|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
|
|
|
Author: Pentcho ValevPentcho Valev
Date: Sep 30, 2007 22:25
http://www.physorg.com/news110191847.html
"When exposed to a high-voltage electric field, water in two beakers
climbs out of the beakers and crosses empty space to meet, forming the
water bridge. The liquid bridge, hovering in space, appears to the
human eye to defy gravity."
In a strong electrical field water dipoles are ordered in such a way
that thermal agitation of molecules causes a SPECIFIC PRESSURE inside
the liquid. In certain experiments this specific pressure can lift
water: the energy needed for lifting is in fact heat absorbed from the
surroundings. If lifted water is allowed to leave the field (for
instance, when water has been lifted between the plates of a
capacitor, the specific pressure could push it through a hole in one
of the plates), the liquid will form, ideally, an eternal waterfall
outside the strong field. Perhaps the device cannot be of any
practical use as a heat engine but still it violates the second law of
thermodynamics.
Pentcho Valev
|
| |
|
| |
13 Comments |
|
|
Author: AndroclesAndrocles
Date: Sep 30, 2007 16:09
"Bhanwara" netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1191190765.734232.48730@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
: To produce a valid twin paradox in the context of GR, all you have to
: do is put one of the twins in a gravity field,
Nonsense, all you need do is OBSERVE the Earth move away from
the ship. Relativists are always screaming "observer".
|
| |
|
36 Comments |
|
|
Author: guskzguskz
Date: Sep 30, 2007 14:03
#1. A Current in a wire perpendicular to a magnetic field
IS NOT THE SAME
#2. as an electron moving perpendicular to a magnetic field or a
group of electrons (Synchrotron) moving perpendicular to a magnetic
field.
-----------------------------------
in #1 at all time intervals there are equal forces to the right and
left of the magnetic field thus producing a ***NET*** force exactly at
the center of the wire.
in #2 at all time intervals the force is acting in one unique
different direction to the magnetic field.
#2 would be the same as #1 IF THE MAGNET FIELD was the same all ALONG
THE SYNCHROTRON TUNNEL but it is NOT because:
A) the synchrotron is not straight but bent in a circular fashion,
thus likewise the magnetic field's force.
B) the magnetic field lines are ****NOT pointing***** in the same
direction along the Synchrotron tunnel:
|
| Show full article (1.29Kb) |
|
5 Comments |
|
|
Author: guskzguskz
Date: Sep 30, 2007 13:57
#1. Current in a wire perpendicular to a magnetic field
IS NOT THE SAME
#2. as an electron moving perpendicular to a magnetic field
or a group of electrons (Synchrotron) moving perpendicular to a
magnetic field.
-----------------------------------
in #1 at all time intervals there are equal forces to the right and
left of the magnetic field thus producing a ***NET*** force exactly at
the center of the wire.
in #2 at all time intervals the force is acting in one unique
different direction to the magnetic field.
#2 would be the same for #1 IF THE MAGNET FIELD was the same all ALONG
THE SYNCHROTRON TUNNEL but it is NOT because:
A) the synchrotron is not straight but bent in a circular fashion,
thus likewise the magnetic field's force.
B) the magnetic field lines are ****NOT pointing***** in the same
direction along the Synchrotron tunnel:
|
| Show full article (1.27Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: core duocore duo
Date: Sep 30, 2007 11:52
how they want me to accept his tensors, while
eintein dident knew his tesors watsoever
why not him first getting himself an education
learning about tensors, differential geometry,
calculus etc, then passing an exam etc
then coming teaching me about what he learned etc
they say he did it all tha way round, he firs
write a paper about them, then he learn about
what he already did
in tha same way he first invent a special case of
a theory he was sure will come ten years latter
this is hilarious
i suspect more and more that all that relaticity is
based on a huge blunder and complete misunderstanding
end of story
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Richard HachelRichard Hachel
Date: Sep 30, 2007 10:52
Pentcho Valev wrote:When two such clocks meet, they will show the same reading, in
> accordance with Einstein's text. But one of the two clocks may have
> been inertial all along whereas the inertiality of the other may have
> been disrupted many times and even absent in some intervals. And yet
> they show the same reading. Therefore, there can be no physical
> explanation of the twin paradox. It is not a paradox but, rather, a
> genuine contradiction following inevitably from Einstein's false light
> postulate.
Non seulement Einstein s'est trompé sur la notion de synchronisation
(on ne pourra jamais accorder "absolument" toutes les horloges
d'un même repère, et ça conduit à l'absurdité que j'ai révélée),
mais s'il a écrit que "c'était les phases d'accélération
qui étaient responsables de la dys-symétrie du Langevin", il s'est magistralement
planté (je crois que plusieurs posteurs l'ont déjà remarqué, ça).
Mais alors?
S'il se plante ainsi deux fois dans les bases mêmes; et dans ce qui reste, quand
même, les prémices les plus simples de la théorie, comment lui faire entièrement
confiance pour tout le reste???
|
| Show full article (1.21Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: OlpOlp
Date: Sep 30, 2007 07:47
"Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"
The Einsteinhoax Website was setup to counter an intellectual "fast
shuffle" which used Dr. Einstein's Special Relativity (which is easily seen
to be a mathematical copy of the earlier Lorentz Transformations...
|
| Show full article (7.20Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: snapdragon31snapdragon31
Date: Sep 30, 2007 01:47
On Sep 29, 11:42 am, Pentcho Valev yahoo.com> wrote:> http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic193296.files/chap11.pdf
> pp. 14-15: "It's definitely true that when the two twins are standing
> next to each other (that is, when they are in the same frame), we
> can't have both B younger than A, and A younger than B. So what is
> wrong with the reasoning at the end of the previous paragraph? The
> error lies in the fact that there is no "one frame" that B is in. The
> inertial frame for the outward trip is different from the inertial
> frame for the return trip. The derivation of our time-dilation result
> applies only to one inertial frame. Said in a different way, B
> accelerates when she turns around, and our time-dilation result holds
> only from the point of view of an inertial observer. The symmetry in
> the problem is broken by the acceleration. If both A and B are
> blindfolded, they can still tell who is doing the traveling, because B
> will feel the acceleration at the turnaround. Constant velocity cannot
> be felt, but acceleration can be."
>
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905:
> "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity ...
|
| Show full article (4.04Kb) |
|
13 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
