Newtonian explanation of gravitational time dilation possible?
Danny Milano
When objects are in strong gravity. Time literally slows down
(not SR wise but literally) such that in the moon, time is
faster because earth gravity make our time slower.
According to a famous anti-relativist who wrote an
award winning book. The explanation is related to
what Mitchell said that when object moves from
low gravity to high gravity, there is loss of energy and
reduction of frequency and increase of wavelength
and this causes redshifting. Time slows down too as
a result of this by causing influences on the atoms.
This is a newtonian explanation against the pure
spacetime concept where time slows down because
of the geometry distortion.
IIs the newtonian explanation possible? Can it be
falsified by empirical data?
Danny
Sue...
Of course! You would slow down too if you were
a cesium atom falling through a standards lab trying
to shake the whole planet. :-)
"Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance"
http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v13/p539
<< invariance with respect to time translation
gives the well known law of conservation of energy>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Applications
Sue...
>
> Danny
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics:
There is a textbook formula:
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
that both relativists and anti-relativists accept. According to this
formula, if the frequency decreases in a gravitational field, then
either the wavelength increases and the speed of light remains
constant, or the speed of light decreases and the wavelength remains
constant. Which alternative is physically more reasonable?
Pentcho valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Danny Milano
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm talking of the purely temporal aspect. Baird said the
GPS doesn't have to use GR because there is also
a newtonian explanation for gravitational time dilation.
I wonder what's the consensus about this. Anyone
can illustrate what it means?
D.
Sue...
Ask Lev.
"On the Interpretation of the Redshift
in a Static Gravitational Field"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics?papernum=9907017
Sue...
>
> Pentcho valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
> GPS doesn't have to use GR because there is also
> a newtonian explanation for gravitational time dilation.
> I wonder what's the consensus about this. Anyone
> can illustrate what it means?
I am not sure about Baird's claim but in any case gravitational time
dilation is consistent with the first alternative (the wavelength
increases and the speed of light remains constant) and inconsistent
with the second (the speed of light decreases and the wavelength
remains constant). That is, if the second alternative is correct,
gravitational time dilation simply does not exist. Note that the
second alternative is consistent with Newton's emission theory of
light.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Danny Milano
>
> - Show quoted text -
What I mean to say is. The GR explanation is
intuitive and easy. Spacetime distorts and because
measurement creates reality. Time slowing down
can be understood. But in a newtonian explanation.
What does it mean that an atom slows down. Since
measurement doesn't create reality. How can
the atom or say chemical reactions of the body
simply go in slow motion... is this possible at all...
what principles forbid this.... hmm...
D.
Pentcho Valev
> GPS doesn't have to use GR because there is also
> a newtonian explanation for gravitational time dilation.
> I wonder what's the consensus about this. Anyone
> can illustrate what it means?
I am not sure about Baird's claim but in any case gravitational time
Eric Gisse
> Hi,
>
> When objects are in strong gravity. Time literally slows down
> (not SR wise but literally) such that in the moon, time is
> faster because earth gravity make our time slower.
>
> According to a famous anti-relativist who wrote an
> award winning book.
Baird is neither famous nor award winning. He has no understanding of
relativity, but that didn't stop him from publishing a book that
nobody cares about.
I cannot imagine a more obvious way of saying you are Baird without
directly saying it.
Regardless - classical mechanics is t' = t. No time dilation. Period.
[snip rest]
Dono
He's not Eric Baird, he's the Australian troll. He changed his
tactics , he's no longer posting dyslexic shit, he's just posting
pure,unadulterated shit :-)
Eric, I asked you for help in getting a paper, did you get my email?
Albertito
There may be more alternatives:
L = wavelength
c = speed of light
1. Both L and c decrease, but L decreases
at lower rate.
2. Both L and c increase, but L increases
at higher rate.
The above cases complete yours,
3. L remains constant and c decreases.
4. c remains constant and L increases.
Danny Milano
>
> - Show quoted text -
What has this got to do with say chemical reactions
going in slow motion?? How do you successfully
create a pseudo time dilation in classical mechanics???
D.
Pentcho Valev
A simultaneous analysis of the Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka
experiments would show that (3) is the only reasonable case. That is,
the speed of light decreases (varies with the gravitational potential
V) in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) while the
wavelength remains constant. Equivalently, in the absence of a
gravitational field, the speed of light varies with the speed of the
light source v in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light. There is neither gravitational nor
any other time dilation.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Tom Roberts
> Is the newtonian explanation possible?
This depends on what you mean. If one simply computes lightwave energy
loss from mgh and equates it to a change in hf, one obtains essentially
the same result as GR for weak fields (expressed differently, as GR has
no Planck constant).
This, of course, goes beyond Newtonian physics, as E=hf is
a quantum equation.
BUT: Newtonian physics cannot explain the time dilation of SR due to
relative speed. This implies that the Newtonian "explanation" is either:
A) inconsistent with the equivalence principle (EP)
or
B) self inconsistent
This can be seen by considering a clock on a centrifuge -- the EP plus
gravitational redshift clearly imply it will tick slower than a clock at
rest and located adjacent to its path [#]. Analyzed in the inertial
frame of the centrifuge center, taking an appropriate limit implies that
speed alone must induce time dilation of the clock, and Newtonian
mechanics is inconsistent with that.
The EP applied to a clock on a centrifuge was an important
step for Einstein on the road to GR. He recognized that the
time dilation of SR implies gravitational redshift.
[#] This is, of course, an implementation of the twin scenario.
> Can it be
> falsified by empirical data?
Assuming you use a self-consistent model, then any test of the
equivalence principle will falsify such an "explanation".
> According to a famous anti-relativist who wrote an
> award winning book.
If you mean Baird, you GREATLY overstate the case. His book is chock
full of errors and evidence that he simply does not understand modern
physics.
Tom Roberts
Spaceman
When under higher gravitational forces, it is action/re-actions
that slow down, not time, If you wish to work with science,
You use single standard for "time" so you will know if action/reactions
slowed down at all and how much they have slowed down.
(otherwise) you would not be able to even tell if action/reaction
slowed and you would be using multiple standards for time instead
of using the singel standard scientific method for timing.
You want the science of physics that uses the science of measurement,
Or the theories of physics that uses mutliple standards and lost the
scientific parts completely?
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Spaceman
> I'm talking of the purely temporal aspect.
There is no "pure" temporal aspect,
all timing has to include a mass moving in a motion,
and being counted doing such
Time aspects are not "pure" at all.
Danny Milano
> Danny Milano wrote:
> > Is the newtonian explanation possible?
>
> This depends on what you mean. If one simply computes lightwave energy
> loss from mgh and equates it to a change in hf, one obtains essentially
> the same result as GR for weak fields (expressed differently, as GR has
> no Planck constant).
>
> This, of course, goes beyond Newtonian physics, as E=hf is
> a quantum equation.
>
> BUT: Newtonian physics cannot explain the time dilation of SR due to
> relative speed. This implies that the Newtonian "explanation" is either:
This thread is all about time dilation of physical objects
in a strong gravity. I wonder if newtonian physics can explain
the time dilation in GR due to gravity. For example. Chemical
reactions slow down near neutron star. In relativity, this
concept is not impossible because measurement creates
reality or specifically.
Length and time are relative concept. They have
no meaning apart from the relation of the object to the
observer.
In newtonian mechanics. The above doesn't hold.
And so I wonder how one can view or what it means
for chemical reactions to slow down or half life to
change considering that it can influence quantum
probability which is not possible in QM.
>
> A) inconsistent with the equivalence principle (EP)
> or
> B) self inconsistent
>
> This can be seen by considering a clock on a centrifuge -- the EP plus
> gravitational redshift clearly imply it will tick slower than a clock at
> rest and located adjacent to its path [#]. Analyzed in the inertial
> frame of the centrifuge center, taking an appropriate limit implies that
> speed alone must induce time dilation of the clock, and Newtonian
> mechanics is inconsistent with that.
>
> The EP applied to a clock on a centrifuge was an important
> step for Einstein on the road to GR. He recognized that the
> time dilation of SR implies gravitational redshift.
>
> [#] This is, of course, an implementation of the twin scenario.
>
> > Can it be
> > falsified by empirical data?
>
> Assuming you use a self-consistent model, then any test of the
> equivalence principle will falsify such an "explanation".
