Re: Imagine


"*** rD" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1118226126.19177.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:42a628d9$0$18639$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | "*** 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=Goo
> gle+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.
>
> No not mystically just what he wrote in his 1905 paper. LOL
>
> |
> |
> | >
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > | 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!
>
> Have um all the time, best bits {:-)
>
> | << 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 *** >>
> |
>
> If I wrote that ? then it was one of my better spelling days, so if I did
> then this is me apparently from a local perspective contradicting myself.
>
> Two waves can be in phase or out of phase they don't need yours or my
> consciousness to act out the product of the relationship except in
> philosophic fantasy land, they have there own versions of consciousness.
> There is no contradiction as I am not AE although I may support his view if
> I agree with it. Like the curates egg, interesting in parts. {:-)

Exactly... If a tree falls in the forest, then you should hire Ella Fitzgerald to
learn something about sound.
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae479.cfm

>
>
> |
> | > 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.
> |
>
> Your trying to wind me up? {:-) I was on about some guy on this group
> claiming that clocks have experimentaly been shown to resynced themselves
> after motion and upon return to the reference clock. ?

Yeah... I saw that post but didn't *** in.
Eh! You don't need *my* help to make a fool of yerself. :o)
Have you considered studying a few clocks before explaining
how they behave? I realise that isn't the way Einstein did it but...

http://bigben.stanford.edu/sumo/status.htm
http://bigben.stanford.edu/sumo/
>
>
> |
> | >
> | > | 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.
> |
>
> No they are an electric field wave state derived from the base dilectric
> state that can be modified by axial motion relative to the base dilextric
> motion of the region or another field state so that in complex with other
> field states that we call as being positive the wave lengths of a system can
> be changed and this may equates to a change in length and\or a change in
> rate relative to the lenght\rate of a rod\clock stationary in the local
> dilectric state. ?

GAWD... you ARE hung up on those funny clocks.
If they *go* as they are *judged* then they are imaginary.

>
> | You don't need funny clocks to resolve the SR postulates... so you
> | don't need stretchy measuring rods to explain the funny clocks.
>
> This seems to deny the experimental fact of clock that have their rate
> changed by motion or force and then upon being returned to reference they
> are still out of sync ?

WHAT EXPERIMENTAL FACT ?

Who has ever seen a clock that *goes* as it is
*judged* over a non-zero length path ?

>
> Mind you I have just been looking at the Lorentz transform and it looks to
> me as if it was written as an observational compensator for the limitation
> of c as the observation tool and the results obtained from observation are
> then meant to be corrected by this transform so that the observed
> length\rate of a system moving relative to the observer system can be
> correctly interpreted in the observer\reference system.

Yes ... and consistant with both Maxwell/Einstein and Weber field equations.

> So the procedure
> would be that you measured a rod or clock of unknown\known length\rate via
> light signals, you then applied the transforms to your results to arrive at
> a corrected result so you could know the actual length\rate of rod\clock
> relative to the observer reference system. So if we measure a known 1 meter
> rod at velocity and if after application of formula it should read 1 meter
> if there is no contraction but if it calculates as less than this there is
> real contraction. Better still a system that you would expect to be circular
> would be distorted by observation limitations into an ellipse so if you
> observed a galaxy that was moving at high velocity parallel to you it may
> show an unexpected elliptical form indicated by the angles of observation of
> its perimeter. But just rotating the rod in relation to the observer can
> change its length from zero to 1 meter so we need to compensate for.

With out getting in to the details of what would look like what... the
Lorentz tranform *should* correct for the path distortion due to relative
motion.

>
> Perspective by 4- vector analysis?

WHY ? Sheesh!
Just use the 4 vector calculus the fix Maxwell's near/far fields and admit to yerself
that messing with time involves messing with every process in the universe.
Your beans 'n taters won't yeild enough calories to do that.

> Finite light speed by the Lorentz transforms?

Yeah... If a moving clock looks one way, then apply the Lorentz transform
to correct for the optical path and determine what the clock is really doing.
The moving clock has NO participation in this. (unless it is one of AE's
judgment sensitive clocks LOL )

> And if after doing this the meter rod or galaxy reads less than a meter or
> elliptical then it is actually less than a meter or elliptical in the
> conditions its currently in with respect to a meter rod\galaxy in the
> observing conditions.

I don't thinks so. That violates the first postulate of SR.

Mind you Doppler in the light due to source motion and
> frequency shift due to observer motion don't seem to have been included in
> these formula, perhaps it does not change the results?

Dopple IS what you are correcting for.

>
> Just writting what I was thinking Sue.
> Still trying to work out *exactly why* they used roots squares etc in the
> transforms.

The Pythagoreans invented it. ;-)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/reldop2.html

Sue...

>
> |
> | 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.{:-)
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
>
>


.

Loading