Proof of General Relativity & Consequence of EP Violation
Potte
I have watched the 3 part Nova series Elegant Universe with its very
nice visual effect. There's this part where the sun
suddenly disappears. Newton theorized all the planets would suddenly
veer of course as if gravity is instantaneous. But
since Einstein knows nothing travels faster than light. How
can the effect be instanteneous. So he dreamt up of General
Relativity where the dent in the fabric of space time
is where the sun is located and the earth traveling around it.
So if the sun suddenly disappears, the gravity waves would reach
us in 8 minutes and it is only when it reaches us that earth
would be veered of course.
Now I'd like to know what is the proof of this gravity wave.
Is there an observation in space wherein a star explodes and
the planets veer of course after a certain time ellapse (due to
the gravity wave travelling at the speed of light)?
What are all the proof of General Relativity. Can't we just
say the gravitons get to disappear after 8 minutes after the
sun disappears because it has to travel to earth to transmit
its disappearing signal? Does GR means gravitons are not
real??
Now about this Equivalence Principle, you know the elevator
falling thing. If Uncle Al is right it is violated. Would this affect
the concept of this space fabric with dent where massive
object is located. If the EP is falsified. What is the
alternative model of the fabric or what changes are there
compared to the present concept?
Potte
Nick
It's the Equivalence Principle itself that needs change.
Just look at weight in gravity. It reveals a timeless
acceleration.
Rate must be removed. It doesn't apply.
It is not the rate of change of velocity - which can go infinite. But
the EP is only one of - change in velocity -
which defines a limit.
Removing rate generalizes the Equivalence Principle.
There is no time variable in weight for an object which is not moving
in a gravity field.
The limit in acceleration for this modified EP is that fundamental
quantity we know of as the speed of light, c.
Weight is the acceleration - defined by EP - multiplied by mass. With
rate acceleration can go infinite.
But without it acceleration is limited.
Without time you have a timeless acceleration for the
Equivalence Principle.
That is all there is to it!!!
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Potte" <photon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112487200.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
...
> Now I'd like to know what is the proof of this
> gravity wave. Is there an observation in space
> wherein a star explodes and the planets veer
> of course after a certain time ellapse (due to
> the gravity wave travelling at the speed of light)?
The mass of the star leaves at, or less than, the speed of light.
A prediction of GR that seems to be borne out is the
Lense-Thirring effect, known as frame dragging.
> What are all the proof of General Relativity. Can't
> we just say the gravitons get to disappear after 8
> minutes after the sun disappears because it has
> to travel to earth to transmit its disappearing
> signal? Does GR means gravitons are not
> real??
Gravitons have not been experimentally detected. Gravitons are
part of QM, and not GR. GR doesn't care about quantization of
gravitation. Yet.
> Now about this Equivalence Principle, you
> know the elevator falling thing. If Uncle Al
> is right it is violated.
GR will still be a useful approximation. Suitable for use where
chirality doesn't apply. If affine gravitation is easier to
"use", then GR will fade.
> Would this affect the
> concept of this space fabric with dent where
> massive object is located. If the EP is
> falsified. What is the alternative model of
> the fabric or what changes are there
> compared to the present concept?
Time will tell.
David A. Smith
Uncle Al
>
> I have watched the 3 part Nova series Elegant Universe with its very
> nice visual effect. There's this part where the sun
> suddenly disappears. Newton theorized all the planets would suddenly
> veer of course as if gravity is instantaneous. But
> since Einstein knows nothing travels faster than light. How
> can the effect be instanteneous. So he dreamt up of General
> Relativity where the dent in the fabric of space time
> is where the sun is located and the earth traveling around it.
> So if the sun suddenly disappears, the gravity waves would reach
> us in 8 minutes and it is only when it reaches us that earth
> would be veered of course.
The rubber sheet model of gravitation is a disasterously crappy
model. Take the tensioned flat rubber membrane and draw a triangle on
it. The sum of the triangle's interior angles is 180 degrees exactly
, right out of Euclid. Now place a lead ball in the triangle and
repeat the summation. The interior angles are necked down as the
membrane stretches and they now sum to less than 180 degrees.
In the real world gravitational case, they would sum to more than 180
degrees.
> Now I'd like to know what is the proof of this gravity wave.
> Is there an observation in space wherein a star explodes and
> the planets veer of course after a certain time ellapse (due to
> the gravity wave travelling at the speed of light)?
You'd have problems lucking at getting the observational timing
right. Wouldn't make a difference in any case. If the explosion were
radially symmetric the center of mass would not change position. You
have to DISAPPEAR the central mass. If you blow it up you might
increase its mass - by externally dumping in gravitational binding
energy to disassemble it,
http://www.answers.com/topic/gravitational-binding-energy
Nothing changes until the reference orbit is inside some of the
expanding mass.
> What are all the proof of General Relativity. Can't we just
> say the gravitons get to disappear after 8 minutes after the
> sun disappears because it has to travel to earth to transmit
> its disappearing signal? Does GR means gravitons are not
> real??
No gravitons. There is no empirical evidence for quantized
gravitation. Gravitons are a mathematical construct of convenience.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system (weak field)
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries (strong field)
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
And, of course, Gravity Probe-B,
http://www.einstein.stanford.edu/
> Now about this Equivalence Principle, you know the elevator
> falling thing. If Uncle Al is right it is violated. Would this affect
> the concept of this space fabric with dent where massive
> object is located. If the EP is falsified. What is the
> alternative model of the fabric or what changes are there
> compared to the present concept?
If you postulate the EP you get metric gravitation (Einstein and
General Relativity). If you ignore it you get affine gravitation
(Weitzenboeck and teleparallel gravitation). All of metric
gravitation is contained within affine gravitation. There is no way
to tell them part aside from the Equivalence Principle and its
sequelae, plus a couple of predicted subtleties that don't measurably
obtain in the real world.
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
All chemical compositions fall identically in vacuum to one part in
ten trillion difference/average. If left-handed and right-handed
quartz - of identical chemical composition! - fall differently,
1) Metric gravitation is falsified, affine gravitation takes over
as theory. Everybody still uses GR to do calculations, though as a
heuristic. Two "e before i" get replaced with an umlaut-o. Uncle Al
gets a trip to Sweden if he isn't arrested at the airport shakedown;
Oprah gives him a big wet smooch either way.
2) 80% of M-theory vanishes. Lattice quantum gravitation is
falsified. No biggie.
3) Lorentz Invariance is falsified because space is demonstrated
not to be isotropic. Angular momentum need not be conserved for
chiral masses. THAT is a big whoop.
4) An origin of biological homochirality is rationalized. No
biggie.
4) Quantum mechanics takes a hit from (3). Since QM has no
rigorous mathematical basis ("math is metaphor") it hardly matters
except in principle. No biggie.
The proper test of spacetime geometry is test mass geometry. We'll
know by September. Uncle Al wishes to make a point about the
worthlessness of managed science. Only the Gifted are of importance.
We should be subsidizing and exploiting our extreme intellectual
resources, not impoverishing and institutionalizing them while gorging
retards and cripples.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Uncle Al
>
> Equivalence Principle Violation?
> It's the Equivalence Principle itself that needs change.
> Just look at weight in gravity. It reveals a timeless
> acceleration.
Random boring idiot.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
--
Sam Wormley
[some shit]
+------------+ +---------------------------------------------+
| PLEASE | | BEST TO IGNORE ATTENTION SEEKING TROLLS |
| DO NOT | | LIKE RAEMSCH A.K.A NICK -- THEY DRY |
| FEED | | UP AND BLOW AWAY WITHOUT FEEDBACK |
| DA | | |
| TROLLS | | http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/ |
+------------+ +---------------------------------------------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
`\ '/ / ' / `\ '/ / ' / `\ '/ / ' /
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:424F54EC...@hate.spam.net...
...
> Uncle Al wishes to make a point about the
> worthlessness of managed science. Only
> the Gifted are of importance. We should be
> subsidizing and exploiting our extreme
> intellectual resources, not impoverishing
> and institutionalizing them while gorging
> retards and cripples.
There is room on this planet, still, for both. As to funding,
the old maxim "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" seems to hold
up pretty well. You've been squeaking, and see where it got
you...
David A. Smith
Robert Kolker
>
>
> No gravitons. There is no empirical evidence for quantized
> gravitation. Gravitons are a mathematical construct of convenience.
Positively charged anti-matter was a construct of Dirac's mathematics
until positrons were actually observed in a cloud chamber in 1932.
In a certain sense, this is true of -any- mathematically formulated
physical theory. Poincare in -Science et Hypotheis- pointed out that
much of a physical theory is convention. The place where reality enters
is the comparison between observation/experiment and prediction or
theoretical description.
The current physical theories we have on-line at the moment are
excellent predictors, but how literally should we take them? Reality is
real all the way to the bottom (if there is a bottom) and we are 15
orders of magnitude removed from Planck Length even with our best
instruments. So how "real" is the "reality" we =infer= from our
instrumental readings plus our conventional constructs. The degree of
reality lies purely in how close the predictions are to experimental
output and nowhere else.
Bob Kolker
Bill Hobba
"Potte" <photon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112487200.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> nice visual effect. There's this part where the sun
> suddenly disappears. Newton theorized all the planets would suddenly
> veer of course as if gravity is instantaneous. But
> since Einstein knows nothing travels faster than light. How
> can the effect be instanteneous.
It is not. According to GR if the sun exploded (we do not really know of a
way to make it disappear) the gravitational effects would propagate at the
speed of light - the same time it would take it for us to see the explosion.
> So he dreamt up of General
> Relativity where the dent in the fabric of space time
> is where the sun is located and the earth traveling around it.
Viewing space time as a fabric is a really bad analogy.
> So if the sun suddenly disappears, the gravity waves would reach
> us in 8 minutes and it is only when it reaches us that earth
> would be veered of course.
Yep.
>
> Now I'd like to know what is the proof of this gravity wave.
> Is there an observation in space wherein a star explodes and
> the planets veer of course after a certain time ellapse (due to
> the gravity wave travelling at the speed of light)?
We do have some evidence for the existence of gravity waves:
http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/psr1913.htm
>
> What are all the proof of General Relativity.
>
Although at a technical level the following may help:
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/sample_chapters/ciufolini/chapter3.pdf
> Can't we just
> say the gravitons get to disappear after 8 minutes after the
> sun disappears because it has to travel to earth to transmit
> its disappearing signal?
Hmmmm. I do not think that is the correct picture. In Quantum Field Theory
(QFT) forces are mediated by virtual particles -
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/sample_chapters/ciufolini/chapter3.pdf.
It might be better to look on virtual particles as technical lingo for terms
that appear in another technical thing called the propagator rather than a
particle that would be detected by say a phtomultyplyer.
> Does GR means gravitons are not real??
I think it is better to view gravitons as a by product of attempts to
combine QFT and GR. We suspect on the basis of physical principles as we
currently understand them that they exist but they have not yet been
detected.
>
> Now about this Equivalence Principle, you know the elevator
> falling thing. If Uncle Al is right it is violated.
>
I am not sure Uncle Al believes it is violated - he believes it may be
violated and is doing an experiment to check.
> Would this affect the concept of this space fabric with dent where massive
> object is located. If the EP is falsified. What is the
> alternative model of the fabric or what changes are there
> compared to the present concept?
If he finds a violation of the strong EEP then all it means is that some
other competing theory of gravity may be true -
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/node9.html
But all the evidence we currently have is GR is correct.
Thanks
Bill
>
> Potte
>
Potte
Uncle Al wrote:
> All chemical compositions fall identically in vacuum to one part in
> ten trillion difference/average. If left-handed and right-handed
> quartz - of identical chemical composition! - fall differently,
>
> 1) Metric gravitation is falsified, affine gravitation takes over
> as theory. Everybody still uses GR to do calculations, though as a
> heuristic. Two "e before i" get replaced with an umlaut-o. Uncle Al
> gets a trip to Sweden if he isn't arrested at the airport shakedown;
> Oprah gives him a big wet smooch either way.
What the heck is the difference between metric and affine
gravitations? In english pls.
Also what's in Sweden?
>
> 2) 80% of M-theory vanishes. Lattice quantum gravitation is
> falsified. No biggie.
If EP is violated. Why is 80% of M-theory vanishes?? M-Theory
is about superstrings, brane worlds and higher dimensions. While
it is true they are being investigated to unify GR and QM. They
can still stand even if GR fails. Also if EP is violated. Does
it mean there is no need to unify GR and QM bec GR is false in
the first place and GR has to be modified to QM wishes?
