Re: Imagine


"*** rD" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1118388655.7511.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> | > | > | snip
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | http://bigben.stanford.edu/sumo/status.htm
> | > | > | > | > | http://bigben.stanford.edu/sumo/
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Just looking at these links looks intereting.
>
>
> It appears there is no firm data yet but looks complex enough to introduce
> many unknowns ?

Yes... far too many for anyone to be claiming that a fast atomic clock
at atitude is any kind of proof of GR other than it's inherent reduction
to forces predicted by Newton.


snip
> | > | If the rest frame half-life is computed from the de Broglie wavlength
> is
> | > | is likely a circular reference too. ;-)
> | > |
> | >
> | > Reference link ?
> |
> | What? Both your muons and and your minons decayed ?
>
> You think I can afford minions and muons on my pension ? Any minons or muons
> I may have had have gone on to better things or decayed.
>
> |
> | << In his work combining quantum theory and relativity, De Broglie
> | assumed the existence of a cyclic process associated with a massive
> | particle. A question arises immediately: why?
> |
> | The all too famous, and therefore trivialized, relation
> |
> |
> | E = m_0 c^2,
> |
> |
> | an interpretive result from special relativity, relates the rest mass
> | m_0 to an equivalent energy E does not tell us, within the mathematical
> | arithmetic equivalence, what physically distinguishes m_0 from E; more
> | bluntly, what distinguishes physical mass from physical energy. This is
> | a question to which there is still no satisfactory answer. >>
> | http://graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel/FCCR/debroglie.html
> | or
> |
> http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:xQtGYx7onLgJ:graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel
> /FCCR/debroglie.html+de+broglie+paradox+nu&hl=en

Hmmm that was acutually not the best URL for your question but
minions that work for free are almost a bad as those from low wage
nations. Waddaya expect for the vague promise of beans and taters ? :o)

> |
> | snip
> | > | This might help:
> | > | http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Current.html
> | > |
snip
> | > pimple = 1 joule ROFL. I will now try and be sensible .
> |
> | I think you are groping for a way express muon lifetime as classical
> | current flow. The above paradox should show why you need not bother.
> | The rest frame lifetime was computed with the *assumption* that it
> | world behave as SR's imaginary clocks, so by circular reference it
> | works out.
>
> I might have to read more on this as you seem very confident that the
> results are a mathematical\experimental foul.

Eh! Don't get drawn in by confident airs (heirs ? heiresses? )
http://www.jdhodges.com/posters/paris-hilton-poster-842218.html

I am not all confident I have a good grasp of classical patterns from
quantum particle interference and how de Broglie gets his notions into
a *real* pattern.

>
> |
> | It looks pretty embarassing when muon production height is considered
> | tho. ;-)
> |
>
> Your trying to dent my confidence in the variance of existence with your
> invariant views but that view is so much more uninteresting and less complex
> than the variant view that I will fight to the death for variance in as many
> thing as I can as this is the main factor relieving the repetition needed to
> keep the system coherent. I haven't yet had a chance to look at most of the
> links from this post but I hope you haven't dug up anything that proves
> invariance in time and distance as then I would have to go back to throwing
> valves at the garage wall {:-)

Sheesh! How conformist! The whole physics community has been doing
that for a century.

>
> |
> | >
> | snip
> | > |
> | > | 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 need:
> | QTY PN
> | 24) EL 34
> | 867) 6SN7
> | 2357) 12AU7
> |
>
> Brings back fond memories I may have odd one or two but I had a clear out
> some years back so I probably have none and definitely not in your
> quantities.
>
> | Oh Yeah... ya wouldn't have 12 or 13 refrigeration compressors
> | stashed away would ya ?
>
> I had one a little while back but that's part of the cryogenic compressor
> section of the anti matter engines in the last star ship I built or it could
> have gone up to the rubbish dump I'm not sure. What are you trying to build
> with that much glass the old analogue out of Blechley they used to win WW2 ?
> Might have some bits of that or similar that used valves. Ah fond memories
> as the bloody things self ignited because you had asked them to add one and
> one {:-) and the smell of burning paxolin from other bits of equipment. Oh
> nostalga.

