mm-3669 === Subject: Re: The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of $$ VELOCiTY vector *MAGNiTUDE* is independant of PATH *SPEED*. o o o o o o vector o o o PROjECTiON o o o o o o o o ~any ACTUAL PATH~ o o $$ Actually, SPEED is CLEARLY (any ACTUAL PATH) / DURATiON. $$ VELOCiTY = (That *iMAGiNED-measured* VECTOR) / DURATiON. $$ CLEARLY, POSiTiON B is an *ARBiTRARY point* ON the PATH. Re: The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light Re: The Impossibility of Measuring [ ] Velocity v [.] Re: The *POSSiBiLiTY* to CALCULATE [ ] Velocity v. -=- Re: Momentum UNCERTAiNTY varies iNVERSELY with STRAiGHTNESS-of-PATH. Re: VELOCiTY: (That *iMAGiNED-measured* VECTOR) ..over DURATiON. Re: SPEED is CLEARLY any ACTUAL PATH ..over (/) DURATiON. Re: The Harvard BEER derivation: ROFFLMFAOAPMP! === Subject: Re: The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of brian a m stuckless said: Here, have a new diaper, and some duct tape for your ass. Next time try to make it to the bathroom. Do you know beer comes from the latin word for drink? -- Smiles, Tony === $$ VELOCiTY vector *MAGNiTUDE* is independant of PATH *SPEED*. o o o o o o vector o o o PROjECTiON o o o o o o o o ~any ACTUAL PATH~ o o $$ Actually, SPEED is CLEARLY (any ACTUAL PATH) / DURATiON. $$ VELOCiTY = (That *iMAGiNED-measured* VECTOR) / DURATiON. $$ CLEARLY, POSiTiON B is an *ARBiTRARY point* ON the PATH. Re: The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light Re: The Impossibility of Measuring [ ] Velocity v [.] Re: The *POSSiBiLiTY* to CALCULATE [ ] Velocity v. -=- Re: Momentum UNCERTAiNTY varies iNVERSELY with STRAiGHTNESS-of-PATH. Re: VELOCiTY: (That *iMAGiNED-measured* VECTOR) ..over DURATiON. Re: SPEED is CLEARLY any ACTUAL PATH ..over (/) DURATiON. Re: The Harvard BEER derivation: ROFFLMFAOAPMP! === Subject: Re: Space-based energy production You have obviously thought about all aspects, so what are the plans for dealing with the first dust-storm -- and the 10th? Can the units be cleaned, or it is simply a case of living with the degradation of performance? What about water supplies (in the desert), for the manufacturing and for conversion to hydrogen. Are those costs fully reflected? (Apparently, Sandia National Lab has done some studies pointing to water supplies as a limiting factor in US energy production). And what about plain old wind forces on all those panels? The winds in the south-west can rip the roofs off of houses. Sounds like a single poorly anchored panel could unzip a whole installation if the wind was from the wrong direction. Proper tie downs are not a technical problem, but they do cost money. Here's wishing you complete success! === Subject: Re: Space-based energy production Haha, with smart questions like these, it won't be long before I give away all the keys to my kingdom! lol. Scratching - can be a problem. We use an idea that is popular among auto manufacturers who have plastic lenses and so forth on lamps and lamp covers,but don't want them scratched by dust impacting the lamps and lamp covers at 80 mph., Silicon hydrides, known as silanes, can be evaporated in a vacuum and bombarded with oxygen ions at a specific temperature. If the temperatures and densities are just right, the oxygen combines with the silane and makes water and silicon dioxide. Again,if the speeds (temps) are just right, the silicon-oxide 'sticks' to the surface it hits,while the water bounces (boils) off in the vacuum. In this way, you can deposit very very thin layers of glass on plastic, to keep them from being scratched. Despite the complexity of the process, equipment exists to take continuous runs of parts on a roller belt, into a vacuum chamber, coat them with a few milli-cents worth of glass, and bring them back out - nonstop - for less than a penny a piece. Well, think about a street lamp or any light fixture. Are these cleaned on a regular basis? They get dim and dingy over time, but is the loss in performance worth the cost of getting it back by cleaning it? Generally speaking things get dirty to a point then natural processes keep them from getting dirtier. And that depends on the environment. There are actually formulae lighting fixture manufacturers use to estimate loss of performance over time. Of course, these can be used by solar panel manufacturers as well. Sure, some light fixtures point down and are 'protected' from dust and so forth, but other light fixtures are buried in the ground and point up along walkways and in gardens and so forth. Do you see people cleaning these generally? Architects say no. And that formula I described tells you why. Sure,if you cover an up facing walkway fixture by leaves and so forth, you'll have to periodically clear it out but dust really isn't a problem. The interesting thing is that the Voc, Isc signals from each group of ten panels will give you a history of performance. You can actually poll the controlling computers through a distributed net, and tell whether things are covered up or not. So, generally speaking, yes, we harden the panels against scratches, no we don't have a regular schedule of dusting, and YES, we do have a means to identify exceptional conditions to direct crews to 'fix' the problem (which generally requires dusting, but could include anything - bird nests, you name it) . If you're making synthetic liquid fuels you have to take coal to a reactor and react it with hydrogen. You've got to take water and DC electricity to an electrolyzer and make hydrogen. So, you've got a lot of supply chains to manage. Which is the cheapest mix? Depends on a lot of details. And there are hundreds of things to consider to really get a handle on this - and those things change in every situation. A team from Accenture we hired came up with five scenarios for this. The one I liked best was panels in Northen Nevada, feeding a HVDC line along the Union Pacific right of way. HVDC was fed West to California, and East to Utah. There,on the Northern shores of Salt Lake (Salt Lake City is in the South) the HVDC energy is used to desalinate and electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen. HVDC energy is also used to reduce salt to sodium and chlorine. We sell a portion of the oxygen, and the chlorine to soap and deoderant producers like P&G. We take the sodium and use it to make sodium sulfur batteries. We send the hydrogen by pipeline up the Union Pacific right of way, North East to Powder River Basin Wyoming. We take land slated for reclamation by Peabody, and Arch Coal companies, and build Bergius reactors on them. We use the hydrogen, and coal in the field, to make synthetic fuels. To avoid negative attention from oil companies, we create a blended products (without bottoms or sulfur) ideally suited to work with existing refineries. This syncrude is sent by pipeline to Cushing Oklahoma where it is stored for sale on the open market. Parallel to the hydrogen line is also a HVDC line to sell power in the region, and used to power our equipment. A small portion of the hydrogen is used to extract sulfur from the incoming coal, in fact, we partly pay for the coal we receive, by lowering sulfur content in the coal for these coal companies. The resulting hydrogen-sulfide is electrolytically reduced to hydrogen again, AND elemental sulfur. The elemental sulfur is used with the elemental sodium in our sodium sulfur batteries. This system could grow to meet all US oil needs and all electrical needs in the Western US. Beefing up the HVDC line travelling East, we can even get into the Eastern power grid, and grow that as well. Yes. Prices range from $8.50 to $12.50 per barrel - with coal prices at the mine, of a few years ago. Higher coal prices push prices slightly over $16 per barrel. Since there is surplus capacity at Powder River - if you're going to make these kind of investments, it makes sense to partner with the coal company, and expand productive capacity there, buying coal in the ground at a slight margin, and paying direct costs of production to those who know how to do it. Yes, that's why we don't drill wells and pump water up, as in central irrigation farming. We go to Salt Lak. In the scenario above, Wyoming coal will run out before we have a noticable impact on the lake. Of course, longer term, as we advance through our learning and volume curves, we'll be able to take CO2 and H2O out of the air - for about $22 per barrel - this will occur long before the coal and water are a problem in this scenario. There is enough coal and water in Utah and Wyoming (don't get me started on Montana!) to make more oil of higher quality than is left in all the oil wells of all the world. Our patent application shows a typical insallation. They're mounted directly onto the ground, which is shaped by a special tractor to create a surface that faces the sun. The panel string, like a string of Christmas tree lights, is pre-wired and self contained. Simple plastic stakes are punched out of a plastic lip around each panel, and inserted 8 feet in the ground by the 'planting' tractor. that opens a trench and then closes it. This is more than enough - along with the tension