Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
However, once one spiral arm had been frozen by gravity force to the other galaxy
I have previously shown that the exponential version of the gravitational time dilation (GTD) equation (first given by Einstein in 1907) is incorrect, because it is inconsistent with the outcome of the twin paradox.I think the rest of the scientific community would have noticed after a century if Einstein was wrong about something as simple as special relativity. The error in your demonstration was pointed out. You continue to assert this despite the errors being identified. This is a good deal of the reason why Kryptid moved this post to the lighter-side of the forum.
In Einstein’s 1907 paper, Einstein stated that the GTD equation is R(g) = exp(g L),You forgot the τ in the equation, which is important. The equation (in natural units) is something like δ = τ•exp(g L) where δ is the remote duration change, the amount of age change of a hypothetical stationary twin, stationary relative to accelerating reference system ∑.
According to the Equivalence Principle, we can then also say that when there are no gravitational fields (i.e., in a Special Relativity scenario), two clocks which are initially unaccelerated, and which are separated by a constant distance “L”, and which are then simultaneously accelerated with an acceleration “A” (in the direction of their separation), then the rate ratio “R” is R(A) = exp(A L).You omit frame references here, making your statement misleading. Relative to inertial system S (Einstein's designation), two clocks which are separated by a constant distance L, and which are then simultaneously accelerated with a proper acceleration “A” (in the direction of their separation), then the rate ratio “R” relative to S is 1 since they have identical motion in S. Their separation in S remains L after any amount of time. This is effectively Bell's scenario with the string that breaks.
Note that for constant “A” and “L”, the rate ratio “R” DOES NOT VARY WITH TIME.True only for constant proper acceleration. This isn't true for constant coordinate acceleration (relative to S say). You should be clear when screaming assertions like that.
I showed in [in another paper] that the above exponential equation is inconsistent with the outcome of the twin paradox.Yes. I pointed out the error you made. You ignored that and continue to make this assertion.
Specifically, if the traveling twin (he) changes his velocity instantaneously at his turnaround, the exponential equation says that the home twin (she) will be INFINITELY old after his turnaround.Again, it says no such thing. As you're written it (specifying R(g) as a rate ratio), it merely says that relative to the twin turning around with infinite acceleration, a distant twin (stationary relative to ∑) ages at an infinite rate, but for zero time. An infinite rate for zero time is undefined, not infinite. That says is that the equation cannot be meaningfully used for a finite impulse with zero duration, and not at all for the twin scenario where the Earth twin doesn't remain a constant distance from the travelling twin.
Section 3. A Proposed Experimental Test of My GTD EquationThe relative decay rates would be a function of the frame in which that time is measured. Your 'test' description doesn't specify that frame, but in S (the frame of the accelerator), both samples will decay at the same rate regardless of the level of acceleration. If your theory predicts otherwise, you have a problem, but in the absence of a frame reference, your prediction is ambiguous. Either way, relativity predicts what will be measured.
...
That way, if the leading particle is ageing faster than the trailing particle, the leading particle will (on average) decay quicker than the trailing particle, which might be observable.
If electrons are continuously shot into a black hole (from beta radiation or electron gun), will it be electrically charged?
Can the charge be sensed from outside, i.e. the Coulomb force?
How does the black hole mass affect the strength of Coulomb force, by modifying the distance from an outside object?
If you look at the various definitions of life, such as;Please don't hijack threads. If you want to post your inane thoughts start your own thread, don't post them in someone else's inane thread.
Life is the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death., the phenomena called fire checks all the boxes. Fire can metabolize, grow and even reproduce via sparks and radiational heating. It is connected to continual change from its birth to its death; forest fire. It is lowering free energy and increasing entropy just like life. Life is type of dynamics more than it is a type of thing.
Fire is not the conventional way we look at life, since we think in terms of protein, DNA and water, but since fire does check all the boxes for most definitions of the state called life, then one may ask can fire, such as the nuclear fire of a star, evolve its unique state of life, to states that we might called fire's version of consciousness? It will not look like we expect it to look; ego centric, but it would be able to adapt and even resolve issues as it metabolizes and changes with time. it may be more instinctive looking; animal impulse, than willful and choice based; uses the laws or instincts of physics.
With organic life, the state called life; checks all the boxes, does not appear without water. Dehydrated cells are not alive even with all the organics in place. Water is what makes life possible. If we add the water back to dehydrated cells everything works and al things now coordinates for the state called life. No other solvent can replace water; it checks all the boxes. Does water have a type of consciousness since it was key to the "natural selection process" at the nanoscale, that led to the organic chemical states associated with life.
Life would not appear if water was not mediating; natural selection at the nanoscale, and integrating everything within the cell. If we add it all up, it appears that fire and water are both alive, but since they cancel each other, they define two divergent directions for life. Water by canceling fire helps make the life of fire more manageable; metabolism
Sure with this poem
A gravity A day
One day
kryptid say
'A VISUAL ANALOGY,
end of day.'
then he put on
his sunglasses
to block
gravitational waves
and spins out of the room
saying 'good day'
but knocks down
his coffee
and exclaims 'wait!'
'gravity is
like forum guy say?'
the end
good day
I am not discussing "religion" here.You certainly aren't discussing science.
There are videos on YouTube where it is shown that the presented set-up doesn’t work.There is also this one, which shows that it does work.
What you are missing is the location of the photon at any given instant is not relative to anything else. All other particles are relative to the photon. That is why the speed of light is used in relativistic gamma. This is the absolute maximum speed limit. As an absolute it can't be reached by massive particles. Since everything else's velocity is measured in relation to this absolute then the photon must map to an absolute frame.Photons do not define a frame of reference. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame of reference, but not in a photon frame since photons always move at c relative to any frame. They cannot be at rest.
Don't know how you find the energy Bored chemist,A combination of monumental bloodymindedness, and the desire to see that nonsense doesn't get the last word on science sites.
If you ask with google, you may find many text about flaws of SR.
First digit for each instanceIt seems that your calculations are using Base-10 numbers.
Pi x Pi 350 timesTo represent Pi in a computer, you need a computer with an infinite number of bits. These don't come cheap.
In winter, the earth comes closer to the sunNot from my Australian friend's point of view.
You can install a crank on EarthApparently.
One relationship between charge and mass, based on the preponderance of natural data, is positive charge appears to prefer to merge with the heavy mass; proton. The negative charge prefers to merge with the lessor mass; electron. There is more of these two change-mass configurations in the universe, than the alternative, where charge-mass is reversed.
Equation one for the MKS system is not valid for any other system unless we change the constants.