Room-temperature superconductivity?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Postby DeltaV » Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:01 pm


GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:09 pm

Only pesky for those who don't pay attention to what they've been told:

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... 5/gps.html
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Postby DeltaV » Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:16 pm

Here's part of what they told you.
Hence, it’s clear that there are many conflicting opinions about the resolution of the Twin Paradox among “mainstream”, relativist professors.
You guys get your stories straight.

And some more.
Many think that experiment results have confirmed the NPTD prediction and, hence, the Twin Paradox is a dead issue. However, this is an erroneous conclusion.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:34 pm

GPS sats are in 11,000 mile-high orbits and require nano-second resolution in order to function. They have their signals corrected for time dilation more than a THOUSAND times the necessary nano-second resolution in order to function as they do, thus they could not POSSIBLY function if they did not account for the time dilation in the Twins Paradox.

Doesn't matter what you read about objections. There has been more than enough evidence that Einstein is correct for a very, very long time.

Obviously, Einstein did not pose a complete answer. It's fair to say there's more to learn here, or we wouldn't call this a "Paradox". One can't simply decide by fiat which explanation is best, and this "open letter" is really just an appeal for funding.

Suppose with me, that just as Einstein himself believed, many decades before there was any physical evidence, that the reason the clocks keep different time relates directly to Mach's Principle. Since MP hasn't had any significant interest in most of the last decade, we would in this case not expect to see a solution to the Twins Paradox until that changes. You cannot simply sign an open letter and achieve that result--that's not how science works.

In any case, we do KNOW that the clocks move at different rates, which is in accord with SRT's time dilation. the "difference in opinion" concerns how to answer the paradox, not in the fact that the clocks move at different rates.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Postby johanfprins » Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:31 am

DeltaV wrote:I'm not a statistician, so I can't help you there.
Don't let them intimidate you: Only fools will believe that the transformed time is the same as the time within the reference frame from which it is transformed. It is so obviously nonsensical that it is difficult to believe that there are persons alive who can read and write, and who can state this without being embarrassed.

ladajo
Posts: 6066
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:29 am


tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby tomclarke » Fri Nov 18, 2011 6:48 am

DeltaV wrote:Here's part of what they told you.
Hence, it’s clear that there are many conflicting opinions about the resolution of the Twin Paradox among “mainstream”, relativist professors.
You guys get your stories straight.

And some more.
Many think that experiment results have confirmed the NPTD prediction and, hence, the Twin Paradox is a dead issue. However, this is an erroneous conclusion.


You can find mavericks anywhere, especially when the orthodoxy is as counter-intuitive as SR.

Finding an internet published contrarian quote does not really help matters.

The exprimental evidence is conclusive, and the (shown faulty) criticism from Kelly of (just one) experiment - there have since been two more similar ones - and many others using different more accurate methodology - is no reason for anyone of sane mind to dismiss it.

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:21 am

Blogged it:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... light.html

With a nice GPS link I got from the board a while back.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:11 am

DeltaV wrote:Many think that experiment results have confirmed the NPTD prediction and, hence, the Twin Paradox is a dead issue. However, this is an erroneous conclusion.

Just to be clear, the physicists on the list are not disputing the physical evidence that the clocks move at different rates. They're disputing the conclusion that the Twins Paradox has been solved so they can get some funding. Obviously, it has not been solved. If Johan wants to fund them, I say go right ahead, but no real physicist would doubt the evidence is conclusive the clocks move at different rates--at least not since the advent of GPS.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

TallDave
Posts: 3113
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:18 pm

Within the FOR of the laboratory the moving muons within the ring are indeed observed to decay SLOWER. But what you are measuring is the TRANSFORMED lifetimes of the muons. Although this proves that time dilation has a real effect, a clock moving with the muons will measure the same lifetimes for the muons trapped within the storage ring, than another clock stationary within the laboratory will measure for muons within the laboratory which are NOT moving: This is so since the physics, within the reference frame moving with the muons, is the same as the physics for stationary muons within the laboratory.


Yes, but if your clock was built to measure ticks on the basis of muon lifetimes, it would have recorded fewer ticks and less time. And, as best anyone can tell, this true for the clock no matter what time-counting mechanism it actually uses. It's hard to interpret this as anything other than time dilation per the Twins Paradox -- one clock is older than the other in every measurable meaning of the word "older." (At least, so far...)
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

krenshala
Posts: 876
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Postby krenshala » Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:43 pm

I thought the deal with GPS was frame dragging, not time dilation ...

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:59 pm

Its both. You might want to read the astronomy link at the top of this page.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Postby DeltaV » Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:27 pm

Again, no one here is denying that observed times get warped.

