Re: Imagine


"*** rD" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1118416691.68222.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:42a9566a$0$18649$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | "*** 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.
>
>
> Perhaps
Sue:
[eyes-a-pitching...as rolling twists up the optic nerve]

>
> |
> |
> | 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 as 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 missed the groping prompt, sorry but I can be a bit slow at times in these
> matter depending on which pair of underpants I've got on, consider yourself
> groped{:-) but on the classical front I thought what I was after was a
> system derived from a reference clock ( and you nearly got another typo
> there) system were joules\ condoms were all derived from this reference
> clock.

Ahhh you want to play "twins" games counting leptons I think ?
>
>
> | >
> | > 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.
>
> You are clearly very much ahead of me in the research path to coherence as
> far as data acquisition and the interpretation thereof but I will hang onto
> my variance views until overwhelmed by contrary data. I still have not had
> time to look at some of your link but I will and much thanks.

Your POV is yours to keep. I promise not to steal it.
However, I hope I have made my point that there can be no classical
experiment to support the existance of a clock that *goes* as it is *judged*.
Surely you've seen numerous valid challenges to SR which simply
introduce a second observer.

Relativity isn't about clocks or time anyway. Weber's equations are
fully relativistic without clock games.

Consideration of motive shouldn't be a factor in any careful experiment
but it is wothy to note the muon experiments were designed to prove rather
than diprove "time dilation". Very unscientific. Harumph.

>
> |
> | >
> | > |
> | > | 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.
>
> Glad I've run out of valves then how about 1kx1 dram is that strange enough
> I must have a few hundred of those.
Hmmm.
Drams are just reading and refreshing charges. With no quantum tunneling they
might not be against religious teachings. Yes... If the leg spacing is wide
enough to fit the fahnestock clips on the block of wood I might give them
a try. :o)



>
> |
> | >
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | 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!
> |
>
> Well warn them not to become too esoteric otherwise us bean farmers will not
> understand them and they may become etherists and then everybody will laugh
> at them including us bean farmers. {:-) Saffron makes you fart even more
> than beans as I understand it. It just smells sweater until you gag on it.

LOL

>
> | >
> | > |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.
>
> But the more that calm the waters with coherence the easier it will be to
> see the shore.

So.. I shore wish you'd stop babbling about tho't controlled clocks.

>
> |
> | >
> | > | << 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.
> |
>
> Perhaps but I saw it more as a gravitational effect how do you see PR as
> Doppler ?.
Not only me...

<<
The Pound-Rebka Experiment: Just Which Equivalence Principle Do ...
The Pound-Rebka Experiment is quite complex in its technical details but in ...
by Pound-Rebka can only be interpreted as a Doppler shift resulting from the... >>
http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/poundRebka.html

One chunk of iron salt is farther from the earth's barycenter than the other one
so their emission/absorbtion energy (frequency) is different. Introducing a Doppler
shift in the path with a speaker cone lets them "talk" to each other as tho' they
were on the same frequency. Nothing more. The Pound-Snider paper advances
that interpretation and the GPS system confirms it. The other interpretation
is absurb anyway because a "gravitational blue shift" is a violation of causality.
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/9907017

> Is it not all tied in with inversely proportional time\distance ?
> to stabilise the energy balance between relatively moving systems and still
> keep the sol constant locally so you don't have problems with physical
> process due to relative velocity and constant c like paradoxes etc.?

Ah... Which end of Harvard Tower are you acusing of moving ?
----YIKES! WHERE DID IT GO ?---
<<
MY2919_U.S. NATIONAL GRID SPATIAL ADDRESS: 19TCG2588093681(NAD 83)
MY2919
MY2919 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By
MY2919 HISTORY - 1934 MONUMENTED CGS
MY2919 HISTORY - 1939 SEE DESCRIPTION CGS
MY2919 HISTORY - 20030105 POOR INDIV
MY2919
MY2919 STATION DESCRIPTION
MY2919
MY2919'DESCRIBED BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1934 (FLP)
MY2919'THIS IS AN INTERSECTION STATION. IT IS IN THE CENTRAL SECTION OF
MY2919'THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, IN THE NORTHERN PART OF HARVARD SQUARE. IT
MY2919'IS ON A PLOT OF LAND BETWEEN CAMBRIDGE, QUINCY AND KIRKLAND
MY2919'STREETS, ON PROPERTY OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY.
MY2919'
MY2919'THE STATION IS ON A VERY LARGE RED BRICK BUILDING KNOWN AS
MY2919'MEMORIAL HALL. RISING FROM ABOUT THE CENTER OF THE FLAT ROOF OF
MY2919'THE BUILDING, THERE IS A TALL SQUARE RED BRICK TOWER. THE UPPER
MY2919'PORTION OF THE TOWER TAPERS SLIGHTLY TO THE FLAT TOP. THE SIDES
MY2919'OF THE TAPERING SECTION ARE COPPER COVERED AND THERE IS A CLOCK
MY2919'FACE IN EACH SIDE. THERE IS A SMALL WIND VANE RISING FROM EACH
MY2919'CORNER OF THE TOP AND THERE IS ORNAMENTAL IRON WORK AROUND THE
MY2919'EDGE OF THE TOP.
MY2919'
MY2919'THE STATION IS THE CENTER OF THE TOWER. THE TOP OF THE TOWER
MY2919'IS ABOUT 80 FEET HIGH AND IT IS ABOUT 10 FEET SQUARE.
MY2919
MY2919 STATION RECOVERY (1939)
MY2919
MY2919'RECOVERY NOTE BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1939 (LWS)
MY2919'STATION RECOVERED AS DESCRIBED. DESCRIPTION ADEQUATE.
MY2919
MY2919 STATION RECOVERY (2003)
MY2919
MY2919'RECOVERY NOTE BY INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS 2003 (CMM)
MY2919'THIS TOWER BURNED DOWN IN 1956, RESTORED IN 1999 TO ITS 1878
MY2919'APPEARANCE, WHICH DIFFERS FROM THAT IN ITS 1934 DESCRIPTION IN THAT IT
MY2919'LACKS CLOCK FACES AND COPPER ROOFING. I DON'T KNOW IF IT MATTERS TO
MY2919'NGS. PHOTOS AT WWW.TRADITIONAL-BUILDING.COM/PALLADIO/PALLWIN1.HTM AND
MY2919'WWW.NEWS.HARVARD.EDU/GAZETTE/1999/02.18/MEMORIALHALL.HTML >>
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/data***.prl

http://www.northrup.org/photos/cambridge/harvard-tower-and-field.htm

> Because as I read it if you do have actual contraction or dilation due to
> gravity or velocity the other *must* change in an inversely proportional
> manner otherwise c becomes locally variant and the cabbage boils over.

Hmmm... why wouldn't ya just say vibrating masses change frequency with
acceleration or gravity. Accelerometers, cesium atoms, and iron salts
are three good eamples. It muddies the water a lot less. ;-)

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


.

Loading