Norman Albers

Commitment to learn poetic forms of Haiku yields sublime essence. (Typography sucks. How do you make a new line? Style is important.)

Imagine the spaceship has a sister ship at a moon's distance behind, moving at the same velocity, so that both pass our observation points, here and on the Moon, at what to us is the same moment as per our synchrony. Now the "travelling" pair are free to establish their own synchrony of clocks, adjusting for time delays of L/c. They will not read the same clock times on their two clocks and vice versa. We agree there are two describable events, spacetime points, where we "pass closely", but if the crews did not work as hard as we to understand relativity, they will be upset. One man's space is another man's time. (I feel a song coming on.)

You cannot define 'NOW' at different space coordinates to both observers.

I disagree.

Yes, MrMongoose, but given a height, does the angle affect the scale stick? Do you understand what I said in post#21? (Incidentally, click on this to see how to compose it: [math]cos \theta [/math].) Actually, I don't think the cosine is useful. Express the tangent ratio, and then also express the amount of rain in the top opening. Here's how I solved the first example, the 'V': width at the top is D, total height is H, rainfall is R, width of the water in the gauge is b, and measured height is h. Everything is proportional to the depth of the 'V' plates so it drops out obviously in this case and we can just talk about areas. The filled bottom of the gauge has area of: [math] A=\frac 1 2 bh[/math] as per a triangle. The quantity b can be expressed in terms of a ratio: [math]b=\frac D H h[/math]. Then, equate this area with the rainfall in the top: [math] A=DR[/math], and you get: [math] h=\sqrt{2RH}[/math]. Do you see how D drops out?

Super-glue sets fast. Saliva accelerates; a handy glueset.

What about the ratio and scale stick?

There's a lot to this and I will never trust a clock again. I will finish reading this cool ref: http://members.aol.com/jwholtz/analemma/analemma.htm

The relationship that made me stupid was that the angle of the 'V' does not matter; it drops out as things are proportional. There are realistic considerations such as offered by MrMongoose, but these are secondary. Next time you're bored, solve the cone.

You may remember my neighbor, Troon, from last year: One of Albert Einstein's Little Known Theories Albert Einstein's birthday was March 14. He would now be 127. Few people remember that the Nobel Prize winner married his cousin, Elsa Lowenthal, after his first marriage dissolved in 1919. He stated that he was attracted to Elsa because she was well endowed. He postulated that if you are attracted to women with large breasts, the attraction is stronger if there is a DNA connection. This came to be known as Einstein's Theory of Relative Titty. Oh, be quiet. I didn't write this, I just forwarded

Yet states evolve.

You have done this for quite a few years, asprung. I still have to lay this out in detail in order to see it. You can do the 'infinitely long trains' or the 'police car with a very long set of lighted antlers'. Let's say that we sitting in Earth have established, by radio communication, a chain of posts on the Moon and on Mars, whatever, and that we synchronize clocks. This means that we correct for large time delays in propagation, right? A moving spaceship blows by us at significant speed and we agree on our clocks at that moment (we can do this at any one spacetime point). What shows on the spaceship clock as it whizzes close by our observer on the moon? Furthermore, if they "pull a fast 180", that great term from STARTREK, what happens coming back? At first you can drive yourself nuts saying, "how can there be a choice of which gets older when the situation looks symmetric?" The klinker lies in the disagreements in simultaneous time. This has been established in our Earth frame but it is not so as observed by the ship.

These waves are called hydromagnetic, and arise in a strong B-field, say [math]B_z[/math]. If a small region of neutral plasma is perturbed in the y-direction, both +/- species cross the magnetic field lines, are are moved sideways, in x. They move in opposite senses and so constitute an electric current, and this current will be completed in a larger region above and below, in z. In the initial region, the current produces a reaction against the original magnetic field which tends to restore the original perturbation. This is expressed as a force density of: [math]J\times B[/math]. The outer completion of the current loop reacts in the opposite direction, so you can see wave motion which propagates in z. If I am reading correctly, there is not a characteristic plasma frequency here; what is so is the characterization of a wave phase velocity, [math] v_p= B_0/\sqrt{\mu_0\rho}[/math], while frequency and wavelength are of arbitrary excitation.

I analyze the vacuum as a polarizable medium. We have long spoken of electromagnetics in terms of electric permittivity, namely, we say there is a characteristic of space measured as [math]\epsilon_0[/math]. If you read the paper available at the URL cache below, you'll see that one can interpret gravitation as a dielectric thickening of one region with respect to another. Robert Dicke started working on this idea in the 1950's. I stumbled into it a year and a half ago. The Schwarzschild metric, which is anisotropic, is appealing to me because it yields distinct radial and transverse terms. This is what I see in the small, the essence of the electron as a disposition of the otherwise random vacuum fluctuations. On the other hand, H.Puthoff deals with the isotropic assumption. These are the two assumptions you can make as to the mathematical form of the metric. Google on 'gravitation vacuum polarizability' and you'll see Puthoff's "PV" listing.

A Berrism I just heard: I don't like forecasting, especially when it involves the future...

In Greece, yogurt. Nice clock. I was delighted to hear a radio columnist reading his list of 10 oxymorons for 2007. Numbers eight and seven were, "Republican Ethics Committee", and "Democratic Leadership Committee". GONNGGG. . . . A Christian, a Jew, and a Muslim walk into a bar together, but then don't say anything. There's a writers' strike.

Aha, a further variable! I would like to understand this before I die. <OK I have cogitated. Are you saying, Swansont, that since we arrive at perihelion we are at a maximum orbital speed and so get a bit behind our average sidereal change?>

We all agree solstice, like December 22, is the point of maximal polar axis pointing away from the sun, and so it is the longest night and shortest day. Yet those of you who have been holding your breath for dawn to come earlier are dead. You are not illuded to see that mornings have come even later. I think I can see this as a sidereal shift at the sinusoidal minimum in which, for 2-3 weeks either side of the solstice, the pole angle hardly changes. Look at the numbers, given that the pole goes +/- 23 degrees or so in 13 weeks. The 'top of the roller coaster' is a bit broad. THE FACTS ARE THAT AFTERNOONS REACHED THEIR DARKEST ABOUT 2 WEEKS BEFORE SOLSTICE, AND MORNINGS ARE JUST AT THEIR DARKEST NOW. Look in your almanac.

Readers are referred to my thread "Reissner-Nordstrom-? metric": http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=381686#post381686

What is the essence of "inertial frame" here? I find confusions. It seems we are saying that rotation of the planet is an upset of that. By themselves, velocities are relative, so I think this is a subtle and cool point. It relates to my previous question.

I just hit a major roadblock, having realized that there are generated terms with no dependence on m in my RHS source expression, namely the original statement of the source tensor in Lorentz flat-space. All terms on the LHS of the field equations contain orders of m, from <1 to 4>. There are no order-0 terms to balance my source terms, so the assumed form of the metric is not valid for an interior solution. Rather than a catastrophe, this points to the need for a more direct method such as the interior Schwarzschild solution or the Lense-Thirring method.

ajb, the answer about the degenerate metric just fell on my head like a brick. There is generated in my scheme a set of terms on the RHS with no m-dependence, namely the original Lorentzian flat-space statement of the E&M source tensor. There are no such terms to balance them on the LHS since in Cartesian coordinates the Christoffel symbols of the first kind are linear in m. Therefore I cannot use this presumed form of the metric tensor in the interior. This is an important change of direction for me.

OK. Many of us know the result. What distinguishes the younger one?

Ah yes, the hydrothodes. Cool.

...and Luigi Bocarini.