Re: Imagine


"*** rD" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1118178425.16411.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:42a5ad6f$0$18638$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | "*** rD" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1118134785.12313.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | >
> | > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > news:42a4d409$0$18638$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > |
> | > | "*** rD" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > news:1118096069.62421.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | >
> | > | > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > | > news:1118088189.837721.3980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | > | << Sorry I read this as empty space does not have a absolute zero
> | > | > | velocity so
> | > | > | that the SOL can be measured as c in empty space because the
> velocity
> | > | > | of
> | > | > | empty space accommodates its velocity to the velocity of the
> observer
> | > | > | and
> | > | > | there measuring apperatus. >>
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Just *where* in this universe do yooze guys hope to find
> | > | > | "empty space" ?
> | > | >
> | > | > Albert found some he wote about it in his 1905 paper perhaps its
> become
> | > lost
> | > | > ? {:-)
> | > |
> | > | Yes... he was much more fortunate than Fermat, who
> | > | had to write his last theorem in the margins.
> | > | http://www.missouri.edu/~cst398/fermat/contents/theorem.htm
> | > |
> | > | Keeping old envelopes is a good way to conserve space when you
> | > | do a lot of writing. ;-)
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Sure... If you double your distance
> | > | > | to a chunk of matter,
> | > | > | the Coulomb coupling will drop by a
> | > | > | factor of 1/4. But three of the chunk's
> | > | > | mates will come into the aperture to
> | > | > | help him tug on you. (3 + 1) / 4 = 1
> | > | > |
> | > | > | If each move reduces the coupling by a
> | > | > | factor of 1, it only takes forever
> | > | > | to get far enough from matter to ignore it.
> | > | > | Couldn't we get George Lucas
> | > | > | to cobble up some animation so we
> | > | > | don't have to wait that long ? ;-)
> | > | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > Hello Sue. Albert must have invented fantasy physics like fantasy
> | > football
> | > | > then, for fantasy physicists and footballers to play with?
> | > |
> | > | Well what would you do? ... resolve the postulates of SR with
> | > | dull ole' near and far field electrodynamics like Weber or come up
> | > | with some new and exciting explanation that hints of some control
> | > | of time like Einstein did ? Any politician worth his rolodex of
> | > | lobbyists know the answer to that one.
> | >
> | > Do you have any clear links to the relativistic comp of velocity Sue?
> |
> | Hmmm... comp = component ???
>
> Copulation or compilation of velocity I'm not sure which. I think its to do
> with 0.5c + 0.5c <>1c {:-) speeling checker gave me that first word so I
> thought I'd use it for fun.

It appears it may have something to do with punishing astronomers
who fornicate.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22compilation+of+velocity%22+&btnG=Google+Search


>
> |
> | > I'm wondering at the moment if much of this stuff on the group is due to
> | > established misinterpretation and misapplication of formula as my
> reading
> | > so far is that he did not so much remove the dielectric but tried to
> | > distance himself from the "stationary ether brigade" who I guess were in
> | > full cry against his ideas at the time who then perhaps switched to the
> | > "absence of anything brigade" perhaps to ridicule to start with but then
> got
> | > stuck with their own confusion perhaps due to limited imagination and
> fear
> | > of being contracted\dilated out of their socks. LOL
> |
> | Well ... I hope you will not feel your thunder has been stolen by others
> to
> | know some history.
>
> Not at all I can still fart if I need any thunder {:-)
>
> Yes... AE had many contemporaries with notions
> | that Rene' de Cartes was a consultant to the god(s) when they were laying
> | out the a rigid frame work for the universe to hang on... or whatever.
> |
> | Maxwell's field equations put a huge kink in that notion because the
> | laws of physics would have to be different on a moving platform if such
> | the rigid framework existed.
> |
> | So... Yes. Dispelling the notion of a "lattice" was important enough to
> | fudge a bit and just completely do away with the term "ether". It would
> | have been tough selling job to have to explain near-field effects that,
> likely
> | were just barely understood by the Oliver Heaviside. He is credited with
> | much of the formalism for inductive and capactive reactance but AFAIK
> | he never quite worked the imaginary components into near-field dipole
> | parameters... prefering to Maxwell's flawed but approximate notion of
> | displacement current.
> |
> | It is not surprising that AE banishes the ether in SR then seems to
> | bring it back in some later works.
>
> I've been reading his 1905 paper and if you read it with no preconceptions,
> he IMHO defaults to a mobile dielectric state for propagation of EMR and
> just specifically excludes an absolute rest dielectric so all this faf on
> this group is generated by ignorance of the true thinking of Albert.

I have intercepted no echos of his thought patterns so I really can't
comment.


>
> |
> |
> | >
> | > |
> | > | Eh... ya see the acclaim Weber got for using clocks that don't
> | > | pay any attention to viewers? Few have ever even heard of him.
> | >
> | > Whats that ?
> | LOL
> |
>
> Your over my head on this one, must be extra thick today.

