swansont

Just FYI, the energy density of the earth’s magnetic field is about a millijoule per cubic meter. Scale up as necessary for a stronger magnet. The energy for doing stuff with magnets is not contained in the magnetic field. https://brainly.com/question/17055580

You need to read more carefully. I specified inertial frames. There are a number of explanations, easily found on the web, of how a light clock would work, based on an invariant c

! Moderator Note Material for discussion must be posted. Links and attachments are for support material only. You were asked to read the rules in a previous thread. Please do so, and follow them. If “Collaborative Partner: AI Sensei” means you used AI to help write it, we’re not interested.

Speed of light is invariant. It does not decrease for an object in motion. Time dilation is a relative effect for inertial frames.

Not for light, whose speed is invariant That’s not evidence. c is invariant The Doppler effect, which is what I was commenting on, does not rely on acceleration, it depends on velocity, and it is symmetric. The measured frequency changes; that’s physical. No, if the space twin sends a signal to the earth twin, it will be Doppler-shifted. That shift will change when the velocity changes, because the Doppler shift depends on velocity. It will take time for the signal with the new frequency to arrive, but that will be before the end of the trip. What waves do you have, other than the light? “on the way” The signal being sent was already on the way. I don’t think you are representing Einstein’s interpretation faithfully, and in any event it doesn’t matter. The equations tell us what happens, and that’s what’s important. You didn’t say simultaneity jump, you said “jump into the future” Future and past are not part of the discussion Relativity says clocks run slow because time is affected, and lengths contract. Time dilation is not a mechanical effect and objects do not actually compress. Since there is no preferred frame, you can’t say that one observation is the “truth” so any inertial observer can say what they observe is reality. Even within a given frame, you have to account for the time delay from a finite speed of light. You see a signal from a distant clock, but you have to account for the fact that it took a time of L/c to get to you. That still applies in multiple frames. Can you hand me a chunk of space-time?

! Moderator Note Moved to the trash. Codebreaker, this is way too much anger and way too preachy. Please review the rules you agreed to follow when you joined

Please use the quote function properly. Hit return to get the cursor our of the quote box before typing your respinse. I can’t easily quote you to respond.

“From 1960 to 2015, there were 35 major bridge collapses worldwide due to ship or barge collision, with a total of 342 people killed” https://apnews.com/article/bridge-collapses-barges-list-1f2d6261d523ddc625aaaf3b32c626bc#

! Moderator Note Please review the rules you agreed to follow when you joined. Posting to link to your own blog is expressly forbidden. Material for discussion must be posted here (rule 2.7)

! Moderator Note We don’t care what you’re doing elsewhere ! Moderator Note Material for discussion must be posted here. Please review our rules, particularly rule 2.7

You observe a Doppler effect with no acceleration. If an object is accelerating the Doppler shift will change, as the relative velocity changes. You don’t need to manufacture a new explanation for the Doppler effect for accelerating objects. If you want to invoke an ether, you must come up with some independent evidence of it. The Doppler effect was present before the acceleration, so acceleration does not produce it. Yes, it’s symmetric, and does not rely on acceleration. The Earth will experience a Doppler effect if the space twin sends a signal. The fact that he experiences it instantly just means photons were en route, and the relative velocity has changed. Einstein’s theory works just fine with accelerations. There’s a Mössbauer experiment (late 50s or early 60s, IIRC) with a centrifuge that confirms it. Relativity doesn’t discuss a “jump into the future” - that’s your misinterpretation of the result. Relativity gives you clock results, and you have to disentangle what you observe from what’s happening with the clocks. The clocks are running at different rates; they are not synchronized once the experiment starts, nor are they recalibrated. Time isn’t physical, so “no physical jump” is not a revelation since it’s not part of relativity. You are debunking a straw man of relativity and the twins paradox, rather than the actual material.

! Moderator Note Please be in the mood the next time you post

If you look at the equation, you can easily see it’s from the velocity. It doesn’t matter if it’s the source or receiver in motion.