of the cable holding the string together - to hold the string down against wind and water. Fifty year floods are the worst of it, and managing runoff and so forth make this an interesting architectural problem. Our solution, fabricate the base of each panel with channels that hold the fifty year flood and discharge it in a plastic drain at a reasonable rate. Yes. But, by shaping the ground and planting the panels deep in the ground, with an 8 foot stake every 2 feet along the 4,400 ft length (there are 8 stakes in each 8' x 4' panel that are punched out of a plastic tab and folded down into an 8 foot deep trench spaced every 2 feet) the base of each panel has a channel that starts tall up stream and slopes down short downstream - forming a storage/controlled discharge system of each panel - sloping the land in such a way as to face the sun while keeping the panels sheltered from the wind in what amounts to trenches that catch sunlight - with adequate draining - makes a pretty secure system. Tornadoes still have a capacity to rip up a string, but those can be identified remotely and replaced - when that occurs, and that should occur at a level that amounts to 0.1% of the entire output - even in the worst of cases. Environmental engineers have looked at the worst combination. You have heavy snows, then heavy rain, with melting snow runoffs, in a tornado season.... there you might get a 3% to 4% reduction in output on a 5,000 square mile array located in Nevada/Arizona. This is a fifty year event, and given the level of support we will be dedicating to maintaining the system, it'll take 3 to 4 years to replace it. In 'good' years we'll take extra panels and stockpile them, and sell them on the open market to people who want to use them on their homes - but these will take a special control system and so forth - and their price will be around $2 per watt Winds are a worse problem for above ground HVDC lines stretching over the rockies. That's why we spend about 20% of our plastics budget on each panel to form anchoring lips that can be formed into stakes with a punch aboard the planting tractor - think of the plastic that holds a six pack together! We mold special sections of plastic that when hit with a punch that cuts strips out, and plants them in a trench, and actually anchors into the ground with a 3 dimensional anchor. That anchor is pretty tough, and one every 2 feet across an 8' x 4' panel, 8 feet long, with 'cups' along its length provides a helluva hold down force. Not if they're molded in the plastic as lips and then punched and folded into the trench as described. That's the lowest cost system we've seen. Careful attention to land shape, shaped by GPS controlled tractors and graders, and careful attention to water management and run off - also help. === Subject: Re: Space-based energy production integrated nature of your plans, and why North Africa -- despite the sunshine & the open space -- would not be suitable. The climate extremists won't like the initial phase of your plan, of course. But then those malcontents don't like much of anything! === Subject: Re: Space-based energy production Well, environmentalists have a good basis for worry! But, we are converting thousands of square miles of surface mines to solar power. And despite the fact we use coal as a carbon feedstock, we don't have ANY emissions making the sunfuels with renewable hydrogen. There are clays and asphaltenes in the coal get turned into a sort of asphalt which is sold - metals are reduced to elemental form with hydrogen, distilled out, and reduced electrolytically to hydrogen and elemental metals - we have uses for all of them, save mercury - which is made in huge abundance - but we are working on it. We don't burn the coal to make liquid fuels so we have large increases in output of liquid fuels per tonne of coal and no CO2 made during liquid fuel manufacture. Now when the liquid fuels get used, they DO produce CO2, but HALF the energy of the fuel came from the sun, and that's a way to quickly convert half the energy economy to sunlight. Offering the hydrogen feedstock for sale directly at competitive prices and the availability of enough renewable hydrogen to power the entire economy - are all pluses environmentally since it could jump start a === Subject: Re: Space-based energy production Haha, with smart questions like these, it won't be long before I give away all the keys to my kingdom! lol. Scratching - can be a problem. We use an idea that is popular among auto manufacturers who have plastic lenses and so forth on lamps and lamp covers,but don't want them scratched by dust impacting the lamps and lamp covers at 80 mph., Silicon hydrides, known as silanes, can be evaporated in a vacuum and bombarded with oxygen ions at a specific temperature. If the temperatures and densities are just right, the oxygen combines with the silane and makes water and silicon dioxide. Again,if the speeds (temps) are just right, the silicon-oxide 'sticks' to the surface it hits,while the water bounces (boils) off in the vacuum. In this way, you can deposit very very thin layers of glass on plastic, to keep them from being scratched. Despite the complexity of the process, equipment exists to take continuous runs of parts on a roller belt, into a vacuum chamber, coat them with a few milli-cents worth of glass, and bring them back out - nonstop - for less than a penny a piece. Well, think about a street lamp or any light fixture. Are these cleaned on a regular basis? They get dim and dingy over time, but is the loss in performance worth the cost of getting it back by cleaning it? Generally speaking things get dirty to a point then natural processes keep them from getting dirtier. And that depends on the environment. There are actually formulae lighting fixture manufacturers use to estimate loss of performance over time. Of course, these can be used by solar panel manufacturers as well. Sure, some light fixtures point down and are 'protected' from dust and so forth, but other light fixtures are buried in the ground and point up along walkways and in gardens and so forth. Do you see people cleaning these generally? Architects say no. And that formula I described tells you why. Sure,if you cover an up facing walkway fixture by leaves and so forth, you'll have to periodically clear it out but dust really isn't a problem. The interesting thing is that the Voc, Isc signals from each group of ten panels will give you a history of performance. You can actually poll the controlling computers through a distributed net, and tell whether things are covered up or not. So, generally speaking, yes, we harden the panels against scratches, no we don't have a regular schedule of dusting, and YES, we do have a means to identify exceptional conditions to direct crews to 'fix' the problem (which generally requires dusting, but could include anything - bird nests, you name it) . If you're making synthetic liquid fuels you have to take coal to a reactor and react it with hydrogen. You've got to take water and DC electricity to an electrolyzer and make hydrogen. So, you've got a lot of supply chains to manage. Which is the cheapest mix? Depends on a lot of details. And there are hundreds of things to consider to really get a handle on this - and those things change in every situation. A team from Accenture we hired came up with five scenarios for this. The one I liked best was panels in Northen Nevada, feeding a HVDC line along the Union Pacific right of way. HVDC was fed West to California, and East to Utah. There,on the Northern shores of Salt Lake (Salt Lake City is in the South) the HVDC energy is used to desalinate and electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen. HVDC energy is also used to reduce salt to sodium and chlorine. We sell a portion of the oxygen, and the chlorine to soap and deoderant producers like P&G. We take the sodium and use it to make sodium sulfur batteries. We send the hydrogen by pipeline up the Union Pacific right of way, North East to Powder River Basin Wyoming. We take land slated for reclamation by Peabody, and Arch Coal companies, and build Bergius reactors on them. We use the hydrogen, and coal in the field, to make synthetic fuels. To avoid negative attention from oil companies, we create a blended products (without bottoms or sulfur) ideally suited to work with existing refineries. This syncrude is sent by pipeline to Cushing Oklahoma where it is stored for sale on the open market. Parallel to the hydrogen line is also a HVDC line to sell power in the region, and used to power our equipment. A small portion of the hydrogen is used to extract sulfur from the incoming coal, in fact, we partly pay for the coal we receive, by lowering sulfur content in the coal for these coal companies. The resulting hydrogen-sulfide is electrolytically reduced to hydrogen again, AND elemental sulfur. The elemental sulfur is used with the elemental sodium in our sodium sulfur batteries. This system could grow to meet all US oil needs and all electrical needs in the Western US. Beefing up the HVDC line travelling East, we can even get