<< It is not too difficult to see that Weber's Fundamental Electrical
Law, almost unknown today, is a statement of a relativistic law of physics,
long predating the statement of relativity we are accustomed to.8 Here it is
the force, rather than the mass, which varies with the relative motion.
But, not only does it predate the Einstein formulation, it is methodologically
far superior. One can, in various ways, attempt to show an equivalence
of the two statements, but the usefulness of such efforts is doubtful. The
problem lies elsewhere. The two statements lie in two entirely different
domains. One is a continuation of the Leibnizian current of physics; the
other, whatever the intentions, serves to hide errors embedded in the
assumptions underlying the Maxwell equations. >>
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html


>
>
> | >
> | > |
> | > | Sue...
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > | 377 ohms to ya!
> | >
> | > Yes, I seem to remember 300 ohm balanced feeder, how was this measured I
> | > vaguely think we might have discussed this but the details evade me at
> the
> | > moment. I may have a paper on it but plead geriatricacy on Tuesdays {:-)
> |
> | Ahh... that 300 being close to 377 has no significance. You probably know
> that
> | and might have said 52 or 75 unbalanced line just as well.
>
> Oh, shot down in my socks{:-) A little knowledge can get you holes in your
> tights.

Indeed!
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/2517/disc.jpg

>
> |
> | >
> | > Btw I was reading on another thread that clocks that had been de-synced
> by
> | > motion, re-synced when brought back to reference. Do you have any data
> on
> | > this because I was under the impression that once you had de-synced a
> clock
> | > by motion it could not be re-synced except by adjusting the clock that
> had
> | > moved ?
> |
> | In SR, AE uses clocks that *go* as they are *judged*.
> |
>
> I've not read that statment yet but how about the experimental fact of above
> ?
Senior moment ? Ha!
<< dr
Your violence is entertaining :-) but I still think you have missed the
point.
If you accept that a clocks tick rate can be modified by motion and gravity
then the only thing that can judge this change is a state of consciousness.
The clock itself is unable to do so as to it one tick may look like the next
and even if its a counter with numbers that are different on the front this
is no help to the counter. I suppose you could create a situation were the
counters judged by connecting them in such a way that at a particular count
relationship some event happened like the ice burgs that you were supposed
to be looking after:-) banged into Antarctica but that would really be
consciousness making that judgement. that's what AE meant when he said goes
as it is judged IMHO.
Dr *** >>


> how about the experimental fact of above
Sure! CLICK

<<As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as
judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses between
two strokes of the clock is not one second, but

EQUATION

seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its
motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest. >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html

Yep... the results are:
he says the same today as yesterday.


>
> | You cannot buy these at Walmart. Light clocks dragged through a dielectric
> | are only a close approximation for some of his equations.
> |
>
> How about real physical experimental facts on above without the SR faf.

Happy to oblige. Simply go to Friendly Society 2 Tisbury Court, Soho W1
(alleyway between Ann Summers & Village Soho) Small modern and trendy mixed bar
where you will find a
"physician"... well sort of.... he is better known for helping little girls who
don't like condoms. Anyway... I think he can attach some small wires
to your optic nerve and perhaps a few other regions of your brain.
I would NOT ask him to make connections to any regions associated
with "judgment". He will know from your mere presence in his shop
that such regions don't exist. :o)

We'll hook ya up to the other apparatus and start packing our bags
for dinner with the King of Sweeden.


>
>
> | The correct use of imaginary numbers (i, j,) in the near field seems to be
> | what he is groping for and his adoption of Mikowski's complex geometry
> | seems adaquate proof of his motives incorporate imaginary time.
>
> I'm still not unconvinced as to contraction\dilation being a real physical
> function of the dilectric on structures allthough I think you are probably a
> sceptic on this score ?

sKeptic with capital K I am. Stuff is made with electrons. Electrons are
are not made with elastic or putty.

You don't need funny clocks to resolve the SR postulates... so you
don't need stretchy measuring rods to explain the funny clocks.

Sue...


>
> |
> | Sue...
> |
> |
> | > --
> | > D & R *** E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two
> unbound
> | > field effects
> | > http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
> | > Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely. Ooh
> | > ah.{:-)
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • THE RELATIVITY OF THE INERTIAL PHENOMENA (GRVITY)
    ... The relativity of motion in space relative to the inertia phenomena is ... from the perspective of watching the universe from ... Inertial mass is relative to velocity in space, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • RHU Theory: The relativity of the inertial phenomena
    ... The relativity of motion in space relative to the inertia phenomena is ... from the perspective of watching the universe from ... Inertial mass is relative to velocity in space, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: the heart of a paradox
    ... rest to her -- and it is to the moving Earth that the space is ... Terra's clock back on Earth, being time-dilated from motion, must read ... The *principle of relativity* had been around quite a while when ... v can be any velocity to infinity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: the heart of a paradox
    ... rest to her -- and it is to the moving Earth that the space is ... Terra's clock back on Earth, being time-dilated from motion, must read ... The *principle of relativity* had been around quite a while when ... v can be any velocity to infinity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Define a clock
    ... complicated to think of it as just more motion and so he chose a constant ... motion, the Earth's rotation, and called it a clock. ... With distance, we can use a distance as a standard to measure it. ... >> The same with volume, velocity, charge, temperature, mass, and others. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)