>
> > According to a famous anti-relativist who wrote an
> > award winning book.
>
> If you mean Baird, you GREATLY overstate the case. His book is chock
> full of errors and evidence that he simply does not understand modern
> physics.
>
> Tom Roberts
Baird is a great reality check for continued patronge of spacetime.
If newtonian explanation is impossible looking from all angles.
Then Spacetime reigns supreme and the stunt of relativity can
only occur if the universe is some kind of simulation where math
dominates and create and uncreate reality.
Danny
Eric Gisse
Which what now? I can't keep track of all this shit, I have more
important things to keep in my head.
> Eric, I asked you for help in getting a paper, did you get my email?
Yes, and I have the paper. I just need to scan it in.
Spaceman
By learning about clock malfunctions first.
and finding out that "time dilatons" are merely action/reaction
changes and are still all newtonian based.
Albertito
Well, I was just pointing out that there may be more
alternatives to the relation
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
I was not arguing which one is more reasonable.
OTOH, the Equivalence Principle seems to ensure that
equations
c'= c(1+V/c^2)
and
c'= c+v
are actually equivalent. Say, that an accelerated
frame is indistinguishable from gravity g. Then,
we can express acceleration is equivalent to
gravity
a = g,
dv/dt = dV/dr,
but, dr = c*dt, which means that any perturbation
of gravitational potential propagates at speed c.
Thus,
dv/dt = dV/c*dt,
dv = dV/c.
Integrating on both sides,
v = V/c.
Now, from c'= c+v, we can get the equivalent
c' = c + V/c,
c' = c(1 + V/c^2).
One question arises, is Newton's emission theory of light,
expressed by the equation c'= c+v, only an approximation
of a more accurate emission theory?
IMHO, yes, it is an approximation to first order of v/c.
There is a more accurate emission theory other than Newton's.
Regards
Pentcho Valev
text:
On Jul 17, 4:19 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Danny Milano wrote:
> > Is the newtonian explanation possible?
>
> This depends on what you mean. If one simply computes lightwave energy
> loss from mgh and equates it to a change in hf, one obtains essentially
> the same result as GR for weak fields (expressed differently, as GR has
> no Planck constant).
>
> This, of course, goes beyond Newtonian physics, as E=hf is
> a quantum equation.
>
> BUT: Newtonian physics cannot explain the time dilation of SR due to
> relative speed. This implies that the Newtonian "explanation" is either:
>
> A) inconsistent with the equivalence principle (EP)
> or
> B) self inconsistent
Incredible. Honest Roberts if you cannot explain why the greenness of
the crocodile exceeds its length, does it mean you are self
inconsistent?
> This can be seen by considering a clock on a centrifuge -- the EP plus
> gravitational redshift clearly imply it will tick slower than a clock at
> rest and located adjacent to its path [#].
Whoever told you that, Honest Roberts? Divine Albert in chapter 23 in
his "Relativity"?
> Analyzed in the inertial
> frame of the centrifuge center, taking an appropriate limit implies that
> speed alone must induce time dilation of the clock, and Newtonian
> mechanics is inconsistent with that.
How could it be consistent with such an idiocy Honest Roberts?
>
> The EP applied to a clock on a centrifuge was an important
> step for Einstein on the road to GR. He recognized that the
> time dilation of SR implies gravitational redshift.
Honest Roberts what are you talking about? Do you have a toothache?
>
> [#] This is, of course, an implementation of the twin scenario.
Twin scenario with or without accleration, Honest Roberts?
>
> > Can it be
> > falsified by empirical data?
>
> Assuming you use a self-consistent model, then any test of the
> equivalence principle will falsify such an "explanation".
And the only self-consistent model is....let me guess....yes, Divine
Albert's Divine Theory! Einstein zombie world sings and goes into
convulsions on hearing this:
"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
"DIVINE EINSTEIN"
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/EinsteinPics/Einsteine.jpg
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-7/images/devine_einstein.mp3
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Sam Wormley
>
> When objects are in strong gravity. Time literally slows down
> (not SR wise but literally) such that in the moon, time is
> faster because earth gravity make our time slower.
One can calculate this effect (confirmed by satellite clocks).
See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png
Tom Roberts
> If newtonian explanation is impossible looking from all angles.
It is -- Newtonian mechanics is SOUNDLY refuted.
> Then Spacetime reigns supreme and the stunt of relativity can
> only occur if the universe is some kind of simulation where math
> dominates and create and uncreate reality.
Not true. You implicitly assume Nature chose Euclidean geometry. That
assumption appears to be wrong, and Nature seems to have selected
locally Minkowski geometry. This is not at all "math dominates", it is
just DIFFERENT from what you implicitly assume.
Tom Roberts
Spaceman
> Danny Milano wrote:
>> If newtonian explanation is impossible looking from all angles.
>
> It is -- Newtonian mechanics is SOUNDLY refuted.
So which one of Newtons laws have been violated then?
srp...@gmail.com
> Hi,
>
> When objects are in strong gravity. Time literally slows down
> (not SR wise but literally) such that in the moon, time is
> faster because earth gravity make our time slower.
>
> According to a famous anti-relativist who wrote an
> award winning book. The explanation is related to
> what Mitchell said that when object moves from
> low gravity to high gravity, there is loss of energy and
> reduction of frequency and increase of wavelength
Conform to observation.
> and this causes redshifting. Time slows down too as
> a result of this by causing influences on the atoms.
> This is a newtonian explanation against the pure
> spacetime concept where time slows down because
> of the geometry distortion.
The general conclusion is that "time" slows down, but
what is really observed in reality is that "atomic clocks"
slow down. An experimental observation that is
interpreted as actual time slowing down.
> IIs the newtonian explanation possible? Can it be
> falsified by empirical data?
Definitely. One day, this will be verified.
The explanation is linked to the manner with wich
atomic clocks (cesium, hydrogen, etc) measure time.
There are tens of links on the net talking about it,
but none that I scanned explains the real operation.
I didn't have the patience to scan them all.
However, I can refer you to very clean source that
you can go check in just about any library, if you
don't have the book yourself.
It is in one of the most popular and respected
undergrad textbooks around.
"PHYSICS", by Halliday and Resnick.
In the 1967 edition, you will find a complete description of
how cesium atomic clocks work on pages 7 to 11, with a
clean schematic on page 9.
It is obvious that most physicists believe that it means
that times runs faster with altitude, but you can draw your
own conclusions.
Hydrogen and some other materials besides cesium are also
used in other types of atomic clocks, but they all operate on
the same principle.
The principle is that cesium atoms can be forced to consistantly
emit a photon of a very specific frequency as an electron of its
escort moves from one specific orbital to one closer to the
nucleus.
The frequency of photons emitted by quantum jumps from a specific
orbital to a lower specific orbital can increase for only one
possible
reason in a Newtonian interpretation, and it is that the nucleus
attraction would increase with increasing altitude, which implies
that its mass would increase or decrease with decreasing altitude
implying that the nuclear mass has decreased.
We know that nucleons are made up of physically scatterable
and charged up and down quarks that are in rapid relativistic
motion, a motion that determine their physical diameter.
Since they are charged, they obviously interact more strongly
with the charged components (quarks up and down and
electrons) of other atoms in the vicinity than with those located
further away.
As an atomic clock is taken from altitude to a lower altitude,
the cesium atoms nuclei get closer to the huge mass of the
earth and their quarks up and down are drawn outwards more
strongly from all sides, enlarging the translation diameter of the
quarks in nucleons, making the nucleons less massive, which
in turn loosens the electronic escort orbitals.
This will of course cause the hyperfine jump chosen for
time measurement to also loosen and release photons
of longer wavelength, which is what is observed, and
commented on by your author.
The opposite of course will occur when an atomic clock is
taken from the ground to altitude.
A tightening of the local orbits of the captive up and down
quarks that make up the nucleons will cause an increase
in their relativistic inertia, thus their effective mass.
Since these clocks are constantly monitored to recalibrate by
comparing the current chosen frequency of photons emitted by a
microwave oscillator to energize ceasium atoms, what is seen as
a measure of time dilation is the increase in frequency that the
oscillator must emit for the resulting beam of ceasium atom to
continue hitting the target as altitude increases.
Very simple and totally Newtonian explanation.