into the Eastern power grid, and grow that as well. Yes. Prices range from $8.50 to $12.50 per barrel - with coal prices at the mine, of a few years ago. Higher coal prices push prices slightly over $16 per barrel. Since there is surplus capacity at Powder River - if you're going to make these kind of investments, it makes sense to partner with the coal company, and expand productive capacity there, buying coal in the ground at a slight margin, and paying direct costs of production to those who know how to do it. Yes, that's why we don't drill wells and pump water up, as in central irrigation farming. We go to Salt Lak. In the scenario above, Wyoming coal will run out before we have a noticable impact on the lake. Of course, longer term, as we advance through our learning and volume curves, we'll be able to take CO2 and H2O out of the air - for about $22 per barrel - this will occur long before the coal and water are a problem in this scenario. There is enough coal and water in Utah and Wyoming (don't get me started on Montana!) to make more oil of higher quality than is left in all the oil wells of all the world. Our patent application shows a typical insallation. They're mounted directly onto the ground, which is shaped by a special tractor to create a surface that faces the sun. The panel string, like a string of Christmas tree lights, is pre-wired and self contained. Simple plastic stakes are punched out of a plastic lip around each panel, and inserted 8 feet in the ground by the 'planting' tractor. that opens a trench and then closes it. This is more than enough - along with the tension of the cable holding the string together - to hold the string down against wind and water. Fifty year floods are the worst of it, and managing runoff and so forth make this an interesting architectural problem. Our solution, fabricate the base of each panel with channels that hold the fifty year flood and discharge it in a plastic drain at a reasonable rate. Yes. But, by shaping the ground and planting the panels deep in the ground, with an 8 foot stake every 2 feet along the 4,400 ft length (there are 8 stakes in each 8' x 4' panel that are punched out of a plastic tab and folded down into an 8 foot deep trench spaced every 2 feet) the base of each panel has a channel that starts tall up stream and slopes down short downstream - forming a storage/controlled discharge system of each panel - sloping the land in such a way as to face the sun while keeping the panels sheltered from the wind in what amounts to trenches that catch sunlight - with adequate draining - makes a pretty secure system. Tornadoes still have a capacity to rip up a string, but those can be identified remotely and replaced - when that occurs, and that should occur at a level that amounts to 0.1% of the entire output - even in the worst of cases. Environmental engineers have looked at the worst combination. You have heavy snows, then heavy rain, with melting snow runoffs, in a tornado season.... there you might get a 3% to 4% reduction in output on a 5,000 square mile array located in Nevada/Arizona. This is a fifty year event, and given the level of support we will be dedicating to maintaining the system, it'll take 3 to 4 years to replace it. In 'good' years we'll take extra panels and stockpile them, and sell them on the open market to people who want to use them on their homes - but these will take a special control system and so forth - and their price will be around $2 per watt Winds are a worse problem for above ground HVDC lines stretching over the rockies. That's why we spend about 20% of our plastics budget on each panel to form anchoring lips that can be formed into stakes with a punch aboard the planting tractor - think of the plastic that holds a six pack together! We mold special sections of plastic that when hit with a punch that cuts strips out, and plants them in a trench, and actually anchors into the ground with a 3 dimensional anchor. That anchor is pretty tough, and one every 2 feet across an 8' x 4' panel, 8 feet long, with 'cups' along its length provides a helluva hold down force. Not if they're molded in the plastic as lips and then punched and folded into the trench as described. That's the lowest cost system we've seen. Careful attention to land shape, shaped by GPS controlled tractors and graders, and careful attention to water management and run off - also help. === Subject: Feed rats more, give them more drugs, they grow old quicker and die sooner. Hi John_Bailo, Admit it Bailo... when it comes to biology, Lab_Rat studies are the only _Hard_ science, the rest is mush. Feed rats more, give them more drugs, they grow old quicker and die sooner. You don't know how much drugs Keith Richards has done in the last decade, nor do you know how that might compare with the typical Brit. You asked me: So how much longer will you be posting here ? You replied to my post, Bailo... I didn't reply to one of yours. You'd get rid of me sooner if you stopped replying to me. Other than The_Ghost, you're the only guy I talk to in Comp.OS.Linux.Advocacy. === Subject: Re: Feed rats more, give them more drugs, they grow old quicker and die sooner. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz................ Jeff once more lulls passer-bys to sleep with his inane drivel. Do you claim rat studies are better placed than studies on Primates when it comes to determing effects on humans? What about tests on humans? You are aware about the difference between rats and humans, aren't you? The fact you have no idea doesnt stop you from espousing your opinion at regular intervals. I doubt it. You told me you never posted to COLA any more. Can you stop posting your -- For Google Groups users this may be important http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html === Subject: Nature's way: Always strike without warning. Catastrophe does not warn in advance. Earthquake, floods, storms. When our scientist predict, it does not happen. When scientists sleep, it strikes without warning. Nature's way: always strike without warning. === Subject: Re: Nature's way: Always strike without warning. Nature's way: Dirk Vdm === Subject: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) You haven't answered my question. What makes you think a finite propogation speed for gravitation causes a torque in your setup? [snip babble] === Subject: Re: 19 more offers. My follow-up to Jung_Min. Is there a reason you aren't doing this via email? -- For Google Groups users this may be important http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html === Subject: Re: 1.38 million KRW per MT of aluminum ingots, Cash_at_Your_Dock. -- For Google Groups users this may be important http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html === Subject: Re: T.J., Are you still with me ? Should we take this to email ? There is a slight typo in your post there Jeff. You put an s in by mistake. -- For Google Groups users this may be important http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html === Subject: Re: is dis-interest in mathematics evolutionarily preferred? Yes. It is. Feel free to ignore the rest of my questions if you find answering them difficult. -- For Google Groups users this may be important http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html === Subject: Re: is dis-interest in mathematics evolutionarily preferred? Learn English grammar. -- For Google Groups users this may be important http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html === Subject: Re: Is platonism in math correct? Platonism seems worthwhile. There's only one theory with no axioms. Nothing, zero, is obvious, then nothing or not nothing, or not, ad infinitum, with ubiquitous ordinals, and powerset as order type as successor, with binary representation being more than a number. There's no universe in ZF. Besides that, any theory that is Goedelianly incomplete can never be a theory of everything, T.o.E. or G.U.T. The universe is infinite, infinite sets are equivalent. There's only one theory with no axioms, A theory. Ross === Subject: Re: Is platonism in math correct? Are your writing poems or saying something? === Subject: Re: Is platonism in math correct? Like other languages, math is only a symbolic represntation of reality for the purpose of communicating a greater understanding of that reality. However, math seems to be of a greater precision than the language I'm using here. === Subject: Re: It's a lifestyle choice. ...not to mention the whole beer at lunch thing. -- OpenDoc is moot when Apple is your one stop iShop. ||| / | === Subject: T.J., This moon thing of yours is a big ruse, not your _Real_ issue. Hi T.J., I need to get some sleep right now. I've been doing a lot of emergency coding lately. I've only had a few hours sleep in the last 48 hours. I'm not thinking straight. Are you still with me on the trades ? If so, please tell me how I should price various _Qualities_ of copper and aluminum scrap. Should I also be looking at corn and sugar ? You said you liked Korea, Egypt, Thialand, Equador, Vensualia, and Russia; so I'll be looking