Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
Hello John, Glad I brought out a fellow lurker! I'm more a lurker here too, but would you mind clarifying the geometry of your question? For the purposes of the thought experiment, just think of a free floating toriodal magnetic field - don't worry yet about what is generating it - but we can talk about that too if you want. The angular velocity would be measured by an outside observer. I do realize here the issues with the frame of reference. Rotating objects and fields do present a special problem when considering this... Anyway at a simplistic level I think the fields would tend to become disconnected, they could be thrown off as radiation as fields disconnect from the near field. Yes, I have thought of that. Perhaps others could comment, but I see no reason this should be true. My understanding is as long as the field is not expanding or collapsing it should not radiate EM, but I could be wrong. I believe what we are talking about is a standing, or scalar wave. My thoughts are that a magnetic line of force is torsional in nature, that is to say it is a twisting of space. This is along the line of the Cartan-Evans theory. As such, as the lines of force rotate they would pull on space-time or stretch it, either pulling it to the center of the field or pushing it outward. In relativistic terms, it is like trying to accelerate an object to the speed of light. The closer you get to the limit, the more energy it takes to accelerate it further. Why should the mass of a magnetic field be any different? Just as the object accelerated to reletivistic speed experiences time dilation, why wouldn't the magnetic field? So as we try and accelerate the field, it would keep taking more and more energy to accelerate the field any further. This would be because the energy being expended is being used to curve space/dilate time. The more the space becomes curved, the harder it becomes to accelerate the field. That is my conclusion at least... But if you are talking about a geometry such as that of the N-machine AKA Homopolar generator then the question would be how do we know the field is even rotating? I should have added in my descriptions - relative to an outside observer - but I do understand your point. I have actually thought about this in detail, but I think I would have to develop this further before giving you my full explaination for that one. But, I will try anyway. All of matter is made up of relativistic EM fields already. So any attempt to move a mass will resist - push back. We call that interial mass. So rotating any object will cause some time dilation - although I call it a change in delta-t, a change in the rate that time goes forward. Without getting into to many details, this should always induce an E-field that can create a current even if the conductor is not moving relative to the rotating mass. So in the case of a homeopolar generator I dont think it is necessary for the conductor to be crossing field lines to induce a current - the current is generated by the curvature of space-time itself. If you are familiar with the work of Bruce De Palma, you should also consider his experiments with dropping spinning balls. The results of his experiments are hard to explain withoutgoing beyond special relativity... It is also worth noting that special relativity is wrong but that's another subject... Yes, but how is it wrong? That is the important question. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Michael Crosiar crosia...@yahoo.com wrote: Hello vortexians, Before I begin, I want to thank all of you. I have been lurking here for years. I have seen the trolls come and go. They amuse for a while, then they get old. But those of you who are of a true vortexian spirit always find new and exciting food for the mind to try out. I don't have the math or science background that you have, and yes, I am jealous. But obviously I do have the interest or I would have gone away a long time ago. I don't post much, guess I'm afraid I'll get shot down - and I know I wouldn't have had the time to follow and respond to my own threads - and that would suck for all of us. But circumstances change and I suddenly find I have much more time than I would like. I've grown a little older and am not so scared to raise my hand in class. So agian, thank you for sharing and thank you for putting up with my incessant lurking :) And if I go astray, please let me know, I have gained a deep respect for all of you. I will not be offended. I have a simple thought experiment I would like your comments on. We create a torroidal magnetic field and rotate it at relativistic velosities, such that the inside of the torroid would be rotating at near the speed of light. The outside of the field would extand outwards and would have an agular velocity that would be greater, proportional to the increase in circumference. First, is that correct? Clearly nothing can go faster than the speed
RE: [Vo]:grok is removed temporarily
Grok is a coward. If he really believed what he was preaching, then he wouldn't be afraid to use his real name. I think most everyone I'm aware of on this list has apologized at one time or another... It's what a person with integrity does when they realize their mistake or transgression. The fact that grok is incapable of such behavior (all he knows is arrogance and condescension), shows his true self; one lacking humility, reflection, self-awareness consciousness... Asking for an apology and real name are justified in this instance. He will, or already has, tried to blame others for his situation; he needs to point the finger in his direction. I doubt if he is even capable of that... Personal responsibility is something he hasn't shown either. -Mark -Original Message- From: William Beaty [mailto:bi...@eskimo.com] Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 10:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:grok is removed temporarily On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Harry Veeder wrote: Grok said no thanks, to the above. I am not sure why he should apologize for his off-topic postings, Political posting sent here, rather than to vtxB. If you expect him to reveal his true identity then that should be written in the rules. Nope. If any user misbehaves so badly that they draw complaints from the entire community, then I'll fix the problem, which includes crafting arbitrary and mysterious requirements on a whim. As with any professional community, people with real names are welcome, and people who hide their identities have marked themselves as probably criminal element in the eyes of the group ...although on internet, anonymity also means teenager, or newbie user. (Which of the three is worse?) To impress fellow professionals, always put your address and phone number in your sig. This is an unwritten societal rule which applies to the entire world, not just online or on vortex: try walking around downtown wearing a mask, see what happens. Perhaps vortex should require surrendering anonymity, but it's much work to do it right (to avoid fake identities.) If the political commentary incorporates *personal* insults, instead of There is very specifically no rule against insults on Vortex-L. However, people who habitually use personal insults will attract complaints from the entire community, and then... (see above.) (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.55/2160 - Release Date: 06/07/09 05:53:00 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.55/2160 - Release Date: 06/07/09 05:53:00
Re: [Vo]:grok is removed temporarily
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Mark S Bilk wrote: I should have stood up for Grok, because his comments (at least the ones I read) were accurate, His online behavior attracted complaints. Obviously his politics are not the issue. Perhaps you didn't read enough of his messages? Bill, please reinstate Grok under the sole condition that he post non-scientific messages only to the B list. He's still on B, no problem there. Or should that be /B/ ?:) VortexB is the barroom where it's OK to start heated religious arguments, while using insults to pick fights, while jumping up and down in front of authority figures with your pants pulled down. However, politics and religion are extremely unwise for any forum except those created specifically for those topics. It's another unwritten rule of all online communities everywhere. Same as don't post personal insults, or don't ignore complaints from neighbors. Many forums ban politics totally. As to requiring him to reveal his identity, as Harry says, that's unfair unless it's demanded of everyone. And arbitrary. Don't forget arbitrary. :) When someone misbehaves, AND ignores all the complaints from neighbors, AND the people start calling the police ...for that someone, the old rules no longer apply. This goes for everyone here, but you knew that. As for apologizing... that's too close to the way the Catholic Church treated Galileo, demanding that he recant. The church had it exactly right, but only for small churches rather than continent-wide monopolies. If you want admission back into this small community, you must bow and scrape to the angry members you've offended and display your throat to the Alpha and apologize for the trouble while sincerely promising everyone that you'll avoid causing harm in the future. When normal community members mess up, they admit it, and they usually apologize automatically. It keeps these kinds of problems from growing wildly. Some people don't know how to damp out the growth of community conflict. Or they place zero value on their community membership, prefer to remain invasive outsiders, and they could care less if neighbors turn against them. A definition of troll could be: lacks all those human skills which causes teamwork to spontaneously arise. Or more like: if he behaved that way in the real offline world, he would have got himself beaten to death years ago. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:grok is removed temporarily
My email doesnt have my real name anymore, due to a few reasons, but its the one i use becuase its my main email. i could easily resubscribe to this list with one that has my name. enh. For all those defending him, i agree with grok politically more than i do anyone else here, it seems, but the way he handled things was in poor taste. On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:54 PM, William Beatybi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Harry Veeder wrote: Grok said no thanks, to the above. I am not sure why he should apologize for his off-topic postings, Political posting sent here, rather than to vtxB. If you expect him to reveal his true identity then that should be written in the rules. Nope. If any user misbehaves so badly that they draw complaints from the entire community, then I'll fix the problem, which includes crafting arbitrary and mysterious requirements on a whim. As with any professional community, people with real names are welcome, and people who hide their identities have marked themselves as probably criminal element in the eyes of the group ...although on internet, anonymity also means teenager, or newbie user. (Which of the three is worse?) To impress fellow professionals, always put your address and phone number in your sig. This is an unwritten societal rule which applies to the entire world, not just online or on vortex: try walking around downtown wearing a mask, see what happens. Perhaps vortex should require surrendering anonymity, but it's much work to do it right (to avoid fake identities.) If the political commentary incorporates *personal* insults, instead of There is very specifically no rule against insults on Vortex-L. However, people who habitually use personal insults will attract complaints from the entire community, and then... (see above.) (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
RE: [Vo]:grok is removed temporarily
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Mark Iverson wrote: I think most everyone I'm aware of on this list has apologized at one time or another... It's what a person with integrity does when they realize their mistake or transgression. Trademarks of the troll/flamer/fsckhead are, refusal to apologize, plus use of anonymous IDs to prevent any searches which would expose discussions of their misbehavior or history of being banned from many forums. Megalothymia - the need to be seen as being superior to other people. See this article: http://amasci.com/weird/fsckhead.html - A Troll Must Have An Exaggerated Sense of His/Her Own Importance - A Troll Must Refuse to Abide By Common Social Rules - A Troll Must Never Back Down When Caught In A Lie - A Troll Must Keep Coming Back Without Mending His/Her Ways My own secret: this describes everyone in my family, myself included! I've grown some since then though. Seen from inside, additional characteristics are: demonizing everyone around us, while spouting a stream of self-praise, self-aggrandizement. (It's because of an insecurity so profound that the alternative to self-prase is psychosis.) Other characteristics are: loner, warrior, solitary hunter, won't keep his lawn mowed or house painted, won't tolerate crowds, sees other people as opponents searching for weakness, or as cattle. We end up as criminals and transients, but also as police, also as political leaders. The village hangman doesn't get invited to many parties, but doesn't really notice. He will, or already has, tried to blame others for Trolls will frequently use a persecution defense when they are asked to cease their antisocial behavior. They may claim that they are being singled out because of their unpopular viewpoints (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:grok is removed temporarily
On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 11:48:07PM -0700, Mark Iverson wrote: Grok is a coward. If he really believed what he was preaching, then he wouldn't be afraid to use his real name. The U.S. government has said that people who deny the government story about 9/11, or who want the government to obey the Constitution, or who oppose the war against Iraq, etc., are to be suspected as terrorists allied with Al-Qaeda. U.S. government legislation and executive orders provide that suspected terrorists can be arrested, denied the legal rights provided in the Constitution, tortured, and killed. So anyone who speaks out against U.S. government policies is well justified in doing so anonymously. In this case anonymity does _not_ mean probably criminal element ...teenager, or newbie user. Furthermore, Grok has _not_ [drawn] complaints from the entire community I think most everyone I'm aware of on this list has apologized at one time or another... It's what a person with integrity does when they realize their mistake or transgression. The fact that grok is incapable of such behavior (all he knows is arrogance and condescension), shows his true self; one lacking humility, reflection, self-awareness consciousness... Asking for an apology and real name are justified in this instance. He will, or already has, tried to blame others for his situation; he needs to point the finger in his direction. I doubt if he is even capable of that... Personal responsibility is something he hasn't shown either. That's an ad hominem attack made without supporting evidence. Mark S Bilk http://www.cosmicpenguin.com -Original Message- From: William Beaty [mailto:bi...@eskimo.com] Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 10:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:grok is removed temporarily On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Harry Veeder wrote: Grok said no thanks, to the above. I am not sure why he should apologize for his off-topic postings, Political posting sent here, rather than to vtxB. If you expect him to reveal his true identity then that should be written in the rules. Nope. If any user misbehaves so badly that they draw complaints from the entire community, then I'll fix the problem, which includes crafting arbitrary and mysterious requirements on a whim. As with any professional community, people with real names are welcome, and people who hide their identities have marked themselves as probably criminal element in the eyes of the group ...although on internet, anonymity also means teenager, or newbie user. (Which of the three is worse?) To impress fellow professionals, always put your address and phone number in your sig. This is an unwritten societal rule which applies to the entire world, not just online or on vortex: try walking around downtown wearing a mask, see what happens. Perhaps vortex should require surrendering anonymity, but it's much work to do it right (to avoid fake identities.) If the political commentary incorporates *personal* insults, instead of There is very specifically no rule against insults on Vortex-L. However, people who habitually use personal insults will attract complaints from the entire community, and then... (see above.)