One point of interest is that this apparent time "dilation" may
exist only for such atomic clocks.
Now how could this be verified experimentally
Simply by doing the altitude tests with properly monitored
mechanical clocks.
One other experiment that I also have suggested is to
verify whether or not elements become more massive with
altitude. Very easy to carry out.
André Michaud
Albertito
Who are you to tell us how Nature must be or behave?
The nature of your textbooks is not the real Nature.
So, stop preaching that stuff as the revealed TRUTH.
More than one century of relativity sermons isn't
more than enough? In physics there are a lot of
alternative models for every set of phenomena, so
choose the best for your needs, and leave the rest
feel free to choose their best. BTW, Newton gravity
led man to the Moon, not GR. GR was invented after
Newton gravity, not before. Had Einstein been born
before Newton, what kind of GR would he have invented?
:-) The genius of Newton is that after his death, even
the most incompetent guy (me included :-)) can propose
a better theory of gravitation, even Einstein was able
to. Once you know the approximated truth (Newton's gravity),
the arrow has been thrown. The genius of Newton is that
he gave us a clue with his theory of gravitation, a trend
to follow. What trend/clue is Einstein offering us with
his GR, but a blind alley (called black hole)?
Regards
Spaceman
> On 17 juil, 08:37, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> When objects are in strong gravity. Time literally slows down
>> (not SR wise but literally) such that in the moon, time is
>> faster because earth gravity make our time slower.
>>
>> According to a famous anti-relativist who wrote an
>> award winning book. The explanation is related to
>> what Mitchell said that when object moves from
>> low gravity to high gravity, there is loss of energy and
>> reduction of frequency and increase of wavelength
>
> Conform to observation.
>
>> and this causes redshifting. Time slows down too as
>> a result of this by causing influences on the atoms.
>> This is a newtonian explanation against the pure
>> spacetime concept where time slows down because
>> of the geometry distortion.
>
> The general conclusion is that "time" slows down, but
> what is really observed in reality is that "atomic clocks"
> slow down. An experimental observation that is
> interpreted as actual time slowing down.
And very sadly determined that way, since the only
way to match such "math" is to use a multiple standard
for "time and distance".
Science would find out "what physically made the clock change
rate"
And when such is done, science will take it's next leap
into the future.
I such is not done, science is still basically stuck in 1905.
:)
The simple statement that can not be disputed is
The clock malfunctioned in it's proper operation
in the same newtonian faults that a pendulum clock
has the same problem and always has since the invention
of the human built clock.
:)
Sam Wormley
>
> The general conclusion is that "time" slows down, but
> what is really observed in reality is that "atomic clocks"
> slow down. An experimental observation that is
> interpreted as actual time slowing down.
>
You better tell those observed pulsars that they are
"atomic clocks", André! :-o
srp...@gmail.com
wrote:
I am optimistic. I explain the whole procedure and much more
in a book thousands of copies of which have already been
disseminated to I don't know how many hundreds of institutions
all over the planet, right into physics depts.
It is only a matter of time for eventual discussion and
action in the community.
Once something has been understood by someone,
there is no way that he will un-understand it.
> The simple statement that can not be disputed is
> The clock malfunctioned in it's proper operation
> in the same newtonian faults that a pendulum clock
> has the same problem and always has since the invention
> of the human built clock.
> :)
The one problem here, is that no proper altitude test was
ever carried with mechanical clocks (very unscientifically
deemed useless) for comparison and confirmation of time
dilation by a second unrelated method.
The day these tests are carried out, we will finally have
the answer and at long last move away from 1905.
André Michaud
Spaceman
That is good, and hopefully the "teachers" will undertstand
them and use them correctly.
If not, teachers are not "permanant" anyways and
new teachers will more than likely be some of the
students that did learn the facts about such instead
of only the "hype" associated with relativity.
> It is only a matter of time for eventual discussion and
> action in the community.
>
> Once something has been understood by someone,
> there is no way that he will un-understand it.
>
>> The simple statement that can not be disputed is
>> The clock malfunctioned in it's proper operation
>> in the same newtonian faults that a pendulum clock
>> has the same problem and always has since the invention
>> of the human built clock.
>> :)
>
> The one problem here, is that no proper altitude test was
> ever carried with mechanical clocks (very unscientifically
> deemed useless) for comparison and confirmation of time
> dilation by a second unrelated method.
>
> The day these tests are carried out, we will finally have
> the answer and at long last move away from 1905.
True.
I bet it has never been done because the typicle group
of relativists are affraid of such "real" scientific experiments
occuring.
Greg Neill
news:UYCdnf6gGIZlFuLV...@comcast.com
>> The one problem here, is that no proper altitude test was
>> ever carried with mechanical clocks (very unscientifically
>> deemed useless) for comparison and confirmation of time
>> dilation by a second unrelated method.
>>
>> The day these tests are carried out, we will finally have
>> the answer and at long last move away from 1905.
>
> True.
> I bet it has never been done because the typicle group
> of relativists are affraid of such "real" scientific experiments
> occuring.
You are both free to pursue the matter. Get yourselves
some mechanical clocks, climb some mountains and
plumb some valleys, collect some data.
Before you set out, though, it might be worth investigating
the magnitude of the effect you're looking to measure, and
compare it with the accuracy of available mechanical clocks.
Spaceman
Greg,
Do you think a pendulum clock will not show a different
time rate on top of the mountain compared to at the bottom?
Sam Wormley
> The one problem here, is that no proper altitude test was
> ever carried with mechanical clocks (very unscientifically
> deemed useless) for comparison and confirmation of time
> dilation by a second unrelated method.
>
André, please not "The binary pulsar and general relativity"
section of "The Confrontation between General Relativity and
Experiment" by Clifford M. Will
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2006-3&page=articlesu17.html
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:55Kfk.17930$Ri.1...@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
| Danny Milano wrote:
| > If newtonian explanation is impossible looking from all angles.
|
| It is -- Newtonian mechanics is SOUNDLY refuted.
Roberts is an UNSOUND fuckhead.
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
> According to a famous anti-relativist who wrote an
> award winning book.
[snip rest of crap]
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
GPS works.
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
srp...@gmail.com
This is not what I expect really. There is no way to know
when some individual (s) in the community will read with
intent to fully understand the new model I propose.
I will probably be long gone when this happens. The only
thing I am absolutely certain of is that it will eventually
happen. Not my baby to feed anymore.
> If not, teachers are not "permanant" anyways and
> new teachers will more than likely be some of the
> students that did learn the facts about such instead
> of only the "hype" associated with relativity.
Yes. More than probably someone in the up coming
generation, even someone not born yet. I don't really
care.
> > It is only a matter of time for eventual discussion and
> > action in the community.
>
> > Once something has been understood by someone,
> > there is no way that he will un-understand it.
>
> >> The simple statement that can not be disputed is
> >> The clock malfunctioned in it's proper operation
> >> in the same newtonian faults that a pendulum clock
> >> has the same problem and always has since the invention
> >> of the human built clock.
> >> :)
>
> > The one problem here, is that no proper altitude test was
> > ever carried with mechanical clocks (very unscientifically
> > deemed useless) for comparison and confirmation of time
> > dilation by a second unrelated method.
>
> > The day these tests are carried out, we will finally have
> > the answer and at long last move away from 1905.
>
> True.
> I bet it has never been done because the typicle group
> of relativists are affraid of such "real" scientific experiments
> occuring.
Bigotry is an old problem. Since the Nobel came along,
individual jealousies reign instead of the older will to really
explore.
Real research has been paralyzed for decades except
for grant generating dead ends leading to regular
meaningless pseudo-discoveries that now is the only
fodder for Nobel candidacy.
Too bad.
Humanity is the loser.
André Michaud
Eric Gisse
srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
> Real research has been paralyzed for decades except
> for grant generating dead ends leading to regular
> meaningless pseudo-discoveries that now is the only
> fodder for Nobel candidacy.
Anyone who thinks nothing has changed in terms of physics in the last
century is so out of touch that it boggles the mind.
>
> Too bad.
>
> Humanity is the loser.
>
> Andr� Michaud
Greg Neill
As I said, you'll want to look into the accuracy of the
available clocks versus the magnitide of the effect you
are hoping to measure.