there. Cosmic rays are, for example, protons moving very close to the speed of light. They probably come from hypernovae cum black holes. Their energy and frequency of occurrence varies _Greatly_. The strongest one on record had an energy level approaching that of a bullet. This moon thing of yours is a big ruse, not your _Real_ issue. You simply don't like Nasa or high-energy physics, i.e. cosmology. Sober_Minded_Metaphysics, e.g. the Lambda_CDM model, is the only way theories and technologies can advance. Anything less than that is primitive superstition... nowhereville. Today's theories/technologies will likely seem very primative indeed to our ancestors. The causalities are surely there... waiting to be discovered. Einstein was the best at discovering them because he postulated: The future is just as immutable as the past. Randomness comes only from a failure to measure some causality. True randomness, true free-will, don't exist. It's only unknowns that makes time seem directional, like entropy. For example, _Decades_ before it was empirically proven, General_Relativitiy's lambda, -- a.k.a. the cosmological constant, a.k.a. dark energy, a.k.a. the negavtive energy density of the vacuum --, is just now, in 2006, being confirmed to a high degree of precision. Likewise, _Decades_ before it was empirically proven, General Relativity explained exactly how a clock with 10 ^ -16 second accuracy ticks faster with a minute increase in altitude. See: Time Too Good to Be True, PhysicsToday.ORG/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html Today's best theories/technologies can't observe anything denser than Planck_Density... so that's were our observable universe ends, 13.7 billion years ago in 5D cosmic time. While 4D spacetime is always flat at any moment in cosmic-time, -- i.e. it never has a center of gravity --, in 5D, spacetime over cosmic-time, the geometry is negatively curved, hyperbolic, like a 2D hyperbola or a 3D horn with an infinitely long mouth piece and flang. === Subject: Re: T.J., This moon thing of yours is a big ruse, not your _Real_ issue. Wow. You make it sound so exciting. Well, no change there then. Free? Only if you desire a high carbohyrdate diet. Good for you. Why dont you do that instead of blogging on USENET? Hypernovae? Amazing analogy... Frazir doesnt like things he doesnt understand. This most things. You are unable to tell the difference between science and belief. Our ancestors? Get more sleep. You mistake the common beliefs about Einstein simply dreaming up his theories with the fact he did actually do a fair bit of work and study. Nonsense. Prove it. Nonsense. Nonsense. nDimensional nonsense. -- For Google Groups users this may be important http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html === Subject: Sober_Minded_Metaphysics, -- e.g. going beyond the Lambda_CDM model. Oops, I meant to say: Sober_Minded_Metaphysics, -- e.g. going beyond the Lambda_CDM model --, is the only way theories and technologies can advance. Anything less than that is primitive superstition... nowhereville. === Subject: Re: Sober_Minded_Metaphysics, -- e.g. going beyond the Lambda_CDM model. Its OK, you left all the real nonsense in. -- For Google Groups users this may be important http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html === Subject: Re: Work - impulse The kinetic energy acquired by the lever depends on its mass. Of course that for a heavier lever, the point of impact should be farther from the pivot, and for a lighter lever, closer. In all cases the puck stops completely on impact. Of course, that is elementary. Please see the problem PD posed, which I solved. Also, my most recent reply to PD. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/elacol.html Peter === Subject: Re: Work - impulse This is not the case. The location of the sweet spot for a lever of length L is always at the same fraction of L, regardless of the mass. Additionally, it simply isn't true that the puck stops completely on impact in all cases, regardless of the point of impact. I don't know where you got that idea. PD === Subject: Re: Work - impulse The center of percussion you are talking about (sweet spot) is valid for an unpivoted lever, not for a pivoted one. No, that is not what I mean. The distance from the pivot where the puck must hit to stop on impact depends on the mass of the lever, and it is unique. If a puck strikes on a point closer to he pivot (than the point it should strike), it rebounds, and if it strikes on a spot farther from the pivot, it overshoots. I hope this is clear. Peter === Subject: Re: Work - impulse PD === Subject: Re: Work - impulse Please see my most recent reply to PD. No, the puck stops completely on impact with the lever. That was empirically determined. Peter === Subject: Re: Work - impulse This is the general case. You snipped the rest of my calculation where I assumed that v1 = 0 to find out the conditions on d where that is true. Assuming elastic collision, I obtain d = r/sqrt(3) as the impact point where v1 = 0. Making no assumptions on elasticity of collision, I am unable to find the d such that the puck stops completely. Ah. Then since you have gross losses in energy, it would be pretty hard to draw the conclusion you want about kinetic energy not being conserved, wouldn't it? - Randy === Subject: Re: Work - impulse This is the general case. You snipped the rest of my calculation where I assumed that v1 = 0 to find out the conditions on d where that is true. Assuming elastic collision, I obtain d = r/sqrt(3) as the impact point where v1 = 0. Making no assumptions on elasticity of collision, I am unable to find the d such that the puck stops completely. Ah. Then since you have gross losses in energy, it would be pretty hard to draw the conclusion you want about kinetic energy not being conserved, wouldn't it? - Randy === Subject: Re: Work - impulse Sorry, I missed it. The point of impact on a lever of mass m (about a foot long) for a puck of the same mass is r/3, without any doubt. It must be determined experimentally, as I did. Ah. Then since you have gross losses in energy, it would be pretty hard to draw the conclusion you want about kinetic energy not being conserved, wouldn't it? I am only concerned with the difference of the kinetic energy between levers of different mass. Same losses must occur in both cases. Only the point of impact for the puck to stop complete is determined empirically. The analysis is theoretical. The linear velocity of the puck is assumed to be an instant before the collision. The coefficient of restitution in a collision between and acrylic block and a steel ball is very high. There is absolutely no permanent deformation of the colliding object is this collision. The loss of energy cannot be too high. Peter === Subject: Re: Work - impulse According to your experiment. According to your experiment. I have doubt. No, it can be determined under various assumptions of elasticity/inelasticity. Clearly not, and simply waving your hand and saying that friction, vibration, etc are the same despite different impact points and masses does not make it so. Right. So your analysis is incomplete. No, an analysis which assumes certain things to be true without a doubt based on experimental results is not purely theoretical. You are introducing assumptions which are not justified. At any rate, you didn't include the potential for losses in your theoretical losses, so even your unjustified statement that the losses were the same is not compatible with your analysis that says the losses are zero. - Randy === Subject: Re: Work - impulse Lets us say the first (lighter) lever has a mass m, as does the puck, and the other lever has a mass 2m. The moment of inertia of the first lever is IL1 = m(2r)^2/12 = mr^2/3, and that of the second lever is IL2 = 2mr^2/3. Because the linear velocity of the puck, one instant before it hits either lever, is the same in both cases, its angular velocity and momentum, relative to the pivot, is not. The angular momentum of the puck in the first case is Lp1 = m(r/3)^2 w, where w is its angular velocity, and in the second case is Lp2 = m(2r/5)^2(5w/6) = (2/15)mr^2w . In both cases, the puck stops completely on impact with the lever, and since angular momentum must be conserved, each lever acquires the angular momentum of the puck that hit it. Thus, the kinetic energy of the second (heavier) lever is less that that of the first lever, although the work done on both levers is exactly the same. Peter === Subject: Re: Work - impulse Whaaat? The angular momentum of the PUCK is different? Oh, I see what you're doing. You're using the two different lever arms. And the angular velocity of the puck in the second case is w2 = v*r/2.5 = 5w/6 where w = v*r/3. OK. Of course you are making an assumption here, not necessarily justified, that the point where the puck stops completely is EXACTLY r/3 in the first case and EXACTLY r/2.5 in the second. Unless the work done on both levers isn't the same. You have losses you haven't accounted for in your experimental setup which will be different for different geometries. - Randy === Subject: Re: Work - impulse There is no work done on the levers. there is just momentum change due to the impulse generated in the collision. Peter is setting up a red herring (distracting issue) here. He draws attention to his calculations and arguments about the nature of collision, energy losses, distances on the levers the puck stops, etc. whereas his main argument is that the work? done on the levers is the same although they aquire different KE. He wants to dispute the work = change in KE equation of mechanics. But that is not an experiment where such equation applies. There are no forces on the levers acting over a path on which there is work done. The situation is described in general by I = dp. Thus, I have come to the conclusion that Peter's arguments are due to very basic misunderstanding of the concepts of mechanics. He confuses impulse and work, work done by a force on body A and kinetic energy of body B in an interaction as well as intemixes thought experiments (which he initally claimed it was all about) with empirical observations unrelated to those experiments. === Subject: Re: Work - impulse Of course that work is being done on the levers, W = F(net) x, according to the work-energy theorem. The work done on the pucks is the same. No, the work-energy theorem is correct. Sorry, that is not right. Of course the puck exerts a force over a distance on the lever, that is why its kinetic energy changes. I took three years of classical mechanics because I wanted to make sure I understood the subject, and realized some professors do not. Peter === Subject: Re: Work - impulse Yes, but the kinetic energy of the puck is the same in both cases. Oh, I see what you're doing. You're using the two different lever arms. And the angular velocity of the puck in the second case is w2 = v*r/2.5 = 5w/6 where w = v*r/3. OK. Of course you are making an assumption here, not necessarily justified, that the point where the puck stops completely is EXACTLY r/3 in the first case and EXACTLY r/2.5 in the second. It is not an assumption. The points were determined in careful experiments. The kinetic energy of the puck in each case is exactly the same. You have losses you haven't accounted for in your experimental setup which will be different for different geometries. If there are differences, they must be very small, compared with the difference in the kinetic energy of the levers. Peter === Subject: Re: Work - impulse OK, I would have calculated it a little differently. For an object moving in a straight line with velocity v at a distance r from the pivot, the angular momentum is L = mvr so L1p = mv(r/3) L2p = mv(2r/5) = (6/5)L1p You're using w = 3v/r, so translating mine to yours, L1p = (1/9)m(r^2)w L2p = (2/15)m(r^2)w That checks. This you have not shown. This is in fact counter to experiment. === Subject: Re: Work - impulse That was empirically determined. The setup used proved to be extremely sensitive; thus, the data reported are completely reliable. It is not difficult to replicate, taking all the usual precautions. Peter === Subject: Re: Work - impulse Then you need to publish your experimental results, because your experimental results are counter to other experimental results. By the way, other experimental results are consistent with what theory predicts. Here is what theory predicts: M = mass of lever L = length of lever, from end to end I = ML^2/12, for lever pivoted in center m = mass of puck v = initial velocity of puck v' = final velocity of puck r = distance of closest approach of line of motion of puck to pivot w = final angular velocity of lever We will solve for the value of r that requires v'=0. We will assume a completely elastic collision. Conservation of angular momentum: mvr = mv'r + Iw = mv'r + (ML^2/12)w and because v'=0 mvr = (ML^2/12)w (1) Conservation of energy: mv^2 = m(v')^2 + Iw^2 = m(v')^2 + M(L^2)(w^2)/12 and because v'=0 mv^2 = M(L^2)(w^2)/12 (2) sqrt[12(m/M)]v/L = w (3) Put (3) into (1) mvr = sqrt[12(m/M)](ML^2/12)v/L r = sqrt[(M/m)/12]L This says that for M/m = 1, r = (L/2)/sqrt(3). And for M/m = 2, r = (L/2)/sqrt(4/3). You claim to find values of r that are different than these values of r. You claim to find for M/m = 1, r = (L/2)/3 And for M/m = 2, r = (L/2)/(5/2). On the basis of your experimentally determined values of r, you are saying that the principles used in the calculation above must be wrong somewhere, and I take it you have a problem with the conservation of energy --- or at least that your experimental results suggest that this is the one that must be wrong. I suggest strongly that you do the following: a) Document all your sources of systematic error and use that to estimate error bars on your measured value of r. b) Do a literature search on experiments that test completely elastic collisions with mixed linear and rotational motion and compare your experimental sensitivity with theirs. c) If your experimental sensitivity is comparable to that of the competing papers, submit it to a journal for peer review. Since your experimental results conflict with other experimental results, you will have to be *very careful* in your execution of these steps to be absolutely sure you're right. PD === Subject: Re: Work - impulse Yes, I would like very much to have my work published, but I need help for it. I have not been able to find in any textbook or reference, experiments similar to mine. If you know of some, I would appreciate you let me know. It is worthwhile mentioning that I am not questioning Newton's laws of motion (in the macroscopic world), the conservation of linear or angular momentum, the work-energy theorem, or the law of conservation of energy (in closed, isolated systems). I know what current ideas predict. r = sqrt[(M/m)/12]L If the puck collides with that point, it does not stop at all, it overshoots the lever. Again, if the puck hits that point, it does not stop at all, it grossly overshoots the lever. r. That is right. Yes, that is right. I say energy is not conserved because we are not in a closed, isolated system. Of course there is more to this, but that is the part I have not talked about yet. Everything has a beautiful explanation. we talk about it some more? Please write to me at poakfield@msn.com. I agree. Peter === Subject: Re: Work - impulse There is hardly such a thing in reality. There is always energy loss. Especially when you have a pivoted lever and a table there is both Coulomb and viscous friction as well as potential energy stored in the lever as a result of the collision. For this experiment to approach elastic conditions it must be done on ice with steel puck and lever, amongst other things. An experimental setup to contol all variables, error sources and take accurate measurements may cost in the order of 100 - 300K. Thought experiments are cheap... === Subject: Re: Work - impulse You have been told a zillion times that an impulse does not do any work. This is not a problem of the work done by a force over a path being equal to the change of kinetic energy of the body on which the force acts. This is a collision problem in which momentum is conserved. There is no work done on the levers since, besides the impulse due to the collision, there is no other force that does work. There is only momentum change which translates to a final kinetic energy for the levers. === Subject: Re: Work - impulse It is not true that an impulse does no work; it does, according to W = F(net) x, for there is always an x; if that were not the case, the object receiving the impulse would not acquire any kinetic energy, and it does. It is, according to the work-energy theorem. Of course momentum is conserved. Forces exert impulses. A change in kinetic energy always implies work, according to the work-energy theorem. Peter === Subject: inertial=restful=intrinsic. $$ inertial=restful=intrinsic. $$ Note iNERTiAL means (..is a synonym for) REST; $$ ..of M1, M1 has NO THEORETiCAL acceleration towards m1, $$ $$ ..where (the OPPOSiTE radial vectors of ) m1*v1 = M1*v. $$ $$ [EVEN THOUGH the THEORETiCAL acceleration M1*v is SMALL]. $$ [EVEN if the EXPERiMENTAL acceleration M1*v, negligible]. $$ The GR-equations ARiTHMETiCALLY eliminate Newton's M1*v. $$ The GR-equations *SYSTEMiCALLY* eliminate Newton's M1*v. $$ $$ Centro-symmetry. $$ [An OUT-going vector is (+) ..iN-coming vectors are (-)]. $$ Note EQUAL radial vectors areN'T PARALLEL, anyway. $$ The GR-coup didN'T know that Newton typically neglected M1 motion. $$ [Clearly HOWEVER, this is NOT TRUE for ANY two more-SiMiLAR mass]. 1. SR & GR ..no barycentre. $$ SR had M1 at REST ..permanantly, in theory. $$ GR didN'T have M1 at REST ..permanantly, in theory, as SR did. $$ [ SR and GR ..*BOTH*, eliminate the *point-in-common* ]. $$ $$ Newton, with (n - 1) included, gives the EXACT answer. $$ Note (n - 1) provides the SiGN: OUTgoing is (+); iNcoming is (-). $$ G*M1*m1/(n - 1) = m1*rA^2*g = m1*rA*v1^2 = 4*(pi)^2*m1*rA^3/tA^2. 2. SR & GR ..no ambient density. $$ Note GR substitutes SPACE-time curvature, in place of ambient. $$ [The bending of light is ACTUALLY ambient gradient DiFFRACTiON]. 