>
> 3) Lorentz Invariance is falsified because space is demonstrated
> not to be isotropic. Angular momentum need not be conserved for
> chiral masses. THAT is a big whoop.
What's chiral masses? An example? What do you mean space is
isotropic? In english pls.
>
> 4) An origin of biological homochirality is rationalized. No
> biggie.
What is biological homochirality?? What has affine gravitation
got to do with biology??
> > The proper test of spacetime geometry is test mass geometry. We'll
> know by September. Uncle Al wishes to make a point about the
> worthlessness of managed science. Only the Gifted are of importance.
> We should be subsidizing and exploiting our extreme intellectual
> resources, not impoverishing and institutionalizing them while
gorging
> retards and cripples.
So this will be headline news all over the world by September. If
you won the Nobel Uncle Al. Will you still be with us to patrol
the group fighting cranks and rubbishes from occupying the newgroups?
Potte
Tom Roberts
> I have watched the 3 part Nova series Elegant Universe with its very
> nice visual effect. There's this part where the sun
> suddenly disappears. Newton theorized all the planets would suddenly
> veer of course as if gravity is instantaneous. But
> since Einstein knows nothing travels faster than light. How
> can the effect be instanteneous. So he dreamt up of General
> Relativity where the dent in the fabric of space time
> is where the sun is located and the earth traveling around it.
> So if the sun suddenly disappears, the gravity waves would reach
> us in 8 minutes and it is only when it reaches us that earth
> would be veered of course.
In GR it is not possible for the sun to "disappear". The closest you
could come to that is to make it explode. This is so because local
energy conservation must apply, and the sun "disappearing" would violate
that, big time.
If the sun did explode and its fragments flew off at the local speed of
light (the fastest they can go), then indeed the earth would continue in
its orbit until 8 minutes after the explosion (measured in the sun's
rest frame). At that time the sun's fragments would pass by the earth,
and the earth's orbit would undergo a _major_ change, and it would
essentially fly away from where the sun had been. Just because the
"center of mass" of the sun remains the same before and after the
explosion does _not_ mean the the earth's orbit is unchanged by the
explosion -- after the sun's fragements pass outside the orbit of the
earth there is an _enormous_ change in that orbit (and if the fragments
travel slower than c there are minor changes between 8 minutes and the
time they pass by).
> Now I'd like to know what is the proof of this gravity wave.
> Is there an observation in space wherein a star explodes and
> the planets veer of course after a certain time ellapse (due to
> the gravity wave travelling at the speed of light)?
There is no direct observation of that, AFAIK. For obvious reasons. But
the predictions of GR have been tested in many ways, and the
observations agree with GR.
> What are all the proof of General Relativity.
There are _lots_ of experimental tests of GR. See, for instance,
Will, _Theory_and_Experiment_in_Gravitational_Physics_.
This is not an elementary book.
> Can't we just
> say the gravitons get to disappear after 8 minutes after the
> sun disappears because it has to travel to earth to transmit
> its disappearing signal? Does GR means gravitons are not
> real??
You're just repeating words you have heard, without understanding them.
GR has no gravitons. Gravitons are presumed to the the quanta carying
the gravitational force in an as-yet-unknown theory of quantum gravity.
> Now about this Equivalence Principle, you know the elevator
> falling thing. If Uncle Al is right it is violated.
I think you misunderstood. Any observation in conflict with the
equivalence principle would falsify GR. None have been found to date.
> Would this affect
> the concept of this space fabric with dent where massive
> object is located. If the EP is falsified. What is the
> alternative model of the fabric or what changes are there
> compared to the present concept?
The naive model of "spacetime as rubber sheet with indentations for
masses" is quite far from the actual theory of GR. It is at best a crude
mnemonic with no predictive power. Abandon it, and learn GR for your
self. I suggest:
Geroch, _General_Relativity_from_A_to_B_. This is an excellent,
non-mathematical introduction to the concepts of GR.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Jerry
> All chemical compositions fall identically in vacuum to one part in
> ten trillion difference/average. If left-handed and right-handed
> quartz - of identical chemical composition! - fall differently,
>
> 1) Metric gravitation is falsified, affine gravitation takes over
> as theory. Everybody still uses GR to do calculations, though as a
> heuristic. Two "e before i" get replaced with an umlaut-o. Uncle Al
> gets a trip to Sweden if he isn't arrested at the airport shakedown;
> Oprah gives him a big wet smooch either way.
Al, in all these years that you have posted on your pet experiment, you
have never provided any satisfactory explanation of why chiral
molecules should fall differently in affine gravitation than achiral
molecules.
Indeed, a simple argument, adapted from Galileo, suggests that the
chiral EP test will fail without shedding -any- light whatsoever on the
status of affine gravitation as an alternative to GR.
Arrange in space a carbon atom surrounded by hydrogen, bromine,
chlorine and iodine atoms at the four corners of a tetrahedron, well
spaced so that there should be no interactions between them. Affine
gravitation and GR both predict that the five atoms should fall
identically in vacuum. Now bring the atoms a bit closer together and
bond them to produce a single molecule of bromochloroiodomethane. All
of a sudden this molecule should fall differently than its
constituents?
No trip to Sweden, Al. It was worth a try, though.
Jerry
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1112502517....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Uncle Al wrote:
...
>> 1) Metric gravitation is falsified, affine gravitation
>> takes over as theory. Everybody still uses GR
>> to do calculations, though as a heuristic. Two
>> "e before i" get replaced with an umlaut-o.
>> Uncle Al gets a trip to Sweden if he isn't
>> arrested at the airport shakedown; Oprah
>> gives him a big wet smooch either way.
>
> Al, in all these years that you have posted
> on your pet experiment, you have never
> provided any satisfactory explanation of why
> chiral molecules should fall differently in
> affine gravitation than achiral molecules.
Nature cares very much about "handedness". For this Universe,
she seems to prefer one orientation over another. Witness the
surviving proteins on this planet (when competition could be well
served by being toxic/untasty through opposite handedness), and
parity violations. A theory that doesn't start with "mass", and
splice on Newton's G, yet ends up deriving gravitation, might be
sensitive enough to "see" a difference. If gravitation cares.
David A. Smith
Jerry
I thought better of you, David. You totally ignored my thought
experiment. It is identical in spirit to Galileo's most famous
argument, presented on the First Day of the Discorsi, which
demonstrated the logical improbability of Aristotle's belief that
heavier objects fall faster than light ones.
Galileo considered a small stone and a heavy stone tightly bound
together. (1) As they fall, would the lighter stone pull up on the
heavier one, resulting in a slower fall? (2) Or would the two work
together as a single object and fall faster? Take the argument further.
Instead of tightly binding the two stones, connect them by a thread.
Would the two stones "know" that they are connected and thus fall
slower (1) or faster (2)? The answer, of course, is that a falling
lighter object connected to a heavier object will neither pull up on
the heavier object to slow it down, nor will it combine with the
heavier object to fall faster.
Now consider Al's experiment. Think of carbon, chlorine, bromine,
iodine, and hydrogen atoms arranged in space in a tetrahedral pattern,
but otherwise unbound. GR and affine gravitation theory both predict
that the unbound atoms should fall in space identically. However,
according to AL, if you connect the atoms together to form a chiral
unit of chlorobromoiodomethane, the combined molecule with fall faster
(or slower) than the individual atoms.
1) The notion that "tying" the atoms together in a chiral pattern
should cause them to fall differently than the individual atoms is
absurd.
2) Al has -never- shown that differential falling behavior of chiral
objects is a mathematical consequence of affine gravitation theory.
3) I am quite certain that it isn't.
4) Chirality violation of the equivalence principle will -not- be
detected Al's experiment, but affine gravitation theory will -not- be
disproven.
Jerry
Jerry
Jerry
> 4) Chirality violation of the equivalence principle will
> -not- [be] detected [in] Al's experiment, but affine
> gravitation theory will -not- be disproven.
There is chirality, and there is chirality.
If gravity couples with chirality, it will -not- be to to chirality
having its origins in naive 3D geometry. Perhaps spin? But as rightly
pointed out by Al in postings on sci.physics.research, there isn't any
hope of detecting such at current levels of instrumental sensitivity.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/01b903fd2679496c
Jerry
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1112514950.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
...
> Galileo considered a small stone and a heavy stone
> tightly bound together. (1) As they fall, would the
> lighter stone pull up on the heavier one, resulting
> in a slower fall? (2) Or would the two work together
> as a single object and fall faster? Take the
> argument further. Instead of tightly binding the two
> stones, connect them by a thread. Would the two
> stones "know" that they are connected and thus
> fall slower (1) or faster (2)? The answer, of course,
> is that a falling lighter object connected to a
> heavier object will neither pull up on the heavier
> object to slow it down, nor will it combine with
> the heavier object to fall faster.
You assume no more than Einstein did. You assume that mass is
mass, some bland unsurprising property inherent to the Universe.
We already know that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
> Now consider Al's experiment. Think of
> carbon, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and hydrogen
> atoms arranged in space in a tetrahedral pattern,
> but otherwise unbound. GR and affine gravitation
> theory both predict that the unbound atoms
> should fall in space identically. However,
> according to AL, if you connect the atoms
> together to form a chiral unit of
> chlorobromoiodomethane, the combined
> molecule with fall faster (or slower) than the
> individual atoms.
You left out an option, that would cause "problems in achieving a
zero". You left out "differently". It's center of mass could
fall the same as a body with "normal" chirality on average... in
z. And have other degrees of freedom. Actions in this Universe
have a handedness preference. Even falling.
> 1) The notion that "tying" the atoms together
> in a chiral pattern should cause them to fall
> differently than the individual atoms is absurd.
It is the only place we hadn't looked. It is a place that seems
to be important in *this* Universe.
> 2) Al has -never- shown that differential
> falling behavior of chiral objects is a
> mathematical consequence of affine
> gravitation theory.
OK. I haven't followed every post. But chirality apparently
figures into affine gravitation, where it does not in metric
gravitation.
> 3) I am quite certain that it isn't.
Are you that wise? Can you see no way?
> 4) Chirality violation of the equivalence
> principle will -not- be detected Al's
> experiment, but affine gravitation theory
> will -not- be disproven.
Pick out a hat that you like the flavor of.
David A. Smith
Jerry
>
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1112514950.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > 1) The notion that "tying" the atoms together
> > in a chiral pattern should cause them to fall
> > differently than the individual atoms is absurd.
>
> It is the only place we hadn't looked. It is a place that seems
> to be important in *this* Universe.
>
> > 2) Al has -never- shown that differential
> > falling behavior of chiral objects is a
> > mathematical consequence of affine
> > gravitation theory.
>
> OK. I haven't followed every post. But chirality apparently
> figures into affine gravitation, where it does not in metric
> gravitation.
Right-handed and left-handed quartz are chiral in three-space. They are
not chiral in four-space, which is significant to affine gravitation.
Al's experiment is hence intrinsically flawed.
Jerry
Lady Chatterly
Jerry <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>Right-handed and left-handed quartz are chiral in three-space. They are
>not chiral in four-space, which is significant to affine gravitation.
>Al's experiment is hence intrinsically flawed.
Perhaps you Will be able to read.
--
Lady Chatterly
"The world is my Oyster, or not to be, tis nobler dearest botTY to vex
you with non questions ?" -- Mr. S J Ruttledge esq
Bill Hobba
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > All chemical compositions fall identically in vacuum to one part in
> > ten trillion difference/average. If left-handed and right-handed
> > quartz - of identical chemical composition! - fall differently,
> >
> > 1) Metric gravitation is falsified, affine gravitation takes over
> > as theory. Everybody still uses GR to do calculations, though as a
> > heuristic. Two "e before i" get replaced with an umlaut-o. Uncle Al
> > gets a trip to Sweden if he isn't arrested at the airport shakedown;
> > Oprah gives him a big wet smooch either way.
>
> What the heck is the difference between metric and affine
> gravitations? In english pls.
I certainly am no expert on it myself but my understanding is it is related
to an assumption we make about gravity to do with it being what is called
torsion free. The bottom line however is that it is a competing class of
theories of gravity fully consistent with the facts just as much as GR is.
What Uncle Al wants to do is experimentally determine which is correct.