Your repeated reference to GPS compensation is meaningless, since no one has actually brought the GPS clocks back to earth and compared them to lab clocks.

Even if this was done it would be meaningless, due to all of the subtle, unmodeled, nonlinear effects that would affect the clock rates.

The same holds true for the complex, precision clocks taken on bumpy airplane rides though turbulence, vibration and other accelerations, temperature and pressure variations, varying magnetic, electrostatic and gravitational fields, cosmic rays, etc.

Your continual insinuation that we are denying the reality of changes in the observed times is also becoming annoying.

Those time changes are due to scale changes only, do not represent intrinsic dynamics and will be different for different observers.

The idea that two clocks in two different inertial frames actually run at different rates blows the basic premise of SR out of the water, so let's hear about your SR replacement theory.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:39 pm

I don't have a replacement theory. I'm just explaining how SR works and the nature of the evidence, which flies in the face of the nonsense being proposed here, especially by Johan.

If you want to ignore all the evidence, and demand life is different than what it is, that's up to you. The only reason I hopped in was the abuse Johan was dumping on Tom, while speaking of "students" etc. since I know darn well that Johan is no professor, is not a physicist, has never had a class in relativity and certainly does not understand what he was proposing to teach.

Now if you want to go and believe the blowhard, that's up to you. I made my case, cited the evidence, and I'm done.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby tomclarke » Fri Nov 18, 2011 6:12 pm

DeltaV wrote:Again, no one here is denying that observed times get warped.

Your repeated reference to GPS compensation is meaningless, since no one has actually brought the GPS clocks back to earth and compared them to lab clocks.

That is surely wrong. Consider, the GPS clocks oscillate with v relative to earth surface clocks continuously. The errors in synchonisation with earth clocks are a fixed time difference, but the effects of time dilation are cumulative. So it is true the clocks must be more accurate than the time dilation (which they are) but otherwise the fact that they are only near the earth surface rather than exactly on it becoems irrelevant over a long measuring period.
Even if this was done it would be meaningless, due to all of the subtle, unmodeled, nonlinear effects that would affect the clock rates.

These subtle nonlinear effects no doubt exist and result in measurement error. Do you know what the GPS measurement error is? And how much smaller than SR time dilation effect it is? I will await your figures.

Time dilation is actually quite a large effect, at least by the standards of GPS clock accuracy!

The same holds true for the complex, precision clocks taken on bumpy airplane rides though turbulence, vibration and other accelerations, temperature and pressure variations, varying magnetic, electrostatic and gravitational fields, cosmic rays, etc.

You have Kelly writing one paper pointing out that the precision is less than is acheived from one clock. And this is answered by somone saying that 4 clocks were used to get round this, that it provides MUCH better accuracy, that it is a technique used as standard to increase accuracy by metrologists. I don't notice Kelly or anyone else coming back to refute this, which sounds like a more informed view.

Further, Kelly's point related to a 1970s experiment. After which there have been others, even more accurate, all showing the same results.

A conspiracy of bumps?
Your continual insinuation that we are denying the reality of changes in the observed times is also becoming annoying.

It is not an insinuation. You have just stated it as fact.
Those time changes are due to scale changes only, do not represent intrinsic dynamics and will be different for different observers.

That is however not a fact. All the changes in which the two clocks stay in roughly the same place, or return to the same place, e.g. GPS, planes, relate to intrinsic differences in elapsd time. Obviously.

For the many other experiments, I have not looked to see which do this, and which do not. For example, a neutrino beam with a mirror (fantasy, but maybe done with some other near light-speed particle) will show real increased lifetime relative to an earth-stationary observer. not just a measurement artifact.
The idea that two clocks in two different inertial frames actually run at different rates blows the basic premise of SR out of the water, so let's hear about your SR replacement theory.


DeltaV you have not been paying attention.

I have never claimed anything about two clocks in different intertial FORs running at different rates. Because it is a non-physical statement. How do you measure it?

I claim that a clock on a non-inertial (bent) path through Minkowski space intersecting twice with a clock on an inertial (straight) path through MS will show less elapsed time.

If you consider the maths, it is rather obvious. That -1 in the metric... It is counterintuitive because in Euclidean space bent paths are always longer than straight ones. C'est la vie.

Here is a non-math hand-waving justification. Compare a clock moving away from stationary observer to a trampoline, then back at same speed.

If the clock moves at speed c (e.g. a light beam reflected from a mirror) its elapsed time is 0, the light cone marks the boundary between timelike & spacelike world-lines.

So if it moves with speed v < c it makes sense that it should elapsed time smaller than if not moving at all, but larger than 0.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests