Re: Imagine


"sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42a77a34$0$18638$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "*** rD" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1118269258.16781.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| snip
| > |
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | http://bigben.stanford.edu/sumo/status.htm
| > | > | http://bigben.stanford.edu/sumo/
| > | > | >
| >
| > Just looking at these links looks intereting.
| >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | >
|
| snip
|
| > |
| > | Time will do no such thing.
| >
| > Muons to you and I'm still waiting to be proved wrong on my view about
| > inversely proportional contraction\dilation.
|
| Well that is not how the game is played.

What game? I was just being alive. I propose it and anybody can then try and
knock it down, if it survives its alive and fact if it dies its deader {:-)
and then I will go completely off my trolley, build the SS Enterprise in my
back garden out of matchboxes and blow you all to bits, so watch it {:-)
That how all views, structures and you and everybody\thing else works, its
called survival of the fittest, civilisation\religion tends to obscure this
fact but its still the main force of existence. Many would prefer not to
know this as it appears to make them undesirably and mortal and not ethereal
and attractive as they would wish..

| I am still waiting for an experiment that includes muon production height
| in the analysis.
| Muon Production Height from the Muon Tracking Detector in KASCADE
| http://www-rccn.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/icrc2003/PROCEEDINGS/PDF/8.pdf
|
| and a convincing theory why a quantum lifetime is the equivalent to
| a classical clock.
|

Is it not then ? if the clasical clock just ticks faster and gets fuzzier.?

| Relativity is about the forces between relative moving particles so
atmospheric
| muon production and decay may indeed be one of the best demonstrations.
|
| I am, however not at all convinced by something like the Mount Washington
| experiment which came up with ?convincing? numbers.... without knowing
| that more muons are produced below the sumit than above. Uh Oh! :-(

Perhaps it did not matter if the analysis was performed on one level ?

|
|
| >
| > |It waits for no man.... only women.
| > | A physical contraction violates the first postulate.
| >
| > Not if its inversely proportional to time dilation as c remains constant
| > locally.
|
| Ohhh! That riiiiight! The muons zipping past my repose make me
| skinny... but fat if I am standing. ROFL

You will get very skinny if you just sit and eat muons so get up and have a
jam donut and get fatter. Your feet are older and smaller than your head and
think more slowly relative to if you were in empty space far from a
gravity\potential difference source and you head is squashed more than your
feet and thinks more quickly in the direction of motion but as your motion
is a very complex sum of multiple vectors the effect of motion on you is
less than the effect of gravity and so you end up being fairly round and
thinking quickly and not a very thin ellipse and thick as a brick. Just go
and look in the mirror and you will see I'm right and that's without ever
seeing you, how's that for a prediction of physics {:-)

snip

| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | 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.
| > | >
| > | > No I'm not I'm correcting firstly for perspective and secondly light
| > path
| > | > delays. I would be using Doppler spectral line analysis to evaluate
| > relative
| > | > velocity.
| > |
| > | Correcting for perspective is what a rail road engineer does to
convince
| > | himself that his wide train will work on the skinny track which he
sees in
| > the
| > | distance. What's that got to do with the forces between two relative
| > moving
| > | charges ?
| >
| > It dont but I was on about rods at that moment. So what charges do you
want
| > to natter about.
|
| lektons and mew-ons look like good subjects. Things whose relative motion
| has some true significance.

pulpits and cats ? perhaps you meant leptons ? {:-) Back to sense? electrons
?

By common defintion? you have two field states ? that are defined in
negative amps per second ? relative to a positive field state ? In amps per
second which I'm not sure I understand without a potential. The electron has
minus 1.60*10E-19 coulombs (amps per second) and the muon has the same ? I'm
haveing dificulty with negative amps per second as I thought the sign was
supplied by the potential ?

| > | > | > 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
| > | > |
| > |
| > That dont make sense have to pick it to bits.
|
| I agree. I believe it is only an approximation... favored for it's
mathematical
| properties as c is approached. It does not look like the optimum
expression
| when you consider the coupling between a pair of charges in a sea of
charges.
|
| ...but it is close.

I have had I little more of a look as I had only looked at the first
section, so after I had put my glasses on and looked further on that web
page with the other sections it made more sense but it still needs picking
to bits as in the first section they transform fo to vo and fs to vs and
stick lorentz in the middle of vo\vs and then claim its equivalent from a
relativistic pov which seems a bit of a liberty to me, buts that just a
quick look. i.e they seem too have changed fo{equation}fs for sound into
vo{equation*}vs for light, tried * and got rubbish out but may have pressed
wrong button on calculator will try again some time.

|
| 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