studiot

Tinfoil was invented long before aluminium foil. I think tinplating was once done by pressing thin tinfoil with less thin steel sheet as a protective coating.

Some interesting questions - for many people. If you are bald would you answer to curly ? When I got married, it was conventional for women to take their husband's family name. My wife choose to keep hers , which I fully support. So we are Mr Smith and Mrs Jones. This difference makes some others feel uncomfortable, so unless someone is being akward or a nuisance, I will answer to Mr Jones, to save them that, in say a restaurant that my wife has booked, unless there is a good reason to use the correct term. For my wife there is the benefit that we know immediately a telephone caller who asks for Mrs Smith is one of those bogus scum who plague modern society, since there is no such person in the directory as all bona fide callers know us. I just regard this as getting along with folks and knowing which battles are worth making a fuss about and which are not.

I am not sure how far the moderators will allow you to reiterate your conjectures but I agree that Einstein's relativity (both SR and GR) are not the only solutions to the original observational issue(s). Please state what equations you are talking about. The transformation equations of Lorenz-Fitzgerald are derived in SR as consequences, they are not postulated as basic. Einstein thought long and hard about what physics to abandon and what to continue with in developing SR, As did others both before and after. If you wish to make a different choice, please indicate so that we can discuss the consequences of alternatives. I do agree with exchemist that there is no 'distortion' of space or time. This would imply there exists some sort of underlying absolute space and time to be 'distorted'.

So all this 'kooky science' you have introduced is a preamble and smokescreen to real agenda to gather 'evidence' from unsuspecting members for your cause. In my house, the mobile phone signal cuts out if you stand in the lounge doorway. So does the rover handset to the landline and so does the radio signal for broadcast radio services. This is because the lounge doorway is through a fire compartment wall in the centre of the house. This wall is made from [math]4\frac{1}{2}[/math] inch brickwork, plastered both sides. This is nothing unusual in masonry buildings. Please restate you issue fairly and openly.

I said no such thing. But I did ask you a simple question of Mathematics, which in your 25 lines of self congratulation you have failed to address. I hope you will stoop from your exalted position to to answer it soon as I fear this thread will onterwise beclosed as contributing nothing to Modern and Theoretical Physics. You have made a mathematical claim, Sir. Back it up with Mathematics.

The text refers to relative permittivity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_permittivity

Thank you for your answers. I'm sorry to report that your answer to my first question was lost somewhere in the translation. (about the sine wave plus 20% third harmonic at a phase of -135o.) Can you please complete it because it is a straightforward counterexample to your earlier claim that This discrepancy needs explaining. I wondered if your zero crossing distortion was what is commonly called crossover distortion by another name and that would appear to be the case. I don't think the renaming is a good idea since 'zero crossing' is a recognised technique to reduce/theoretically eliminate intense RF harmonic activity in power control circuitry and not in anyway connected to harmonic distortion in circuits. I would further like to observe that there are other (non harmonic) forms of distortion which can be of greater importance than any harmonic distortion in a well designed electronic/electric system.

So you are claiming that [math]339.4\sin \left( {100\pi t} \right) + 67.9\sin \left( {300\pi t - \frac{{3\pi }}{4}} \right)[/math] is not a sine wave distorted by 20% third harmonic at a phase angle of - 135o ? I think we need considerably more background about what you are trying to do and what sort of distortion you mean. And by the way what is zero crossing clipping ? How do you clip something that has zero value ?

There is a difference between a spectral analysis of a waveform and the waveform itself. You have claimed to be talking about the spectral analysis of a clipped sine wave. A function that has the form f(t) : Asin(wt) + C is not a sine wave

I rather feel that dicussion is proceeding at cross purposes here. I am also trying not to emulate the OP's rude way of addressing forum members but wait until he posts what exactly what he means. In particular what 'formula' is he using for the 'magnitude' of a partly clipped sine wave ? And what, exactly is meant by 'magnitude' anyway. The average value of any alternating current must be exactly zero.

Since this thread is in Earth Science, I suggest you get your old Geography books out and look at them, as you have several serious misconceptions in that post. Wind blows essentially horizontally, not vertically. Different winds blow horizontally at different altitudes and rarely direct connect. Luckily for you the main transfer of (solar) heat from the tropics to the poles is by ocean currents, not winds. This redistribution is vital to making vast areas of the planet's dry land habitable. When talking of currents, the water rises and descend in 'gyres', currents like winds, are more or less horizontal. You should also distinguish between tidal streams which use gravitationally derived energy and currents.

I see you've been not reading my posts again.

That would be me. Pity you didn't answer my comment whilst your thread was still open. You are quite at liberty to quote what others have been saying, moreso , you are even encouraged so to do. We call that discussion at ScienceFroums.

We have particle accelerators that accelerate particles away from the source at speeds where relativity should show up. Perhaps those that know more about particle accelerators than I do could say if any measurements have been done on radiation from these accelerated particles ?

Good question +1

Yes please more detail. I am suprised by animated graph in relation to you statement that the positive peak is clipped. I would expect harmonics with negative values at the fundamental positive clip to be shown as they must predominate to reduce the positive peak, which is what clipping is.

You are the one making the unsubstantiated claim, Please provide mathematical backing for it.

1) Accelerate the implementation of "The Great Green Wall" This has already been shown to be successful. https://www.greatgreenwall.org/about-great-green-wall 2) Look for other areas of the planet where similar schemes might be implemented eg The Gobi, Australia.

I'm glad someone else is also finding invariants. +1 I keep saying that the muon experiment is better than the train example because it is 1) Simpler 2) Is an actual experiment that not only can be carried out but has been many times since the first one.

I don't blame you , I am trying to help you. Furthermore the rest of this post is a sensible statement so +1 for encouragement. Yes the train is 1 metre in Bob's frame. Progress !!! But relativity tells us not only that bob's metres are not the same as train metres but it also tells us how to convert one to the other. I have kept from going into the second part of that statement until you understood the first part. It works like this All the atoms of the train appear smaller to Bob, as does the space between them. Yet to the train driver all the atoms have their normal size. In fact everything in the train's frame appears scaled down at 1/100 scale. Do you want to progress this explanation to more detail?

Applied MathematicsHome to threads on more applied (but non-physical/mechanical) threads; e.g. applied group theory or statisics.

It's also interesting. +1

So what ? Wiki says you can't know (or presumably measure) one without also 'considering' the other.

Just as you have when I have told told there is a difference between the number of things which every observer views as the same and the properties of those things which may be viewed differently. So the number of atoms, the number of world lines, the number of trains and so on are all seen as the same. But every observer measures properties of those atoms, trains, world lines differently so comes up with a different answers. I have also told you that the key to understanding relativity is to find things which are the same for all observers. Finding such things also enables us to develop the details of the theory to calculate all the desirable quantities we want to know.

If I wanted to be picky I would point out that I did not say S would generalise the statement I said he would be happy to see it generalised, which has a totally different meaning. However I will be content with pointing out that S spoke in the light of knowledge available in 1935. Do we not know more today ? That doesn't address my comment which pointed out that Wiki is stating compulsion. If you know one, you don't need to know the other. The fact that in this case you automatically do know it (ie the information is available) is surely because of entanglement, but you are not required to find it out explicily.