3. SR & GR ..no test-mass field. $$ Note, where-as M1 had a field ..the TEST mass m1 HAD no FiELD. $$ [Therefore, TWO (2) photons *caN'T BE* attracted to EACH other]. $$ [This means in GR YOU HAVE to CHOOSE WHiCH one attracts others]. $$ Newton PROFOUNDLY simplified the n-body problem to just two (2). $$ [THEN with (n - 1) CORRECTiNG Newton, ANOTHER body is included]. $$ [THEN with (n - 1) CORRECTiNG Newton, ANOTHER mass mS is added]. $$ SR & GR linear means no barycentre. i.e. No-CENTRO-symmetry. $$ GR with NO test-field AND a GR-SUBSTiTUTED-ambient, is just WRONG. $$ [Albeit, predicting the correct NUMBER, after TWEAKiNG ..ALL]. Re: Newton ..with (n - 1), gives the EXACT answer. ..End of POST. === Subject: Re: Deja vu! Tsunami warning in fiji, new zealand Robibnikoff, you have no clue, do you? You really have no conept of what belief is. You simply want to parade your disbelieve in front of everyone else, with the goal of attracting attention to yourslef, right? Well, confront a true believer, and lay it on me if you dare. Being a physicist I can share with you the fact that there are incredible odds against intelligent life emerging on earth, but it has, sort of. There are also incredible odds against earth emerging as a life sustainable planet, but it did. There are also, to quote our old departed friend Carl Sagon in noting that there are billions of places out there that could support intelligent life, and many likely do. My question is based upon why you are so hostile and believing some sort of intelligence could have contrived the whole thing, or at least layed the building blocks in place? Since you're such a professed atheist, I await you explanation of the nature and reproductive capacity of the dna molecule and the construction of the double helix, and why the laws of physics are so consistent and almost seem natural. Note being a deeply religous individual who Ghod no doubt is now personally looking out for, it gives one pause to see the nature of how the world, indeed the universe is constructed, and also gives one pause to wonder if it is all by chance. The more you know, the more you wonder. Harry C. === Subject: Re: Deja vu! Tsunami warning in fiji, new zealand All this doesn't prove a darn thing. (You weren't making a lot of sense anyway.) Now, this Ghod you believe in (sounds a bit like God, only cooler, like something out of Star Trek) is known to be real by *what* evidence, exactly? === Subject: Re: Deja vu! Tsunami warning in fiji, new zealand Well, it's pretty obvious that you don't have much of a clue what disbelief is. As a physicist, I'm not sure I agree with the incredible odds against life (intelligent TBD) emerging on this planet. Based on my experience, the odds are about 1 in 1. Now, as to how many other planets have life (intelligent or otherwise) we can sit around all day conjecturing up odds. Why do any of this facts need any magical god? It seems that they are simply the result of how this universe formed. Wonder yes! Believe in mythical gods as the cause, no!. But if you prefer to wrap your lack of knowledge up and call it a god, that's your right. -- Woden religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts, lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing. === Subject: Re: Deja vu! Tsunami warning in fiji, new zealand What is it with you liars? You can't cope with people's REACTION to shoving your beliefs where they are neither wanted nor needed. So you lie about the reaction being in a vacuum. and you then amateur-psychologise that lie to come up with more nastiness. Translation: you don't know therefore an imaginary superbeing that you happen already to believe in (what a surprise) did it. One might expect a physicist or any other kind of scientist to grasp that it didn't happen all at once but built on what was already there a step at a time. And that because each previous step had already happened, its probability is 1. [snip the rest of this tripe] === Subject: Re: Deja vu! Tsunami warning in fiji, new zealand hhc...@yahoo.com schreef: Sorry, Posting to alt.atheism is asking for thi. Theist posting on alt.atheism often argue that life is so improbable, that it must have been purposely designed. If they are right about the impropabilitie but wrong on the designer idea, (odds were against it, but - by chance - it happened anyway_ we might actually be the only planet with life on it in the whole universe Sorry you should ask a biochemist, about the explanation, and a psychologist on natural appearance. Very improbable that Robibnikof is both, but then again. . . . Supposing there is a designer, why didn't he prevents Tsunami's to begin with, why would one have to pray? Robibnikof was showing compassion, rather than anything else, but she is an atheist posting on alt.atheism. In stead of wondering about the universe, why don't you wonder about praying? A study has shown than in heart-surgery, people that are being prayed for, - if anything - die more often, than does that nobody is praying for. If we are to take the study seriously it would make sense not to pray. . . . . even for theists. You should also remember that an atheist who prays is dishonest. Do you prefer a dishonest atheist? Peter van Velzen May 2006 Amstelveen The Netherlands === Subject: Re: Deja vu! Tsunami warning in fiji, new zealand : Robibnikoff, you have no clue, do you? : : You really have no conept of what belief is. You simply want to parade : your disbelieve in front of everyone else, with the goal of attracting : attention to yourslef, right? : : Well, confront a true believer, and lay it on me if you dare. Being a : physicist I can share with you the fact that there are incredible odds : against intelligent life emerging on earth, but it has, sort of. There : are also incredible odds against earth emerging as a life sustainable : planet, but it did. There are also, to quote our old departed friend : Carl Sagon in noting that there are billions of places out there that : could support intelligent life, and many likely do. I don't believe that you even have a degree, let alone a physics degree, you illiterate ignoramus. The next time that you attempt to impersonate an educated person, get someone literate to type your post up for you. : My question is based upon why you are so hostile and believing some : sort of intelligence could have contrived the whole thing, or at least : layed the building blocks in place? Since you're such a professed : atheist, I await you explanation of the nature and reproductive : capacity of the dna molecule and the construction of the double helix, : and why the laws of physics are so consistent and almost seem natural. : : Note being a deeply religous individual who Ghod no doubt is now : personally looking out for, it gives one pause to see the nature of how : the world, indeed the universe is constructed, and also gives one pause : to wonder if it is all by chance. The more you know, the more you : wonder. I'm not looking out for you, never have, never will. Ghod === Subject: Re: Deja vu! Tsunami warning in fiji, new zealand You, sir, need to learn how to spell. And I'll kindly ask you not to speak for me as you don't know anything about me. Blah, blah, blah. You didn't really expect me to read all that poorly-written drivel, did you? If you have objective verifiable evidence that this god (or should that be Ghod) exists, please present it. I'm not interested in some long-winded bull. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo Atheist Bastard Extraordinaire #1557 === Subject: Re: Deja vu! Tsunami warning in fiji, new zealand on 03 May 2006 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Dirk Van de moortel upon us with this: It would seem to me that the god would know by now what things we don't like to happen, like earthquakes, fires, tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes... Why would we have to keep praying about them, and why does he keep sending them? -- Uncle Vic aa#2011 Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed L shaped chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department === 350 eh. Seeing that the particular aircraft cruises at .80 Mach TAS .I wonder if dead doofus can translate that into full power at sea level airspeed ? I agree. Rather poor flying skill. We at least can avoid hitting structures eh Vandar :-) === I was trying to make it easy for Vandar. I doubt the plane was doing 500 mph. Of course, being what you are, you'll insist that it must be, right? === Subject: Re: Why I believe in Athiesm. You must have been living under a rock for the past 15 years. DU is bad news, always has been. read the forgine press online BBC, etc. and wake up. === Subject: To Jerry. | | | The Hubble Space Telescope floats in a manmade vacuum????? | Oh, come on! Now see, that's where you show promise. You thought of a situation where the bluff was so obvious that Wilson can have no comeback (save a sneer), and you relied on indisputable empirical data. If you could keep that up I'd be right there with you, it's when you repeat what you've been told that I doubt your abilities. I'd far rather you thought. Wilson invented