Shhhhhhh... You're spose to be growin' beans not spilling them.
http://nerv.org.uk/photo_bletchley.html
>
> |
> |
> | >
> | > | 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 ?
> |
> | Indeed! Further proof that democracy is a bad idea.
>
> Depends on your pov but they may come round before they are dead perhaps.
> The trouble with dictatorships is they become ossified in there own
> certainty and erode over time into individual dictatorships that may fight
> their way to a state of coexistence called a democracy. {:-)
>
> | I (alone ? )
>
> Yes you are the only one I have any common ground with at the moment AFAIK.
Not true. I have seen several posters point out that AE's etherless paths are really
a "bait and switch" to dispell the notion of a rigid framework.
They just don't want to associated with a kooky bean farmer and I can't
say as I blame them. :o) Saffron growers pass a much sweeter smelling gas!

>
> |did not complain that you wanted to
> | use "the vacuum" as a point of reference. Why?
> | Because the nearest charges are a large component of
> | the Coulomb force that is being modulated by the
> | EM wave's passage.
> |
> | Except for some kind of impossibly deep and voluminous
> | vacuum, the nearest charge is representative of a local
> | frame of reference. Astronomers treat our solar system
> | that way with good results.
> |
>
> You cheer me up, if only we can agree on a clearer definition of
> charge,energy and potential and their relationships that can be used to
> build an electron ect we might be seeing eye to eye.

Eh! 200 years of trubulence muddied that water... not us.

>
> | << Barycentric Dynamic Time (TDB) is the same as as Terrestrial Dynamic
> | Time (TT) except for relativistic corrections to move the origin to the
> | solar system barycenter. These corrections amount to as much as about
> | 1.6 millisends and are periodic with an average of zero. The dominant
> | terms in this correction are have annual and semi-annual periods.
> | TDB = TT + 0.001658 sin( g ) + 0.000014 sin( 2g ) seconds
> | where
> | g = 357.53 + 0.9856003 ( JD - 2451545.0 ) degrees
> |
> | and JD is the Julian Date. A more accurate formula, with adds terms
> | smaller than 20 microseconds, is given in the Explanatory Supplement to
> | the Astronomical Almanac [ref 4]. Planetary motions are now computed
> | using TDB.
> | There is a subtle relativistic distinction between coordinate time and
> | dynamic time, which is not significant for most practical purposes.
> | >>
> | http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~rfisher/Ephemerides/times.html#TBD
> | >
> | > | 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 ?
> |
> | You could use 2 transforms to go near-far-near. Unless you need to
> | analyze one end indepedently, then combining the two transforms should
> | be OK. Eh?
>
> Yes I think so but the devils in the detail as I'm still worrying like a dog
> at the popular one and haven't yet got it dismantled and laid out on the
> bench yet and the facts to construct a replacement are still obscure and
> buried in tons of detail.

Actually, I was looking a bit closer at the acoustic version. If you claim
AE was doing a "bait and switch" with the ether, I think that is the one ya
have to use. It may in some cases reduce to a single transform.

If nothing else, Pound-Rebka is proof that Doppler is operational for
motion of either sending or receiving structure.

Sue...


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Imagine
    ... You think I can afford minions and muons on my pension? ... | << In his work combining quantum theory and relativity, ... |> typo){:-) physics when you still insist on using stuff from ~1700. ... valves at the garage wall {:-) ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Imagine
    ... | Relativity is about the forces between relative moving particles so ... | that more muons are produced below the sumit than above. ... feet and thinks more quickly in the direction of motion but as your motion ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Muon Decay Experiments
    ... evidence for the time expansion predictions of special relativity. ... speed muons and these are usually contrasted with the CALCULATED times ... laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. ... relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Imagine
    ... > | snip ... > | Relativity is about the forces between relative moving particles so ... > | that more muons are produced below the sumit than above. ... > feet and thinks more quickly in the direction of motion but as your motion ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Muon hoaksy poaksy
    ... and the time dilation that is perceived by an observer measuring the ... muons from his frame cannot affect the muons in any way. ... the earth is no evidence of the validity of special relativity. ... and that is philosophy and no longer physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading