Re: The real twin paradox.

On Dec 4, 10:37 am, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:dc9f06c0-c525-4d92-9e78-45e5ea5300cc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:





On Dec 4, 8:09 am, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:5d2cac2e-2244-452b-b4e1-cd72dfad444d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
:

[...]

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
He concludes that the laws of relative motion apply to light, to
electrons and to all ponderable masses.
We of course know that is not true.
Light beams would replace thrusters if it were.

'WE' do NOT know that.

I am betting on Newton's third law.

first, the statement I gave above says NOTHING about imponderable
masses such as light exerting pressure so your response is off target.
second, light DOES exert pressure. finally, the use of high intensity
light beams as a rocket thruster (as opposed to using ground based
lasers to push payloads into space) is prohibited by two laws:
1) the law against using
high energy beam weapons to destroy launch pads (the ship would
vaporize the launch pad) and
2) the batteries to drive the laser are kind of
heavy.
I have worked with a 500 Watt CW laser. It would take a small
moving van to move it with another for the 20,000 volt at 20 amp power
supply.

It would only produce 500 Newton meters/second of thrust, or 369
ft lbf/s of force.

Hardly enough to accelerate the power supply plus laser plus
sue-bungee- type extension cord.

Yes, nuclear fusion could supply enough power to make it worth while,
but we might as well use the laser and the fusion reaction to push the
'ash' [helium] away and gain even more of a boost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressurehttp://www.u.arizona.edu/
~lilley98/

[quotehttp://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=694]
The existence of light pressure was demonstrated as theoretically
possible by James Clerk Maxwell in 1873. Confirming laboratory
experiments waited until the turn of the century. [unquote]

[quotehttp://www.livescience.com/technology/070327_laser_jet.html]
Physicists know that the heat of lasers can move liquid. But this test
found that the light itself, not heat, did the pushing. [unquote]

[quotehttp://www.springerlink.com/content/rx72j316032p4148/]
Summary Attention is paid to the effect of light pressure, completely
ignored in the present explanations on the energetics of dynamical
processes in atmosphere. It seems even to be of great importance and
play a great role, especially in the upper atmosphere. It seems there
are three phenomena produced probably by this process: 1) Appearing of
the earth atmosphere tide on the night side. 2) Presence of strong west
winds on the great altitude. 3) Vertical oscillations of the upper
atmosphere density. [unquote]

[quotehttp://www.esc.cam.ac.uk/Library/Journals/J.Conf.Abs./1/222.html]
Contrary to bigger meteoroids which are controlled by gravitational
interactions dynamics of submicron-sized particles is dominated by
radiation pressure and by electromagnetic interactions with the
interplanetary magnetic field. [unquote]

Finally, to see light pressure in action, just observe the tails of
comets. They always point away from the sun because the pressure of the
light drives them away from the sun. [that is not to say that the solar
particle 'wind' has no effect, but the effect seen is the sum of
several effects INCLUDING light pressure].

....

None of these ~possibilities~ excuse the errors in gauge
selection and transformation. Making light a function of
inertia also makes it difficult to make inertia a function
of light.

*observables*, not ~possibilities~.
Light is OBSERVED to push things.

That is unfortunate.
Gravity and inertia is OBSERVED to pull things.
It is so common an observation that article writers
would scarcely consider it a worthy subject.

Repuslsion is not predicted when these fairly
common structures illuminate each other.
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html


Conformablily with popular notions does not justfiy
the use of Lorenz gauge and improper transformations.

We have established that four light paths may be unequal in length.
How does that violate causality, the speed of light or PoR ?

Causality is only violated by the transmission of information faster
than light. This has never been observed.

No such possibility was considered.

Right. The Lorentz-Einstein time transform give results that are
consistent with all known experimental data [once other effects such as
delta G and Sagnac are also factored in].



Perhaps bowing to experimental evidence goes against your preference
for obfuscation via random citation but TRY READING for understanding.

There is no evidence that uniform motion affects hair growth.
So I am not "going aginst experimental evidence".

No one has traveled long enough, far enough and fast enough for the
difference in hair growth to be noticeable, yet. It may be that none ever
will. But GPS and muons and radioactive ions and excited ions all show
effects consistent with those that would lead to differences in hair
growth.


No one has ever loaned me more money than I could repay either.
I'll give you a shipping address if you'd like to be the first. :o)

The effects are also consistant with violation of PoR.
Why are you not arguing that possibility?




The Nobel prize lecture says nothing about light clocks acting
differently than ponderable clocks, nor does it say that light exerts
no pressure, nor does it say that the Lorentz-Einstein transforms for
time have no reality.

True but it does give some insight that is not expressed
in the formalism of GR. The induction A.E. mentions is
not accessable with his formalism.
Nothing you have cited make any statement that support your contentions
that time is absolute.

The descripion of the Coulomb gauge makes that case well and
QM and QED attest to its accuracy.

You read something into the coulomb gauge that I don't.

That is why I suggested a synchronous motor clock
with a long cord. So you won't have to read about it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0606233
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034




And when you make your extension cord 'stretchy'
signals sent down it will show the same doppler shifts as signals
transmitted through the dielectric medium of space.

But I didn't make the extension cord stretchy.

Then you are performing an experiment that nature prohibits us from
performing.

My vacuum cleaner has no stretchy cord.
Nature has yet to complain about it.
I will find a place to hide, just it case the
Nature police search my house. I don't
my vacuum cleaner confiscated just for lack of
a stretchy cord. :o)



It is just a
way to insist on operation in the Coulomb gauge for folks
that don't know the rules. They have heard clocks have to
slow with motion so will consider no other possibiltiy.

I don't see how suppositions of instant communications over a distance,
or communications with a constant delay over a variable distance
have any application to reality.
Neither occur in nature.

I think perhaps you don't even understand how extension cords work.

"Transmission Lines"
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/4.html


Sue...


You have shown no conflict with the statements from
Weinberg and Fitzpatrick. You have only shown that it
was *convenient* for Einstein and didn't present a
severe conflict with his particle light.

You have the Noble committee's opinion on that.

--
bz

.

Loading