You will also want to account for local mass distributions
(mountains are massive), air pressure, temperature and
humidity changes and so on, in short, anything that you
know can have an impact on clock rates to make sure that
the effect you want to measure is larger than these
interferences. A pendulum clock, by its nature,
incorporates the local acceleration due to gravity in
determining its period. So you'll have to factor this
out, too, if you're looking for dilation effects.
I will state that in theory, yes, *any* clock will show
a different rate compared to another at a different
gravitational potential (regardless of its type).
Danny Milano
Even if it's Euclidean geometry or Minkowski geometry. It's still
math.
What is beneath the math. If we know this. We may be able to
decompose the math and turn off spacetime... that is.. making it
cease to exist. Is there any proof the Minkowski geometry that
rule the universe is solid? It may just be a software output. How
can you falsify this concept?
I think the local implementation of spacetime override can be turned
into
a weapon. We are now 100 years past Einstein. American needs
a new weapon rather than hanging to old medieval nukes. This is the
fastest way to revert Iran back to stone age or others who oppose
America. We have to implement foreign policy at will and we need
more than nukes.
Danny
Koobee Wublee
> Danny Milano wrote:
> > Is the newtonian explanation possible?
>
> This depends on what you mean. If one simply computes lightwave energy
> loss from mgh and equates it to a change in hf, one obtains essentially
> the same result as GR for weak fields (expressed differently, as GR has
> no Planck constant).
Are you not aware that energy is conserved under Newtonian physics?
Thus, mgh does not mean energy loss. Michell’s explanation of
gravitational red shift comes out of the emission theory of light
where light particles have no speed limit. That was before
electromagnetism. With light being wavelike, there is no crisp and
definitive explanation to the gravitational red shift. The
explanation of gravitational red shift under the concept of GR is also
very poor. <shrug>
> This, of course, goes beyond Newtonian physics, as E=hf is
> a quantum equation.
There is no quantization in this equation. Thus, I disagree that (E =
h f) is a quantum equation. In fact, it should part of the extension
to electromagnetism. <shrug>
> BUT: Newtonian physics cannot explain the time dilation of SR due to
> relative speed. This implies that the Newtonian "explanation" is either:
>
> A) inconsistent with the equivalence principle (EP)
> or
> B) self inconsistent
The Galilean transform does explain the null results of the MMX under
the emission theory of light. However, under electromagnetism, it
fails to do so. That is why Voigt was motivated to modify the
Galilean transform to explain the null results of the MMX with light
as a manifestation of electromagnetism. Now with the Voigt transform
able to explain the null results of the MMX, it fails at
reconciliation with the principle of relativity. Lorentz transform
was proposed as a modification to the Voigt transform to satisfy the
null results of the MMX and the principle of relativity. It just
turned out that the Lorentz transform predicts the phenomenon of time
dilation where both the Galilean and the Voigt transforms don’t.
So, this is not an issue of the principle of equivalence. It merely
takes a lot of faith to accept any of these transforms and reject the
other two. However, right of the bat, I can easily tell you the
Lorentz transform is absurd. It cannot possibly a mathematical model
to describe the real world because it manifests the twin’s paradox
through the combination of time dilation and the principle of
relativity as first analyzed by Poincare as relative simultaneity.
The Galilean transform still has the hope of being valid in general
only after a proper modification to electromagnetism. The Voigt
transform actually works, but it does not obey the principle of
relativity nor manifests time dilation.
> This can be seen by considering a clock on a centrifuge -- the EP plus
> gravitational redshift clearly imply it will tick slower than a clock at
> rest and located adjacent to its path [#].
Unfortunately for y’all, time dilation under the Lorentz transform
manifests a blue shift not a red shift. This can very simply be found
in the very mathematics of the transform. Thus, your argument to
justify gravitational red shift has fallen apart already. <shrug>
> Analyzed in the inertial
> frame of the centrifuge center, taking an appropriate limit implies that
> speed alone must induce time dilation of the clock, and Newtonian
> mechanics is inconsistent with that.
It does not matter how much you criticize Newtonian mechanics. Both
SR and GR do manifest other problems. <shrug>
> The EP applied to a clock on a centrifuge was an important
> step for Einstein on the road to GR.
Ahahaha... This is not true. Einstein rediscovered the principle of
equivalence only after finally understood the Newtonian law of
gravity. Little did he know (or a plagiarist) that Galileo had
discovered the same principle more than 300 years prior. It was
through the principle of equivalence that allowed Newtonian to derive
the law of gravity. Newton did so by observing how an apple would
behave under the influence of gravity. This is a good discovery.
Einstein, on the other hand, tried to imagine how he himself would
behave under the influence of gravity. If you ask me, that is a very
stupid way of doing any scientific investigation. As you have
correctly identified, the only outcome to that is an eventual tragic
end as Einstein’s eventual interception with the ground according to
Newtonian mechanics. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar did not stop there. He being very shallow in mathematical skills
enlisted Grossmann’s help to do these fancy coordinate
transformations, but that was basically a waste of time. <shrug>
> He recognized that the
> time dilation of SR implies gravitational redshift.
Einstein’s thinking has no time dilation or SR in mind:
** Speed away manifests red shift. [TRUE]
** Gravity is speeding away. [FALSE]
** Thus, gravity also manifests red shift.
In truth, the Lorentz transform manifests time dilation and blue shift
due to the gamma factor. If gravity manifests time dilation, then
logically you have to say actually GR predicts a gravitational blue
shift.
Is this type of thinking way too scientific-methodologically oriented
for the believers of SR and GR to follow?
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 17, 7:19 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > Danny Milano wrote:
> > > Is the newtonian explanation possible?
>
> > This depends on what you mean. If one simply computes lightwave energy
> > loss from mgh and equates it to a change in hf, one obtains essentially
> > the same result as GR for weak fields (expressed differently, as GR has
> > no Planck constant).
>
> Are you not aware that energy is conserved under Newtonian physics?
> Thus, mgh does not mean energy loss. Michell’s explanation of
> gravitational red shift comes out of the emission theory of light
> where light particles have no speed limit. That was before
> electromagnetism. With light being wavelike, there is no crisp and
> definitive explanation to the gravitational red shift. The
> explanation of gravitational red shift under the concept of GR is also
> very poor. <shrug>
>
> > This, of course, goes beyond Newtonian physics, as E=hf is
> > a quantum equation.
>
> There is no quantization in this equation. Thus, I disagree that (E =
> h f) is a quantum equation. In fact, it should part of the extension
> to electromagnetism. <shrug>
Not every object in quantum mechanics is discrete, arrogant idiot.
[snip remaining arrogant stupidity, unread]
Koobee Wublee
> Not every object in quantum mechanics is discrete, arrogant idiot.
So, the opening line from a multi-year super-senior is still an insult
like many instances before. <shrug>
In the meantime, you still have to address what I have brought up.
On Jul 17, 7:19 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
> Danny Milano wrote:
> > Is the newtonian explanation possible?
>
> This depends on what you mean. If one simply computes lightwave energy
> loss from mgh and equates it to a change in hf, one obtains essentially
> the same result as GR for weak fields (expressed differently, as GR has
> no Planck constant).
Are you not aware that energy is conserved under Newtonian physics?
Thus, mgh does not mean energy loss. Michell’s explanation of
gravitational red shift comes out of the emission theory of light
where light particles have no speed limit. That was before
electromagnetism. With light being wavelike, there is no crisp and
definitive explanation to the gravitational red shift. The
explanation of gravitational red shift under the concept of GR is also
very poor. <shrug>
> This, of course, goes beyond Newtonian physics, as E=hf is
> a quantum equation.
There is no quantization in this equation. Thus, I disagree that (E =
h f) is a quantum equation. In fact, it should part of the extension
to electromagnetism. <shrug>
> BUT: Newtonian physics cannot explain the time dilation of SR due to
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Newtonian mechanics is SOUNDLY refuted.
>
> So which one of Newtons laws have been violated then?
It's not a question of violating individual laws, it's a question of
whether or not the theory makes valid predictions consistent with
experimental measurements. For elementary particle experiments it
doesn't -- not even close. SR and the corresponding relativistic
mechanics and theories do make accurate predictions for them, and for
all experiments within the domain of Newtonian mechanics.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> On Jul 17, 5:06 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Danny Milano wrote:
>>> If newtonian explanation is impossible looking from all angles.