his threshold when he forgot to include pitch in his program, it only has yaw, no roll either but roll was of no importance, and although he is right about ballistic light his worbits are all edge-on. Hence empirical data has to be answered by thresholds, which is pure unadulterated nonsense. In that respect Einstein is no different to Wilson who accepted the word of John Goodricke and invented excuses to promote his pet theory. let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at school. -- Einstein. Assume????? Appealing to schoolchildren????? Oh, come on! It's absolute psychological garbage. Einstein would be ripped to shreds by a newsgroup, let alone by Newton, if we were hearing him for the first time. we know with great exactness that this velocity is the same for all colours, because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would not be observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a fixed star by its dark neighbour. -- Einstein. What eclipse? Einstein is of course referring to Algol and the Goodricke Assumption, but the Goodricke Assumption fails to take into account the velocity of light being added to the velocity of it's source. Hence the Aether Assumption. Then along come Michelson and blows the aether out of existence, Einstein seizes his chance and it's downhill all the way now, assumption piled on assumption, Dark Matter, Black Holes, Expanding Universe, Big Bang, all the attendant trivia as charlatans attempt to prove their assumptions and be famous. Error accumulates error. Oh, come on! (Notice no naughty words :-) Androcles. === Subject: Re: To Jerry. Expires: 28 days What 'bluff'? I already made it clear that 'density' includes not only matter but 'fields' and god knows what else. The HST has fields around it. ...which renders that near space above the Wilson Threshold. I doubt if any space in our whole solar system lies below the threshold. Pitch is included you idiot. You are becoming as bad as Tusselad... HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. === Subject: Re: Nonrenormalization vs Renormalization 30: Confinement (and Matter?) Generated By Bianchi Identity Violations How do those relate to Bianchi Identities? === Subject: Re: SR is built on false assumptions | since Cassini was launched, my direct answer was Uh, no. Ok... So is it your claim that Cassini's clock slowed on it's way to Saturn or not, and if so, by how much? (snipped because you did, you cunt) Androcles. === Subject: Re: SR is built on false assumptions It's my claim that you are a coward and a liar and a troll, as you have demonstrated. As for *your* claims about Cassini, I addressed that in the thread where it belongs. PD === Subject: Re: SR is built on false assumptions Why do you want to know that? Where do you see portion? I don't. Just how stupid are you, to not understand the most basic English grammar? === Subject: Re: SR is built on false assumptions Au contraire, mon Worms, you are the one appearing to not understand the difference between the two. But no relative velocity means the two are at CV wrt each other. There is no other way they can have no relative velocity wrt each other, for the fact that all objects in the universe are in either in relative motion or at CV wrt each other. You have only those two choices, neither of which you have chosen above, unless, of course, you meant to say A and B are at CV wrt each other. If so, why not come out and say that instead of further confusing yourself with your tricky dickie cases. I am the one who told you that they may have any relative separation while at CV. I can only assume you mean A and B are CV wrt each other. That means A and B are moving at CV wrt each other. Right. Nope, not possible while they are at CV wrt each other. If you mean to say that at this point they begin to change direction, then you did not make that clear. Next you say that they are separating at a constant speed from each other. Here you must mean to say that there is no time dilation effect because they are at CV wrt each other. Correct, and that is what I said. Correct, and that is what I said. === Subject: Re: SR is built on false assumptions Well, you wanted support for my claim that you misunderstood CV, and now you've got it. You just claimed that no velocity means constant velocity. No more need be said. The *only* way they can have no relative velocity is if the distance between them isn't changing. You just tried to explain what you meant by a term by using the term But according to you, that would mean no relative velocity, which means no change in distance between them. So which is it? A distance which changes at a constant rate [along a straight line] is a constant velocity. LOL! More LOL! === Subject: Re: SR is built on false assumptions Is that your example - an unsupported list of capital letters? Did you forget to say how GTR models GPS? Or do you not know how it does what you claim it does? Another unsupported opinion added to your ever-growing list. It is really a good thing for physics that you do not speak for it but only provide us with your unsupported opinions. No, Hawking is a physicist, and he does not act like Worms. Just can't keep from throwing in your trash too, eh? C'mon, guppy. === Subject: Re: SR is built on false assumptions It's only *unsupported* to those who are ignorant. If that's what I wanted to say, I would've used those words to say it. I know that taken together, SR & GTR predict what we'll observe of the GPS system, and that what it predicts matches what we observe. I also know this means that SR & GTR is valid. I also know that you're wrong to claim that SR & GTR include the notion of an absolute motion. I've fully supported this truth many times, and because you know this is true, that makes you a liar. Constant velocity is defined as a speed along a straight line which occurs over equal distances for any given units of time. As long as any motion is observed as having all of these traits, then it meets the definition of CV regardless of the motion of the inertial observer. However, this contrasts wildly with your opinion that CV is a motion which is at the same speed and direction as another motion. That's clearly silly because if two objects are moving at the same speed in the same direction as each other, then they are at rest wrt each other. Here is my support for my claims: http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/ http://www.sysmatrix.net/~kavs/kjs/addend4.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm http://tinyurl.com/ks7zy http://tinyurl.com/hhqom http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/twins.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/ http://www.sysmatrix.net/~kavs/kjs/addend4.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm http://tinyurl.com/ks7zy http://tinyurl.com/hhqom http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/twins.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox He can't. OK....... http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/ http://www.sysmatrix.net/~kavs/kjs/addend4.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm http://tinyurl.com/ks7zy http://tinyurl.com/hhqom http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/twins.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox === Subject: Re: SR is built on false assumptions Which is precisely what he did with the Blind Poe line, snipping my statement about an equation that didn't contain (c+v) and pairing it with an equation that does. I don't bother retorting with the links to the original message anymore since I think the only reason he ever posts that anymore is to get a rise out of me, i.e., for trolling. I've noticed he throws out a provocative post with my name in it every once in awhile despite the fact that I haven't responded to him in a couple of months. He must miss me. - Randy === Subject: Re: SR is built on false assumptions SNIP A time rate is the rate at which time passes for any discrete object. The concept of entropy ascribes to the old idea that time is an immutable force imposed equally on all objects in the universe, an effect that is supported by observation of the aging process. SR, however, inadvertently ascribes the force to discrete objects or coordinate systems, with its conclusion of the Twin Paradox experiment. It is not time that is imposed equally on all objects, but it is only the process of aging that is so imposed on all objects. According to SR, time passes at different rates for discrete objects, depending on their absolute speed (meaning: wrt the universe). Therefore, the process of aging, or entropy, is not applied at equal rates to all objects. Ergo, the TP conclusion that there will be a difference in the amount of aging evident between the two twins at the end of the experiment is the support for my model's suggestion that time is a property of discrete objects and passes at rates that are dependent on an object's state of motion wrt the universe. My model thus overthrows the ages-old concept of time as a force capable of imposing a universal time rate of aging on all objects. The