Re: Imagine


"*** rD" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1118321633.5582.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "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..

Awe Shukin's ! I tho't it was survivial of the most adaptable. Sigh...
Back to the free-weights for me I suppose.

>
> | 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 ?

If the rest frame half-life is computed from the de Broglie wavlength is
is likely a circular reference too. ;-)


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

What is "Physics" ?

Oh yeah! I remember! Wasn't that a cult that existed about 200 years ago ?

>
> 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 ?

This might help:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Current.html


>
> | > | > | > 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.

My calculator does that when the electron valves need changing. I would
get a solid state device but I don't believe in quantum tunneling. :o)

I expect you are comfortable with Pythagoras in polar/rectangular conversion.
When you are in an expansive mood (presently I am not) try to justify the
Lorentz transform for the same reasons.

Both postulates of SR seemed quite compatable with a process that
treated the path as three regions, near,---far---, near.

That looks mathematically a bit more complex that a dose of Pythatgoras.

That would explain the many variations that you are complaining about
Dr: << changed fo{equation}fs for sound into vo{equation*}vs for
light, tried * and got rubbish >>

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.{:-)
>
>
>


.

Quantcast