alice slays Mad Hatter"

Be with you, just get me hat.:-)

Ardvark.

Relevant Pages

  • dilation of time
    ... no time dilation affects Clock B wrt Clock A. They tick the same time. ... A starts moving on x-axis and always at the same speed V as before. ... time dilation MUST now effect clock B wrt clock A.(seen from ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Light Clock Nonsense
    ... >> Of course, by the PoR, it is the observer that is moving past the ... >> so his clock slows down compared to the stationary light clock ... SR says the E-W arm ticks slower. ... > would drop to zero if the clock were moving at c wrt that frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR and LET Are Incomplete Aether Theories
    ... The same rate wrt the point of contact before they are moving apart. ... There is no relative motion between A and B after they stopped moving apart. ... > even with no relative motion), each observer will see the other's clock ... > as being behind their own clock. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • 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)