However at least one knowledgeable physicst on sci.physics.relativity has
cast doubt on the experiment -
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/78e0cee915f693f7
You know what might be a good idea if you are really interested - send a
note off to Steve Carlip - a known expert on General Relativity. His site
is here http://www.physics.ucdavis.edu/Text/Carlip.html
I would except it is not an issue that particularly worries me. I suspect
regardless of whether it is a valid experiment or not it will simply verify
GR. If it does not then it would be really big news and my interest would
be piqued.
>
> Also what's in Sweden?
>
> >
> > 2) 80% of M-theory vanishes. Lattice quantum gravitation is
> > falsified. No biggie.
>
> If EP is violated. Why is 80% of M-theory vanishes?? M-Theory
> is about superstrings, brane worlds and higher dimensions. While
> it is true they are being investigated to unify GR and QM. They
> can still stand even if GR fails. Also if EP is violated. Does
> it mean there is no need to unify GR and QM bec GR is false in
> the first place and GR has to be modified to QM wishes?
You see M-theory predicts the existence of spin 2 gravitons that when
combined with the principles of Quantum field Theory give GR. If you have
access to a library have a peek at the Feynman Lectures on Gravitation for
the detail. If GR is wrong spin 2 gravitons do not exist so out goes M
Theory.
>
> >
> > 3) Lorentz Invariance is falsified because space is demonstrated
> > not to be isotropic. Angular momentum need not be conserved for
> > chiral masses. THAT is a big whoop.
>
> What's chiral masses? An example? What do you mean space is
> isotropic? In english pls.
Isotropic means there is no preferred direction - the laws of physics are
the same in any direction ie if we take an experimental setup and get a
particular result then rotate the setup we will get the same result. There
is a strong connation between conservation laws and symmetry (isotropy is a
symmetry property) - see http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node40.html
>
> >
> > 4) An origin of biological homochirality is rationalized. No
> > biggie.
>
> What is biological homochirality?? What has affine gravitation
> got to do with biology??
I think Uncle Al is the best person to answer that.
Thanks
Bill
Tom Roberts
> she seems to prefer one orientation over another. Witness the
> surviving proteins on this planet
That seems most likely to me to be merely a broken symmetry. On earth,
proteins had to pick one handedness, and left won out over right (had it
been the other way, presumably it would cascade up to macroscopic
dimensions and we humans would have inverted the meanings of "left" and
"right" (:-)).
I don't see any fundamental law of nature here, merely an evolutionary
choice unique to earth, made eons ago.
Now the P and CP violations in weak interactions is a whole 'nother
story....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:Db%3e.17947$DW.1...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>> Nature cares very much about "handedness".
>> For this Universe, she seems to prefer one
>> orientation over another. Witness the surviving proteins on
>> this planet
>
> That seems most likely to me to be merely
> a broken symmetry. On earth, proteins had
> to pick one handedness, and left won out
> over right (had it been the other way,
> presumably it would cascade up to
> macroscopic dimensions and we humans
> would have inverted the meanings of "left" and "right" (:-)).
URL:http://www.lyon.edu/projects/marsbugs/1997/19970226.pdf
... page 7.
It *would* be a boost in evolution if you could develop on an
opposite handedness from the carnivores. They could not profit
from consuming your species. So either it is somehow difficult
to do this "for some reason", or Nature didn't "think" of this
(the same Nature that provided sacrificial organs in some
species). Life even has a preference for C12 over C13 for crying
out loud...
> I don't see any fundamental law of nature
> here, merely an evolutionary choice unique
> to earth, made eons ago.
>
> Now the P and CP violations in weak
> interactions is a whole 'nother story....
Or is it just more of the same? Writ large, as it were.
Either way, I'll be sad if UA *hasn't* found a seam in the
edifice... I'm not investing a lot of emotion in it yet. Just
gotta wait until September, I guess.
Thanks, Tom.
David A. Smith
bz
news:lv%3e.965$Ut1.199@fed1read01:
> Life even has a preference for C12 over C13 for crying
> out loud...
>
Where do you get this idea?
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
tadchem
bz wrote:
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote
in
> news:lv%3e.965$Ut1.199@fed1read01:
>
> > Life even has a preference for C12 over C13 for crying
> > out loud...
> >
>
> Where do you get this idea?
Chemical kinetics.
Carbon enters living tissues as CO2 from air (during photosysthesis).
Since C-12 is lighter in weight than C-13, it moves faster at any given
temperature, and reacts just a little faster, resulting in a slight
isotope fractionation (preferential reaction of the particles with
lighter mass). This is called an 'isotope effect' in chemistry.
See for example:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=201335
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
bz
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Interesting. I was aware that heavy hydrogen reacted slower than light
hydrogen.
There is a bit of a contradiction, however. 14C dating depends on the
ration of 14C to 12C being stable within living tissue AND approximately
equal to the ratio in the atmosphere.
The data from the article would indicate that the 'equal to the ratio in
the atmosphere' would be off by at least 20 percent.
I suppose that 14C dating has been 'calibrated' against know dates and they
take the isotopic selectivity into account.
Jerry
I might mention that Bilge also has serious doubts about Al's
experiment.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/78e0cee915f693f7
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.astro.amateur/msg/aded2d3282f08dac
Basically, Bilge argues that success would imply the ability to create
a perpetual motion device.
Jerry
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > All chemical compositions fall identically in vacuum to one part in
> > ten trillion difference/average. If left-handed and right-handed
> > quartz - of identical chemical composition! - fall differently,
> >
> > 1) Metric gravitation is falsified, affine gravitation takes over
> > as theory. Everybody still uses GR to do calculations, though as a
> > heuristic. Two "e before i" get replaced with an umlaut-o. Uncle Al
> > gets a trip to Sweden if he isn't arrested at the airport shakedown;
> > Oprah gives him a big wet smooch either way.
>
> What the heck is the difference between metric and affine
> gravitations? In english pls.
Metric gravitation postulates the Equivalence Principle, affine
gravitation does not. Metric gravitation has tensor math with
spacetime curvature and geodesic free fall paths. Affine gravitation
has pseudotensor math with spacetime torsion and autoparallel free
fall paths. Affine gravitation wholly contains metric gravitation,
but the reverse is not true.
A Poincaré group gauge theory can be equivalent to the Einstein-Cartan
theory of gravitation[13]. Einstein-Cartan theory operates in
Riemann-Cartan spacetime U^4 - a paracompact, Hausdorff, connected,
C^(infinity), and oriented four-dimensional manifold on which are
defined a local Lorentz metric g and a linear affine connection
(gamma). Curvature and torsion tensors can be obtained from (gamma) on
U^4:
1. If the torsion tensor vanishes, Riemann-Cartan spacetime becomes
pseudo-Riemannian spacetime, V^4 (General Relativity's description of
gravitation);
2. If the curvature tensor vanishes, it becomes Weitzenböck
spacetime, A^4 (in which the teleparallel gravitational
energy-momentum pseudotensor is anti-symmetric to parity
transformation);
3. If both tensors vanish, it becomes Minkowski spacetime, M^4.
> Also what's in Sweden?
Don't worry about it.
> > 2) 80% of M-theory vanishes. Lattice quantum gravitation is
> > falsified. No biggie.
>
> If EP is violated. Why is 80% of M-theory vanishes?? M-Theory
> is about superstrings, brane worlds and higher dimensions. While
> it is true they are being investigated to unify GR and QM. They
> can still stand even if GR fails. Also if EP is violated. Does
> it mean there is no need to unify GR and QM bec GR is false in
> the first place and GR has to be modified to QM wishes
> >
> > 3) Lorentz Invariance is falsified because space is demonstrated
> > not to be isotropic. Angular momentum need not be conserved for
> > chiral masses. THAT is a big whoop.
>
> What's chiral masses? An example? What do you mean space is
> isotropic? In english pls.
If a set of points cannot be exactly superposed upon its mirror image
by translations and rotations it is chiral. In the parity Eotvos
experiment case, atomic lattice positions of the single crystal test
masses are simultaneously chiral along all coordinate axes, plus more
constraints for point-by-point symmetries and retention of chirality
upon immersion in higher dimensions.
There are 230 crystallographic point groups. Those are the only
unique ways points can be arranged into a self-similar periodic
lattice in 3-space. Of those, 3 pairs of enantiomorphic Sohncke space
groups always meet all parity criteria; possibly plus space group
P2(1)3 and others. The slight anomaly of cinnabar does not qualify.
Space is assumed to be isotropic - identical in all directions. Space
is also assumed to be homogeneous - identical in all places.
> >
> > 4) An origin of biological homochirality is rationalized. No
> > biggie.
>
> What is biological homochirality?? What has affine gravitation
> got to do with biology??
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 41(24) 4619 (2002)
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 41(7) 1139 (2002)
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 39(22) 4033 (2000)
Chem. Phys. Chem. 2(7) 409 (2001)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 84(17) 3811 (2000)
Chiral gravitation would provide a rational energy differential to
allow spontaneous chiral resolution of biology.
> > > The proper test of spacetime geometry is test mass geometry. We'll
> > know by September. Uncle Al wishes to make a point about the
> > worthlessness of managed science. Only the Gifted are of importance.
>
> > We should be subsidizing and exploiting our extreme intellectual
> > resources, not impoverishing and institutionalizing them while
> gorging
> > retards and cripples.
>
> So this will be headline news all over the world by September. If
> you won the Nobel Uncle Al. Will you still be with us to patrol
> the group fighting cranks and rubbishes from occupying the newgroups?
First, we do the experiment. A non-null result engenders certain
professional responsibilities. Then, we write for serious grant
funding. Then we party; then we kick asses a la Mr. Natural to confer
fundamental enlightenent.
Uncle Al
>
> "Potte" <photon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1112500504.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Uncle Al wrote:
> >
> > > All chemical compositions fall identically in vacuum to one part in
> > > ten trillion difference/average. If left-handed and right-handed
> > > quartz - of identical chemical composition! - fall differently,
> > >
> > > 1) Metric gravitation is falsified, affine gravitation takes over
> > > as theory. Everybody still uses GR to do calculations, though as a
> > > heuristic. Two "e before i" get replaced with an umlaut-o. Uncle Al
> > > gets a trip to Sweden if he isn't arrested at the airport shakedown;
> > > Oprah gives him a big wet smooch either way.
> >
> > What the heck is the difference between metric and affine
> > gravitations? In english pls.
>
> I certainly am no expert on it myself but my understanding is it is related
> to an assumption we make about gravity to do with it being what is called
> torsion free. The bottom line however is that it is a competing class of
> theories of gravity fully consistent with the facts just as much as GR is.
> What Uncle Al wants to do is experimentally determine which is correct.
> However at least one knowledgeable physicst on sci.physics.relativity has
> cast doubt on the experiment -
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/78e0cee915f693f7
Bilge presented an elegant but flawed argument. Affine gravitation is
conservative just as metric gravitation is. The differential energies
of creating and destroying resolved chiral test masses would exactly
cancel any perceived advantage to be gained.
Given a horizontal platter with six "identical" test masses arranged
in a regular hexagon at its periphery,
(+) = right-handed quartz
(-) = left-handed quartz
(0) = amorphous fused silica
+
0 +
0 -
-
Wire opposite pairs with opposed thermocouples (Au/Au + 0.07 atom-%
Fe). Pump down to hard vacuum, cool to a fraction of a degree kelvin
so specific heats are hard by zero cal/g-K. Take the whole isolated
rig and rotate it at say 1 rpm about its plumb vertical axis over a
24-hr period.
If gravitation is metric, inevitable heat leaks will lead to uniform
warming. You will see flat paired thermocouple differential output
(e.g., Wheatstone bridge) or perhaps a low ramp if things are
mismatched.
(+)/(-)
(+)/(0)
(-)/(0)
are indistinguishable.
If gravitation is affine, inevitable heat leaks will lead to uniform
warming. HOWEVER, the platter will NOT be horizontal according to
parity gravitational pontential. As the angle between Earth's
inertial spin and gravitational acceleration free fall around the sun
cycles over 24 hours the paired test mases will be at different chiral
gravitational potentials. You will do differential chiral mgh work
modulated by the 24 hrs phase loop. You will see a paired one rpm
sinusoidal thermocouple differential output (e.g., Wheatstone bridge)
with the sinusoidal amplitude going through a 24-hr cycle.