Re: [Vo]:grok is removed temporarily
Here I was thinking this whole terrorist thing was a bull crap, but now I see there are terrorists literally everywhere, even on this list, even on the chair I'm sitting in... I guess if you have a web of lies anyone who insists on the truth becomes a terrorist... The U.S. government has said that people who deny the government story about 9/11, or who want the government to obey the Constitution, or who oppose the war against Iraq, etc., are to be suspected as terrorists allied with Al-Qaeda.
[Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mark S Bilk wrote: So anyone who speaks out against U.S. government policies is well justified in doing so anonymously. In this case anonymity does _not_ mean: probably criminal element ...teenager, or newbie user. Then I'll permanently ban him from both lists, as well as everyone else who attempts to make that sort of politics the central feature of vortex-L. He can quietly come back with a real name, talk science, and make no attempt to attract the FBI to the vortex forum. And I suggest you think twice about making excuses for such slimy dishonest behavior. There are THOUSANDS of very serious problems in the world, and self-promoters invariably use this fact as an excuse to push their personal agendas into forums devoted to other subjects. Get rid of all the science here? Since you personally have FAR more important topics that need to dominate the discussions? But note well that the people trying this are never creating their own forums and calling for users. Instead they invade other lists and ignore the existing community while hiding their intent behind dishonest excuses. It's a common Troll trick. Take such discussion to your own new forum, or to any number of politics- centered lists, or just vtxB, keep it OFF this one. After a few weeks or months this idea might sink in, and we can go back to normal. In the mean time: producing ionizing radiation with light water electrolysis: simple enough for a school science fair, but nobody bothers to give it a try: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368TGP_oriani.pdf (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]:John Berry is removed temporarily
Posting politics, same reason I removed grok. On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote: Here I was thinking this whole terrorist thing was a bull crap, but now I see there are terrorists literally everywhere, even on this list, even on the chair I'm sitting in... (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]:Mark S Bilk is temporarily removed
Posting politics during the politics ban, same offense as grok On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mark S Bilk wrote: On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 11:48:07PM -0700, Mark Iverson wrote: Grok is a coward. If he really believed what he was preaching, then he wouldn't be afraid to use his real name. The U.S. government has said that people who deny the government story about 9/11, or who want the government to obey the Constitution, or who oppose the war against Iraq, etc., are to be suspected as terrorists allied with Al-Qaeda. U.S. government legislation and executive orders provide that suspected terrorists can be arrested, denied the legal rights provided in the Constitution, tortured, and killed. So anyone who speaks out against U.S. government policies is well justified in doing so anonymously. In this case anonymity does _not_ mean probably criminal element ...teenager, or newbie user. Furthermore, Grok has _not_ [drawn] complaints from the entire community I think most everyone I'm aware of on this list has apologized at one time or another... It's what a person with integrity does when they realize their mistake or transgression. The fact that grok is incapable of such behavior (all he knows is arrogance and condescension), shows his true self; one lacking humility, reflection, self-awareness consciousness... Asking for an apology and real name are justified in this instance. He will, or already has, tried to blame others for his situation; he needs to point the finger in his direction. I doubt if he is even capable of that... Personal responsibility is something he hasn't shown either. That's an ad hominem attack made without supporting evidence. Mark S Bilk http://www.cosmicpenguin.com -Original Message- From: William Beaty [mailto:bi...@eskimo.com] Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 10:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:grok is removed temporarily On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Harry Veeder wrote: Grok said no thanks, to the above. I am not sure why he should apologize for his off-topic postings, Political posting sent here, rather than to vtxB. If you expect him to reveal his true identity then that should be written in the rules. Nope. If any user misbehaves so badly that they draw complaints from the entire community, then I'll fix the problem, which includes crafting arbitrary and mysterious requirements on a whim. As with any professional community, people with real names are welcome, and people who hide their identities have marked themselves as probably criminal element in the eyes of the group ...although on internet, anonymity also means teenager, or newbie user. (Which of the three is worse?) To impress fellow professionals, always put your address and phone number in your sig. This is an unwritten societal rule which applies to the entire world, not just online or on vortex: try walking around downtown wearing a mask, see what happens. Perhaps vortex should require surrendering anonymity, but it's much work to do it right (to avoid fake identities.) If the political commentary incorporates *personal* insults, instead of There is very specifically no rule against insults on Vortex-L. However, people who habitually use personal insults will attract complaints from the entire community, and then... (see above.) (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:grok is removed temporarily
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote: I guess if you have a web of lies anyone who insists on the truth becomes a terrorist... No, that's just dishonest. The truth is simple: anyone who posts political observations to a list that has a ban on politics... may attract a moderator response designed to get them to pay attention. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Mark S Bilk is temporarily removed
Well done. I'm sick and tired of these childish political bores who think every forum, no matter what its purpose, is their playpen.
[Vo]:Brain scanning headsets!Sigh.
So, i downloaded this companies smaller developer kit a while ago, and was on their mailing list. They just finally released the big kahuna kit with headsets. If i had the money for investment, id be getting the big license, as i've an even dozen things i can do with those headsets. Sigh. Perhaps the better funding would be interested though. For those unaware, this is a company similar to the one that makes the Force trainer game that just hit the market, but more complex headsets. Basically wearable eeg's, with software to convert thought into numbers, for purpose of motion, controlling devices, ect. -- Forwarded message -- From: Emotiv Team a...@emotiv.com Date: Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 9:25 PM Subject: Emotiv Developer Program: SDK Headset Available Now To: alexander.holl...@gmail.com alexander.holl...@gmail.com Dear Alexander, We are very pleased to announce that the Emotiv SDK including an SDK headset is now available for immediate license. This product ships worldwide. The Emotiv SDK- Standard Edition includes an SDK Headset and our proprietary software toolkit that exposes our APIs and detection libraries. This is now available to independent developers and researchers for only $500. To license the SDK, please visit http://www.emotiv.com/corporate/1_0/1_6.htm Enterprise, Enterprise Plus and Research Plus Editions of the SDK are also available for license. More details on the Emotiv Developer Program can be found below. ___ You can choose an SDK License that best suits your development needs: If you are an independent developer or commercial enterprise: Introductory (SDKLite) - An introduction to the Emotiv SDK and APIs. For application developers who want to get started immediately. This introductory package includes a hardware emulator in place of the SDK neuroheadset. Standard - Single license - For indepedent developers who are creating free and commercial applications for the Emotiv EPOC that will be distributed exclusively through our Emortal online application store. Enterprise - Up to 5 licensed users - For companies that are creating proprietary applications using the Emotiv EPOC. ___ If you are a researcher or educational institute: Emotiv is committed to supporting the research community in developing more detections/applications that further improve the capability of Brain Computer Interface (BCI). We have created a program that takes into account the needs of educational institutions, research organizations as well as individual researchers that want to contribute their knowledge to further the field of BCI. Research Standard - Single license - For individual researchers and research groups that are developing free and/or commercial applications for the Emotiv EPOC that will be available exclusively through our Emortal online application store. Research Plus - Up to 5 licensed users - For research institutes that are developing new applications/detections utilizing raw EEG data from the Emotiv EPOC. ___ Please let us know via return email to a...@emotiv.com if you wish to license the Enterprise, Enterprise Plus or Research Plus versions of the Emotiv SDK. We look forward to collaborating and partnering with you to further the field of Brain Computer Interface technology. Best regards, Emotiv Team Emotiv Systems Inc. LEGAL NOTICE This message (including all attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. Any confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this email has been sent to you by mistake. If you have received it in error, please let us know by reply email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. This email is also subject to copyright. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Emails may be interfered with, may contain computer viruses or other defects and may not be successfully replicated on other systems. We give no warranties in relation to these matters. If you have any doubts about the authenticity of an email purportedly sent by us, please contact us immediately.
