MetaFrizzics

Actually there is now hope for almost anyone to quickly pick up and more deeply understand the basic concepts of modern physics than ever before: Here are some links: E.F. Taylor Edu. Lagrange

There: I've fixed my avatar. This should help you to understand when I am speaking about relativity.

Check out this link: its for you and me. more sex than me

A Heinlein novel published in the 70's: $1.98 A real-world education the enables the reader to shake off the B.S.: 30 years. A self-contradictory ethical judgement against an ethical critique of a book: priceless. Sawing off the limb your sitting on: common.

What is most remarkable with spacial compression in the direction of motion (toward the star) is that while Special Relativity seems to limit the velocity of a massive object, there is a real gain in actual acceleration as the object is 'moved' closer by the act of compression of spacetime. But here's the rub: rather than this extra boost allowing faster than light-speeds, the compression is normally interpreted as an illusion, explained by time dilation. That is, rather than getting a distance boost toward the star, your clock is actually slowing down. This avoids the absurdity of you being able to compress the entire universe by flapping your wings. Instead your own clock (and perception of time?) slows down. An outside observer doesn't see you accelerating up to the speed of light, but rather notes your clock is slowing down as you speed up a 'normal' amount. The 'red/blue shift' is best explained as your measurement device malfunctioning due to its internal 'time-clock' slowing down. By keeping 'time' a local variable which is itself dependant upon your 'absolute' velocity (your angle relative to the 'time axis' through spacetime), relativists avoid more serious contradictions and paradoxes. The cost of doing business for Relativity is that a universal 'Time' and absolute planes of simultaneity are sacrificed to the God of 'Electromagnetic Relativity'.

Transient noise is random noise. In an electronic circuit (say an audio circuit) random noise is generated by random events taking place within the components (resistors, capacitors etc.) Each component adds 'noise' the the steady-state or idle condition of the circuit. This creates a 'noise-floor', or a background noise which sets a limit to how small a signal can be distinguished, preserved, transported or amplified by the circuit. A Transient Noise Simulator can be any circuit or device which generates random noise in copious quantities for the purpose of testing or simulating a random noise source. This allows one to test other circuits or gear in a variety of conditions. The field is quite wide and there can be many different types of simulators for many different electrical, acoustic, and mechanical or informational purposes. Special Simulators usually have a chosen range (for instance frequency range) in which they generate a known amount of voltage or power at every frequency, usually 'flat'. This means that a comparable amount of random noise is generated at all times and at all frequencies of interest. By placing raw generators through 'filters' such as frequency sensitive amplifiers, various special spectrums can be created. For instance, in audio applications, 'White Noise' and 'Pink Noise' generators are used to set frequency response characteristics in P.A. systems to control unwanted feedback, and in musical synthesizers to creat realistic musical instrument sounds by applying time/amplitude envelopes to the raw noises. As opposed to 'steady state' which refers to a circuit or device at rest or in equilibrium, 'transient' can refer to temporary effects that happen when a circuit or device is switched on or off. In this case, noises, like 'clicks', or fuzzy static sounds occur as voltages and currents rush to find a new equilibrium or balance. An 'incidence matrix in a network' is to vague an expression for me to tell what you are talking about. Can you be more specific about the application?

Heinlein began innocently enough, merely challenging stale middle-class values of previous generations. But it soon became apparent after hooking youthful sci-fi fans, that the medium was for him just a vehicle to derail every piece of cultural common sense and decorum the West possessed. People like Heinlein don't drop out of the sky. The grow out of intellectual elitist cults in university rich-kid settings by feeding the natural youthful rebellious urge until it becomes a lifelong obsession, rather than growing up. The climax of Stranger in a Strange Land had nowhere to go but into an out-of-control downward spiral of pushing the envelope of depravity and perversion. Worse, the themes were all old and boring. Edipus complexes, 70's pop psychology and pop-pseudo science, free-love, all mixed together to form a brown lifeless soup, like what you get if you ask kindergarden kids to mix their own paints. In five dreary novels, Heinlein went from sci-fi hero to cross-dressing zero.

The latest technology is 'carbon TV': Carbon TV New liquids are being patented all the time and can probably be bought: New liquid crystal display

That's just the flea in the picture. The dog is off-camera.

(1) The FREQUENCY (not the speed) of the light is dependant upon where the source is when it releases each pulse. (2) If you haven't received a given pulse yet, you can change the time you receive it by travelling toward or away from the pulse (which is in transit). (3) So yes, you can cause a red or blue shift in a stream of light which has already technically (Absolute time wise) been released by the distant star. (4) Although Relativity forbids us to posit a fixed plane of 'Absolute Simultaneity', we can get around this by talking about whether or not a given event is inside or outside the 'light-cone' of the observer or receiver, and whether or not and when a signal will be received on the observer's timeline. If you think about it, of course you can cause a red/blue shift by independantly changing your speed relative to a source. The times between release of light and our reception of it are so great (measured in hundreds or thousands of light-years!) that we might as well view all light available to us as 'already been released'. The red/blue shifts we observe are actually due to our motion relative to planes of propagation of EM waves now. If you couldn't create a shift by motion, we would never see any observable shifts now. All the shifts we see are based upon the earth's / solar system's current speed. It is worthwhile to distinguish between the absolute frequency released by the burning star (which will reflect the elements present in it, creating a spectral thumbprint of frequency spikes) and the perceived frequency that the observer records. The observer moves through the 'peaks' and 'troughs' of a spherical expanding wavefront which is moving in a fixed manner. the observer darts in and out of these troughs and peaks in any way they desire (if sufficient acceleration is available). The limits on 'shifts' are practically determined by the ability of the observer to accelerate in given directions. We could create a red/blue shift, but it would be awfully expensive fuel-wise!