>> It is -- Newtonian mechanics is SOUNDLY refuted.
>>
>>> Then Spacetime reigns supreme and the stunt of relativity can
>>> only occur if the universe is some kind of simulation where math
>>> dominates and create and uncreate reality.
>> Not true. You implicitly assume Nature chose Euclidean geometry. That
>> assumption appears to be wrong, and Nature seems to have selected
>> locally Minkowski geometry. This is not at all "math dominates", it is
>> just DIFFERENT from what you implicitly assume.
>
Read what I wrote. I do no such thing. I merely report the results of
literally zillions of observations.
> The nature of your textbooks is not the real Nature.
Sure.
> So, stop preaching that stuff as the revealed TRUTH.
You need to READ WHAT I WROTE. I do no such thing. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
Spaceman
You want me to factor gravity out?
But Gravity effects is what changes the dang clock.
So that would be silly if we wanted to find out how much
gravity changed it by.
LOL
you are truly lost.
The whole thing is to see if gravity difference changes the rate.
All the otheh things are easy to "remove"
> I will state that in theory, yes, *any* clock will show
> a different rate compared to another at a different
> gravitational potential (regardless of its type).
Ok,
And what is the cause of such?
The g-force change alone will be the only thing left
since that is the only thing not being removed.
Spaceman
> Spaceman wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> Newtonian mechanics is SOUNDLY refuted.
>>
>> So which one of Newtons laws have been violated then?
>
> It's not a question of violating individual laws, it's a question of
> whether or not the theory makes valid predictions consistent with
> experimental measurements. For elementary particle experiments it
> doesn't -- not even close.
You should look at it again then, because if it truly doesn't
It has violated one of Newtons laws.
> SR and the corresponding relativistic
> mechanics and theories do make accurate predictions for them, and for
> all experiments within the domain of Newtonian mechanics.
Then show me the part Newton is wrong and what law has been
broken "because " newton is wrong.
Greg Neill
Of course. You chose a clock whose functioning
directly incorporates gravity in its workings. The
mathematical expression for the period of the
pendulum contains the local acceleration due to
gravity. The expected period of the pendulum for a
given position on or near the Earth will include this
information. Time dilation effects are an *additionl*
factor.
Alternatively, you could measure the local acceleration
due to gravity and set the length of your pendulum
accordingly to produce the desired period. I doubt,
though, that you will be able to accomplish this
setting with sufficient accuracy to uncover the GR
dilation effect; it's a matter of mechanical precision.
Any time dilation effect will not be apparent until
you compare the clock period or readings with another
clock in a different potential.
> But Gravity effects is what changes the dang clock.
> So that would be silly if we wanted to find out how much
> gravity changed it by.
Then don't use a gravitation based clock. Use a
torsion spring and flywheel (you can position it
horizontally to avoid gravitational potential
changes). Or use an electronic clock. Or a
radioactive decay clock. There are many choices.
> LOL
> you are truly lost.
> The whole thing is to see if gravity difference changes the rate.
> All the otheh things are easy to "remove"
I'm lost? You chose the type of clock. You might as
well choose a water clock for underwater use.
>> I will state that in theory, yes, *any* clock will show
>> a different rate compared to another at a different
>> gravitational potential (regardless of its type).
>
> Ok,
> And what is the cause of such?
> The g-force change alone will be the only thing left
> since that is the only thing not being removed.
Not g-force. Gravitational potential. A clock in
frefall, thus feeling no gravitational forces across
it, still is subject to the same dilation effect. To
the best of our knowledge (and as usual you won't like
it) it is due to the geometry of spacetime as shaped
by mass and energy (I told you you wouldn't like it).
Spaceman
Just like the most accurate atomic fountain clock actually does.
LOL
Greg Neill
No. It's functioning depends upon quantum atomic
transitions, which are not based on gravitational
forces. It also takes steps to eliminate the effects
of gravity that would broaden the spectral lines
being monitored (hence the freefall fountain).
Spaceman
Poor Greg,
You are so stuck in the "relativity" mode, you will never get it.
The clock I just mentioned does in fact use gravity.
Quantum atomic transitions counted = counting a motion of a mass.
The motion is "effected by gravity" or your clock would not dilate
at all.
:)
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 17, 3:26 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > Not every object in quantum mechanics is discrete, arrogant idiot.
>
> So, the opening line from a multi-year super-senior is still an insult
> like many instances before. <shrug>
Pretty bold for someone who hides under a pseudonym.
>
> In the meantime, you still have to address what I have brought up.
I don't have to do anything, anonymous coward.
[snip]
Koobee Wublee
> Pretty bold for someone who hides under a pseudonym.
>
> I don't have to do anything, anonymous coward.
You sound very pissed off because I have pushed the right button in
which Professor Roberts had no choice but to put his tail between his
legs and run away. Well, as a loser, I wonder what other
ungentlemanly acts can you possibly come up with?
In the meantime, you still have yet to address what I have brought
up.
On Jul 17, 7:19 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 17, 10:21 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Pretty bold for someone who hides under a pseudonym.
>
> > I don't have to do anything, anonymous coward.
>
> You sound very pissed off because I have pushed the right button in
> which Professor Roberts had no choice but to put his tail between his
> legs and run away. Well, as a loser, I wonder what other
> ungentlemanly acts can you possibly come up with?
>
> In the meantime, you still have yet to address what I have brought
> up.
What's the point? You've simply added more ignorant rambling about
quantum mechanics to the usual assortment of stupidities you utter
regarding relativity.
If you were capable of learning, you wouldn't be here.
[snip repeated stupidities]
Koobee Wublee
> What's the point? You've simply added more ignorant rambling about
> quantum mechanics to the usual assortment of stupidities you utter
> regarding relativity.
You have no answer to the issues I have brought up. You are merely
trolling and stalling time for the more-expert to bail you out.
<shrug>
> If you were capable of learning, you wouldn't be here.
You are so full of sh*t. < shrug>
In the meantime, you still have yet to address what I have brought
up.
On Jul 17, 7:19 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 18, 12:13 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > What's the point? You've simply added more ignorant rambling about
> > quantum mechanics to the usual assortment of stupidities you utter
> > regarding relativity.
>
> You have no answer to the issues I have brought up. You are merely
> trolling and stalling time for the more-expert to bail you out.
> <shrug>
Nice attempt at goading, but it won't work.
>
> > If you were capable of learning, you wouldn't be here.
>
> You are so full of sh*t. < shrug>
>
> In the meantime, you still have yet to address what I have brought
> up.
...and I won't, because it serves no purpose than to feed your ego.
[snip repeated stupidities]
Sue...
The key to understanding special relativity is
Einstein's relativity principle, which states that:
All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the
performance of all physical experiments.
In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
same form in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Is that what the Hafele and Keating Experiment demonstrates?
Is that how the Hafele and Keating Experiment is presented
on the usenet relativity FAQ to which you are a contributor?
Sue...
>
> Tom Roberts
Koobee Wublee
> On Jul 17, 11:36 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You have no answer to the issues I have brought up. You are merely
> > trolling and stalling time for the more-expert to bail you out.
> > <shrug>
>
> Nice attempt at goading, but it won't work.
What attempt is that? You have read my post and fell sick because of
lack of counter-arguments. Now, what other tricks do you have to
brush these issues under the rug?
> ...and I won't, because it serves no purpose than to feed your ego.
A scientific discussion does not involve any ego. If you are wrong,
you’d better find a graceful retreat as Professor Carlip had pointed
out. In this particular case, you don’t have to worry about how I am
looking for that graceful retreat. It is the academics who have to do
so. <shrug> All I have seen is some multi-year super-senior
voluntarily to stalls and tries to brush these issues under the rug
while the academic power house just sit back with their tails between
their legs pretending nothing has happened. <shrug>
What did they offer you to be the henchman of dis-progress in
scientific methods? A bullsh*t degree in 10 years? How does it feel
to sell out your soul to the Devil?
In the meantime, you still have yet to address what I have brought
up.
On Jul 17, 7:19 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 18, 12:50 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > On Jul 17, 11:36 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You have no answer to the issues I have brought up. You are merely
> > > trolling and stalling time for the more-expert to bail you out.
> > > <shrug>
>
> > Nice attempt at goading, but it won't work.