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
Since the magnetic field is em radiation of a sort, think of it like the classic spaceship with a flashlight scenario (which is the ONLY thing i have EVER found in physics that i still cannot wrap my mind against. I understand what it is saying, my brain just refuses to accept it as accurate) if your on a spaceship going .9 c, and you turn on your headlamps, the light will go forward at, to your appearence, c away from you, as if you were standing still. Now, someone on the spacestation you're passing would see you moving at .9 c, and the light moving at c, not at c away from you PLUS your velocity, but simply c away from you, but c from their perspective. now, this means you each see the light reaching different distances at the same time, which is where my mind rebels. (If i have this incorrect, someone PLEASE correct me, as it hurts my head...) On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Michael Crosiarcrosia...@yahoo.com wrote: Hello vortexians, Before I begin, I want to thank all of you. I have been lurking here for years. I have seen the trolls come and go. They amuse for a while, then they get old. But those of you who are of a true vortexian spirit always find new and exciting food for the mind to try out. I don't have the math or science background that you have, and yes, I am jealous. But obviously I do have the interest or I would have gone away a long time ago. I don't post much, guess I'm afraid I'll get shot down - and I know I wouldn't have had the time to follow and respond to my own threads - and that would suck for all of us. But circumstances change and I suddenly find I have much more time than I would like. I've grown a little older and am not so scared to raise my hand in class. So agian, thank you for sharing and thank you for putting up with my incessant lurking :) And if I go astray, please let me know, I have gained a deep respect for all of you. I will not be offended. I have a simple thought experiment I would like your comments on. We create a torroidal magnetic field and rotate it at relativistic velosities, such that the inside of the torroid would be rotating at near the speed of light. The outside of the field would extand outwards and would have an agular velocity that would be greater, proportional to the increase in circumference. First, is that correct? Clearly nothing can go faster than the speed of light, but as we increase the speed of the rotation, the energy must go somewhere, yes? Would this cause the mass of the field to change? In other words, would it bend space-time inside the field? And could the curvature be negative or positive depending on the direction of rotation relative to the N/S pole? Would time run at a different rate inside the field versus outside the field? If we were to place a radioactive isotope inside the field, could we cause it to decay faster or slower? I'll be anxiously awaiting your insights, C. Michael Crosiar
Re: [Vo]:Brain scanning headsets!Sigh.
leaking pen wrote: So, i downloaded this companies smaller developer kit a while ago, and was on their mailing list. They just finally released the big kahuna kit with headsets. If i had the money for investment, id be getting the big license, as i've an even dozen things i can do with those headsets. Sigh. Perhaps the better funding would be interested though. For those unaware, this is a company similar to the one that makes the Force trainer game that just hit the market, but more complex headsets. Basically wearable eeg's, with software to convert thought into numbers, for purpose of motion, controlling devices, ect. For real?? That's incredible. Have you used the headset successfully for anything? How's it go -- what do you actually need to do to manipulate stuff? And does it *really* pick up on brain waves, or is it actually picking up signals to the muscles just under the skin of the head? (The latter seems easier to implement and a *lot* easier to control, but might be considered far less stunning as an achievement.) Like, does it know when you're sleeping and know when you're awake, like Santa Clause, or can it only really tell stuff like whether you're frowning or smiling? From their web pages it's not entirely clear just how deep the brain wave sensing is that they're using, and the array of sensors *looks* like it could just as well be picking up muscle action by facial and neck muscles.
Re: [Vo]:Brain scanning headsets!Sigh.
It actually picks up brain waves, from my understanding. I know a bit more about the other company that makes similar. They have a headset with a single sensor, and it picks up concentration states and meditation states, basically. This is supposed to be the same thing, but with more pickups. they DO also have facial motion pickup, but not JUST facial motion pickup. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-9874515-52.html is a good article. ive unfortunately not had a chance to use a headset, just the basic software. Can't afford the headset myself. sigh. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote: leaking pen wrote: So, i downloaded this companies smaller developer kit a while ago, and was on their mailing list. They just finally released the big kahuna kit with headsets. If i had the money for investment, id be getting the big license, as i've an even dozen things i can do with those headsets. Sigh. Perhaps the better funding would be interested though. For those unaware, this is a company similar to the one that makes the Force trainer game that just hit the market, but more complex headsets. Basically wearable eeg's, with software to convert thought into numbers, for purpose of motion, controlling devices, ect. For real?? That's incredible. Have you used the headset successfully for anything? How's it go -- what do you actually need to do to manipulate stuff? And does it *really* pick up on brain waves, or is it actually picking up signals to the muscles just under the skin of the head? (The latter seems easier to implement and a *lot* easier to control, but might be considered far less stunning as an achievement.) Like, does it know when you're sleeping and know when you're awake, like Santa Clause, or can it only really tell stuff like whether you're frowning or smiling? From their web pages it's not entirely clear just how deep the brain wave sensing is that they're using, and the array of sensors *looks* like it could just as well be picking up muscle action by facial and neck muscles.
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
OK here goes. Response below is to Michael's original message and to Leaking's response. The reasponse to Leaking is lengthy; the response to Michael comes 'way down at the end, after it. leaking pen wrote: Since the magnetic field is em radiation of a sort, A magnetic field is a magnetic field, ça c'est tout. EM radiation is a wave in the field. As such they're different. Sound waves are not air, even though they travel in air. think of it like the classic spaceship with a flashlight scenario (which is the ONLY thing i have EVER found in physics that i still cannot wrap my mind against. I understand what it is saying, my brain just refuses to accept it as accurate) if your on a spaceship going .9 c, and you turn on your headlamps, the light will go forward at, to your appearence, c away from you, as if you were standing still. Now, someone on the spacestation you're passing would see you moving at .9 c, and the light moving at c, not at c away from you PLUS your velocity, but simply c away from you, but c from their perspective. now, this means you each see the light reaching different distances at the same time, which is where my mind rebels. No, on two counts. First, you've left out Fitzgerald contraction; the traveler on the spaceship sees the space station as being squished along the line of travel. The observers on the space station, OTOH, see the traveler's spaceship as being squished along the line of travel. (Symmetric, of course.) So, distance measures in the two frames of reference are wildly confused to start with, and trying to ask when something reaches some *distance* is going to result in confusion. Ask, rather, when it reaches a particular *point*. When we talk about a particular point in space and time, we call it an event. So, instead of asking about distance, let's drop a space beacon into the picture, and say the light hits the beacon, and let's ask about when and where that happens, rather than asking about how far the light has gone. Second, you've assumed at the same time means something, but when you're discussing two different frames of reference moving at relativistic speeds, it does *not*. The problem is not just time dilation, it's clock skew, and failure to ... er ... grok clock skew is the single biggest problem people run into in this area. The example as you wrote it is, of course, very fuzzy; it will take a lot more words to make it precise. To make it into something you can test (in a gedanken sense) we need to sharpen up the details. We've already started to do that by adding a beacon; we'll continue with the necessary sharpening now. You seem to have said the headlights are turned on at the moment when the ship passes the station. OK, let's take that as the origin, in both reference frames: The lights go on at time 0, at which time the ship is at location 0, and the station is at location 0, in both frames. You didn't specify a direction, but let's say that, as seen from the space station, the ship is moving along the X axis in the + direction, and the headlights, of course, are also shining along the X axis. So, we can reduce the problem to 1 spacial dimension and 1 time dimension. We need to name our coordinates: x = spacial location in the space station frame t = time in the space station frame x' = spacial location in the spaceship frame t' = spacial location in the spaceship frame Note that the space station is located at x=0 in its own frame of reference, and the space ship is located at x'=0 in the ship's own frame of reference, and those coordinates don't change (you're always stationary relative to yourself!). And of course if we set v=0.9, then the spaceship is moving at velocity +v=0.9, as seen from the station, and the station is moving at velocity -v=-0.9, as seen from the ship. In the ship's frame, the leading wave front of the light moves along the X axis at C. At some moment it strikes the beacon we dropped into the picture. Let's assume there is an observer named O' in the spaceship's frame -- which means, O' is an observer who is traveling in tandem with the spaceship, who is *stationary* relative to the spaceship, and who has a clock which is synchronized to the spaceship's clock, as can be confirmed by use of telescopes by O' and by the folks on the ship. Assume O' is at (fixed) distance X1' from the ship. Let's also assume that O' happens to be next to the beacon (passing by) when the light arrives. We use the reading on the clock of O' to determine what time the beam hits the beacon in the ship's frame. Call that time T1'. At that moment, the beacon is observed by O' to be distance X1' from the ship. Similarly, there is an observer named O in the station's frame; O is stationary relative to the space station, is at fixed distance X1 from the station, and has a clock which is synched to the space station clock. And O also just happens to be passing the space beacon at the moment when the
RE: [Vo]:grok is removed temporarily
You know what they say... If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck (troll), it probably is. -Mark -Original Message- From: William Beaty [mailto:bi...@eskimo.com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 12:52 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:grok is removed temporarily On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Mark Iverson wrote: I think most everyone I'm aware of on this list has apologized at one time or another... It's what a person with integrity does when they realize their mistake or transgression. Trademarks of the troll/flamer/fsckhead are, refusal to apologize, plus use of anonymous IDs to prevent any searches which would expose discussions of their misbehavior or history of being banned from many forums. Megalothymia - the need to be seen as being superior to other people. See this article: http://amasci.com/weird/fsckhead.html - A Troll Must Have An Exaggerated Sense of His/Her Own Importance - A Troll Must Refuse to Abide By Common Social Rules - A Troll Must Never Back Down When Caught In A Lie - A Troll Must Keep Coming Back Without Mending His/Her Ways My own secret: this describes everyone in my family, myself included! I've grown some since then though. Seen from inside, additional characteristics are: demonizing everyone around us, while spouting a stream of self-praise, self-aggrandizement. (It's because of an insecurity so profound that the alternative to self-prase is psychosis.) Other characteristics are: loner, warrior, solitary hunter, won't keep his lawn mowed or house painted, won't tolerate crowds, sees other people as opponents searching for weakness, or as cattle. We end up as criminals and transients, but also as police, also as political leaders. The village hangman doesn't get invited to many parties, but doesn't really notice. He will, or already has, tried to blame others for Trolls will frequently use a persecution defense when they are asked to cease their antisocial behavior. They may claim that they are being singled out because of their unpopular viewpoints (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.56/2162 - Release Date: 06/08/09 06:01:00
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and relativity. Was Relativistic magnetic fields and time