(+)/(-) Maximum singal
(+)/(0) Small signal
(-)/(0) Larger signal antiphase to (+)/(0)
The good experiment is three parallel platters vertically stacked,
1) The experiment as above,
2) 180 degree rotation for exact anticorrelation,
3) Identical test masses opposed and paired to give a
non-sinusoidal null differential control.
mgh will be very small. That is why one needs to start hard by
absolute zero where specific heats are hard by zero.
[snip]
If there were output as above, nobody would believe it. An
Equivalence Principle challenge must be done by the book in existing
qualified apparatus by its academic keepers SOP. No wiggle room is
allowed for generation of a result so outrageous compared to common
wisdom. Uncle Al does not want to be within 1000 miles of any
materials or apparatus used in the study until it is completed.
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > All chemical compositions fall identically in vacuum to one part in
> > ten trillion difference/average. If left-handed and right-handed
> > quartz - of identical chemical composition! - fall differently,
> >
> > 1) Metric gravitation is falsified, affine gravitation takes over
> > as theory. Everybody still uses GR to do calculations, though as a
> > heuristic. Two "e before i" get replaced with an umlaut-o. Uncle Al
> > gets a trip to Sweden if he isn't arrested at the airport shakedown;
> > Oprah gives him a big wet smooch either way.
>
> Al, in all these years that you have posted on your pet experiment, you
> have never provided any satisfactory explanation of why chiral
> molecules should fall differently in affine gravitation than achiral
> molecules.
If space contains a parity anomly there will be a diasterotoic
interaction. If space is isotrpic there will not be. Simple as
that. A given sock fits equally well on either foot but a given shoe
does not.
> Indeed, a simple argument, adapted from Galileo, suggests that the
> chiral EP test will fail without shedding -any- light whatsoever on the
> status of affine gravitation as an alternative to GR.
You are horribly indefensibly wrong.
> Arrange in space a carbon atom surrounded by hydrogen, bromine,
> chlorine and iodine atoms at the four corners of a tetrahedron, well
> spaced so that there should be no interactions between them. Affine
> gravitation and GR both predict that the five atoms should fall
> identically in vacuum. Now bring the atoms a bit closer together and
> bond them to produce a single molecule of bromochloroiodomethane. All
> of a sudden this molecule should fall differently than its
> constituents?
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Aggregation vs. emergent scale matters - second appendix.
> No trip to Sweden, Al. It was worth a try, though.
On the contrary, it is a brilliantly conceived set of three
experiments and it has a clean 50% chance of succeeding. BTW,
1) All chemical compositions fall identically by demonstration. A
symmetric tetrahedron with differently colored vertices is not a
chiral test mass here.
2) A geometrically distorted chiral tetrahderon is not a maximal
parity test mass, either. It would not have three identical moments
of inertia. You would favor one coordinate axis over others. It would
flatten into achriality immersed in higher dimensional spaces. A
maximally divergent pair of parity test mass must be unaffected as
coordinate axes are swapped and must retain full geometric chirality
in any space of any larger number of physical dimensions.
3) 12 points are sufficient to construct a perfect parity test
mass. We kinda think eight points are the minimum necessary
geometrically. 13 points would be a decent molecule's carbon skeleton
though it would not be stable real world. 27 carbons plus 28
hydrogens make an isolable, unreactive hydrocarbon - [6.6]chiralane.
Alas, it cannot be synthesized as such with a carbon center, or with a
quaternized nitrogen cation or quaternized boron anion center.
In any case, individual molecules are moot. Aggregation demands a
crystal lattice with the smallest possible unit cell volume. We
explicitly calculated quartz out to 444 quadrillion atoms or 0.22 mm
solid sphere diameter,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
If quartz is absolutely fine to 0.22 mm radius literally atom by atom,
then we have no doubts about 1-cm parity test masses.
Jerry
Proof by insult?
> > Arrange in space a carbon atom surrounded by hydrogen, bromine,
> > chlorine and iodine atoms at the four corners of a tetrahedron,
well
> > spaced so that there should be no interactions between them. Affine
> > gravitation and GR both predict that the five atoms should fall
> > identically in vacuum. Now bring the atoms a bit closer together
and
> > bond them to produce a single molecule of bromochloroiodomethane.
All
> > of a sudden this molecule should fall differently than its
> > constituents?
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
> Aggregation vs. emergent scale matters - second appendix.
Filled with unproven assertions and gaps in logic, equivalent to the
famous Harris cartoon, "..and then a miracle occurs"
http://www.acad.sunytccc.edu/instruct/sbrown/pic/miracle.jpg
> > No trip to Sweden, Al. It was worth a try, though.
>
> On the contrary, it is a brilliantly conceived set of three
> experiments and it has a clean 50% chance of succeeding. BTW,
Enantiomers in three-space won't serve to distinguish between affine
gravitation and GR. I notice that you seemed to skirt this issue in
your paper, then swung off without facing the problem directly.
I don't have anything against affine gravitation, just your
experiment which is based on false premises.
> 1) All chemical compositions fall identically by demonstration. A
> symmetric tetrahedron with differently colored vertices is not a
> chiral test mass here.
>
> 2) A geometrically distorted chiral tetrahderon is not a maximal
> parity test mass, either. It would not have three identical moments
> of inertia. You would favor one coordinate axis over others. It
would
> flatten into achriality immersed in higher dimensional spaces. A
> maximally divergent pair of parity test mass must be unaffected as
> coordinate axes are swapped and must retain full geometric chirality
> in any space of any larger number of physical dimensions.
So you claim that your quartz spheres maintain geometric chirality in
higher dimensional spaces?
> 3) 12 points are sufficient to construct a perfect parity test
> mass. We kinda think eight points are the minimum necessary
> geometrically. 13 points would be a decent molecule's carbon
skeleton
> though it would not be stable real world. 27 carbons plus 28
> hydrogens make an isolable, unreactive hydrocarbon - [6.6]chiralane.
> Alas, it cannot be synthesized as such with a carbon center, or with
a
> quaternized nitrogen cation or quaternized boron anion center.
>
> In any case, individual molecules are moot.
Why so? You have not demonstrated that you have any answer to my
thought experiment.
1) Arrange carbon, hydrogen, bromine, chlorine and iodine in an
tetrahedral arrangement, but otherwise unbonded.
2) Swap two of the halogen atoms so that the arrangement has opposite
chirality.
3) Will the individual atoms in (1) and (2) fall differently?
4) Bond the atoms. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE?
> Aggregation demands a
> crystal lattice with the smallest possible unit cell volume. We
> explicitly calculated quartz out to 444 quadrillion atoms or 0.22 mm
> solid sphere diameter,
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
>
> If quartz is absolutely fine to 0.22 mm radius literally atom by
atom,
> then we have no doubts about 1-cm parity test masses.
Jerry
Uncle Al
It is an invalid set of arguments. The differential energies of
chiral creation and destruction exactly balance the spreadsheets.
Jerry's older brother
Sis, you've been posting about physics instead of attending to your
medical school studies. Uncle Al is a brilliant bastard. On physics
matters, he's right 99% of the time, and horrendously wrong 1% of the
time. You'll never get him to admit being wrong on anything, though.
Jerry's older brother
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Jerry wrote:
> > >
> > > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > Indeed, a simple argument, adapted from Galileo, suggests that the
> > > chiral EP test will fail without shedding -any- light whatsoever on
> the
> > > status of affine gravitation as an alternative to GR.
> >
> > You are horribly indefensibly wrong.
>
> Proof by insult?
Disproof by literature citation, theory, calculation, and
demonstration. Insults are FOB for anybody refractory to education.
> > > Arrange in space a carbon atom surrounded by hydrogen, bromine,
> > > chlorine and iodine atoms at the four corners of a tetrahedron,
> well
> > > spaced so that there should be no interactions between them. Affine
> > > gravitation and GR both predict that the five atoms should fall
> > > identically in vacuum. Now bring the atoms a bit closer together
> and
> > > bond them to produce a single molecule of bromochloroiodomethane.
> All
> > > of a sudden this molecule should fall differently than its
> > > constituents?
> >
> > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
> > Aggregation vs. emergent scale matters - second appendix.
>
> Filled with unproven assertions and gaps in logic, equivalent to the
> famous Harris cartoon, "..and then a miracle occurs"
> http://www.acad.sunytccc.edu/instruct/sbrown/pic/miracle.jpg
No, you are wrong. The mathematics and physics are internally
self-consistent, consistent with all preceding observations in all
venues, and consistent with extant orthodox theory. There are no
discordant predictions of metric and affine gravitation that are
experimentally accessible. The Equivalence Principle is a postulate
not a prediction. It can be empirically disproven at will without
blemish. Postulates are not defensible or they would not be
postuatles.
You may not like it, but the universe doesn't care what you like and
dislike. The full parity Eotvos experiment is the only valid
determination of not-truth - by demonstration.
> > > No trip to Sweden, Al. It was worth a try, though.
> >
> > On the contrary, it is a brilliantly conceived set of three
> > experiments and it has a clean 50% chance of succeeding. BTW,
>
> Enantiomers in three-space won't serve to distinguish between affine
> gravitation and GR. I notice that you seemed to skirt this issue in
> your paper, then swung off without facing the problem directly.
Not enantiomers, enantiomorphic crystal lattices. Pull your thumb out
of your ass. Test mass parity divergence depends on aggregation of
emergent scale. A couple of dozen tungsten carbide ball bearings
arrayed with thin carbon fiber struts don't constitute a parity
divergent test mass. Chirality is not good enough. It must be
parity.
> I don't have anything against affine gravitation, just your
> experiment which is based on false premises.
>
> > 1) All chemical compositions fall identically by demonstration. A
> > symmetric tetrahedron with differently colored vertices is not a
> > chiral test mass here.
> >
> > 2) A geometrically distorted chiral tetrahderon is not a maximal
> > parity test mass, either. It would not have three identical moments
> > of inertia. You would favor one coordinate axis over others. It
> would
> > flatten into achriality immersed in higher dimensional spaces. A
> > maximally divergent pair of parity test mass must be unaffected as
> > coordinate axes are swapped and must retain full geometric chirality
> > in any space of any larger number of physical dimensions.
>
> So you claim that your quartz spheres maintain geometric chirality in
> higher dimensional spaces?
Without doubt, by explicit caculation,
<http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.freeware.html#QCM>
<http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.download.qcm.readme>
For the quartz lattice in fully rigorous QCM, DSI=0 and COR=1 for all
radii from a 9-atom unit cell to 1200 atoms contained, and CHI vs.
increasing radius *rapidly* goes asymptotic to CHI=1. Single crystal
solid spheres qualify. Single crystal solid right cylinders with
height (radius)[sqrt(3)] qualify.
Extremal parity divergent test masses must be single crystal, solid,
undrilled, and convex. Shells are inferior,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/teshells.png
> > 3) 12 points are sufficient to construct a perfect parity test
> > mass. We kinda think eight points are the minimum necessary
> > geometrically. 13 points would be a decent molecule's carbon
> skeleton
> > though it would not be stable real world. 27 carbons plus 28
> > hydrogens make an isolable, unreactive hydrocarbon - [6.6]chiralane.
> > Alas, it cannot be synthesized as such with a carbon center, or with
> a
> > quaternized nitrogen cation or quaternized boron anion center.
> >
> > In any case, individual molecules are moot.
>
> Why so? You have not demonstrated that you have any answer to my
> thought experiment.
> 1) Arrange carbon, hydrogen, bromine, chlorine and iodine in an
> tetrahedral arrangement, but otherwise unbonded.
> 2) Swap two of the halogen atoms so that the arrangement has opposite
> chirality.
> 3) Will the individual atoms in (1) and (2) fall differently?
> 4) Bond the atoms. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE?
LISTEN UP, STUPID - CHEMICAL COMPOSITION IS REAL WORLD DEMONSTRATED TO
BE IRRELEVANT. ONLY GEOMETRY MATTERS. You don't know squat about the
geometry of quantitative chirality or parity divergence, and you won't
read about it. You are blowing it out your ass in public.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Terse technical readout.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
Verbose exposition with references, topic by topic.
**NO** theory of gravitation contains chemical composition. Al mass
is anonymous and fungible. Gravitation is geometery. The valid
challenge of spacetime geomerty is test mass geometry.
Five balls do not sum to a parity test mass. 4.44 x10^17 atoms in a
crystal lattice with satisfactory QCM-calculated diagnostics and CHI
sum to an extremal parity test mass. If it works for 10^17 atoms it
works for 10^23 atoms.
