From: eaglesondouglas@gmail.com   
      
   On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 3:00:15 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   > On 29/07/2017 9:10 PM, Ernard Hevalier wrote:   
   > > Sylvia Else wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> If one abruptly rotates the plane (analogous to an abrupt switch of   
   > >> frame in SR), then the projected length of the rod abruptly changes.   
   > >   
   > > What is your obsession with abrupt changes. I suspect a lack of control=20   
   > > engineering somewhere.   
   > >   
   > >   
   >   
   > Abrupt changes are easier to handle in thought experiments. While a   
   > truly abrupt change is physically impossible, one can make the change   
   > arbitrarily rapid so as to bring a physically possible change as close   
   > as one likes to the one in the thought experiment.   
   >   
      
      
   I was trying to resolve the dilemma of which thunderstorms   
   have electron storm type currents in relation to the   
   Van Allen belt.  The need was predictive capacity of storms   
   at the International Space Station.  This was back in the   
   days where people were waking up to the odd radiation-electric   
   phenomena at the top of certain thunderstorms.   
      
   I spent some time in a light aircraft observing thunderstorms.   
   On one trip on the backside of frontal thunderstorms crossing   
   the Appalachian range I was seeing a normal storm cell growth   
   at a constant rate. They were simply going to grow to the size   
   that the rate, as determined by air state, dictated.  My question   
   was, why would this frontal line not grow to exhibit Van Allen   
   relative electron field?   
      
   All of a sudden the front stalled out and stopped moving west to   
   east, it went stationary. It stopped moving exactly on top of the   
   longest continuous ridge in the range.  And all of a sudden   
   the rate of growth rate changed causing the rate of change of   
   a rate being physically important.   
      
   Why does this matter example wise when car braking exhibits   
   the characteristic also?  Because kinetics needs second order   
   state change, functionally, or perhaps first order variable.   
   Kinetics here means any object state changing relative   
   to another.   
      
   My comment is to clarify the importance of explicitly choosing   
   one of these kinetic models.  Abruptness can clarify?   
      
   If the Earth Twin starts flashing toward the spaceship twin upon   
   leaving the earth, and the light field is 4pi the spaceship twin   
   always receives all the flashes emitted from the earth, number   
   identical to the Earth twin.  The only question becomes???   
      
   And here if get confused also.  How to make Special Relativity   
   second order rate function?  The Spaceship twin here accelerates   
   constantly to the return point and reverses and decelerate back   
   home.  Is this class of abruptness allowed?  The answer being   
   a functional kinetic equal to the turn around dynamic.   
      
   The analysis demands a deceleration to cause a turn around,   
   then acceleration to cross the span of space and deceleration   
   somewhere near to stop on Earth.  Several other kinetics are   
   possible here.   
      
   I remember trying to read Rindler's explanation of the twin   
   paradox.  It is not a paradox it is real.  I remember the concept   
   of Doppler existence being the cause of old aging.   One   
   of the elements to age undergoes a true acceleration while   
   one is relative stationary.  Unfortunately, although twin   
   solution was stated it was first-order acceleration.  And   
   it was abrupt.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)