So... I think i followed all the math on that, very simple math, thank you! and, my original didnt start with lights being turned on with the ship passing the station, but that DOES simplify things. thanks! So... What your saying is that if you take into account time dilation, the light DOES really move the same distance in a set amount of time, once converted to local time, relative to both. so really, the light ISN'T traveling at c faster than the ship, it just APPEARS that way to O' due to time dillation? That makes more sense. But then, that just reinforces to me something that I feel, and that I've been told is not true. It just seems to me there should be then a central point, with a central time flow, and all other things are variants of that, based on their velocity relative to this fixed point. (center of the universe, if you will) I mean, if you were to leave a sattelite in space, not orbiting, but left behind in our orbit, moving just enough so that we come back to it in the same spot, relative to earth, next year, more time will have gone by, becuase its not moving as fast, not orbiting round the sun, yes? Where does it end? what is the most non moving spot? On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote: OK here goes. Response below is to Michael's original message and to Leaking's response. The reasponse to Leaking is lengthy; the response to Michael comes 'way down at the end, after it. leaking pen wrote: Since the magnetic field is em radiation of a sort, A magnetic field is a magnetic field, ça c'est tout. EM radiation is a wave in the field. As such they're different. Sound waves are not air, even though they travel in air. think of it like the classic spaceship with a flashlight scenario (which is the ONLY thing i have EVER found in physics that i still cannot wrap my mind against. I understand what it is saying, my brain just refuses to accept it as accurate) if your on a spaceship going .9 c, and you turn on your headlamps, the light will go forward at, to your appearence, c away from you, as if you were standing still. Now, someone on the spacestation you're passing would see you moving at .9 c, and the light moving at c, not at c away from you PLUS your velocity, but simply c away from you, but c from their perspective. now, this means you each see the light reaching different distances at the same time, which is where my mind rebels. No, on two counts. First, you've left out Fitzgerald contraction; the traveler on the spaceship sees the space station as being squished along the line of travel. The observers on the space station, OTOH, see the traveler's spaceship as being squished along the line of travel. (Symmetric, of course.) So, distance measures in the two frames of reference are wildly confused to start with, and trying to ask when something reaches some *distance* is going to result in confusion. Ask, rather, when it reaches a particular *point*. When we talk about a particular point in space and time, we call it an event. So, instead of asking about distance, let's drop a space beacon into the picture, and say the light hits the beacon, and let's ask about when and where that happens, rather than asking about how far the light has gone. Second, you've assumed at the same time means something, but when you're discussing two different frames of reference moving at relativistic speeds, it does *not*. The problem is not just time dilation, it's clock skew, and failure to ... er ... grok clock skew is the single biggest problem people run into in this area. The example as you wrote it is, of course, very fuzzy; it will take a lot more words to make it precise. To make it into something you can test (in a gedanken sense) we need to sharpen up the details. We've already started to do that by adding a beacon; we'll continue with the necessary sharpening now. You seem to have said the headlights are turned on at the moment when the ship passes the station. OK, let's take that as the origin, in both reference frames: The lights go on at time 0, at which time the ship is at location 0, and the station is at location 0, in both frames. You didn't specify a direction, but let's say that, as seen from the space station, the ship is moving along the X axis in the + direction, and the headlights, of course, are also shining along the X axis. So, we can reduce the problem to 1 spacial dimension and 1 time dimension. We need to name our coordinates: x = spacial location in the space station frame t = time in the space station frame x' = spacial location in the spaceship frame t' = spacial location in the spaceship frame Note that the space station is located at x=0 in its own frame of reference, and the space ship is located at x'=0 in the ship's own frame of reference, and those coordinates don't change (you're always stationary relative to yourself!). And
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and relativity. Was Relativistic magnetic fields and time
leaking pen wrote: So... I think i followed all the math on that, very simple math, thank you! and, my original didnt start with lights being turned on with the ship passing the station, but that DOES simplify things. thanks! So... What your saying is that if you take into account time dilation, the light DOES really move the same distance in a set amount of time, once converted to local time, relative to both. so really, the light ISN'T traveling at c faster than the ship, it just APPEARS that way to O' due to time dillation? You can view it that way, but it's a little hazardous, because time dilation isn't really just a simple number. Thinking of it as a simple ratio leads to a lot of confusion. Time dilation, expressed as a number, is dt/dtau for a particular observer, A, relative to a particular reference frame, F. The dt value is found by A, by looking at clocks which are stationary in frame F, as A passes them by. The dtau value is found by A by looking at A's own clock. Note well: A uses ONE clock in his/her own frame. A uses AT LEAST TWO CLOCKS in frame F, located at *different* points in frame F. You can't measure time dilation between two inertial frames without using at least two clocks in one of the frames, because once the observer has passed a clock, it's gone, and they can't see it any more (except at a distance and using a telescope adds unnecessary hair without changing the result). Thus, time dilation actually measures the rate at which time passes along a *particular* *path*. Something that measures a rate of change along a path is a directional derivative, or a 1-form. It's not a simple number. That makes more sense. But then, that just reinforces to me something that I feel, and that I've been told is not true. It just seems to me there should be then a central point, with a central time flow, and all other things are variants of that, based on their velocity relative to this fixed point. (center of the universe, if you will) There may be but there doesn't have to be. As far as I know nobody knows for sure if there is. I mean, if you were to leave a sattelite in space, not orbiting, but left behind in our orbit, moving just enough so that we come back to it in the same spot, relative to earth, next year, more time will have gone by, becuase its not moving as fast, not orbiting round the sun, yes? Where does it end? what is the most non moving spot? No, the difference is not because the Earth is moving faster. First, let's agree to ignore the Sun's gravity because paying attention to it would throw us into GR. Let's assume the Earth is just tied to a string or something to keep it in orbit. Now, with that assumption, here's the difference: The satellite we dropped is in an inertial frame -- it's not accelerating. The Earth's frame, on the other hand, is not inertial -- it's accelerating the whole time, due to the pull on that string. To deal with acceleration, we don't need GR but we do need some differential geometry and I'm not going to try to write that out in flat ASCII here (and besides I'm too rusty). In simple terms, the distance along any path you might follow through (4-dimensional) space time is called the interval, and for a particular observer (like the Earth) the interval is equal to the elapsed proper time of that observer. So, how far you go, measured as interval, corresponds exactly to how many seconds pass on your wristwatch. The square of the interval between any two fixed points in an inertial frame is, by definition, (ignoring the Y and Z directions) delta_S^2 = delta_T^2 - delta_X^2 It's not hard to use the Lorentz transforms to show that, for an inertial observer in motion with regard to an inertial frame, that definition of interval gives us the square of the observer's elapsed proper time between any two events in the frame. (Not hard but I'm not going to do it right here.) It's also not hard to show that the interval between any two events is the same, no matter what inertial frame you use to evaluate it. The infinitesimal interval traveled by an astronaut A, from the point of view of an observer O, is dS^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 and since it's infinitesimal we can use that formula for an astronaut who is *accelerating*. At the infinitesimal scale, where A's velocity hardly varies, we can find the infinitesimal change in A's proper time -- which is to say, how much A's clock will advance by -- from that formula. Then, to find the *total* time A's clock will change on any path, we just integrate it along the path. This is fundamental; it's the definition of the metric in special relativity. It's sometimes referred to as the Minkowksi metric, in reference to Minkowski's development of the 4-dimensional view of relativity, and it's sometimes referred to as the Lorentz metric, in reference to the fact that it applies to reference frames which are related by the Lorentz transforms. I'm not leading up
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and relativity. Was Relativistic magnetic fields and time
So, its not velocity that causes time dillation, thats simply a convenient way of reffering to it. Its the difference in actual space traveled during the interval compared to going in a geodesic, or straight line? which, honestly, is a sum of the velocities of the trip of the non geodesic object, yes? (damn, i think i reconfused myself) Thank you very very much btw for taking the time on this Stephen! On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote: leaking pen wrote: So... I think i followed all the math on that, very simple math, thank you! and, my original didnt start with lights being turned on with the ship passing the station, but that DOES simplify things. thanks! So... What your saying is that if you take into account time dilation, the light DOES really move the same distance in a set amount of time, once converted to local time, relative to both. so really, the light ISN'T traveling at c faster than the ship, it just APPEARS that way to O' due to time dillation? You can view it that way, but it's a little hazardous, because time dilation isn't really just a simple number. Thinking of it as a simple ratio leads to a lot of confusion. Time dilation, expressed as a number, is dt/dtau for a particular observer, A, relative to a particular reference frame, F. The dt value is found by A, by looking at clocks which are stationary in frame F, as A passes them by. The dtau value is found by A by looking at A's own clock. Note well: A uses ONE clock in his/her own frame. A uses AT LEAST TWO CLOCKS in frame F, located at *different* points in frame F. You can't measure time dilation between two inertial frames without using at least two clocks in one of the frames, because once the observer has passed a clock, it's gone, and they can't see it any more (except at a distance and using a telescope adds unnecessary hair without changing the result). Thus, time dilation actually measures the rate at which time passes along a *particular* *path*. Something that measures a rate of change along a path is a directional derivative, or a 1-form. It's not a simple number. That makes more sense. But then, that just reinforces to me something that I feel, and that I've been told is not true. It just seems to me there should be then a central point, with a central time flow, and all other things are variants of that, based on their velocity relative to this fixed point. (center of the universe, if you will) There may be but there doesn't have to be. As far as I know nobody knows for sure if there is. I mean, if you were to leave a sattelite in space, not orbiting, but left behind in our orbit, moving just enough so that we come back to it in the same spot, relative to earth, next year, more time will have gone by, becuase its not moving as fast, not orbiting round the sun, yes? Where does it end? what is the most non moving spot? No, the difference is not because the Earth is moving faster. First, let's agree to ignore the Sun's gravity because paying attention to it would throw us into GR. Let's assume the Earth is just tied to a string or something to keep it in orbit. Now, with that assumption, here's the difference: The satellite we dropped is in an inertial frame -- it's not accelerating. The Earth's frame, on the other hand, is not inertial -- it's accelerating the whole time, due to the pull on that string. To deal with acceleration, we don't need GR but we do need some differential geometry and I'm not going to try to write that out in flat ASCII here (and besides I'm too rusty). In simple terms, the distance along any path you might follow through (4-dimensional) space time is called the interval, and for a particular observer (like the Earth) the interval is equal to the elapsed proper time of that observer. So, how far you go, measured as interval, corresponds exactly to how many seconds pass on your wristwatch. The square of the interval between any two fixed points in an inertial frame is, by definition, (ignoring the Y and Z directions) delta_S^2 = delta_T^2 - delta_X^2 It's not hard to use the Lorentz transforms to show that, for an inertial observer in motion with regard to an inertial frame, that definition of interval gives us the square of the observer's elapsed proper time between any two events in the frame. (Not hard but I'm not going to do it right here.) It's also not hard to show that the interval between any two events is the same, no matter what inertial frame you use to evaluate it. The infinitesimal interval traveled by an astronaut A, from the point of view of an observer O, is dS^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 and since it's infinitesimal we can use that formula for an astronaut who is *accelerating*. At the infinitesimal scale, where A's velocity hardly varies, we can find the infinitesimal change in A's proper time -- which is to say, how much A's clock
Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here
How do you make the differentiation between politics and physics? Hard. Best wishes, David On 6/8/09, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mark S Bilk wrote: So anyone who speaks out against U.S. government policies is well justified in doing so anonymously. In this case anonymity does _not_ mean: probably criminal element ...teenager, or newbie user. Then I'll permanently ban him from both lists, as well as everyone else who attempts to make that sort of politics the central feature of vortex-L. He can quietly come back with a real name, talk science, and make no attempt to attract the FBI to the vortex forum. And I suggest you think twice about making excuses for such slimy dishonest behavior. There are THOUSANDS of very serious problems in the world, and self-promoters invariably use this fact as an excuse to push their personal agendas into forums devoted to other subjects. Get rid of all the science here? Since you personally have FAR more important topics that need to dominate the discussions? But note well that the people trying this are never creating their own forums and calling for users. Instead they invade other lists and ignore the existing community while hiding their intent behind dishonest excuses. It's a common Troll trick. Take such discussion to your own new forum, or to any number of politics- centered lists, or just vtxB, keep it OFF this one. After a few weeks or months this idea might sink in, and we can go back to normal. In the mean time: producing ionizing radiation with light water electrolysis: simple enough for a school science fair, but nobody bothers to give it a try: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368TGP_oriani.pdf (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci -- Sent from my mobile device David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here