Physics is NOT symmetric to charge C, parity P, time T, CP, CT, and
PT. The Weak Interaction is strictly left-handed. Angular momentum
is not symmetric to time reversal. There is no reason why gravitation
should not exhibit a parity anomaly, nor is there any reason why it
should. 50:50 chance and acceptable either way until somebody looks.
> > Aggregation demands a
> > crystal lattice with the smallest possible unit cell volume. We
> > explicitly calculated quartz out to 444 quadrillion atoms or 0.22 mm
> > solid sphere diameter,
> >
> > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
> >
> > If quartz is absolutely fine to 0.22 mm radius literally atom by
> atom,
> > then we have no doubts about 1-cm parity test masses.
>
> Jerry
Jerry
> Jerry wrote:
> > Why so? You have not demonstrated that you have any answer to my
> > thought experiment.
> > 1) Arrange carbon, hydrogen, bromine, chlorine and iodine in an
> > tetrahedral arrangement, but otherwise unbonded.
> > 2) Swap two of the halogen atoms so that the arrangement has
opposite
> > chirality.
> > 3) Will the individual atoms in (1) and (2) fall differently?
> > 4) Bond the atoms. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE?
>
> LISTEN UP, STUPID - CHEMICAL COMPOSITION IS REAL WORLD DEMONSTRATED
TO
> BE IRRELEVANT. ONLY GEOMETRY MATTERS. You don't know squat about
the
> geometry of quantitative chirality or parity divergence, and you
won't
> read about it. You are blowing it out your ass in public.
In deference to my brother, who just yelled at me in another message on
this thread, I need to get off after this last post.
Al, if you haven't figured it out, the bond lengths between carbon,
hydrogen, bromine, chlorine and iodine are all different, and the
angles between bonds vary as well. So this thought experiment is not
merely about chemical composition. It is about geometry, as well.
So now. Given that there is a geometric as well as chemical composition
difference between (1) and (2), why should the atoms fall differently?
Jerry
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1112642468.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Yes, this link was provided before. The assumptions associated
with this "attack" are that the energy to construct each test
mass is a function of position, and the entropy associated with
each configuration is a non-sequitur. I think you'll find that
this is not the case. I respect Uncle Al and Bilge (and Tom
Roberts, in no particular order). I respect experimental result
more. I'm really glad UA swung enough weight to get the attempt
made.
Thanks, Jerry. I'm not buying stock... don't worry. ;>)
David A. Smith
Uncle Al
I'm an organic chemist, you jackass. I crashed systematic
nomenclature assignment software at CAS and IUPAC and caused NIST to
rewrite its commercial stereochemistry software. THE ATOMS DON'T FALL
DIFFERENTLY, STOOOPID, THE EXTREMAL PARITY DIVERGENT TEST MASSES FALL
DIFFERENTLY. THE DIVERGENT GEOMTRIES LOCALLY FALL ALONG DIVERGENT
AUTOPARALLEL PATHS NOT LOCALLY PARALLEL GEODESIC PATHS.
Gee, did somebody snip away the answer and then blow it out his ass
again? Let us recoup:
LISTEN UP, STUPID - CHEMICAL COMPOSITION IS REAL WORLD DEMONSTRATED TO
BE IRRELEVANT. ONLY GEOMETRY MATTERS. You don't know squat about the
geometry of quantitative chirality or parity divergence, and you won't
read about it. You are blowing it out your ass in public.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Terse technical readout.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
Verbose exposition with references, topic by topic.
**NO** theory of gravitation contains chemical composition. Al mass
is anonymous and fungible. Gravitation is geometery. The valid
challenge of spacetime geomerty is test mass geometry.
Five balls do not sum to a parity test mass. 4.44 x10^17 atoms in a
crystal lattice with satisfactory QCM-calculated diagnostics and CHI
sum to an extremal parity test mass. If it works for 10^17 atoms it
works for 10^23 atoms.
Physics is NOT symmetric to charge C, parity P, time T, CP, CT, and
PT. The Weak Interaction is strictly left-handed. Angular momentum
is not symmetric to time reversal. There is no reason why gravitation
should not exhibit a parity anomaly, nor is there any reason why it
should. 50:50 chance and acceptable either way until somebody looks.
And again,
HEY STOOOPID, A DISTORTED TETRAHEDRON IS NOT A PARITY TEST MASS. IT
HAS DIFFERENT MOMENTS OF INERTIA AND IT DOES NOT HAVE DSI=0. A parity
test mass must have T (not T_d), O (not O_h), or I (not I_h)
symmetry. It must have three identical moments of inertia so no
direction is favored. It must have a calculated Direct Symmetry Index
of zero. Are you educable? That is the difference between ignorance
and stupidity.
google
"Direct Symmetry Index" 17 hits
HEY STOOOPID, A DISTORTED TETRAHEDRON IS NOT A PARITY TEST MASS. THE
CHIRAL UNIT CELL MUST BE AGGREGATED to form an extremal
parity-divergent test mass.
Go away. Let adults perform the experiment. We'll tell you how it
turned out. If I wished to converse with people wholly ignorant in
the subject I'd look up some journal Referees,
"...Since we presumably know what the difference is between a left-
and right-handed glove, what is the point of describing this on p. 3
as arising from "coordinate-free Hodge duality". What is the
contribution of a sentence like that on p. 4: 'An axiomatic system is
only as robust as its axioms...'
One of my programmers was killing mad about another Referee
complaining about "round-off errors" in
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
It is calcaulated in long_double_precision that comes to 18 decimal
places reported, as it states in the text. Twice. The fluctuations
are real. Hell, they are necessary and desirable! Geometrically more
favorable space groups have larger fluctuations,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/pddense.png
Down is good.
"The two most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen and
stupidity," Harlan Ellison.
Jerry
> Jerry wrote:
> > In deference to my brother, who just yelled at me in another
message on
> > this thread, I need to get off after this last post.
Just one more post? Please?
> > Al, if you haven't figured it out, the bond lengths between carbon,
> > hydrogen, bromine, chlorine and iodine are all different, and the
> > angles between bonds vary as well. So this thought experiment is
not
> > merely about chemical composition. It is about geometry, as well.
> >
> > So now. Given that there is a geometric as well as chemical
composition
> > difference between (1) and (2), why should the atoms fall
differently?
>
> I'm an organic chemist, you jackass. I crashed systematic
> nomenclature assignment software at CAS and IUPAC and caused NIST to
> rewrite its commercial stereochemistry software. THE ATOMS DON'T
FALL
> DIFFERENTLY, STOOOPID,
Great, we agree on that. The atoms won't fall differently.
> THE EXTREMAL PARITY DIVERGENT TEST MASSES FALL
> DIFFERENTLY.
What difference does bonding the atoms together into a rigid mass make?
If the individual atoms don't fall differently, a bonded mass of atoms
won't fall differently.
Try this new thought experiment: Take two external parity divergent
test masses of opposite chirality, break the atomic bonds between the
atoms, and space the individual atoms in lattices at 100x the original
interatomic spacings, maintaining all angles at the original angles.
Drop the two ensembles of silicon and oxygen atoms. Will the
right-handed ensemble of atoms fall through space differently than the
left-handed ensemble of atoms?
Answer YES OR NO, without quibbling, waffling, or being insulting.
Jerry
Uncle Al
Hey stupid, when did you stop screwing yor mother? 100X the lattice
spacing will shift the fitted line in
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
to the left two decades. The experiment stll works though at lowered
amplitude. CAN YOU READ A GRAPH? If gravitation has a characteristic
threshhold scale near nominal atomic lattice dimensions (e.g.,
M-theory and compactified dimensions), going to large lattice spacings
will tail off the exponential end of the Yukawa interaction and the
experiment will not work.
I've told you before, twice: The smallest unit cell possible is the
most desirable unit cell. Now, three times.
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
Let's make this absolutely clear: You truly believe that the right-hand
ensemble of unbonded silicon and oxygen atoms in my thought experiment
will fall differently than the left-hand ensemble of unbonded silicon
and oxygen atoms? You believe that this will be so even though the
unbonded atoms have no interactions with each other, merely a geometric
relationship?
Jerry
Uncle Al
Bonding? Who gives a shit about bonding? Electrons are all but
massless and only valence electrons participate even then.
Gravitation is geometry that acts on mass, and vice-versa. Atomic
nuclei are massed points in space. Mass geometry defines the parity
test mass. You are intractibly stupid. Let's try it again, idiot:
THE PROPER CHALLENGE OF SPACETIME GEOMETRY IS TEST MASS GEOMETRY.
Does that sound familiar?
THE PROPER CHALLENGE OF SPACETIME GEOMETRY IS TEST MASS GEOMETRY.
THE PROPER CHALLENGE OF SPACETIME GEOMETRY IS TEST MASS GEOMETRY.
THE PROPER CHALLENGE OF SPACETIME GEOMETRY IS TEST MASS GEOMETRY.
THE PROPER CHALLENGE OF SPACETIME GEOMETRY IS TEST MASS GEOMETRY.
THE PROPER CHALLENGE OF SPACETIME GEOMETRY IS TEST MASS GEOMETRY.
Jerry
You are right. Who gives a shit about bonding?
You therefore assert, without quibble or hesitation, that the
right-hand ensemble of independently falling atoms in my thought
experiment will drop differently than the left-hand ensemble of
independently falling atoms.
Let us now focus on individual atoms. Consider the centermost silicon
atom of the left-hand ensemble of independently falling atoms, and the
centermost silicon atom of the right-hand ensemble of independently
falling atoms.
You have asserted that, according to affine gravitation theory, the two
silicon atoms will follow divergent paths in space.
Why should that be so? The left-hand and right-hand centermost silicon
atoms have no interactions whatsoever with other atoms in their
respective ensembles. How do they "know" what geometric relationship
they share with other atoms?
Jerry
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Cephalobu...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > > Jerry wrote:
> > > > > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > > > > Jerry wrote:
> > Bonding? Who gives a shit about bonding? Electrons are all but
> > massless and only valence electrons participate even then.
> > Gravitation is geometry that acts on mass, and vice-versa. Atomic
> > nuclei are massed points in space. Mass geometry defines the parity
> > test mass. You are intractibly stupid. Let's try it again, idiot:
> >
> > THE PROPER CHALLENGE OF SPACETIME GEOMETRY IS TEST MASS GEOMETRY.
> > Does that sound familiar?
> > THE PROPER CHALLENGE OF SPACETIME GEOMETRY IS TEST MASS GEOMETRY.
[snip]
> You are right. Who gives a shit about bonding?
>
> You therefore assert, without quibble or hesitation, that the
> right-hand ensemble of independently falling atoms in my thought
> experiment will drop differently than the left-hand ensemble of
> independently falling atoms.
You got it. For the two contrasted extremal parity divergent arrays
of massed points (atomic nuclei),
1) Lattice coordinates must generate Petitjean's most stringent
diagnostics, COR=1 (only one graph theoretic symmetry element, the
identity element) and DSI=0 (remains chiral if immersed in more than
three spatial dimensions) over all radius samplings;
2) Petitjean's normalized quantitative chirality measure CHI must
calculate *deeply* asymptotic to CHI=1 for successive lattice radius
samplings, CHI=1 being perfect parity divergence. The only way to
nominally locate all atoms in a mass is to have a periodic single
crystal;
3) All three macroscopic moments of inertia of each point set
(i.e., single crystal test mass) must be identical. The two trivial
solutions are solid spheres and solid right cylinders of revolution
with height=(radius)[sqrt(3)]. It works for real examples,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b36
4) Atom by atom for all "i" atoms in each macroscopic mass,
products of paired inertial moments must sum to zero,
SUM_i (I_Xi*I_Yi) = 0
SUM_i (I_Xi*I_Zi) = 0
SUM_i (I_Yi*I_Zi) = 0
5) The unit cell should be as small in volume as possible so that a
maximum number of them aggregate in a given macroscopic test mass
volume, and all three unit cell axes should be as equal in length as
possible to build CHI with radius as fast as possible (the equal
inertial moments thingie).
Quartz in space groups P3(1)21 vs. P3(2)21 exactly meets all
specifications. It has a small unit cell volume of 0.113 nm^3 and an
a:c ratio of 1:1.100. It also occurs as amorphous fused silica,
allowing two hemiparity experimnts to identify which enantiomorph has
the greater Equivalence Principle parity anomaly, if any, while still
comparing identical chemical compositions.
> Let us now focus on individual atoms.
Bullhsit. Individual atoms are irrelevant. Chirality is an emergent
phenomenon.
