The smaller the damping the smaller the bandwidth and larger the Q-factor will be (the larger the sharpness of the oscillator). Larger the sharpness ?  That's horrible, imprecise word salad.  Still, how do you reconcile your idea that at resonance there is no energy loss to the fact that resonant systems have a Q-factor? Look at a mass-spring system without friction. Friction is EXTERNAL to the system here, as usual. The mass-spring system oscillates at its natural frequency forever, if no damping exists. Damping is EXTERNAL.

[... circular motion] Bailey et al put muons into a storage ring and measured their lifetime for their circular path. Within experimental resolutions, they have the same lifetime as muons traveling in a straight line, so their circular path did NOT affect the internal clock that controls their decay. They were subject to an acceleration of about 10^18 g (1 g = 9.8 m/s^2), which is FAR greater than claimed in your example. Note this experiment is a direct implementation of the circular twin scenario, when combined with measurements of muon decay at rest. This one is extraordinary. You claim that Bailey et al experiment showed that muons lifetime doesn't depend on the acceleration. It is said that one single experiment that falsifies GRT is reason enough to discard a theory. This does not falsify GRT at all! You seem to be using a sound bite approach, and seem fixated on clocks running slow (due to motion, or due to gravity). That's overly naive. Bailey et al does not refute GR because when one applies GR to their physical situation and computes what they should observe, one obtains agreement. It does show that the acceleration does not affect the muon decay rate. One can analyze their experiment (including comparison to muon decay at rest) in two different ways: a) use the overall inertial _frame_ of their storage ring     and apply SR. b) use the equivalence principle of GR, and treat the LOCAL     acceleration of the stored muons as a gravitational field     and compute the gravitational time dilation in LOCAL     coordinates in which the stored muon is at rest. These obtain the same answer. Tom Roberts

I don't usually post here because I don't agree with the present state of theoretical physics. Specifically, why must so many equate the concept of a designed and created universe with religious fanatacism.  I will probably encounter the usual attacks and go away again for several years, but here goes.  see below Dear Mark, in the matter of Physics it looks like we are twins. Me too, I don't usually post here because I don't agree with the present state of theoretical physics. Yes, its is religious fanatacism. I've been gone for Years too, not because of attacks, since I can screw then all, but because I've loosed my faith on Physics. Here you cannot do the minimum irrelevant mistake. If you write something that could leads to a mistake you are in big trouble. The attack will be demolish, perpetuated by tens of fanatic religious (a huge loud speaker). I used to post with my name. Last time, last Year, I've been serious on a discussion about classic mechanics, for instance. Today I don't want to post with my name. Last week I was the Phantom, this week I'm the Enrrabadore-mor (the master of ass-fucking). Next week I'll be gone (maybe Today, since I don't see fit here). My speciality are top/gyroscopes and circular motion. No clue on top/gyroscopes exist, believe me.

The mass-spring system oscillates at its natural frequency forever, if no damping exists. Damping is EXTERNAL. Unadulterated crap.  Show me a real-life material of which a spring could be constructed that exhibits no energy loss when flexed.  Similarly, show me a mass that doesn't at least radiate gravitational waves as it oscillates as a spring-mass system!

The mass-spring system oscillates at its natural frequency forever, if no damping exists. Damping is EXTERNAL. Unadulterated crap.  Show me a real-life material of which a spring could be constructed that exhibits no energy loss when flexed.  Similarly, show me a mass that doesn't at least radiate gravitational waves as it oscillates as a spring-mass system! Fine. All you've said is fine. Congratulations, you've succeeded to deviate from the main issue. The main issue is about electromagnetic radiation, _base_d on Uncle Al post that starts the topic. Now, tell me about electromagnetic radiation damping factor, friction and so on? Can you see how much out-of-topic you are?

One can analyze their experiment (including comparison to muon decay at rest) in two different ways: a) use the overall inertial _frame_ of their storage ring    and apply SR. b) use the equivalence principle of GR, and treat the LOCAL    acceleration of the stored muons as a gravitational field    and compute the gravitational time dilation in LOCAL    coordinates in which the stored muon is at rest. These obtain the same answer. The model and mathematical means to treat a problem requires some basic Physics, without random postulates. The facts are that muons lifetime was directly related with muons velocity on the muon experiment which is a relativity flag: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/h_base_/relativ/muon.html in agreement with your a). Now, your b) says that the equivalence principle of GR, and treat the LOCAL acceleration of the stored muons as a gravitational field and compute the gravitational time dilation in LOCAL coordinates in which the stored muon is at rest. , obtains the same answer. In the case of circular motion you got both applied at the same time. That is, not only you have the velocity factor involved on the muon lifetime, but also an ADDED acceleration/gravity factor, that no one can dennie. For straight motion you have zero acceleration and a finite momentum. In circular motion you have acceleration (a gravity like field) and zero motion relative to the center of rotation, assumed to be stopped. Nevertheless, the muon is speeding close to c, relative to the LAB _frame_. According to your point we can't have then both at the same time. My point is that, LOGIC, will say that since linear motion and circular motion are different motions, in the case of circular motion both effects (velocity and acceleration) will cancel out and no time dilatation will be seen on circular motion. Prove: Sagnac. - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Tom Roberts