the difference between science and hard facts, and politics and opinion? seems easy to me. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:45 AM, David Jonssondavidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote: How do you make the differentiation between politics and physics? Hard. Best wishes, David On 6/8/09, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mark S Bilk wrote: So anyone who speaks out against U.S. government policies is well justified in doing so anonymously. In this case anonymity does _not_ mean: probably criminal element ...teenager, or newbie user. Then I'll permanently ban him from both lists, as well as everyone else who attempts to make that sort of politics the central feature of vortex-L. He can quietly come back with a real name, talk science, and make no attempt to attract the FBI to the vortex forum. And I suggest you think twice about making excuses for such slimy dishonest behavior. There are THOUSANDS of very serious problems in the world, and self-promoters invariably use this fact as an excuse to push their personal agendas into forums devoted to other subjects. Get rid of all the science here? Since you personally have FAR more important topics that need to dominate the discussions? But note well that the people trying this are never creating their own forums and calling for users. Instead they invade other lists and ignore the existing community while hiding their intent behind dishonest excuses. It's a common Troll trick. Take such discussion to your own new forum, or to any number of politics- centered lists, or just vtxB, keep it OFF this one. After a few weeks or months this idea might sink in, and we can go back to normal. In the mean time: producing ionizing radiation with light water electrolysis: simple enough for a school science fair, but nobody bothers to give it a try: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368TGP_oriani.pdf (( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci -- Sent from my mobile device David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and relativity. Was Relativistic magnetic fields and time
I have a paper out on Special Ralativity.? It covers velocity related time dialation. It was formulated from the observables see in cold fusion experiments http://www.wbabin.net/science/znidarsic.pdf enjoy Frank Z
RE: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here
Politics will ultimately determine the brand of physics we are allowed to believe. Jeff -Original Message- From: David Jonsson [mailto:davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 12:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here How do you make the differentiation between politics and physics? Hard. Best wishes, David On 6/8/09, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mark S Bilk wrote: So anyone who speaks out against U.S. government policies is well justified in doing so anonymously. In this case anonymity does _not_ mean: probably criminal element ...teenager, or newbie user. Then I'll permanently ban him from both lists, as well as everyone else who attempts to make that sort of politics the central feature of vortex-L. He can quietly come back with a real name, talk science, and make no attempt to attract the FBI to the vortex forum. And I suggest you think twice about making excuses for such slimy dishonest behavior. There are THOUSANDS of very serious problems in the world, and self-promoters invariably use this fact as an excuse to push their personal agendas into forums devoted to other subjects. Get rid of all the science here? Since you personally have FAR more important topics that need to dominate the discussions? But note well that the people trying this are never creating their own forums and calling for users. Instead they invade other lists and ignore the existing community while hiding their intent behind dishonest excuses. It's a common Troll trick. Take such discussion to your own new forum, or to any number of politics- centered lists, or just vtxB, keep it OFF this one. After a few weeks or months this idea might sink in, and we can go back to normal. In the mean time: producing ionizing radiation with light water electrolysis: simple enough for a school science fair, but nobody bothers to give it a try: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368TGP_oriani.pdf (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci -- Sent from my mobile device David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
I think the fault lay in my not realizing that time dillation would have an effect on the observed velocity of light. Very stupid of me not to think, and then, i wouldn't have assumed that the time dillation perfectly slides with that difference in velocity. thanks though! On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Michael Crosiarcrosia...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Leaking Pen, I have to admit I cheated and looked ahead to Stephens reply. His reply is far better than I could ever give. I will reply anyway as maybe I will get corrected and learn something new... Since the magnetic field is em radiation of a sort, think of it like the classic spaceship with a flashlight scenario (which is the ONLY thing i have EVER found in physics that i still cannot wrap my mind against. I understand what it is saying, my brain just refuses to accept it as accurate) I don't believe that a magnetic field is itself em radiation. By expanding or collapsing the magnetic field we can induce EM radiation. I see the magnetic field as a result of the geometry of space-time itself and that is what I'm trying to explore. if your on a spaceship going .9 c, and you turn on your headlamps, the light will go forward at, to your appearence, c away from you, as if you were standing still. Now, someone on the spacestation you're passing would see you moving at .9 c, and the light moving at c, not at c away from you PLUS your velocity, but simply c away from you, but c from their perspective. now, this means you each see the light reaching different distances at the same time, which is where my mind rebels. (If i have this incorrect, someone PLEASE correct me, as it hurts my head...) The basic problem I see here is not recognizing the differing frames of reference. On the spaceship space and time have been contracted, time is not moving forward at the same rate as for the person on the spacestation. Also you are trying to measure distance, but the yard sticks you are using are not the same length. Further, if you are going to measure how long something takes to happen, an event, you also need a measure of time, which is also different in each frame of reference. So you are not using the same yard stick or the same clock, so it is hard to make comparisons about distance or how long something takes to happen, or at what time an event has happened from each of the different frames of reference. The question I have is, is the lorentz contraction purely a mathmatical construct, or has the movement of the spaceship at .9c actually modified the space-time it occupies in such manner that the measurements have been changed? Can an outside observer on the spacestation determine by any means that space-time of the spaceship has been contracted? For example, if we observed a star that the spacecraft was passing in front of, would we experiance a brief refraction of the light from the star as the spacecraft passed in front of it? C. Michael Crosiar
Re: RE: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here
If political commentary is banned, why not ban religious commentary as well? Harry - Original Message - From: Jeff Fink rev...@ptd.net Date: Monday, June 8, 2009 12:59 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here Politics will ultimately determine the brand of physics we are allowed to believe. Jeff -Original Message- From: David Jonsson [mailto:davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 12:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here How do you make the differentiation between politics and physics? Hard. Best wishes, David On 6/8/09, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mark S Bilk wrote: So anyone who speaks out against U.S. government policies is well justified in doing so anonymously. In this case anonymity does _not_ mean: probably criminal element ...teenager, or newbie user. Then I'll permanently ban him from both lists, as well as everyone else who attempts to make that sort of politics the central feature of vortex-L. He can quietly come back with a real name, talk science, and make no attempt to attract the FBI to the vortex forum. And I suggest you think twice about making excuses for such slimy dishonest behavior. There are THOUSANDS of very serious problems in the world, and self-promoters invariably use this fact as an excuse to push their personal agendas into forums devoted to other subjects. Get rid of all the science here? Since you personally have FAR more important topics that need to dominate the discussions? But note well that the people trying this are never creating their own forums and calling for users. Instead they invade other lists and ignore the existing community while hiding their intent behind dishonest excuses. It's a common Troll trick. Take such discussion to your own new forum, or to any number of politics- centered lists, or just vtxB, keep it OFF this one. After a few weeks or months this idea might sink in, and we can go back to normal. In the mean time: producing ionizing radiation with light water electrolysis: simple enough for a school science fair, but nobody bothers to give it a try: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368TGP_oriani.pdf (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci -- Sent from my mobile device David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here
The irony is science cannot happen without a supportive political framework. Harry - Original Message - From: leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com Date: Monday, June 8, 2009 12:53 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here the difference between science and hard facts, and politics and opinion? seems easy to me. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:45 AM, David Jonssondavidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote: How do you make the differentiation between politics and physics? Hard. Best wishes, David On 6/8/09, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mark S Bilk wrote: So anyone who speaks out against U.S. government policies is well justified in doing so anonymously. In this case anonymity does _not_ mean: probably criminal element ...teenager, or newbie user. Then I'll permanently ban him from both lists, as well as everyone else who attempts to make that sort of politics the central feature of vortex-L. He can quietly come back with a real name, talk science, and make no attempt to attract the FBI to the vortex forum. And I suggest you think twice about making excuses for such slimy dishonest behavior. There are THOUSANDS of very serious problems in the world, and self-promoters invariably use this fact as an excuse to push their personal agendas into forums devoted to other subjects. Get rid of all the science here? Since you personally have FAR more important topics that need to dominate the discussions? But note well that the people trying this are never creating their own forums and calling for users. Instead they invade other lists and ignore the existing community while hiding their intent behind dishonest excuses. It's a common Troll trick. Take such discussion to your own new forum, or to any number of politics- centered lists, or just vtxB, keep it OFF this one. After a few weeks or months this idea might sink in, and we can go back to normal. In the mean time: producing ionizing radiation with light water electrolysis: simple enough for a school science fair, but nobody bothers to give it a try: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368TGP_oriani.pdf (( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci -- Sent from my mobile device David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here
if you have to believe you have missed the point. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Jeff Finkrev...@ptd.net wrote: Politics will ultimately determine the brand of physics we are allowed to believe. Jeff -Original Message- From: David Jonsson [mailto:davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 12:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here How do you make the differentiation between politics and physics? Hard. Best wishes, David On 6/8/09, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mark S Bilk wrote: So anyone who speaks out against U.S. government policies is well justified in doing so anonymously. In this case anonymity does _not_ mean: probably criminal element ...teenager, or newbie user. Then I'll permanently ban him from both lists, as well as everyone else who attempts to make that sort of politics the central feature of vortex-L. He can quietly come back with a real name, talk science, and make no attempt to attract the FBI to the vortex forum. And I suggest you think twice about making excuses for such slimy dishonest behavior. There are THOUSANDS of very serious problems in the world, and self-promoters invariably use this fact as an excuse to push their personal agendas into forums devoted to other subjects. Get rid of all the science here? Since you personally have FAR more important topics that need to dominate the discussions? But note well that the people trying this are never creating their own forums and calling for users. Instead they invade other lists and ignore the existing community while hiding their intent behind dishonest excuses. It's a common Troll trick. Take such discussion to your own new forum, or to any number of politics- centered lists, or just vtxB, keep it OFF this one. After a few weeks or months this idea might sink in, and we can go back to normal. In the mean time: producing ionizing radiation with light water electrolysis: simple enough for a school science fair, but nobody bothers to give it a try: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368TGP_oriani.pdf (( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci -- Sent from my mobile device David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