concept of entropy is the same as the concept of the passage of time, but it is applied to all objects in the universe without the distinction that objects age at different rates dependent upon their speed wrt the universe. And so is the concept of time as a force that cannot be denied, but we can know that refers to the entropy process which is applied to all objects in a general way without having to include the fact that time rates vary, that fact being redundant to the concept. So now we have shown that time is a dimension that applies only to discrete objects, and that it has a range of rates of the passage of time that accrues to those objectss dependent upon their states of motion wrt the universe. I explained the difference between time and time rates previously. Perhaps I did not explain well what I mean by that phrase, so I hope that this helps to explain it better. === Subject: Re: SR is built on false assumptions | | SNIP | A time rate is the rate at which time passes for any | discrete object. With respect to what? Seconds per second? SNIP telling me what SR says, I already know what SR says and I don't bother reading too much of what people say who ignore what I say have to say, I do it right back at them. although I glanced at it. You wasted your time. Either debate sensibly or go away. Androcles. === Subject: Re: SR is built on false assumptions Do you have any citations for the old idea that time is a force? There must be thousands if it was *the* old idea. Do you really think that SR says that time is imposed? Nope. You've been told over and over again that this is not what SR says, and you've been given heaps of links and citations as to where you can find what it does say, and you've declined all challenges to support your claims as to what it says, yet despite all of this, you still cling to these notions. How amazing is that? R E L A T I I T Y says that there is no absolute speed. Even if you believe that there's an absolute speed, surely you can't believe that SR says there's such a thing, can you? Citation? === Subject: Re: SR is built on false assumptions No. understand what you're reading. You and me have already established that what SR states and what you think it says are two entirely different things. That's your brainwashing talking - SR says not such thing. I did not say SR said that. What gave you that idea? Not for you. Surely this must have helped you even a tiny bit, no? If not, there is no hope left for you. === Subject: aligned galaxies http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/1999/41/images/a/formats/web.jpg shows two spiral galaxies aligned exactly like the Galaxy Model shows atoms to align when forming a molecule: http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/iwin4.GIF even to turning opposite directions so the meeting edges travel in the same path for a time. John Galaxy Model for the Atom http://users.accesscomm.ca/john === Subject: Re: Seeking diagramatic tensor notation tutorial or reference Originator: nurban@crib.corepower.com (Nathan Urban) Online, look through John Baez's website, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ series (although I don't know which issues), and has written some related papers. You may be able to find some in his Serious Stuff page as well as his Quantum Gravity Seminar. The latter is probably your best bet for an intro. I can't remember how much detail he goes into there but you may find more detail in _Spinors and Space-Time_ by Penrose & Rindler. IIRC one of the appendices discusses diagrammatic tensor notation. You can also go to a university library and hunt down Penrose's Applications of Negative Dimensional Tensors, in _Combinatorial Mathematics and Its Applications_, ed. D. Welsh, Academic Press, New York, 1971, pp. 221-244. === Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_SU(4)=D7SU(2)=D7SU(2)?= This is nothing new. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EisensteinInteger.html === Subject: Re: I have an equation for the mass of the photon! Golden Boar: No. The compton wavelength is equivalent to the mass. If the photon was not massless, the dispersion relation, w(k) would be: w = c sqrt(k^2 + (k_0))^2 where k = 2pi/(lambda) and k_0 = mc/hbar The fact that lamdanu = c rather than nu^2 - (c/lambda)^2 = (mc^2/h)^2 tells you the photon is massless. === Subject: Re: I have an equation for the mass of the photon! It was a rhetorical question, but i'm glad you answered it. === Subject: Re: I have an equation for the mass of the photon! I did, and I did. Hmmm. (wave speed) = (wavelength)(frequency) Electrons are said to be waves. But electrons are supposed to be charged. Do you see charge in that equation? Think about it. In fact, lay awake at night thinking about it. PD === Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment Expires: 28 days that's why my programs work, eh? HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. === Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment Expires: 28 days I can't see how you get instantaneous velocity and direction from that.....for equal time intervals around the orbit. Geez! Talk about grumpy old men.... How much money comes out of an ATM when you type in androcles instead of $100? Why don't you ask your ing bank to include minus figures so you can increase your account by withdrawing money? HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. === Subject: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims frame I am not confused at all. When you make the direct comparison you didn't say that your pace is longer than mine. You just say that you had 19 paces and I had 22 paces. Such a comparison is meaningless. In the twin scenario you say that the stay home clock have more seconds than the traveling clock without clarifying that a traveling clock second has a longer duration. Inspite of that you still declared that the traveling clock is younger. Such a comparison is bogus. It implies that a stay home second has the same duration as a traveling clock second. Ken Seto === Subject: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims to the about 19 to that this Also You runts of the SRians are so dense. Now you are claming that you can compare paces of different lengths directly. I will not argue with a fool like you. Ken Seto of bogus for === Subject: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims If I hand you two sticks and tell you I'll give you $100 if you'll compare them and tell me whether they're the same length or different, will you refuse and tell me it's impossible? - Randy === Subject: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims I believe I was quite clear that the problems would be taken from the first five chapters of an introductory physics textbook. Many current (copyright 2006 good enough for you?) introductory textbooks contain coverage of SR, though not typically in the first five chapters. Or are you saying that your understanding of physics is limited to SR? Are you taking the challenge or not, Seto? PD === Subject: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims Aaargh: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GetClue.html Dirk Vdm === Subject: Re: Remote Viewing Conference You mean if it can make me a buck, it violates causality? What a universe! Double-A === Subject: Electric field Integration I'm facing a conceptual doubt. I have to find electric field due to a semicircular wire (+ charged) on a point(*) at the centre of the circle of radius r of which wire is a part. The charge on wire is Q (Rough Diagram) . . . . . . . . . We assume a small element dx having charge dQ. This is at a distance r from point. Now we find field by integrating as intgrt dE = intgrt( 1/4.pi.esn * dQ * 1/r^2 ) dQ= Q/pi.r * dx where db is the angle subtented by dx at the point. Now my question is, why do we have to take component parallel to the line joining o and * ? We know that net field would be along this line and not perpendicular to it and so we take cos of field by dx, but shoudn't this be automatically solved by integration. Why do we need to break field by dx into component? I face similar problem in integration of a field by a ring etc ( I was confused if it was a mathematical or Physics doubt, so I posted this problem in both groups) === Subject: Re: What about audio chips ? Since most newspapers are on the net anyway , as well ebooks like Shakespeare , why cant we have software which will translate them into English speech and then we download it and listen on the way to work. How marvellous ! I think this idea will save huge amounts of time wasted in reading newspapers and make or commuting joruneys super productive. === Subject: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal so make a ten meter wide tunnel , 20 miles long from the red sea to the dead sea sloping downwards from the red sea level which is 1000 ft higher than the dead sea . Tunnels esp unventilated ones which can be dug by robots are cheap to dig. === Subject: Re: A question about the bending of light Which part of 0.00001 is a typographic error not clear to you? Klazmon.