>
> What attempt is that? You have read my post and fell sick because of
> lack of counter-arguments. Now, what other tricks do you have to
> brush these issues under the rug?
The only thing I've felt while reading your posts is a vague sense of
boredom, and hunger. I should go cook something.
Eggs on toast?
>
> > ...and I won't, because it serves no purpose than to feed your ego.
>
> A scientific discussion does not involve any ego. If you are wrong,
> you’d better find a graceful retreat as Professor Carlip had pointed
> out. In this particular case, you don’t have to worry about how I am
> looking for that graceful retreat. It is the academics who have to do
> so. <shrug> All I have seen is some multi-year super-senior
> voluntarily to stalls and tries to brush these issues under the rug
> while the academic power house just sit back with their tails between
> their legs pretending nothing has happened. <shrug>
It is nobody's fault but your own that you cannot realize your own
limitations. You delude yourself into believing you understand the
material even though you cannot even derive the surface area of a
sphere without resorting to insults and proof by assertion.
>
> What did they offer you to be the henchman of dis-progress in
> scientific methods? A bullsh*t degree in 10 years? How does it feel
> to sell out your soul to the Devil?
When did progress in physics stop, in your estimation?
I've been offered and promised exactly nothing. A degree is not a
promise of employment, satisfaction, or a good life. An education is
what you make of it - and I'm making something interesting of it right
now.
>
> In the meantime, you still have yet to address what I have brought
> up.
I hadn't noticed.
[...]
Sue...
> On Jul 18, 12:07 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 18, 12:50 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 17, 11:36 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > You have no answer to the issues I have brought up. You are merely
> > > > trolling and stalling time for the more-expert to bail you out.
> > > > <shrug>
>
> > > Nice attempt at goading, but it won't work.
>
> > What attempt is that? You have read my post and fell sick because of
> > lack of counter-arguments. Now, what other tricks do you have to
> > brush these issues under the rug?
>
> The only thing I've felt while reading your posts is a vague sense of
> boredom, and hunger. I should go cook something.
>
> Eggs on toast?
Good idea. Take one of the springs out of the toaster
and figure out how it can know that a clock is moving
away from it at a significant fraction of the speed
of light.
"Torsion Pendulum"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node139.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke's_law
Sue...
<< insert insult here to indicate you can't do it >>
[...]
Eric Gisse
[snip irrelevant shit]
Stop posting every link you find on google, k?
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Spaceman wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> Newtonian mechanics is SOUNDLY refuted.
>>> So which one of Newtons laws have been violated then?
>> It's not a question of violating individual laws, it's a question of
>> whether or not the theory makes valid predictions consistent with
>> experimental measurements. For elementary particle experiments it
>> doesn't -- not even close.
>
> You should look at it again then, because if it truly doesn't
> It has violated one of Newtons laws.
Newton's "laws" are really just equations of the theory known as
Newtonian mechanics. They were called "laws" because they are quite
general, and in the old days people thought they were universal -- they
aren't.
>> SR and the corresponding relativistic
>> mechanics and theories do make accurate predictions for them, and for
>> all experiments within the domain of Newtonian mechanics.
>
> Then show me the part Newton is wrong and what law has been
> broken "because " newton is wrong.
As I said, this is not important. Science is the process of testing
THEORIES (not testing "laws"). Basically the problem is that an
individual "law" cannot be applied in isolation, one must use additional
aspects of the entire theory to make any predictions of experimental
results. The THEORY of Newtonian mechanics makes wildly inaccurate
predictions for many modern experiments. The corresponding relativistic
theories do MUCH better, over a MUCH larger domain.
For instance, one important and essential component of Newtonian
mechanics not expressed as a "law" is the notion of inertial frame. In
many cases it is this aspect which is the underlying reason that the
theory makes poor predictions. Another such component is Galilean
relativity....
Tom Roberts
PD
wrote:
> Greg Neill wrote:
> > "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message> >>> "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message> >>>>> "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message> >>>>>>> "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in
> >>>>>>> messagenews:UYCdnf6gGIZlFuLV...@comcast.com
Nope. When a electron in a hydrogen atom emits a photon that
oscillates at 1.3E14 Hz, there is no massive object anywhere that is
moving back and forth at 1.3E14 Hz.
You can say, "but there HAS to be!" And then you would be wrong twice.
PD
Spaceman
> Spaceman wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> Spaceman wrote:
>>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>> Newtonian mechanics is SOUNDLY refuted.
>>>> So which one of Newtons laws have been violated then?
>>> It's not a question of violating individual laws, it's a question of
>>> whether or not the theory makes valid predictions consistent with
>>> experimental measurements. For elementary particle experiments it
>>> doesn't -- not even close.
>>
>> You should look at it again then, because if it truly doesn't
>> It has violated one of Newtons laws.
>
> Newton's "laws" are really just equations of the theory known as
> Newtonian mechanics. They were called "laws" because they are quite
> general, and in the old days people thought they were universal --
> they aren't.
And again, you pull the old, It does but I can't prove which one
it violated.
>>> SR and the corresponding relativistic
>>> mechanics and theories do make accurate predictions for them, and
>>> for all experiments within the domain of Newtonian mechanics.
>>
>> Then show me the part Newton is wrong and what law has been
>> broken "because " newton is wrong.
>
> As I said, this is not important.
Bullshit, It is very important.
Again, you say it happens but now says it is not important because
you really don't have the physical proof nor even know what law
it supposedly violates.
> For instance, one important and essential component of Newtonian
> mechanics not expressed as a "law" is the notion of inertial frame. In
> many cases it is this aspect which is the underlying reason that the
> theory makes poor predictions. Another such component is Galilean
> relativity....
Wrong,
It only does not match Newtons inertial frame because Einstein relativity
made up it's own inertial frames that make curves without true physical
cause being accounted for.
Greg Neill
>> No. It's functioning depends upon quantum atomic
>> transitions, which are not based on gravitational
>> forces.
>
> Poor Greg,
> You are so stuck in the "relativity" mode, you will never get it.
> The clock I just mentioned does in fact use gravity.
No, it specifically takes measures to eliminate the effect
of gravity.
>
> Quantum atomic transitions counted = counting a motion of a mass.
> The motion is "effected by gravity" or your clock would not dilate
> at all.
Hyperfine structure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfine_structure
You need to distinguish between effects due to gravitational
forces (when objects are restrained from freefall, like
your weight when standing upon the Earth) and effects due to the
presence of the field itself (modelled as spacetime curvature).
In a Newtonian picture only the force would exist and the
space would be flat (Euclidean) and have no effect on the
clock or any other thing. Newton's theory would predict
no time dilation.
Spaceman
Do you even know what oscillates in that?
The photon is only the wave, the electron did the motion.
You just proved you do not understand oscillations.
Sheesh!
Give up physics PD, you have no basic thoughts left.
Spaceman
> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
> news:RKidnTyN_pGWgR3V...@comcast.com
>> Greg Neill wrote:
>
>>> No. It's functioning depends upon quantum atomic
>>> transitions, which are not based on gravitational
>>> forces.
>>
>> Poor Greg,
>> You are so stuck in the "relativity" mode, you will never get it.
>> The clock I just mentioned does in fact use gravity.
>
> No, it specifically takes measures to eliminate the effect
> of gravity.
The atomic clock on the ground that is the most accurate today
does not do such Greg.
Again, you show you don't even know why they call it the
"fountain" atomic clock.
Greg Neill
>> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
>> news:RKidnTyN_pGWgR3V...@comcast.com
>>> Greg Neill wrote:
>>
>>>> No. It's functioning depends upon quantum atomic
>>>> transitions, which are not based on gravitational
>>>> forces.
>>>
>>> Poor Greg,
>>> You are so stuck in the "relativity" mode, you will never get it.
>>> The clock I just mentioned does in fact use gravity.
>>
>> No, it specifically takes measures to eliminate the effect
>> of gravity.
>
> The atomic clock on the ground that is the most accurate today
> does not do such Greg.
It does. This was explained to you before. The purpose of
the "fountain" is to allow the atoms to be in freefall when
they are sampled.
> Again, you show you don't even know why they call it the
> "fountain" atomic clock.
I just proved you wrong.
