Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?

Dono wrote:
On Jul 12, 6:31 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 12, 9:13 pm, Dono <sa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 12, 6:05 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 12, 8:47 pm, Dono <sa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 12, 5:29 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip kookiness>

Sue,

You are all talk and no action, all you are good for is cobbling
up links to websites, you can't calculate jack***. You have no
clue how to put the things together.

I'll give you one more set of clues:

1. If you solve the equation of motion, you will get that
T=sqrt(a/b). You will need to find what are the physical entities
a and b.
2. In another frame F', moving with constant speed V wrt F,
T'=sqrt(a'/ b')
3. If you do your calculations correctly, you will also find out
that

a'/b'=gamma^2*(a/b) ,

4. The above confirms that T'=gamma*T

Now, get busy, start calculating, I will not give you any more
hints.

The calculation was offered to you.
If you insist on relativistic corrections just approximate
the peak speed of the disk for your gamma factor.

Say...100mm/sec for one of these little gems?

http://www.wkinsler.com/clocks/kundo1.jpg



Sue...

Everybody knew that you are a link-collecting crank. Now we all know
that you are a weasel as well. You can't calculate your way out of a
brown bag. PRETENDER.

The calculation was
yours.http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node139.html

The mass is invariant,

YES.

No,
the mass varies relatively.
a spin variation and an up and down motion variation.
both relative mass changes.
It is even relatively variant while th entire clocks frame is "at rest"
but ticking.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman


.