Re: Imagine


"sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42a85990$0$18649$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "*** 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...

Adaptability is a major factor in fitness so don't despair.

| Back to the free-weights for me I suppose.
|

If you mean the gym by that then mental fitness is just as important if not
more so in the modern world IMO.

| >
| > | 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. ;-)
|

Reference link ?

|
| >
| > |
| > |
| > | >
| > | > |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 ?
|

True but the old wordage lives on.

| >
| > 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
|

Right so Amps per second is the quantity of flow and volts the potential
rate of flow ? so how do you get a quantity to flow at no rate ? unless amps
per second implies a specific potential and that would mean that implied a
specific impedance or resistance and it does but does not state them in the
definition of an amp but drags in the Newton with a kilo of spuds which I
have been trying to get rid of. Bloody hell you do like your handicaps don't
you. How do you think you are going to get the hang of comic ( that's a
typo){:-) physics when you still insist on using stuff from ~1700. I don't
know how to debate particle relationships that are bases on a kilo of spuds
I would spend all my time ROFL and probably be dead in a few days. This
system is probably too tangled to untangle but I will plod on as I have
nothing better to do and in the vague hope that a scale will fall from an
eye, and you do make me laugh but not to much please as I am past my best
sell by date {:-)
This is the image conjured up in my mind by this :- A physicist comes out of
his lab in a white coat and asks a guy digging his allotment to stick a kilo
of spud in a bag and tie a rope to it. he then says throw the rope over a
branch and yanks the spuds up by a meter. The physicist the goes up to the
guy looks at his face carefully and concludes that the activity just
performed was equal to two drops of sweat and a pimple, he then goes back to
the lab to calculate the energy of an electron starting with 2sweat +1
pimple = 1 joule ROFL. I will now try and be sensible .

|
| >
| > | > | > | > 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)
|

Why not, as you, from a pratical pov cannot know the barrier state in sub
Plank detail so its got some leaks, what do you expect from a dam made from
bits of field state, perfection ? What valves do you need I may have some
KT66's they will put a kick in it {:-)

| I expect you are comfortable with Pythagoras in polar/rectangular
conversion.

Don't expect anything from an idiot if put under pressure I may have
forgotten{:-)

| When you are in an expansive mood (presently I am not) try to justify the
| Lorentz transform for the same reasons.

Found one of my kids GCSE mathematics books to remind me so thanks will do.

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

Ok but does that not go against the group convention of stationary near,
moving near ? perhaps they just need new glasses ?

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

Yes indeed, but leaving the jam out of the donuts feels like a major crime
to me ?

| That would explain the many variations that you are complaining about

Not complaining just commenting.

| Dr: << changed fo{equation}fs for sound into vo{equation*}vs for
| light, tried * and got rubbish >>
|

What bad eye sight is the reason ?{:-)

| 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