Spaceman
> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
> news:WPGdnZSr5qRYPh3V...@comcast.com
>> Greg Neill wrote:
>>> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
>>> news:RKidnTyN_pGWgR3V...@comcast.com
>>>> Greg Neill wrote:
>>>
>>>>> No. It's functioning depends upon quantum atomic
>>>>> transitions, which are not based on gravitational
>>>>> forces.
>>>>
>>>> Poor Greg,
>>>> You are so stuck in the "relativity" mode, you will never get it.
>>>> The clock I just mentioned does in fact use gravity.
>>>
>>> No, it specifically takes measures to eliminate the effect
>>> of gravity.
>>
>> The atomic clock on the ground that is the most accurate today
>> does not do such Greg.
>
> It does. This was explained to you before. The purpose of
> the "fountain" is to allow the atoms to be in freefall when
> they are sampled.
They would not be in freefall if gravity was not involved Greg.
Are you freakin dense or something, or just to brainwashed
to remember "freefall" on Earth's surface, needs gravity to
be involved.
Sheesh.
>> Again, you show you don't even know why they call it the
>> "fountain" atomic clock.
>
> I just proved you wrong.
You just proved you are a ignorant to the first degree.
You did not prove me wrong at all, in fact you proved me
correct by using the word freefall for a clock on the ground
known as the fountain atomic clock.
:)
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 11:28 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> > wrote:
> >> Greg Neill wrote:
> >>> "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
> >>>news:f8WdnQ_5IIfLlx3V...@comcast.com
> >>>> Greg Neill wrote:
> >>>>> "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:i5-dnfDz_6D4nh3V...@comcast.com
> >>>>>> Greg Neill wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in
Yes.
> The photon is only the wave, the electron did the motion.
No.
> You just proved you do not understand oscillations.
> Sheesh!
> Give up physics PD, you have no basic thoughts left.
Just because you THINK that's what's happening (and Wow! You thought
of that all by yourself! You're SUCH a big boy!) doesn't mean that's
what's happening.
Spaceman
You don't know what made the oscillation then,
Thanks for the proof you have lost classical physics completely.
>> You just proved you do not understand oscillations.
>> Sheesh!
>> Give up physics PD, you have no basic thoughts left.
>
> Just because you THINK that's what's happening (and Wow! You thought
> of that all by yourself! You're SUCH a big boy!) doesn't mean that's
> what's happening.
You love to say this to anyone that shows you are wrong.
It is also great that you do the same for your" rubber ruler world" little
boy.
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > On Jul 18, 9:06 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> > wrote:
> >> Do you even know what oscillates in that?
>
> > Yes.
>
> >> The photon is only the wave, the electron did the motion.
>
> > No.
>
> You don't know what made the oscillation then,
> Thanks for the proof you have lost classical physics completely.
And so again we go by your method of thinking:
1. All things behave by this rule I just made up.
2. If you find some case that doesn't abide this rule, then you don't
know how that case really works, because all things behave by this
rule that I just made up.
Greg Neill
>> On Jul 18, 9:06 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
>> wrote:
>>> Do you even know what oscillates in that?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> The photon is only the wave, the electron did the motion.
>>
>> No.
>
> You don't know what made the oscillation then,
> Thanks for the proof you have lost classical physics completely.
He knows what resulted in the photon being emitted. It
wasn't an oscillation. Have you never learned anything
about atomic physics?
Spaceman
> On Jul 18, 9:52 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>>> On Jul 18, 9:06 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Do you even know what oscillates in that?
>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>>>> The photon is only the wave, the electron did the motion.
>>
>>> No.
>>
>> You don't know what made the oscillation then,
>> Thanks for the proof you have lost classical physics completely.
>
> And so again we go by your method of thinking:
> 1. All things behave by this rule I just made up.
No,
I did not make Newtons rules.
I simply use them to my advantage.
> 2. If you find some case that doesn't abide this rule, then you don't
> know how that case really works, because all things behave by this
> rule that I just made up.
That is what you do with Newtons rules.
:)
Spaceman
Do you think the electron just sits there and squirts out
photons without having to move at all?
It is you that has not learned anything about atomic physics.
You are truly lost!
LOL
Greg Neill
You didn't answer the question. Have you never learned
anything about atomic physics?
Spaceman
The question I gave that you did not answer shows I know
more than you do.
The electron must move to create a photon.
Apparently you have no clue about the actual motion
that must occur.
Koobee Wublee
> Newton's "laws" are really just equations of the theory known as
> Newtonian mechanics. They were called "laws" because they are quite
> general, and in the old days people thought they were universal -- they
> aren't.
The laws are universal whenever you have discovered something that
does not fit that law. Then, you have to modify that law to allow the
anomalous observation. If not, you must abandon that law. <shrug>
One example is the principle of relativity. It says:
“The laws of physics must be the same everywhere and every when, and
any experimental outcome cannot be determined by the speed of
something else that has nothing to do with this experiment.”
If the absolute frame of reference were to be discovered, then the
principle of relativity must be wrong. However, it can still be
modified into a more general principle (than the principle of
relativity) that states simply:
“The laws of physics must be the same everywhere and every when.”
> Science is the process of testing
> THEORIES (not testing "laws").
Out of Lucent for only a few years, you are now getting very
philosophical. It must be the very liberal academic environment that
allows you to be so. <shrug>
> Basically the problem is that an
> individual "law" cannot be applied in isolation, one must use additional
> aspects of the entire theory to make any predictions of experimental
> results.
Hmmm... More philosophical claims. <shrug>
> The THEORY of Newtonian mechanics makes wildly inaccurate
> predictions for many modern experiments.
It is not fair for you to do that. Whenever you (plural) are trying
to convict Newtonian physics, you apply very stringent error bars to
the outcome of these experiments. On the other hand, you seem to
relax the same error bars when you are promoting the nonsense of SR
and GR. <shrug>
> The corresponding relativistic
> theories do MUCH better, over a MUCH larger domain.
Not really. SR manifests the twin’s paradox, and there has been no
experiment that supports the outcome of the twin’s paradox. Thank God
that it is so, or else we will be in big trouble. Therefore, applying
your own standard of judgment on SR, SR must be invalid.
> For instance, one important and essential component of Newtonian
> mechanics not expressed as a "law" is the notion of inertial frame.
There is no special frame of reference under the principle of
relativity in which Newtonian mechanics fall under. <shrug>
> In
> many cases it is this aspect which is the underlying reason that the
> theory makes poor predictions.
Let’s see. The Newtonian mechanics allows:
** Space probes out to nearly 1 light year away
** Gravitational sling shot
** Solar and lunar eclipses
And more...
And you call that poor predictions?
> Another such component is Galilean
> relativity....
What is the Galilean relativity? Do you mean the Galilean transform?
If so, DITTO. <shrug>
Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform satisfy the principle of
relativity. <shrug>
PD
Uh, no. But I didn't expect you to say otherwise. That's just LIKE
you, Spaceman.
Rock Brentwood
> According to a famous anti-relativist who wrote an
> award winning book. The explanation is related to
> what Mitchell said that when object moves from
> low gravity to high gravity, there is loss of energy and
> reduction of frequency and increase of wavelength
> and this causes redshifting.
That statement is just a restatement of the gravitational red shift.
No matter how you couch it, the phenomenon is a bona fide departure
from Newtonian gravity.
To put it another way: if you start out assuming Newtonian physics,
then you add in a uniform red shift for all temporal processes, then
you automatically no longer have Newtonian Physics -- where the
central premise is uniformity of temporal processes.
The argument posed by the book is analogous to saying that A is B
because B can be reduced to A + X and we'll just redefine A to be A +
X, hence showing that B is A. Then we'll go on to say that "it's just
A all along (um ... with X, so actually it's not A ... or wasn't until
I redefined A to be A with X ... i.e., redefined A to be B, itself)"
> IIs the newtonian explanation possible? Can it be falsified by empirical data?
Not other than by an argument analogous to the above. So the first
question you should ask of the author is define A. And define it in a
way that conforms to what A is widely recognized and attested to be --
not to what something else is that you're going to end up calling A
after the fact. That's the Moving Target Argument. It's always wrong
before it gets out of the starting gate.
This is why authors are obliged to rigorously define what the
respective A's and B's are *before* making an argument about whether B
can be reduced to A. Anytime one starts out arguing what can be reduce
to what before actually saying the what's actually are, they're
subject to the charge of Moving Target Argument. And that's an
automatic disqualifier..
