Re: The real twin paradox.

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:5d325202-f9ae-4e58-9f30-9d2e26f0ee5b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Dec 3, 4:54 am, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


....
.....

My claims are:


1 <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html


2 <<it is impossible to perform a physical experiment
which differentiates in any fundamental sense between
different inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html


Are those considered heretical statements in the
cult of Einstein?

Neither of those statements support your claims that traveling clocks stay
in sync with earthbound clocks.



So far, we have not developed a unified field theory that does this.
Does that mean that nature also fails to do so?

The absence of a theory does not imply the presense of
a connection.

"If I stick a vodoo doll with a pin; you will scream ouch".
Are you going to accept that statement because
there is no theory to dispute the connection?

I reject the theory that sticking a pin in the doll and you saying ouch
implies that you are in pain. We need more data.
Let me hook up an EEG to you and stick pins in the doll AND stick pins in
you and see which gives reproducible results.

.....
Not being a cult member, I don't know. I am ALSO not a member of your
accult group which seems to ascribe the longevity of rapidly moving
radio- active particles to some kind of as-of-yet-unrecognized math.
How you can happily ignore the fact that the Lorentz-Einstein
transformations CORRECTLY predict the behavior seen, well, I don't
know.

I take the view that the muon has to conserve its energy to exist.
When its motion is out of phase with its background it decays.

Now you are starting to sound like HW.


That is not strange maths. It is plain vanilla spin dynamics.
If you try to call it a clock, you have to include the background
particles as part of the clock. (air, magnets etc.)

Didn't know your last name. SW. Yep HW's sister.

How you can ignore the fact that transmission of a 60 Hz signal along a
LONG extension cord [with a fixed length] is fundamentally different
from what happens to em radiation, I don't know.

Oh? It is EM in a waveguide or fiber optic but something
else on 300 ohm twin lead or coaxial cable?

The fixed length makes a difference.

You have Newton's corpuscles between your ears. :o)

Better than nothing.

Let us weave a conductive material into a bungee cord, and then create
two conductors and insulating material likewise constructed.
Now, We have a better model. We connect that synchronous clock via this
stretchy cable and we send it on its time keeping round trip.

Now Newton's corpuscles are not just wagging your dog;
They are shaking your dog like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist"

I hear your dog from here.
"Yelp, yipe yipe yip yip yip whine"

Those are echos you are hearing, of your own wine, echoing inside your
scull. Well, whatever floats your boat.
I have better things to do with my time than to trade japes and yaps.

We now find that Doppler shift takes place, just as with em carried
through space.
We find the clock slows, just as the quartz clock, the light clock and
the balance wheel clock we carry on our trip.

You skip addressing the point. If the cord length is always equal to the
distance, then the Sue effect disappears and we are left with standard
Lorentz-Einstein effects.


As for vector addition, I seem to be better at it than you are.

Understanding the complex subject of reactive power works fine when I
use vector addition rather than complex numbers and it avoids falling
into the error to which you subscribed: that the imaginary numbers used
in complex math implied that the power was imaginary. I think you still
feel like the use by Einstein of complex math means that the time
factor in space-time is somehow 'imaginary'.

I am taking him at his word. The nearfield components work out
just as he states. No Ouji board required.

Your problem is that you are misreading his words.

<< Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
the relative strength of electric and magnetic
fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>
Formerly: http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html -Strauss
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html -Urban

<< where the real part of impedance is the resistance
and the

===> imaginary <===

Use vectors or phasors. Then there are NO imaginary components.

part is the reactance . Dimensionally,
impedance is the same as resistance; the SI unit is the ohm.
The term impedance was coined by Oliver Heaviside in July 1886.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance

Use vector math. You recommend it to others, take a dose yourself.
Then there are NO imaginary components when you use vectors.

Chant your mantra all you like. It doesn't make the muons in the
storage ring die faster.

No mantra is required to perform vector additon where
the situation requires it.

Right. So use vector math and integrate the computed power at each
instant. You will find that you get the same answer as you did using RMS
voltage and current and multiplying by the power factor.


Did you say ANY constant wind does NOT slow a round trip aeroplane
the same amount, regardless of the direction?

Aether wind has not been detected. Hot air abounds. Show me evidence of
the aether wind effecting the path of the aeroplane and I will give your
words and random citations more credence.

You were fussing about parallel path and inline path
for the dielectric motion.
If you will do the vector addition, instead of the
false short cuts and your unfounded fear of
complex numbers, you will find your mistake.

I am not afraid of complex numbers. But I don't mistake imaginary numbers
for the unreality of time effects due to relativistic motion.

Imaginary numbers make very real mistakes if
you forget where they are.

And if you imagine that the quantities they represent are somehow
'unreal'.



Remember those nuclear forces are very tightly bound. It is very
difficult for anything 'external' to have much effect on them. Oh, we
can line them up with a magnetic field, and ping them with a pulse and
watch the precession as their 'spin' fights to line back up with the
magnetic field, but that does not effect their half life. If it did, we
could store radium in a strong magnetic field rather than using a lead
box.



So, why do busy muons live longer than those that retire from the
rat-race?

~1/4 of their mechanism is in the surrouning air or magnet.
1/2 of an electron's mechanism is in its surroundings.

They want to unwind but the Coulomb force of matter zipping
past keeps them wound up.

What winds-up an electon, unwinds a muon and viceversa.

~~~sort of~~~ <:-)


SW.


"What Holds it Together?"
http://particleadventure.org/frameless/fermibos.html

Is that inertial coupling? Probably almost if the
nearby matter vanishes when the muon is moving
at c relative to the nearby matter.

...in the same context you described. Nearby matter
almost vanishes when stable atoms form.



You have out "ad hoc'd" HW, KS, A, KW and even HHH. Congratulations!
You just broke my pHandDeeper meter.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The real twin paradox.
    ... Motion far from a planet will not affect an atomic clock. ... Motion near a planet might add complications, ... precession as their 'spin' fights to line back up with the magnetic field, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: time, motion and space
    ... and an atom clock somewhere on earth. ... The questions relate to the old issue that time itself is an illusion ... propagation media and magnetic field conditions degrade it's ability to ... In the sense of "Time" as a universal linear absoulte, ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: The real twin paradox.
    ... Motion far from a planet will not affect an atomic clock. ... That would imply to me that 'Motion far from a planet' would be MORE ... precession as their 'spin' fights to line back up with the magnetic field, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
    ... Stopped muons lifetime is known with more precision now. ... Now put a very strong magnetic field around that block of iron and show ... Committee or Steven Weinberg for support. ... <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Cost of Relativity
    ... >>magnetic field. ... How does a cesium clock operate, ... (unless the tick fairies are operative). ... Both the ground observer and the moving clock can agree on a common time unit, ...
    (sci.physics)