vuquta

So, what are these 5 reasons? http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/GODEL5.pdf Here above is a link to this crackpot. 1) "For example Godels uses the axiom of reducibility but this axiom was rejected as being invalid by Russell," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_reducibility "The axiom of reducibility was introduced by Bertrand Russell as part of his ramified theory of types, an attempt to ground mathematics in first-order logic" This axiom is required to avoid the liar's paradox. In ZF set theory, this is implemented in the Axiom schema of replacement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory Upon further reading, he does not understand that Godel used a meta language for his proof and a godel numbering systen based on Peano arithmatic to code 1st order logic statements satisified by the Natural numbers. Godel was able to prove with Godel numbers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_number that each time you have a set of axioms satisified by the natural numbers, there exists a sentence than cannot be proven to be true by the existing axioms thus far using the first order predicate logic. Whence, the theory of natural numbers cannot be completed using axioms. Tarski then proved his truth theorem/ undefinability theorem to prove that truth in the natural numbers cannot be axiomitized. This implies it is impossible to provide a recipe book for even something as primitive as the natural numbers. Bell and Machover noted this implies science cannot be axiomitized if the natural numbers cannot be axiomitized since science contains the natural number at least. Now you know the rest of the story.

Because the Brownian motion moves around atoms which are much more massive than elections. Hence, the infrared photon does more work than the photoelectric effect photon. If this is false, then the concept of physics work is false.

OK, I am getting somewhere. Show me how to invent/create Photons. The context is nuclear fusion for photon creation since that is really the problem, but I will take anything.

I never said it does not work. I am saying, you must know the absolute rotation of the earth to correctly calculate the rotatiuonal sagnac. That should be obvious.

Nope sorry, you both are wrong. The sin hyperbolic is the same with the negative. Hence sinh(-a) = sinh(a), so the turn around does not matter since it is acceleration. This is an error many make. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox Check this link above and you will find it is consistent with my logic with one exception. It integrates from the inertial frame and I can prove that fails with a recent paper. Therefore, it uses asinh, which is wrong. Next, if you are not using a constant acceleration, then you are in GR strictly which was not part of the OP. You cannot use SR to evaluate non constant acceleration. Last, it does not matter. Any accelerating frame regardless of it being constant or variable beats slower in time than the inertial clock, otherwise GPS fails since GPS uses this fact to pre-program the satellites. As such, my conclusions are mathematically valid, variable or constant acceleration and backed up by the scientific evidence in GPS. QED Oh, I forgot to address the logical decidability or absoluteness of the OP's twins proposal in terms of time dilation. Since GPS pre-programs the satellites with GR gravity effects, this proves it is absolute or GPS would not work which is exactly what I said. I think I covered erverything. See Neil Ashby for GPS. OK, let's see. I have two A and B in the same frame clocks synched. A takes off and instantly acquires v. After some time B takes of exactly the same way. They will end up in the same frame. Which is younger?

Exactly, I told you how they do it. You have to know the rotation of the earth. If you check the GPS constants and such, you will find this "value" of the speed and rotation of the earth. It is built into all calculations. But, when you boot this system, you need a method to determine the rotational speed and exact direction/axis of rotation. That is what I was giving you.

Yea, I have all this figured out. I have been working to explain where the photons come from in fusion vs chemical reactions. Your first answer for fusion produced a photon for each fused nucleus which is wrong. I showed why. So, I am trying to figures the soyrce of all the photons for a fused nucleus. It is that simple. This sounds very silly. You cannot make all you want, because they are particles. You must functionally create them somehow. I am looking for that function.

I read your logic. You and them require emergence. Your emergence is pre-programmed whereas theirs simply evolves all of a sudden out of no where. It is all the same to me. It is all religion.

I do not have the patience for numbers. Here is your solution. T is time of acceleration in the acceleration time a is the acceleration in the accelerating frame. Brian time 1) accel period t1 = c/a sinh( aT/c) 2) You left off a decell period for the turn around. I will assume the same a and T t2 = c/a sinh( aT/c) 3) Come back t3 = c/a sinh( aT/c) 4) Decell back to the original frame t4 = c/a sinh( aT/c) The non inertial clocks beats slower and so Brian will be younger than Andy. You did not include a relative motion period as normal. But, you can plug the numbers and get the results. Doesn't matter, accelerating clocks beat slower. However, if the relative motion period is long enough that you did not include, you can make this problem logically undecidable.

What? The strong nuclear force keeps the nuclii together.. Also, to date in the natural universe, only gravity has the ability to force nuclii together to implement the strong nuclear force. No, this is not what I was talking about. You claimed the implementation of fusion created one photon. Then, the breakdown of the covalent bond produces one photon. Yet fusion > chemical operations. Still does not work. You do not have enough photons to explain the sun.

No, this is wrong. The offset is not constant since it can involve a sphere. The only way you can sync the clocks is using a resursive function and convert it to a Cauchy sequence to prove it converges to the correct rotational direction. Then and only then can you sync clocks. And the synchronization is a function of direction. Perpendicular, they are synched and parallel to the rotation they are max unsynched. This is fact is a cosine function and certainly not a constant. This implies the partial derivatives are wrong for a rotating frame and should be using some form of the chain rule but only after the direction has been established.