The modern understanding and formulation of Newtonian gravity is that
laid out by Cartan in the 1920's based on Newton-Cartan geometry. The
central feature of this geometry -- like the Galilean spacetime that
people couched physics in prior to the 20th century and that served as
the basis of Newtonian physics -- is that time is "absolute" in the
sense that there is an invariant foliation of the spacetime into a
sequence of 3-dimensional "equal-time" spaces and that the time metric
is independent of position with respect to a distinguished coordinate
time coordinate t.
A central feature of this model and formulation of spacetime is that
there is no dilatation.
There is a second argument that's been championed for years by
Spaceman. This asserts that dilatation reduces to nothing more than
instrument variability. Clocks are unreliable if their intervals are
"uneven" ... or a clock is "wrong" if its face has the numbers placed
along the circular periphery at uneven arcs from one another.
That's fundamentally wrong -- regardless of what instrument we're
talking about, and regardless of the issue of measuring time or
anything else.
An instrument with a relabelling is exactly the same instrument as
long as the labelling is a one-to-one map -- even if that map is a
complex algorithm. The one-to-one'ness of the instrument-to-instrument
transformation means exactly that they both convey the same
information. An instrument is only defined modulo relabelling-
equivalence. It's an equivalence class of relabelling-equivalent
displays. That's the concept laid forth clearly by the man who was
simultaneously the founder of modern Computer Science ... and ...
Fundamental Physics (... and ... Artificial Life) -- John von Neumann.
The proper analogy is NOT the difference between a "broken" chair vs.
one that's not. The correct analogy is that of the difference between
a chair facing north and one facing south. You can sit on it equally
well, no matter what direction it's facing. The chair is equivalent no
matter what direction it's turned to face in -- as long as the
operation of turning it is reversible.
Relabelling a clock's face is precisely the analogue of reorienting a
chair. It is not the analogue of breaking the chair! To make it the
analogue of breaking the chair, you have to do an _irreversiible_
labelling of the clock (the operative analogy is that breaking is an
irreversible process). An irreversible labelling is simply one which
is many-to-one as a function, so that the same label is placed in two
or more places on the instrument -- hence making the information
conveyed strictly less than that from the un-relabelled instrument.
Instruments convey information. Not numbers. Numbers are merely
devices to convey information and nothing more. Anything else that
does the job (e.g. color-coding) will do just as well in place of
numbers (and will generally be more efficient, since humans are not
born to process information by reading numbers).
The reliability of the instrument is determined by the population
standard deviation of the instruments. Because that's what limits the
one-to-one transformation between the instruments and limits the
information that can be obtained from them. It is not defined by the
"constancy" or "variability" of the labellings used by them (which it
can't anyway, since there is no such thing as "constancy" or
"variability", except for instruments relative to one another).
Thus, for instance, it is, in fact, possible to accurately measure
distance using a slide rule. Simply take the reading and take its
logarithm. There is a one-to-one function that converts the slide-rule
reading to that of a ruler.
Or, just simply take the slide-rule measurement and use that. It
conveys the same information, no matter whose scale you use. And for
some purposes, the slide rule scale may actually be the more
convenient one to use.
It's possible to measure time accurately by the position of the Earth
in its orbit, notwithstanding the "variability" of the orbital speed.
There is a one-to-one correspondence to the time (if you add in
"winding number" or "year" to the orbit to disambiguate the periodic
returns); and it's highly predictable on top of all that.
And who's to say which instrument has uniform divisions? By what
_other_ instrument do you determine the constancy of a device's
intervals?
What determines the constancy of the intervals of the very device,
itself, that you used to determined the constancy of the first
device's intervals with? It's an infinite regress. Therefore, there is
no such thing as absolute constancy or variability. Instruments are
ocnstant or variable only *relative* to other instruments.
So, the minute you hear someone talking about "clocks being
variable" (or even "clocks being constant") in absolute terms, you
know they're talking hot air before they even open their mouths to
speak.
Some physics problems (like the Kepler problem for the determination
of orbits) actually work better if the so-called "variable" time is
taken as the "constant"! Kepler is the archetype of the whole point;
which is why I brought up the example involving orbital position.
Even for elliptical orbits, it's actually better to take the angle E
(made with respect to the center of the ellipse) rather than clock
time as the measure of time. The equations of motion become much
simpler -- and solvable in closed form in terms of elementary
functions. No so for "real time", t.
The relevant question -- here -- therefore is the No Second Clock
Hypothesis -- two clocks placed on the same trajectory should register
the same reading. This is the operative hypothesis that you use to
determine whether there is a cohesive temporal geometry/logic based on
time measurements or not.
It's the ONLY meaningful hypothesis you can make. There is no "clock
constant" hypothesis, since -- as just indicated -- "constant" and
"variable" are physically meaningless ... except for one instrument
relative to another.
And that principle will hold true, regardless of whether you're taking
about Relativity, Newtonian Physics, Aristotlean or Platonic Physics
or anything else. It's theory-independent.
On the matter of Galilei/Newton vs. Poincare'/Minkowski; and on the
subject header of the article, itself:
No not everything can be reduced to Newton + "variability", either.
The Spaceman hypothesis is wrong because these are not equivalent
statements! There is a condition you need to satisfy before you can
make the reduction. (And that condition is false of the actual world).
For different trajectories, it is not automatically true that
variability can be eliminated and explained away in terms of device
fluctuation.
Two clocks in Newtonian physics going on different trajectories will
not register a variation with respect to one another -- other than a 0-
mean random fluctuation associated with the variability of the
instruments with respect to one another.
In contrast, two clocks in Relativistic physics going on different
trajectories that start and finish at the same place will exhibit a
PREDICTABLE and regular variation with respect to one another -- that
is, a variation that is not a 0-mean fluctuation.
That cannot be reduced to Newtonian Physics, not even when using
instrument variability to explain fluctuations. They are absolutely
different situations!
Newtonian gives you 0-mean fluctuation. Relativistic physics means non-
zero mean fluctuation that is, as a function of trajectory,
predictable.
Spaceman
What you have just said is wrong.
You are using the "the clocks performed to thier specifications"
argument.
If such argument was true.
Pendulum clocks also perform to thier spec in thier own "frames".
An amount of swings of the pendulum = 1 second.
Just as so many oscillations of an atomic resonance = 1 second.
The clocks can not be oparating to the exact same standards they
were set up to perform if they do not show the same times all the time
You have just lost the "standard" of measurement and have accepted
a multiple standard for time.
I don't see why you would want to repeat a history known
about clocks and "thier" tick rates being "variable when moved.
I am sorry you do not want to use the science of measurement anymore.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
> An instrument is only defined modulo relabelling-
> equivalence. It's an equivalence class of relabelling-equivalent
> displays. That's the concept laid forth clearly by the man who was
> simultaneously the founder of modern Computer Science ... and ...
> Fundamental Physics (... and ... Artificial Life) -- John von Neumann.
>
> The proper analogy is NOT the difference between a "broken" chair vs.
> one that's not. The correct analogy is that of the difference between
> a chair facing north and one facing south. You can sit on it equally
> well, no matter what direction it's facing. The chair is equivalent no
> matter what direction it's turned to face in -- as long as the
> operation of turning it is reversible.
>
> Relabelling a clock's face is precisely the analogue of reorienting a
> chair. It is not the analogue of breaking the chair! To make it the
> analogue of breaking the chair, you have to do an _irreversiible_
> labelling of the clock (the operative analogy is that breaking is an
> irreversible process). An irreversible labelling is simply one which
> is many-to-one as a function, so that the same label is placed in two
> or more places on the instrument -- hence making the information
> conveyed strictly less than that from the un-relabelled instrument.
>
> Instruments convey information. Not numbers.
Ok, that is the end of your sillyness.
Instruments display numbers, the numbers are the information.
A clock is no more than a "periodic rate counting machine"
that displays a ratio of the numbers counted to a set ratio of the outcome.
number of swings = second. (2 : 1)
number of oscillations = second. (whatever : 1)
If you think otherwise. you truly have lost science completely.
I feel sorry for you.
You have given the clock an operation it does not have.
It is not a "perfect information" machine.
It is a simple counting machine that has a problem counting
when it is in motion through any g-force changes.
Sheesh. (as usual)