You’re omitting an important condition: this only applies to inertial frames of reference. Acceleration is not relative - you know who is undergoing an acceleration (and thus changing to a different inertial frame) The accelerating twin changes from a frame where there is a red shift to one where there is a blue shift. That applies everywhere in that frame of reference. I didn’t say the doppler effect comes from the one accelerating. You did (or at least you claimed this is what relativity says) and you are wrong.

Why does it suggest that? The frequency of the light is determined by the source, and the relative velocity between source and observer. Once there is an acceleration of the observer, the relative velocity changes. Acceleration is not relative - we know the observer is the one whose velocity has changed. No, that’s not what relativity says.

It would mean you aren’t in a cartesian geometry, i.e. it’s not flat. The sum of the angles will depends on the geometry.

A large structure does not have to bend very much to account for this energy. As you say, it is a tiny metal sheet. If you lift a 1 g object 1 meter, a 1 kg structure only has to shift 1 mm Physics is quite successful, but relies on rigor and not hand-waving.

Logically incorrect, even if the premise is true. Equivalent to “All dogs are mammals. I am a mammal, therefore I am a dog.”

No. It’s just that there’s no real difference. In one case it’s a person doing the work, in another it’s a structure doing it. The magnetic field is doing the lifting, just as with a chain, but it’s not doing the work. Do you know what “work” is in physics? It has a specific definition, as I explained in an earlier post. It’s not some general idea of effort or force. Work has units of energy; it’s energy transferred because of a force acting through a displacement. Magnetic forces do not do this; they are perpendicular to displacement. If a magnet is held by a structure, that structure will flex under a load; that is the source of the energy (energy stored in the structure’s configuration, and/or a reduction in its potential energy because the structure shifts downward) As I said, there’s no such thing as a perfectly rigid structure.

! Moderator Note Preaching is not permitted here. You mention this in numerous posts, and it’s irrelevant to the discussion. ! Moderator Note Posting to advertise your other threads is also against the rules.

I’m saying if you lift something with a magnet, you are supplying the energy, not the magnet. It’s not different, conceptually, from attaching a chain to something and lifting it. The chain is involved, but it’s not supplying the effort to lift the object. The chain doesn’t have a store of energy that does the lifting. It doesn’t matter how convoluted or clever a scenario you come up with. The energy to do the lifting (which is what work is, in physics - the energy supplied by exerting a force through a displacement) comes from somewhere else.

Dodge? You’ve been told that the work is done by external, mechanical means. All dipole magnets act like a current loop (permanent magnets, too) and the force on a current is IL X B. That’s a cross product - the force is perpendicular to the current and external field. Work is a dot product of the force and displacement. The work is in the common direction of the force and displacement. Since the force is always perpendicular, this dot product is zero. There is no work done. No energy comes at the expense of the magnetic field. It doesn’t matter if the magnetic field is from a permanent magnet. It doesn’t change if you try coming up with some clever configuration. The work is always mechanical or electrical. The magnet isn’t depleted, which must happen if the magnet is doing the work, and this would happen pretty quickly if that’s what was happening.

Do you understand that “fixed” is only an approximation? There is no such thing as a perfectly rigid structure. Which means that the mechanical structure flexes. There are mechanical forces, and they act through a displacement, i.e. they do work. Because that’s involved in magnetic attraction. You have to understand a bit of physics to appreciate the answer. If you don’t, then the answers might look like obfuscation or irrelevance. But you have an obligation here, because demanding an answer that involves a couple of semesters worth of physics, without having that knowledge, isn’t reasonable.

Is the magnet hovering in space? I don’t think that’s happening. (Further, what happens in the metal? You get an eddy current. The force doing work there is electric, not magnetic.) The work - the energy input - is not the magnet. It’s something else. Magnets don’t get energy depleted by being used. They are not the source of the change in energy of the system.

Just like with any other product. Trump markup. That’s the point of this grift. Or there is no copyright attached, which would be the case for the Bible. I’m shocked, shocked, that deceit is going on here. A scam? Involving Trump? The deuce, you say! </s>