OK, if it has less energy, then how does an infrared photon move entire molecules and atoms and yet the light photon only move electons. For example, the average person would say if you move an entire building you do more work than moving a glass in the building and this is a fair comparison.

Einstein takes the partial derivative with repect to tau for the Maxwell transformations. How are you going to do this in a rotating frame? Why are we getting off task? This is a simple question.

Wrong, that is logically decidable. It was assumed they were co-located at the beginning. The position at any time T in the accelerating frame is: x(T) = c²/a [ cosh(a T/c) - 1 ] Again, this is absolute moton and hence neither frame will disagree at the instant the acceleration stops. In the paper we find the logic, Remarkably the dependence on v(0) disappears. This follows from the fact that contrary to x0() and x1(), the quantity T () is a Lorentz invariant and as such should not depend on the choice of frame (i.e. the choice of v(0)). http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0411/0411233v1.pdf As we can see, the choice of v is irrelevant meaning the numbers are absolute between the frames.

Here is how acceleration works under SR. It is absolute motion. From the accelerating frame, you will calculate Δt = c/a sinh( a T /c ) for the elapsed time in the stationary frame. But, since it is absolute motion, it applies to both frames. a - acceleration in the accelerating frame T- accelerating time in the accelerating frame according to http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0411/0411233v1.pdf

No I can't agree to this. You are attempting to slow speeds down and then because of that claim SR is false. That does not fly. This is odd. You should have approached me with the math to back up this assertion. Further, there are tons of crackpot papers rejecting MMX. There are only a few that have done the actual round trip speed of light calculations so that any scientist can see it is a false positive. Now, you mention absolute motion. So, you will note in GPS the earth's orbital sagnac is not there. If your proposal is correct, we should see a timing differential east-west and we do not. Further, we should see a sagnac differential for our motion in the milky way. Again, your logic does not fit the scientific evidence. No, you are using light beams. If not, then you can apply length contractiuon blindly. But, when you do, you cannot logically apply length contraction unless you are talking about the motion of a clock. You however, were talking about the motion of light. Also, please communicate with me using math in the future, thanks.

How is this verified? Further, even if it is, how do we have the fusion greater in energy than say the covalent bond? Your logic does not explain it. I thought photons had zero mass. So, how does this work out under the Einstein mass-energy equivalence?

Come on, you are not going to sell to the average folks that the photo electric photon performs more work than the infrared photon. So, how do you explain this?

I am comparing the infared photon with the normal light photon.

Yea, any experiments to validate this claim? There are plenty more steps in the pp-chain. Take a look at the Wiki page if you like. Energy release Comparing the mass of the final helium-4 atom with the masses of the four protons reveals that 0.007 or 0.7% of the mass of the original protons has been lost. This mass has been converted into energy, in the form of gamma rays and neutrinos released during each of the individual reactions. The total energy yield of one whole chain is 26.73 MeV. OK I am not seeing the photons. In the real world, we see lots of these with the sun. One could make this same statement about the destructions of the covalent bond but certainly, it does not compare to the implementation of the strong nuclear force. How does this reconcile with Einsteins's mass energy equivalence equation? It does not mention all this stuff, but we used this as a justificatiuon to create the "bomb". It seems you are missing something.

Clearly in the sun we are not dealing with atoms. So, the problem of where the photon comes from is we need an electon nearby and then we can get a photon. One photon per strong nuclear force implementation of one nucleus. Does not sound like a lot. How do you explain that? Further, are you suggesting if no electons are around for fusion, then no energy is created? Has this been experimentally verified?

Nope does not work. Look at section 6. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/index.html#SECTION21 You can go one way or the other. Einstein uses these SR Maxwell equations to derive the mass energy equivalence. However, each requires a constant measured value of c. But, in a rotating frame, measured c is directionally and v dependent and not a constant. If that is not enought, you cannot sync clocks in a rotating frame. Note Einstein takes partial derivatives with respect to tau. You cannot take the derivative unless you have a free and consistent variable. But, since you cannot sync clocks in a rotating frame, then you do not have a free variable tau and hence you cannot take the partial derivative.

OK, I agree with this, so what? Look, so far, you made the following errors in your paper: 1) You claimed you can sync clocks frame to frame under SR. That is known to be logically undecidable under SR. Worse one of your frames is rotating and you cannot even sync clocks in a rotating frame let alone frame to frame. 2) You claimed MMX proves SR. That is false because it is inconsistent with earth's rotational saganc verified with GPS. The correct answer is that MMX is a false positive because you need equipment that is sensitive to time in 1/100 pico second range at minimum for MMX. 3) You are operating with light beams. You clained length contraction. Light beams must be transformed by LT and length conraction is a part of that but when dealing with light and its interpretation frame to frame, you cannot blindly use length contraction to transform coordinates. You have yet to address these outstanding issues.

Well, let's see if we can think it through. If I use a match on some covalent bond like say lighter fluid, I will get much more energy out of that interaction than I would a solar cell would provide for that match. Here is another example. The steam engine uses the work attained from the infrared radiation and they are quite efficient. Now, given light of the same magnitude I get far less work done by a solar cell. If not, then our energy troubles would have been solved long ago.

OK, normally, photons are exchange "particles" responsible for the electromagnetic force. How are you gotting these mixed into the strong nuclear force. Oh, and you need so many also.