[Vo]:subscribe
subscribe
Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here
Harry Veeder wrote: If political commentary is banned, why not ban religious commentary as well? The specific problem was caused by incontinent spraying of political issues over every topic which was introduced. Religious commentary, which has occasionally gotten a bit out of hand in the past (partly encouraged by misbehavior on my part, I admit), played no role, and has not been a problem for a good many months AFAIK. FWIW I, personally, write about twice as many messages to Vortex as I actually send. My general approach, for the ones I don't send, is a) Write it b) Read it over c) Think about it d) Trash it after deciding it's too far OT or too snarky
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and relativity. Was Relativistic magnetic fields and time
I also want to thank you Stephen for your detailed reply to leaking pen. I do want to understand all of this as well, but it will take me a while to digest! You can view it that way, but it's a little hazardous, because time dilation isn't really just a simple number. So is time dilation a vector in space with direction and magnitude? That has been my conclusion, but you clearly understand this at a level I do not. Thinking of it as a simple ratio leads to a lot of confusion. Time dilation, expressed as a number, is dt/dtau for a particular observer, A, relative to a particular reference frame, F. The dt value is found by A, by looking at clocks which are stationary in frame F, as A passes them by. The dtau value is found by A by looking at A's own clock. Could you please explain a little more what dtau represents? My understanding of dt is that it represents the rate at which time moves forward in the frame of reference of A. Is that correct? Does dtau represent the time interval elapsed in A between the observation of the first clock in F to the observation of the second clock in F? Note well: A uses ONE clock in his/her own frame. A uses AT LEAST TWO CLOCKS in frame F, located at *different* points in frame F. You can't measure time dilation between two inertial frames without using at least two clocks in one of the frames, because once the observer has passed a clock, it's gone, and they can't see it any more (except at a distance and using a telescope adds unnecessary hair without changing the result). Ok, I think I get this part. Thus, time dilation actually measures the rate at which time passes along a *particular* *path*. Something that measures a rate of change along a path is a directional derivative, or a 1-form. It's not a simple number. Sounds like I need to be educated about directional derivatives, or 1-form. I'll do some googling, but any help you can give... How does it differ from a simple vector? Ok, I googled it - calc 3 - Ouch... Only made it partly through calc 2, and that is very rusty, so this one is a little beyond my math abilities. But if I understand what little I have read we are talking about the rate at which time changes in a particular direction. That was my understanding already, so I think I conceptually get this, or so I hope. So, knowing the rate at which time moves forward in the direction of motion tells us nothing about dt in any other direction, correct? ... I'll need much more time to absorb the rest of this. C. Michael Crosiar
Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here
im sorry, science has happened with a downright COMBATIVE political framework. large scale corporate science, now that takes a sociopolitical framework for funding and such. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Harry Veederhvee...@ncf.ca wrote: The irony is science cannot happen without a supportive political framework. Harry - Original Message - From: leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com Date: Monday, June 8, 2009 12:53 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here the difference between science and hard facts, and politics and opinion? seems easy to me. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:45 AM, David Jonssondavidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote: How do you make the differentiation between politics and physics? Hard. Best wishes, David On 6/8/09, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mark S Bilk wrote: So anyone who speaks out against U.S. government policies is well justified in doing so anonymously. In this case anonymity does _not_ mean: probably criminal element ...teenager, or newbie user. Then I'll permanently ban him from both lists, as well as everyone else who attempts to make that sort of politics the central feature of vortex-L. He can quietly come back with a real name, talk science, and make no attempt to attract the FBI to the vortex forum. And I suggest you think twice about making excuses for such slimy dishonest behavior. There are THOUSANDS of very serious problems in the world, and self-promoters invariably use this fact as an excuse to push their personal agendas into forums devoted to other subjects. Get rid of all the science here? Since you personally have FAR more important topics that need to dominate the discussions? But note well that the people trying this are never creating their own forums and calling for users. Instead they invade other lists and ignore the existing community while hiding their intent behind dishonest excuses. It's a common Troll trick. Take such discussion to your own new forum, or to any number of politics- centered lists, or just vtxB, keep it OFF this one. After a few weeks or months this idea might sink in, and we can go back to normal. In the mean time: producing ionizing radiation with light water electrolysis: simple enough for a school science fair, but nobody bothers to give it a try: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368TGP_oriani.pdf (( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci -- Sent from my mobile device David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:Relativistic magnetic fields and time
I think the fault lay in my not realizing that time dillation would have an effect on the observed velocity of light. Very stupid of me not to think, and then, i wouldn't have assumed that the time dillation perfectly slides with that difference in velocity. hmmm I still don't think that is right - all observers will see the velocity of the speed of light as the same - C. It is the only constant here. Time dilation does not affect the observed velocity of light, but it does affect your observed time and distance between frames of reference. Stephen, do I understand this correctly? M. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Michael Crosiarcrosia...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Leaking Pen, I have to admit I cheated and looked ahead to Stephens reply. His reply is far better than I could ever give. I will reply anyway as maybe I will get corrected and learn something new... Since the magnetic field is em radiation of a sort, think of it like the classic spaceship with a flashlight scenario (which is the ONLY thing i have EVER found in physics that i still cannot wrap my mind against. I understand what it is saying, my brain just refuses to accept it as accurate) I don't believe that a magnetic field is itself em radiation. By expanding or collapsing the magnetic field we can induce EM radiation. I see the magnetic field as a result of the geometry of space-time itself and that is what I'm trying to explore. if your on a spaceship going .9 c, and you turn on your headlamps, the light will go forward at, to your appearence, c away from you, as if you were standing still. Now, someone on the spacestation you're passing would see you moving at .9 c, and the light moving at c, not at c away from you PLUS your velocity, but simply c away from you, but c from their perspective. now, this means you each see the light reaching different distances at the same time, which is where my mind rebels. (If i have this incorrect, someone PLEASE correct me, as it hurts my head...) The basic problem I see here is not recognizing the differing frames of reference. On the spaceship space and time have been contracted, time is not moving forward at the same rate as for the person on the spacestation. Also you are trying to measure distance, but the yard sticks you are using are not the same length. Further, if you are going to measure how long something takes to happen, an event, you also need a measure of time, which is also different in each frame of reference. So you are not using the same yard stick or the same clock, so it is hard to make comparisons about distance or how long something takes to happen, or at what time an event has happened from each of the different frames of reference. The question I have is, is the lorentz contraction purely a mathmatical construct, or has the movement of the spaceship at .9c actually modified the space-time it occupies in such manner that the measurements have been changed? Can an outside observer on the spacestation determine by any means that space-time of the spaceship has been contracted? For example, if we observed a star that the spacecraft was passing in front of, would we experiance a brief refraction of the light from the star as the spacecraft passed in front of it? C. Michael Crosiar
[Vo]:unsubscribe
unsubscribe
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and relativity. Was Relativistic magnetic fields and time
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Michael Crosiarcrosia...@yahoo.com wrote: I also want to thank you Stephen for your detailed reply to leaking pen. I do want to understand all of this as well, but it will take me a while to digest! You can view it that way, but it's a little hazardous, because time dilation isn't really just a simple number. So is time dilation a vector in space with direction and magnitude? That has been my conclusion, but you clearly understand this at a level I do not. Thinking of it as a simple ratio leads to a lot of confusion. Time dilation, expressed as a number, is dt/dtau for a particular observer, A, relative to a particular reference frame, F. The dt value is found by A, by looking at clocks which are stationary in frame F, as A passes them by. The dtau value is found by A by looking at A's own clock. Could you please explain a little more what dtau represents? My understanding of dt is that it represents the rate at which time moves forward in the frame of reference of A. Is that correct? Does dtau represent the time interval elapsed in A between the observation of the first clock in F to the observation of the second clock in F? Note well: A uses ONE clock in his/her own frame. A uses AT LEAST TWO CLOCKS in frame F, located at *different* points in frame F. You can't measure time dilation between two inertial frames without using at least two clocks in one of the frames, because once the observer has passed a clock, it's gone, and they can't see it any more (except at a distance and using a telescope adds unnecessary hair without changing the result). Ok, I think I get this part. Thus, time dilation actually measures the rate at which time passes along a *particular* *path*. Something that measures a rate of change along a path is a directional derivative, or a 1-form. It's not a simple number. Sounds like I need to be educated about directional derivatives, or 1-form. I'll do some googling, but any help you can give... How does it differ from a simple vector? Ok, I googled it - calc 3 - Ouch... Only made it partly through calc 2, and that is very rusty, so this one is a little beyond my math abilities. But if I understand what little I have read we are talking about the rate at which time changes in a particular direction. That was my understanding already, so I think I conceptually get this, or so I hope. So, knowing the rate at which time moves forward in the direction of motion tells us nothing about dt in any other direction, correct? ... I'll need much more time to absorb the rest of this. C. Michael Crosiar Same
Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here
Really? Wow, your messages are so detailed and thought out - I would love to see the ones you threw away! As for all of this grok stuff, I have lurked here for a long time and enjoyed your political and religious comments as much as any on science. I would hate to see the total ban go in effect just because it was abused by one or a even a few. I see the issue here the same as Stephen, grok tried to inject politics into just about every message. It seemed to be a compulsion on his part and distracted from the purpose of this mailing list. It is up to the moderator to determine when it has gone too far. I'm actually surprised he let this go as long and as far as he did, I think he showed great restraint. I would hope that there is no hard and fast rule, but if that is the way it is going forward, I will respect it and miss some of the banter and discussions of the past. Let's face it, grok had plenty of warnings here, and I'm sure privately as well. I for one don't think that forums such as this should attempt to be fair and treat everyone the same. I am new here and I don't expect that I will be treated the same as someone who has posted here for years and has EARNED the respect of the moderator and other members. I should be, and expect to be, held to a higher standard - jumping into a group like this and being disrespectful and disruptive should not be tolerated. As for the whole real identity issue. I think in forums such as this your real identity should be generally required. If you are discussing such extreme points of view, political or otherwise, that YOU feel you can't use your real identity, that would be a good clue that this is the wrong forum for your posts. I can think of exceptions - someone who might have their career threatened by posting under a real identity. I think it is better not to have hard rules, but to trust the moderator to use his good judgment. C. Michael Crosiar From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2009 11:09:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here Harry Veeder wrote: If political commentary is banned, why not ban religious commentary as well? The specific problem was caused by incontinent spraying of political issues over every topic which was introduced. Religious commentary, which has occasionally gotten a bit out of hand in the past (partly encouraged by misbehavior on my part, I admit), played no role, and has not been a problem for a good many months AFAIK. FWIW I, personally, write about twice as many messages to Vortex as I actually send. My general approach, for the ones I don't send, is a) Write it b) Read it over c) Think about it d) Trash it after deciding it's too far OT or too snarky