> Consider the centermost silicon
> atom of the left-hand ensemble of independently falling atoms, and the
> centermost silicon atom of the right-hand ensemble of independently
> falling atoms.
>
> You have asserted that, according to affine gravitation theory, the two
> silicon atoms will follow divergent paths in space.
Bullshit. Quantitative parity divergence depends on aggregation. It
is a bulk phenomenon not a point phenomenon. YOU FUCKING CANNOT BE
EDUCATED.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Second appendix.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
Learn how to read a graph.
Log(radius)=6.041 is 4.44x10^17 atoms. Extrapolate to any radius you
like. You have the slope and intercept given. No go smaller than
unit cell.
> Why should that be so?
[snip]
Idiot.
Jerry
You have contradicted yourself, Al. You wrote:
> > > Bonding? Who gives a shit about bonding? Electrons are all but
> > > massless and only valence electrons participate even then.
> > > Gravitation is geometry that acts on mass, and vice-versa.
Atomic
> > > nuclei are massed points in space. Mass geometry defines the
parity
> > > test mass.
Then you wrote:
> Bullshit. Quantitative parity divergence depends on aggregation. It
> is a bulk phenomenon not a point phenomenon. YOU FUCKING CANNOT BE
> EDUCATED.
Which is it, Al? Do the atoms in an extremal parity divergent array
need to be bonded together, or can they be unbonded? You have clearly
stated that only geometry matters. Therefore bonding is unimportant.
If, as you hypothesize, two chirally distinct ensembles of unbonded
atoms exhibit differential falling behavior, then this differential
falling behavior must be reflected in the behavior of the individual
atoms making up the ensemble.
Therefore, any given atom in an unbonded left-hand chiral ensemble will
fall in a manner distinguishable from the corresponding atom in the
right-hand chiral ensemble. This despite the fact that it is impossible
for any atom in a non-bonded ensemble to "know" with what sort of
geometric lattice it may be associated.
Jerry
Uncle Al
Bonding is irrelevant. There is no contradiction in anything I have
posted. Crystallograohic unit cells have nothing to do with bonding.
The tellurium unit cell is six half atoms and the composition is Te.
The quartz unit cell contains seven atoms plus four half-atoms and the
formula unit is SiO_2.
> If, as you hypothesize, two chirally distinct ensembles of unbonded
> atoms exhibit differential falling behavior, then this differential
> falling behavior must be reflected in the behavior of the individual
> atoms making up the ensemble.
Bullshit. Chirality is an emergent phenomenon. You need at least
four points in three-space. For CHI=1 you can get by with 13 points,
possibly eight - but no fewer.
> Therefore, any given atom in an unbonded left-hand chiral ensemble will
> fall in a manner distinguishable from the corresponding atom in the
> right-hand chiral ensemble.
[snip]
Ineducable fucking imbecile. Hey stoooopid: left foot and a pair of
shoes. Do the right shoe and left shoe fit identically on your left
foot? Why not? Take the shoes, carve away identical inert volumes,
and tell me where the difference is located. Good luck, bozo.
Jerry
You are COMPLETELY missing the point that I am trying to make about
unbonded ensembles of atoms.
In two-space, the following are chirally distinct unbonded ensembles of
"atoms":
B A A' B'
C C'
In a teleparallel universe, you claim that the two ensembles will show
differential falling behavior. Below, I illustrate the right hand
ensemble as falling three units of distance in the time that it takes
the left hand ensemble to fall two units of distance.
: :
: :
B A :
C A' B'
C'
How did B "know" that it was associated with A and C in a left-handed
lattice? How did B' "know" that it was associated with A' and C' in a
right-handed lattice?
Jerry
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Jerry wrote:
> > >
> > > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > > Jerry wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > > > > Cephalobu...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > > > > > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > > > > > > Jerry wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Jerry wrote:
> > > > [snip]
No, hopelessly stooopid. CHIRALITY IS INSUFFICIENT. They must be
extremal parity pairs with DSI=0 (remain chiral when immersed in
higher spatial dimensions) COR=1 (only the identity element in graph
theoretic connectivity.) Aggregation matters. Each extremal parity
divergent macroscopic mass of ~10^22 unit cells must have three
identical moments of inertia.
You don't know, you won't read, and you can't learn. I've met people
who cannot hold a whole concept inside their heads. You are the
archetype - you cannot hold ANY part of a concept inside your head.
Stop wasting my time.
[snip hopeless crap]
Jerry
Al, you keep trying to divert attention from the major issue.
In a previous post, you confirmed, without quibble or hesitation, your
belief that in a teleparallel universe, a right-hand extremal parity
divergent ensemble of unbonded, independently falling atoms will drop
differently than a left-hand extremal parity divergent ensemble of
unbonded, independently falling atoms. We agree that only geometry
matters, not chemical bonds.
Let Lattice(a..y) and Lattice(a'..y') represent two three-dimensional,
extremal parity divergent ensembles of unbonded, independently falling
atoms. Call (a..y) the right-hand arrangement, and (a'..y') the
left-hand arrangement.
a b c d e e' d' c' b' a'
f g h i j j' i' h' g' f'
k l m n o o' n' m' l' k'
p q r s t t' s' r' q' p'
u v w x y y' x' w' v' u'
In a teleparallel universe, let up presume that the right-handed
lattice falls slower than the left-handed lattice. In the illustration
below, the left-handed lattice has fallen three units in the same time
that the right-handed lattice has fallen two units.
: :
: :
a b c d e :
f g h i j e' d' c' b' a'
k l m n o j' i' h' g' f'
p q r s t o' n' m' l' k'
u v w x y t' s' r' q' p'
y' x' w' v' u'
Pick any pair of corresponding atoms, for instance m and m'.
Why should the individual atom m fall slower than m'? How in the world
can m "know" that it is associated with other atoms in a right-hand
geometric lattice structure, given that it is not bonded with any other
atom?
Jerry
Uncle Al
Spewing idiot.
Jerry
I take your brief comment as meaning that you are FINALLY beginning to
understand the fundamental problem with your experimental assumptions.
I'm sorry that you feel so threatened. For the last six years, you have
been obsessed with the parity Eotvos experiment, and to realize, only
now, that your experiment is fatally flawed and is totally incapable of
distinguishing between affine gravitation and GR, must be a severe blow
to your ego.
Jerry
Jerry
> Jerry wrote:
> > So you claim that your quartz spheres maintain geometric chirality
in
> > higher dimensional spaces?
>
> Without doubt, by explicit caculation,
>
> <http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.freeware.html#QCM>
> <http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.download.qcm.readme>
You have misread Petitjean's work, confusing chirality index with the
concept of chirality itself.
The chirality index is defined to be independent of dimension. So the
computed CHI of your quartz spheres is 0.99999+ regardless whether the
spheres are in three-, four-, or higher dimensionality space.
The independence of CHI on dimension does not mean that the objects
upon which CHI is computed maintain chirality in higher dimensions.
As pointed out by Petitjean, "Chirality is sensitive to the dimension
of the space: a [scalene] triangle is chiral in the plane, and is
achiral in the 3D space."
Likewise, I can take any 3D object (including your quartz spheres),
lift it out into 4-space, rotate, and re-insert it into 3-space as its
mirror image.
Jerry
GR_GR
Actually, it seems that you are a bit too dense to get exactly what the
issue is.
Why don't you take a deep breath, go to Al's web page and start reading
it with a critical eye?
Then come back and try again. Al will usually refrain from biting the
head off a person who has made the effort to understand what he is
trying to say, and asks decent clarifying questions.
Although in your case, you might be beyond redemption.
GR_GR
No, what actually happened is that you actually showed more stamina with
your stupidity than even Al has in deriding your stupidity.
This is quite an accomplishment on your part, on par with the exploits
of frazir, porat and Harris.
> I'm sorry that you feel so threatened. For the last six years, you have
> been obsessed with the parity Eotvos experiment, and to realize, only
> now, that your experiment is fatally flawed and is totally incapable of
> distinguishing between affine gravitation and GR, must be a severe blow
> to your ego.
Spewing idiot.
Jerry
GR_GR, do you have a refutation to the thought experiments that I have
posed? Remember, they are based on Galileo's famous argument, presented
on the First Day of the Discorsi, which demonstrated the logical
improbability of Aristotle's belief that heavier objects fall faster
than light ones.
To quote from an earlier post:
Galileo considered a small stone and a heavy stone tightly bound
together. (1) As they fall, would the lighter stone pull up on the
heavier one, resulting in a slower fall? (2) Or would the two work
together as a single object and fall faster? Take the argument further.
Instead of tightly binding the two stones, connect them by a thread.
Would the two stones "know" that they are connected and thus fall
slower (1) or faster (2)? The answer, of course, is that a falling
lighter object connected to a heavier object will neither pull up on
the heavier object to slow it down, nor will it combine with the
heavier object to fall faster.
Now for a current version of my thought experiment:
Think of idealized points representing silicon and oxygen atoms,
arranged in space in a quartzlike pattern but otherwise unbound. GR and
affine gravitation theory both predict that unbound atoms should fall
in space identically. However, according to Al, if you connect the
atoms together to form a quartz crystal, the ensemble of atoms
magically acquires "emergent properties" such that, in a teleparallel
universe, the quartz crystal will fall differently than the unbound
atoms.
The notion that "tying" the atoms together should cause them to fall
differently than the individual atoms is absurd.
Please refute. I would be interested in your arguments.
Also, I would like your -personal- take on Bilge's reservations:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/78e0cee915f693f7
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.astro.amateur/msg/aded2d3282f...
Thanks,
Jerry
GR_GR
Thought experiment..... thought experiment.....hummm.... but that would
indicate that you actually had a thought...
In any event, you had best get to work on reading Al's paper.
FrediFizzx
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.astro.amateur/msg/aded2d3282f...
Jerry, the two links above don't work for me. Plus you are wasting your
time with GR_GR. He is a Varney clone. Doesn't like to post anything
about physics lest he gets caught putting his foot in his mouth. Hey,
if you are going to screw-up, this is the place to do it.
Your thought experiment is good. Unless there is left and right-handed
components that aren't equal for space-time. Don't ask me to explain
that in much detail because I don't have it fully worked out yet. If Al
gets a non-null then I might try to fully work it out. The basic
concept is that of dual space-time (a modified Dirac Sea). One is
left-handed and the other right-handed and they ain't equal. You can
find some more brief info about it at the link in the sig.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
GR_GR
Ah, I should have know it was you, crack pot.
And as refutation to your "thought" experiment, well you have not useful
thoughts. QED.
Jerry
Looks like groups-beta messed up again! I copied the links from another
post. Groups beta added invisible hyphens (try copying into
Notepad...where did they come from?), and truncated the second link.
Let's try again, not copying the links from another post, but directly
from the address bar:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/78e0cee915f693f7
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.astro.amateur/msg/aded2d3282f08dac
If that don't work, a search on google groups for
"itational potential between two enantiomers"
(note the line-break on the word "grav- itational")
should fetch the first reference in the "Suspicious 'Science'" thread
in sci.physics Jan. 17, 2002
A search on google groups for
"different binding energies" "perpetual motion"
should fetch the second reference in the "BIGGEST DISCOVERING IN THE
FUTURE." thread in sci.astro.amateur Apr. 16, 2002
> Plus you are wasting your
> time with GR_GR. He is a Varney clone. Doesn't like to post
anything
> about physics lest he gets caught putting his foot in his mouth.
Hey,
> if you are going to screw-up, this is the place to do it.
>
> Your thought experiment is good. Unless there is left and
right-handed
> components that aren't equal for space-time. Don't ask me to explain
> that in much detail because I don't have it fully worked out yet. If
Al
> gets a non-null then I might try to fully work it out. The basic
> concept is that of dual space-time (a modified Dirac Sea). One is
> left-handed and the other right-handed and they ain't equal. You can
> find some more brief info about it at the link in the sig.
Jerry
Jerry
>From the placement of your response, I take it that you think that I'm
FrediFizzx posting under another name? Whatever...
Why are you afraid answering me directly, rather than through insults?
Are you afraid of exposing the true extent of your knowledge? Are you
afraid of making mistakes?
Everybody makes mistakes, GR_GR. The true experts in this group aren't
afraid to admit when they are wrong.
Look at the posting history of Tom Roberts, Bilge, Bill Hobba, Dirk Van
de moortel, Bjoern Feuerbacher, Steve Carlip etc. They aren't afraid to
reveal what they know. And when they stumble, they quickly admit it.