Well, to be fair, my sense of humour can be provocative sometimes. As long as no one else is offended, I certainly am not offended by Severian's wry witty comments. It is important for those with smaller appendages to compensate by playfully attacking intellectual giants such as myself. It is the highest form of flattery, and I have a responsibility to take young physicists like Severian under my wings like a huge free-range fighting-hen would defend her chicks.

The short answer is no. Once the signal has been released it is independant of source, if it is in fact discrete packets of energy travelling through space.

The nonrelativistic Doppler formulas which apply to sound, for a stationary source and moving reciever is: [math] f' = f(f-\frac{V}{c}) [/math] ....(receding: change to + sign for approaching) and for the stationary receiver, moving source, you get: [math] f' = \frac{f}{1 + V/c} [/math] ....(change + sign to minus for approaching) (i.e., four equations instead of two.)

Thus for Approaching objects, [math] f' = f[1+\frac{V}{c}+\frac{3}{4}(\frac{V}{c})^2 - ...] [/math] To a first order in V/c, the equation takes the simple form [math] \frac{\Delta f}{f} = \frac{f' - f}{f} = + \frac{V}{c} [/math]

Well, to prevent misleading anyone, a few things should be pointed out: The Doppler Effect for sound and light differ in one important respect. (1) Sound waves propagate in a medium. Motion of the source and of the observer are therefore distinguishable: "moving source" and "moving observer" signify motion relative to the medium. A different formula applies to each case. (2) In the case of light however, one cannot distinguish between motion of the source and motion of the observer: only their relative velocity is defined, and there can be only one Doppler formula. For source & receiver receding (expansion): [math] f' = f \sqrt{\frac{1 - V/c}{1 + V/c}}[/math] and for source & receiver approaching (contraction): [math] f' = f \sqrt{\frac{1 + V/c}{1 - V/c}}[/math] These are the relativistic Doppler formula(s). The radicals of these equations can be expanded using the binomial theorem: the result is the series, [math] f' = f[1-\frac{V}{c}+\frac{3}{4}(\frac{V}{c})^2 - ...] [/math] To a first order in V/c, the equation takes the simple form [math] \frac{\Delta f}{f} = \frac{f' - f}{f} = - \frac{V}{c} [/math] Where the minus signs refer to receding and are replaced with plus signs for the approaching case.

I have taken the essential steps I expounded here in deriving the Sphere Theorem, and converted them to a .pdf format document with TOC. This will match the (2nd) pdf document showing the integration of the formula. I plan a 3rd document discussing the applications and limitations of the Sphere Theorem as a companion piece. (1) Formulating the Sphere Theorem (pdf) (2) Integrating the Sphere Theorem (pdf)

Just look at your avatar: I know I can soften you up once you've been milked properly.

U kunt al die talen spreken? Wat is een huisgenoot? Vertel niet me u zijn gehuwd. Maar hoe uw Duits beter kan zijn dan uw Frans? Is het omdat het Nederlands zo dicht bij het Duits is? Ik zou u vertel me houden van hoe te om tot liefde aan een vrouw in het Nederlands te maken, of zelfs het Frans. Kon het het slaan impliceren?

Wow, that seems harsh.Have I attacked anyone else in such an extreme manner over differences of opinion or minor errors in phraseology? But I know you secretly like me. Spank me if you must. I am going to send you some pics from my latest 'glamour' photo-shoot you saucy, virilent, hairy-chested Sean Connery look-alike! Actually, we had two. But only Heaviside, Weber, Poincaire, and Lorentz knew about it. You misread me: I said it was absurd to think that conventional theories suggest either that we have, or need invariant physical laws in *every* frame. It's not absurd to prefer a theory which offers formally invariant laws in every frame, whether accelerated or not. But of course I am here to amuse and please you. That is why you love my contributions to the threads. I am your foil, your doppleganger, your alter-ego, your arch-criminal enemy, your greatest challenge. Your platonic life-partner: your intellectual match in the fields of your own expertise, and more than enough woman for you.

The general principle of polygamy is enforced economically in the West by millionaires hiring bike gangs to prostitute your daughters. Of course you can't have it both ways: You can't bribe or trick all the young girls into acting like cheap sluts and then expect them to be available or even desirable for monogamous relationships later. Man is the maker of his own demise. Someday, in your lonely little bachelorette apartments with hot-plates, all you aging evolutionists will start pining for the good old semi-chaste days of the Christian era.

LOL!OMG I just need an aging liberal billionaire to fund my crazy, fun schemes... [ bubble=bender (picture it)] Let me get out the full length mirror... Uh oh! We'll never get that on the album cover! [ / bubble ]

Here are a couple of links by way of introduction to Relational Mechanics: Review of Relational Mechanics Time Derivatives (pdf) New Theorem in RM Problems of Relational & Absolute QM Clarification in Background Mass Distant Matter in RM Oxford Background on RM

Good job translating boys.

All people who make more than $50,000 per year are insane greedy lunatics until proven otherwise. They are the real enemy of mankind.