Re: RE: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Harry Veeder wrote: If political commentary is banned, why not ban religious commentary as well? It is.Off topic, as in politics/religion.Perhaps you've been away and missed these threads? (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:subscribe
You are subscribed. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Alexander Hollinsalexander.holl...@gmail.com wrote: subscribe
Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe
you have to send that to vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 2:24 PM, leaking penitsat...@gmail.com wrote: unsubscribe
Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe
whoops, thanks terry. i even recall when that happened previously. and... my other email was already subscribed? da hell? On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Terry Blantonhohlr...@gmail.com wrote: you have to send that to vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 2:24 PM, leaking penitsat...@gmail.com wrote: unsubscribe
[Vo]:trolls/flamers cartoon site
The FLAME WARRIORS website has depictions of common types involved in forum uphevals. See if you recognize anyone: flame warrior index http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/ Rebel Leader has an uncanny ability to upset the settled order of... http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/rebelleader.htm Rebel Without a Clue's deep seated and infantile hostility to authority... http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/rebelwithoutclue.htm The most common variants of Ideologue are conservative and liberal... http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ideologue.htm Admin is the janitor, the cop, the mayor, the judge and sometimes... http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/admin.htm Nanny tirelessly monitors forum discussions to make sure that everyone... http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/nanny.htm (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]:Papers by Mosier-Boss and Kowalski uploaded
This includes a brand new paper, just coming out (the last in the list). See: Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al., Use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments. Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., 2007. 40: p. 293-303. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossuseofcrinp.pdf Kowalski, L., Comments on 'The Use of CR-39 in Pd/D Co-deposition Experiments' by P.A. Mosier-Boss, S. Szpak, F.E. Gordon and L.P.G. Forsely, Interpreting SPAWAR-Type Dominant Pits. Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., 2008. 44: p. 287-290. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KowalskiLcommentson.pdf Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al., Reply to Comment on 'The Use of CR-39 in Pd/D Co-deposition Experiments': A Response to Kowalski. Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., 2008. 44: p. 287-290. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossreplytocom.pdf Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al., Characterization of tracks in CR-39 detectors obtained as a result of Pd/D Co-deposition. Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., 2009. 46. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBosscharacteri.pdf - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Brain scanning headsets!Sigh.
Mashing that with Natal and an interface to X10 might be kinda fun. Leaking pen wrote: It actually picks up brain waves, from my understanding. snip
[Vo]:Time Dilation and relativity. Was Relativistic magnetic fields and time
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: ... time dilation isn't really just a simple number. Hi All, 6-8-09 Here are some thoughts on time dilation. Jack Smith --- Quoting from Relational Mechanics by Andre K. T. Assis, 1999 (This book can be purchased at Amazon.com.) p. 132 It is usually stated that this dilation of the proper time of a body in motion has been proven by experiments in which unstable mesons are accelerated and move at high velocities in particle accelerators. In these experiments it is observed that the half-lives ... of these accelerated mesons are greater than the half-lives of mesons at rest in the laboratory. But this is not the only interpretation of these experiments. It can be equally argued that these experiments only show that the half-lives of the unstable mesons depend on their accelerations ... An analogy ... Suppose two identical pendulum clocks at rest on the earth, marking the same time at sea level and running at the same pace, We then carry one of them to a high mountain, keep it there for several hours, and bring it back to sea level at the location of the other clock. Comparing the two clocks it is observed that the clock which was carried to the top of the mountain is delayed relative to the one which stayed all the time at sea level. This is the observational fact. It can be interpreted saying that time ran more slowly for the clock at the top of the mountain. Or it can be interpreted by saying that time ran equally to both clocks, but that the period of oscillation ... depends on the gravitational field of the earth ... As the gravitational field is weaker at the top of the mountain than at sea level, the clock which stayed on the mountain is delayed as compared with the one at sea level ... --- http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity Tom Van Flandern, Univ. of Maryland Meta Research From the book 'Open Questions in Relativistic Physics' (pp. 81-90), edited by Franco Selleri, published by Apeiron, Montreal (1998) ... Another clue came for De Sitter in 1913, elaborated by Phipps [3], both of whom reminded us that double star components with high relative velocities nonetheless both have the same stellar aberration. This meant that the relative velocity between a light source and an observer was not relevant to stellar aberration. Rather, the relative velocity between local and distant gravity fields determined aberration. In the same year, Sagnac showed non-null results for a Michelson-Morley experiment done on a rotating platform. In the simplest interpretation, this demonstrated that speeds relative to the local gravity field do add to or subtract from the speed of light in the experiment, since the fringes do shift. The Michelson-Gale experiment in 1925 confirmed that the Sagnac result holds true when the rotating platform is the entire Earth's surface. GPS Evidence Against the Relativity Principle, by Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.; Infinite Energy, Issue 67; May 2006; p. 22 and following. ``The Global Positioning System (GPS) compensates the running rates of its atomic clocks for their orbital motion by speeding them up so as to cancel the relativistic time dilatation. Such compensated clocks, when in orbit, run in step with each other and with an earth-surface Master Clock ... The relativity principle ... demands ... the clocks of two ... observers [to be] each running slower than the other. To avoid an inifinite logical regression to nonsense, SRT [Special Relativity] therefore needs clock rates to be appearances. Whereas to earn extra credit for predicting the observed asymetrical aging of muons (circling and stationary in the laboratory) SRT needs clock rates to be real ... SRT's event calculus [is used] to show that clock phase jumps properly account for the asymetry ... Neither actual clocks ... nor biological processes behave discontinuously in nature. The stay-at-home twin cannot reset his biological clock to accommodate the phase jumps ... A clock of the GPS when in orbit is in free fall ... Two independent relativistic effects on such clocks are recognized and compensated for by the GPS. There is an effect of location in the gravity field and a separate motional effect of time dilatation by a factor gamma = 1/(1-V^2/c^2)^0.5 ... This means that, when a GPS clock is moved from the earth's surface into orbit, it runs slower due to time dilatation but faster due to location change (being less deep in the earth's gravity field) ... Attention will be confined here exclusively to the phenomenon of time dilatation produced by clock motion ... Confining attention to the GPS atomic clocks, we note that in such clocks a cloud of cesium atoms is irradiated so as to stimulate in some of the atoms a ... transition at frequency No cycles per second ... The GPS engineers reasoned that if this same cloud of atoms were
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and relativity. Was Relativistic magnetic fields and time
Taylor J. Smith wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: ... time dilation isn't really just a simple number. Hi All, 6-8-09 Here are some thoughts on time dilation. Jack Smith ... It is usually stated that this dilation of the proper time of a body in motion has been proven by experiments... Total nonsense, of course. You can't *PROVE* a theory. You can only DISPROVE it. The meson data is consistent with the predictions made using SR, and so can be viewed as supporting it. Other interpretations are certainly possible, however, and this experiment, alone, certainly doesn't *prove* that time dilation occurs; to claim so is to step way outside the bounds of correct interpretation of the results. (This experiment *does* disprove the null hypothesis, which is that there's nothing at all funny going on with the meson half-lives.) The failure to prove the theory is true of any individual experiment, of course -- you can always find another theory which is also not disproved by a particular experiment. The trick, if you want to replace SR with something else, is to find a theory which is not disproved by *any* of the experiments which have been performed (and replicated). That's harder than you might think. Jack quoted: GPS Evidence Against the Relativity Principle, by Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.; Infinite Energy, Issue 67; May 2006; p. 22 and following. ``The Global Positioning System (GPS) compensates the running rates of its atomic clocks for their orbital motion by speeding them up so as to cancel the relativistic time dilatation. Such compensated clocks, when in orbit, run in step with each other and with an earth-surface Master Clock ... The relativity principle ... demands ... the clocks of two ... observers [to be] each running slower than the other. This last quote is total nonsense. I haven't looked at the original paper in IE and certainly won't bother to, based on this quote from it. SR, alone, predicts a clock moving a circle will run more slowly than an unaccelerated clock. GR adds to that the prediction that, all else being equal, a clock higher in a gravity well will run more quickly than one lower in the well; the two effects obviously compensate in this case but not completely. Simple as that; there's no prediction, anywhere, that each clock will run slower than the other (which is a flat contradiction, of course). The GPS compensation is based on a GR model of the situation, which incorporates SR automatically (GR is a proper superset of SR and includes all of SR within its substantially more complex model). (In fact in GR the orbiting clock is following a geodesic, the one on the ground is not, and the curved path of the orbiting clock is only curved from a 3-d point of view...) Jack writes: Somewhere I think I read that Domina Eberle Spencer has the Hafele-Keating airplane data and has concluded that it was faked. I've read a deconstruction of the experiment; here are my impressions. The data wasn't faked, they really did the experiment, and they really did gather the data, and it was not inconsistent with relativity being correct. However, the data was so poor that the null hypothesis was about as good a fit as the conclusion that relativity was at work; in other words, nothing was actually proved or disproved and the experiment did little or nothing to support any particular theory. The problem was that the clocks weren't accurate enough and suffered from too many glitches. Apparently such clocks don't typically run at exactly real time, and what's worse, the rate at which an individual cesium clock actually runs *varies* from time to time. Each clock will typically be stable for a while and then its rate will jump; how long it's stable for, and how big and what direction the jump is in, are unpredictable. You need quite a lot of clocks to really compensate for this annoying behavior -- more than were on the airplane. (I think they carried 6 clocks, but I'm not sure; maybe it was more. Incidentally the fact that they carried more than one is an immediate tipoff that there's something funky about those clocks!) The big red flag was that they did *not* release the raw data for a long, long time after the paper was published. The solution would have been to fly many more clocks. But, as so often happens, they didn't have the resources to do the experiment right and when they did it with what resources they had, the result was ambiguous. At that point, either they could have admitted that the result was ambiguous and that the whole thing had been a colossal waste of the resources they did have, or they could have published anyway and tried to pretend the result was significant. Like so many researches before them (and, no doubt, after them) they chose to put the interpretation on the data which they expected to be correct and publish anyway. Because the data supported the current view of how things should work nobody
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and relativity. Was Relativistic magnetic fields and time
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: In the case of the HK experiment, there's so little doubt as to the result which would obtain with a correctly done experiment that nobody's bothered to try to replicate it, AFAIK. (Note that if physics researchers in general were in much doubt about the results there would have been replications, whether or not the original experiment was dubious!) Contrast this with the Michelson-Morley experiment. There was a *LOT* of doubt, or even consternation, over the MM results, and consequently that experiment has been replicated many, many times, with many variations, with vacuum in the tubes, with air in the tubes, with various wavelengths, with various distances.
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and relativity. Was Relativistic magnetic fields and time
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: In the case of the HK experiment, there's so little doubt as to the result which would obtain with a correctly done experiment that nobody's bothered to try to replicate it, AFAIK. (Note that if physics researchers in general were in much doubt about the results there would have been replications, whether or not the original experiment was dubious!) Contrast this with the Michelson-Morley experiment. There was a *LOT* of doubt, or even consternation, over the MM results, and consequently that experiment has been replicated many, many times, with many variations, with vacuum in the tubes, with air in the tubes, with various wavelengths, with various distances. Ah, come to think of it ... in fact the HK experiment's big result, which is that the clocks flying in a circle (around the Earth) run slower, and that airplanes going in opposite directions will end up with clocks out of sync, is due to the Sagnac effect. And the Sagnac effect is demonstrated thousands of times a day, because IFOG inertial navigation devices depend on it for their operation. So there's no pressing need to redo the HK experiment to show that aspect of the result. The other effect was the GR effect, which would have resulted in the clocks running at different rates depending on altitude (which, IIRC, they tried to calculate into the results, using altitude data gathered during the flights). But the GPS system does a nice job of demonstrating that, so I don't think anyone in the physics community feels a strong need to rerun the experiment just to confirm the effect on commercial airliners.
Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here
Leaking pen that illustrates what I mean. Harry - Original Message - From: leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com Date: Monday, June 8, 2009 2:19 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here im sorry, science has happened with a downright COMBATIVE political framework. large scale corporate science, now that takes a sociopolitical framework for funding and such. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Harry Veederhvee...@ncf.ca wrote: The irony is science cannot happen without a supportive political framework. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and relativity. Was Relativistic magnetic fields and time
Thanks for posting that. I forwarded the Assis quote to another group. Harry - Original Message - From: Taylor J. Smith tj...@centurytel.net Date: Monday, June 8, 2009 5:05 pm Subject: [Vo]:Time Dilation and relativity. Was Relativistic magnetic fields and time Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: ... time dilation isn't really just a simple number. Hi All, 6-8-09 Here are some thoughts on time dilation. Jack Smith --- Quoting from Relational Mechanics by Andre K. T. Assis, 1999 (This book can be purchased at Amazon.com.) p. 132 It is usually stated that this dilation of the proper time of a body in motion has been proven by experiments in which unstable mesons are accelerated and move at high velocities in particle accelerators. In these experiments it is observed that the half-lives ... of these accelerated mesons are greater than the half-lives of mesons at rest in the laboratory. But this is not the only interpretation of these experiments. It can be equally argued that these experiments only show that the half-lives of the unstable mesons depend on their accelerations ... An analogy ... Suppose two identical pendulum clocks at rest on the earth, marking the same time at sea level and running at the same pace, We then carry one of them to a high mountain, keep it there for several hours, and bring it back to sea level at the location of the other clock. Comparing the two clocks it is observed that the clock which was carried to the top of the mountain is delayed relative to the one which stayed all the time at sea level. This is the observational fact. It can be interpreted saying that time ran more slowly for the clock at the top of the mountain. Or it can be interpreted by saying that time ran equally to both clocks, but that the period of oscillation ... depends on the gravitational field of the earth ... As the gravitational field is weaker at the top of the mountain than at sea level, the clock which stayed on the mountain is delayed as compared with the one at sea level ... ---
Re: RE: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here
- Original Message - From: William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com Date: Monday, June 8, 2009 3:35 pm Subject: Re: RE: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Harry Veeder wrote: If political commentary is banned, why not ban religious commentary as well? It is.Off topic, as in politics/religion.Perhaps you've been away and missed these threads? Maybe I did miss something. Did you ban someone for their religious commentary? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and relativity. Was Relativistic magnetic fields and time
- Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com Date: Monday, June 8, 2009 6:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation and relativity. Was Relativistic magnetic fields and time Taylor J. Smith wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: ... time dilation isn't really just a simple number. Hi All, 6-8-09 Here are some thoughts on time dilation. Jack Smith ... It is usually stated that this dilation of the proper time of a body in motion has been proven by experiments... Total nonsense, of course. You can't *PROVE* a theory. You can only DISPROVE it. The meson data is consistent with the predictions made using SR, and so can be viewed as supporting it. Other interpretations are certainly possible, however, and this experiment, alone, certainly doesn't *prove*that time dilation occurs; to claim so is to step way outside the bounds of correct interpretation of the results. (This experiment *does* disprove the null hypothesis, which is that there's nothing at all funny going on with the meson half-lives.) The failure to prove the theory is true of any individual experiment,of course -- you can always find another theory which is also not disproved by a particular experiment. The trick, if you want to replaceSR with something else, is to find a theory which is not disproved by *any* of the experiments which have been performed (and replicated). That's harder than you might think. The new theory should also suggest novel experiments that wouldn't have been imagined within the framework of the older theory. Harry
[Vo]:Louis Smullin dies
Cold fusion researcher Louis Smullin died on June 4 at age 93. Smullin worked with Peter Hagelstein at MIT. He was disabled in 2001 and was no longer able to work after that. See: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/obit-smullin-0608.html - Jed
Re: RE: [Vo]:BAN ON POLITICS still in effect here
I recall two recent comments of worth: Harry Veeder wrote: If political commentary is banned, why not ban religious commentary as well? And from Stephen Lawrance: The specific problem was caused by incontinent spraying of political issues over every topic which was introduced. Religious commentary, which has occasionally gotten a bit out of hand in the past (partly encouraged by misbehavior on my part, I admit), played no role, and has not been a problem for a good many months AFAIK. FWIW I, personally, write about twice as many messages to Vortex as I actually send. My general approach, for the ones I don't send, is a) Write it b) Read it over c) Think about it d) Trash it after deciding it's too far OT or too snarky Good advice from Stephen. I should probably do that more often than I actually do. My own two cents: From what I could see the grok persona was using the guise of wanting to engage in discussions of political ideology primarily as a preferred weapon of choice in which to slay his perceived enemies. I would speculate that this particular troll had some time ago come to the belief that he had acquired a strong arsenal of ideological weaponry that he felt would be capable of protecting himself from a slew of outrageous injustices inflicted on him earlier in life. Now that he felt armed (and also conveniently protected with an armor of anonymity) it was time for him to embark on his quest, his crusade in which to slay an unjust world and all the pathetic little creatures that inhabit this unjust universe, and particularly all the pathetic little creatures he perceived had done him wrong. Under such circumstances there is very little substance or learning that can occur, unless one is a psychologist studying variations on anti-social behavior. As far as trolls are concerned it's all about slaying windmills. And I for one am tired of being perceived as nothing more than another windmill to slay. You just go around and around... Changing the subject slightly, I see there has been a mini mass-purging of the Vort Collective, mostly in the form of temporary banishments. Make no mistake about the fact that Mr. Beaty, for better or worse, is God. Regarding matters of the proper care and feeding of the Vort Collective, Mr. Beaty can do as he sees fit without impunity. We participate at the pleasure of Mr. Beaty, the virtual god of Vortex-l. If we don't like Mr. Beaty's rules, his universe, we are free to leave it. No doubt some have done so. Others have been forcefully ejected while new participants arrive all the time. Like most wise virtual gods, it would seem from my perspective that Mr. Beaty has done a reasonable job of querying the Vort Collective, sensing its collective mood. It would seem that this virtual god is genuinely interested in creating a continuum where his subjects can thrive and learn from one another. This virtual god has set forth a few ground rules, such as the edict that Vortex-l is primarily a continuum for the discussion of scientific topics. Occasionally OT non-scientific subjects are allowed (tolerated) as long as such discussions make no overt attempt to overthrow the primary purpose of the Vort Collective. (I try to follow this edict very carefully since, technically speaking, I'm guilty of instigating many OT infractions.) This virtual god also seems to show genuine concern when his participants begin to complain incessantly about a particular individual's posting behavior. From what I can tell it seems to take a lot of prodding combined with many examples of infractions before the virtual god of Vortex-l decides to perform a divine intervention. And like the actions of most gods, when divine intervention finally happens, it tends to be swift and decisive. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