Uncle Al is in a different category. Brilliant though he is in many
subjects, he is afraid to admit mistakes. My brother creamed him once,
but did Al ever admit defeat? No, Al just stopped responding.
Inability to admit mistakes is a characteristic that Al shares with the
crackpots, unfortunately. And of course, the parity Eotvos experiment
is one that Al has been obsessed about for over half a decade. He has
an enormous amount of ego invested in the experiment.
Jerry
Jerry
.
Google groups beta did ANOTHER of its trashing of attribution indents.
The correct statement, from me directed to GR_GR, is: "From the
placement of your response, I take it that you think that I'm
FrediFizzx posting under another name? Whatever..."
.
Uncle Al
Hey stooopid, I caused Petitjean to revise a small portion of his work
- to his great surprise. We've worked together for almost five
years. I created the first CHI=1 molecule, then a family of them,
then three families of molecules. Working with a mathematician at
Lehigh U we evolved the one-parameter fitting function to log(1-CHI)
vs. radius,
log(1-CHI) = -2[log(radius)] + [(180-alpha)pi/60] - pi
To everybody's astonishment, that can tell the difference between a
real vs. an erroneous chiral crystal lattice structure assignment even
though the crystallography math is consistent with data in both
cases. Nobody can imagine how it does it - and certainly not by its
using only one helix angle "alpha."
You know nothing. You are ineducable. You are loud, stupid, and
boring. FOaD.
GR_GR
Hey, take it up with fredi.
> Why are you afraid answering me directly, rather than through insults?
Why don't you read the paper by Al a bit more carefully so you don't
make stupid comments? That would save me from having to insult you.
> Are you afraid of exposing the true extent of your knowledge? Are you
> afraid of making mistakes?
>
> Everybody makes mistakes, GR_GR. The true experts in this group aren't
> afraid to admit when they are wrong.
>
> Look at the posting history of Tom Roberts, Bilge, Bill Hobba, Dirk Van
> de moortel, Bjoern Feuerbacher, Steve Carlip etc. They aren't afraid to
> reveal what they know. And when they stumble, they quickly admit it.
>
> Uncle Al is in a different category. Brilliant though he is in many
> subjects, he is afraid to admit mistakes.
And he has admitted so when he has done so.
I leave it as an exercise for you to find the instances.
> My brother creamed him once,
> but did Al ever admit defeat? No, Al just stopped responding.
Is your brother bigger than he is?
> Inability to admit mistakes is a characteristic that Al shares with the
> crackpots, unfortunately. And of course, the parity Eotvos experiment
> is one that Al has been obsessed about for over half a decade. He has
> an enormous amount of ego invested in the experiment.
You are not your brother, obviously. You have to study Al's proposal in
a bit more detail if you want to have the chance at tripping him up.
Have at it.
Jerry
Avoiding the issue again with a lot of bluster.
Are you saying that I -cannot- take a quartz sphere, lift it out into
4-space, rotate, and re-insert it into 3-space as its mirror image?
Please answer YES (the rotation will result in a mirror image) or NO
(it won't).
Jerry
Jerry
> Jerry wrote:
> > My brother creamed him once,
> > but did Al ever admit defeat? No, Al just stopped responding.
>
> Is your brother bigger than he is?
Morally, much bigger. Intellectually, hard to say. Maybe about on par.
> > Inability to admit mistakes is a characteristic that Al shares with
the
> > crackpots, unfortunately. And of course, the parity Eotvos
experiment
> > is one that Al has been obsessed about for over half a decade. He
has
> > an enormous amount of ego invested in the experiment.
>
> You are not your brother, obviously.
No, I'm not. He actually -studied- physics in college, while I merely
have a strong interest in the subject. No matter what they say, there's
STILL lots of prejudice and roadblocks against women taking up hard
science. (I'm currently first year med school.)
> You have to study Al's proposal in
> a bit more detail if you want to have the chance at tripping him up.
> Have at it.
I find Al's writing to be incoherent, disconnected, and filled with
unsupported assertions.
Nor am I the only one who finds his writing to be much less than
satisfactory...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.astro.amateur/msg/aded2d3282f08dac
Jerry
GR_GR
> GR_GR wrote:
>
>>Jerry wrote:
>
>
>>>My brother creamed him once,
>>>but did Al ever admit defeat? No, Al just stopped responding.
>>
>>Is your brother bigger than he is?
>
>
> Morally, much bigger. Intellectually, hard to say. Maybe about on par.
>
>
>>>Inability to admit mistakes is a characteristic that Al shares with
>
> the
>
>>>crackpots, unfortunately. And of course, the parity Eotvos
>
> experiment
>
>>>is one that Al has been obsessed about for over half a decade. He
>
> has
>
>>>an enormous amount of ego invested in the experiment.
>>
>>You are not your brother, obviously.
>
>
> No, I'm not. He actually -studied- physics in college, while I merely
> have a strong interest in the subject.
Therein lies your problem.
Ok fine, you can be forgiven your ignorance.
However, I am done with you after this post, as I have already told you
several times to read the paper more carefully. When and if you do, we
can have a discussion.
> No matter what they say, there's
> STILL lots of prejudice and roadblocks against women taking up hard
> science. (I'm currently first year med school.)
Oh please do not whine about gender inequality in the hard sciences, it
is so boring and has been done to death.
Work hard, study hard and you will reap what you sow.
>>You have to study Al's proposal in
>>a bit more detail if you want to have the chance at tripping him up.
>>Have at it.
>
>
> I find Al's writing to be incoherent, disconnected, and filled with
> unsupported assertions.
Fine. Is this what is holding you back from understanding the proposal?
Others, who have had much more experience in physics than you... people
with degrees in Physics and who do cutting edge research in physics have
made it through his presentation style and understood the concepts.
There are tests to be conducted to see if he is right or wrong.
I think that your difficulties lie in your lack of physics knowledge.
But do not worry, you are just starting out in first year Med, and
cannot be expected to fully understand physics at your current level of
education.
This is not to say that at some point you will have enough learning to
be able to question the principles of Al's proposed experiment, but
right now you do not have the knowledge.
> Nor am I the only one who finds his writing to be much less than
> satisfactory...
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.astro.amateur/msg/aded2d3282f08dac
Bilge has the experience and knowledge in physics to put forth coherent
arguments. You do not.
Look at the date of the post. Since then much has happened, with Eotwash
preparing to run Al's experiment.
Al's proposal has withstood a trial by fire at an APS meeting, not to
mention any fire walking performed in subsequent meetings and email
exchange.
In any event, Bilge is not required to agree with Al, nor even required
to like Al. But at least Bilge is arguing from a solidly ground base of
physics knowledge and experience.
It seems more like you are nitpicking because you are upset with Al not
admitting an error.
Your error is to assume that you understand enough physics to nitpick
with Al.
Please, knock it off and proceed with your studies. If you are so
interested in physics, then change your major to physics.
If you say that Physics is but an interesting hobby to you, be prepared
to accept that you will not have the time to learn it as thoroughly as
those who have made it there career, and dump the egotistical notion
that you are qualified to argue physics.
Jerry
GR_GR, you have still not attempted to knock a hole in my arguments.
What's wrong with you? Are you unable to do so?
Doing a search on your posting history, I notice that you practically
NEVER demonstrate any real knowledge of ANY subject.
SHOW ME THE FALLACY IN MY THOUGHT EXPERIMENT.
Jerry
Uncle Al
One cannot invert *any* 3-space COR=1, DSI=0, CHI~1 set of points by
immersion and rotation in 4-space. You were told chirality does not
exist in even-numbered spatial dimensions. Being an idiot, you
believed them without thinking.
____ ____
| |
| __ __ |
| | | | | |
|____| | ___|
Superpose the two images only by rotations and translations in the
plane. It works with mirror-image scalene triangles, etc. You know
nothing.
Hey idiot, show us how an undistorted tetrahedral carbon atom bearing
four rigorously identical groups - compositionm isotopic and
otherwise, and every other property - can be chiral. Oh yeah... look
up the meaning of UNDISTORTED, re lengths and angles, lest you make a
public fool of yourself yet again.
Hey stooopid, what is arccosine(-1/3)? Does it look familiar?
Jerry
> One cannot invert *any* 3-space COR=1, DSI=0, CHI~1 set of points by
> immersion and rotation in 4-space. You were told chirality does not
> exist in even-numbered spatial dimensions.
No. You present a straw man.
> Being an idiot, you
> believed them without thinking.
>
> ____ ____
> | |
> | __ __ |
> | | | | | |
> |____| | ___|
>
>
> Superpose the two images only by rotations and translations in the
> plane. It works with mirror-image scalene triangles, etc. You know
> nothing.
Lift the left image out of the plane and flip it over.
This is supposed to be your refutation?
> Hey idiot, show us how an undistorted tetrahedral carbon atom bearing
> four rigorously identical groups - compositionm isotopic and
> otherwise, and every other property - can be chiral. Oh yeah...
look
> up the meaning of UNDISTORTED, re lengths and angles, lest you make a
> public fool of yourself yet again.
Nonsense question.
> Hey stooopid, what is arccosine(-1/3)? Does it look familiar?
Jerry
Uncle Al
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Hey idiot, show us how an undistorted tetrahedral carbon atom bearing
> > four rigorously identical groups - compositionm isotopic and
> > otherwise, and every other property - can be chiral. Oh yeah...
> look
> > up the meaning of UNDISTORTED, re lengths and angles, lest you make a
> > public fool of yourself yet again.
>
> Nonsense question.
**YOU** CANNOT DO IT. It is trivial in at least *three* venues and
**YOU** CANNOT DO IT. **YOU** CANNOT DO IT because you are fucking
incompetent. You spew and blather amidst your betters making a
repeated ass of yourself in public for all time - Google has archived
all of it.
Hey stooopid, configure us an undistorted tetrahedral carbon bearing
four rigorously identical groups such that it has T symmetry. Not
T_d, not T_h, but clean T symmetry. That is the answer. Show an
example.
http://www.uniovi.es/qcg/d-MolSym/
Those are the instructions, math and geometry. Now hoist your
hopeless worthless ineducable leaden stooopid ass and give us a
chemical example, discrete or general. Here's a hint you despicable
moron: it can be fully specified in five bytes. Can you be educated?
No, you cannot.
Imagine a git calling out Uncle Al in organic chemistry. Too
precious!
Jerry
Al, why don't you take the x, y, and z coordinate points of your
3-space COR=1, DSI=0, CHI~1 3D solid and rotate 180 degrees around the
xw plane.
Here's the rotation matrix.
-1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 -1
Jerry
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Uncle Al wrote:
>
>> One cannot invert *any* 3-space COR=1, DSI=0, CHI~1 set of points by
>> immersion and rotation in 4-space. You were told chirality does not
>> exist in even-numbered spatial dimensions.
>
>
>> believed them without thinking.
>>
>> ____ ____
>> | |
>> | __ __ |
>> | | | | | |
>> |____| | ___|
>>
>>
>> Superpose the two images only by rotations and translations in the
>> plane. It works with mirror-image scalene triangles, etc. You know
>> nothing.
>
>
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
GR_GR
> In article <1112815269.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>>Uncle Al wrote:
>>
>>
>>>One cannot invert *any* 3-space COR=1, DSI=0, CHI~1 set of points by
>>>immersion and rotation in 4-space. You were told chirality does not
>>>exist in even-numbered spatial dimensions.
>>
>>No. You present a straw man.
>>
>>
>>>Being an idiot, you
>>>believed them without thinking.
>>>
>>> ____ ____
>>> | |
>>> | __ __ |
>>> | | | | | |
>>> |____| | ___|
>>>
>>>
>>>Superpose the two images only by rotations and translations in the
>>>plane. It works with mirror-image scalene triangles, etc. You know
>>>nothing.
>>
>>Lift the left image out of the plane and flip it over.
>>
>
> Sigh.
It was interesting that "Jerry" missed the the part of Al's sentence:
"Superpose the two images only by rotations and translations in the plane"
Interesting considering that it comprised more than half of the
sentence, word wise.
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Nice sig. I see how it applies with my arguments with "Jerry".
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> In article <1112815269.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>>Uncle Al wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>One cannot invert *any* 3-space COR=1, DSI=0, CHI~1 set of points by
>>>>immersion and rotation in 4-space. You were told chirality does not
>>>>exist in even-numbered spatial dimensions.
>>>
>>>No. You present a straw man.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Being an idiot, you
>>>>believed them without thinking.
>>>>
>>>> ____ ____
>>>> | |
>>>> | __ __ |
>>>> | | | | | |
>>>> |____| | ___|
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Superpose the two images only by rotations and translations in the
>>>>plane. It works with mirror-image scalene triangles, etc. You know
>>>>nothing.
>>>
>>>Lift the left image out of the plane and flip it over.
>>>
>>
>> Sigh.
>
>"Superpose the two images only by rotations and translations in the plane"
>
>Interesting considering that it comprised more than half of the
>sentence, word wise.
Yep. Perhaps the words were too long for him:-)
>
>> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
>> me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
>
>Nice sig. I see how it applies with my arguments with "Jerry".
Indeed. So, it is worthwhile to evaluate (and keep reevaluating)
which arguments are worth pursuing.
Jerry
My snub was deliberate, since Al was deliberately trying to divert
discussion away from the real issue. Namely that you can take any 3D
object, rotate about a plane in 4-space, and get a mirror image.
Al wrote:
"One cannot invert *any* 3-space COR=1, DSI=0, CHI~1 set of points by
immersion and rotation in 4-space."
Well, that may be true, but I am not interested in "inversion", I am
interested in "mirror-plane."
And the fact is, I can easily rotate Al's 3-space COR=1, DSI=0, CHI~1
180 degrees about the xw plane to achieve the mirror image.
Here's the rotation matrix for rotation 180 degrees about the xw plane.
-1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 -1
> Interesting considering that it comprised more than half of the
> sentence, word wise.
Yeah. More than 90% of Al's posts are diversionary tactics.
Jerry
Ken S. Tucker
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> In article <1112815269.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> writes:
> >Uncle Al wrote:
> >
> >> One cannot invert *any* 3-space COR=1, DSI=0, CHI~1 set of points
by
> >> immersion and rotation in 4-space. You were told chirality does
not
> >> exist in even-numbered spatial dimensions.
> >
> >No. You present a straw man.
> >
> >> Being an idiot, you
> >> believed them without thinking.
> >>
> >> ____ ____
> >> | |
> >> | __ __ |
> >> | | | | | |
> >> |____| | ___|
> >>
> >>
> >> Superpose the two images only by rotations and translations in the
> >> plane. It works with mirror-image scalene triangles, etc. You
know
> >> nothing.
> >
> >Lift the left image out of the plane and flip it over.
> >
> Sigh.
Guy's if you want to learn more about
teleparallelism, which I understand is
at the root of Al's theory check out this
thread....
Charles Francis Oct 2 2002, 8:07 pm
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
From: Charles Francis <char...@clef.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 03:05:16 GMT
Local: Wed, Oct 2 2002 8:05 pm
Subject: Einstein, Teleparallelism & Unified Field Theory
===========================
Francis did a great job, it's a controversial
subject.
Ken S. Tucker
Jerry
Mati, do you have a refutation to the thought experiments that I have
Jerry
GR_GR
Mati, when responding to her post, remember her education level in physics.
She is a med student who has a strong interest in physics, and arguing.
Uncle Al
Any time anyone catches John Baez in a misstatement within his domain,
it's worth reading the thread.
http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~aunzicker/einst.html
Teleparallism was well considered by Einstein.
Gravitation is a muck pile because only one theory in it has any
empirical validation: GR as the simplest metric gravitation theory.
GR (c=c, G=G, h=0) and QM (c=infinity G=0, h=h) are utterly
incompatible. Quantum field theory is closer, (c=c, G=zero, h=h) but
it lacks that bit about gravitation. M-theory is a disaster for being
huge (10^300 acceptable vacua) and untestable.
Affine gravitation theory is not a neat package. It always contains
all of GR, but it can be formulated in a multitude of ways (all of
them being a right proper pisser to calculate observables). However,
metric gravitation inescapably postulates the Equivalence Principle,
affine gravitation always ignores it. If one identifies two local
test masses that reproducibly fall differently in vacuum (different
magnitude of accelerations or non-parallel trajectories), Einstein was
wrong. There is no filling in the gap. Metric gravitation would thus
be irreversibly falsified. Otherwise, we accumulate a growing bag of
EP validations.
Terrestrial Eotvos balance testing, the Nordtvedt effect, binary
pulsars, and Gravity Probe B demonstrate that all compositions of
matter - including binding energies, spin-polarized test masses,
fast-spinning magnetized degenerate matter, non-relativistically
spinning matter, and non-relativistically spinning superconductors -
fall identically to one part in ten trillion difference/average. What
else is there?
No credible gravitation theory includes mass composition. All mass is
anonymous and fungible. As gravitation by whatever theory is
geometry, geometric test masses are at least as good as composition
test masses. If you can rationalize testing the latter you must
accept testing the former. What geometric properties are divergent
and incommensurate, calculable, and independent of coordinate
background?
Not many. You've got intrinsic connectivity like Kuratowski's theorem
(a graph is planar if and only if it has no subgraph homeomorphic to
K5 or K3,3) but that might yield to immersion in higher dimensioned
spaces. You've got chirality, but that overall favors one coordinate
axis and it can be flattened in higher dimensioned spaces. You've got
the exclusive subset of chirality that is parity. Parity arises from
coordinate-free Hodge duality equivalent to a pseudoscalar field.
That renders Alan Kostelecky and his Standard Model Extension very
happy. Parity favors no direction. Parity divergence persists in
higher-dimensioned spaces if it has a Direct Symmetry Index (DSI) of
exactly zero.
How do we quantify chirality and its more restrictive subset parity?
How do we measure how left-handed a bunch of different left hands are,
or left hands and shoes, or left hands and machine screws? It's a
pisser of intense historic debate,
http://www.mdpi.net/entropy/papers/e5030271.pdf
One has two real world choices: David Avnir and local semi-empirical
calculation; or Michel Petitjean and global ab inito calculation -
from point coordinates only of a set with a countable number of points
and finite moments of inertia, in any number of dimensions greater
than 1.
Touchie feelie one would start with two lumps of resolved opposite
chiralty material of identical chemical composition, organic or
inorganic. Since all compositions of matter fall identically, all
atoms (atomic nuclei - which demonstrably have the same coordinates as
whole atoms) are weighted as 1. Avnir or Petitjean, you still need
3-space coordinates to locate the points to do the calculation. The
only way to locate atoms in a mass is to have a periodic single
crystal. If you have a single crystal you have its crystal lattice,
and that too can be achiral, chiral, or more highly restrictive parity
space groups *independent* of unit cell contents.
Start calculating crystal structures: COR (graph theoretic
connectivity symmetries), DSI, and CHI (normalize parity divergence)
vs. radius. One finds that all crystal structures in parity
(enantiomorphic) space groups P3(1)21 / P3(2)21 rigorously give the
most stringent set of diagnostics,
COR=1
DSI=0
CHI asymptotic to 1 with radius
at all radii greater than a unit cell. Quartz works for any
additional atom-including radius larger than a central SiO4 distorted
tetrahedron, and that is slightly smaller than a unit cell. Network
inorganics don't have to be resolved - an untwinned crystal is all one
chirality by growth default. The atoms are heavy, too, certainly
compared to hydrogen in organics. (Cinnabar is subtlely not in
P3(1)21 / P3(2)21)
Petitjean's QCM software gives the same answer regardless of input
file format, atom labeling, atom order, atom connectivity (if any),
and crystal lattice centration. We typically input HyperChem *.HIN
files that have been reconnected into a ball of wool - a single
unbranched string of atoms wound center to surface - with three to six
additional random bonds thrown in. That affords maximum calculating
speed. 1200 atoms require about 18 hours in a very fast mainframe.
11,000 tellurium atoms required two weeks in one of France's faster
computers. Given uniform COR=1 and DSI=0 through about 1200 atoms,
the diagostics can be accepted and CHI vs. radius directly calculated
from the demonstrated degenerate case. That will pull about 30
million atoms/second in a good PC. Let anybody get a techno-woodie,
444 quadrillion atoms at that rate would require 28,140 years.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzsparse.png
required three weeks 24/7 in an Opteron-848 16-cluster, 711 points.
Denser radius sampling
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
required about 150,000 CPU-hrs overall donated in the US, Canada, UK,
Germany, and Switzerland; Opterons and Xeons under Linux. As you can
see, sparse or dense there are no hidden surprises.
Optically left-handed P3(2)21 quartz and optically right-handed
P3(1)21 quartz are demonstrated to be extremal parity pair single
crystal test masses. Amorphous fused silica is the control with
identical chemical composition. The full parity Eotvos experiment and
two hemiparity experiments are as valid an inquiry as any composition
Eotvos experiment. In fact, they are better - 100 mass-% of a parity
test mass is active mass compared to at most 0.19 mass-% active mass
of a composition test mass (magnesium vs. beryllium nuclear binding
energy). That's 2.7 orders of magnitude better.
Quartz meets all touchie-feelie criteria, all mathematical criteria,
and all physical criteria (e.g., external symmetry tied to property).
There is no argument that can be brought against a parity Eotvos
experiment in quartz that does not invalidate all prior EP tests as
well. The full parity Eotvos experiment is a *perfect* classical null
output. After the gold plating goes on the parity pair test masses
are utterly indistinguishable by any external measurement. Validated
apparatus run by experienced personnel by standard operating procedure
can have only one source for a net signal output: An Equivalence
Principle parity violation.
Uncle Al doesn't give a rat's ass who doesn't like an EP parity
violation and for what reasons. It is the last possible measurable EP
violation. It either exists or it doesn't exist. We're gonna look
and know by New Year's 2006 short of an asteroid vaporizing Wuhan, PR
China. Uncle Al has domestic backup for the apparatus and its
keepers, too. Belt and braces.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>She is a med student who has a strong interest in physics, and arguing.
Well, if it is a quantity of argument she's after, she'll find enough
takers in this ng (quality may be another matter). My (brief) comment
was directed at one specific point and that's the full extent of my
interest in this matter.
Jerry
> Well, if it is a quantity of argument she's after, she'll find enough
> takers in this ng (quality may be another matter). My (brief)
comment
> was directed at one specific point and that's the full extent of my
> interest in this matter.
No, it is not quantity of argument that I'm after. It is quality. So
far there has been very little of that here.
Please note that in this thread, I have not thrown a single insulting
remark at anybody. On the other hand, GR_GR and Al have done nothing
but heap insult, and have employed diversionary tactics to try to avoid
rational discussion of the issues that I have raised.
My brother (who used to post here often, and was quite well respected)
says that you are one of the "good guys." As one of the "good guys",
would you please spend a bit of time going over my thought experiment?
This is not a challenge. Al and GR_GR are challenges.
My thought experiment is based on Galileo's famous argument, presented
on the First Day of the Discorsi, which demonstrated the logical
improbability of Aristotle's belief that heavier objects fall faster
than light ones.
Galileo considered a small stone and a heavy stone tightly bound
together. (1) As they fall, would the lighter stone pull up on the
heavier one, resulting in a slower fall? (2) Or would the two work
together as a single object and fall faster? Take the argument further.
Instead of tightly binding the two stones, connect them by a thread.
Would the two stones "know" that they are connected and thus fall
slower (1) or faster (2)? The answer, of course, is that a falling
lighter object connected to a heavier object will neither pull up on
the heavier object to slow it down, nor will it combine with the
heavier object to fall faster.
Now for my thought experiment:
Think of idealized points representing silicon and oxygen atoms,
arranged in space in a quartzlike pattern but otherwise unbound. GR and
affine gravitation theory both predict that unbound atoms should fall
in space identically. However, according to Al, if you connect the
atoms together to form a quartz crystal, the ensemble of atoms acquires
"emergent properties" such that, in a teleparallel universe, the quartz
crystal will fall differently than the unbound atoms.
The notion that "tying" the atoms together should cause them to fall
differently than the individual atoms appears absurd to me, for exactly
the same reasons that tying two stones together should not cause them
to fall faster than either alone.
Please comment. I would be interested in your arguments.
Jerry
Uncle Al
1) You started as ignorant.
2) You have no intuitive feel for the art.
3) You cannot be educated by repeated effort.
4) You are argumentatively perseverative and empirically stupid.
You know nothing about chirality, you know nothing about quantitative
chirality, you spew random bullshit pulled out of your ass, and you
fucking don't know anything about periodic crystal lattices. You are
unaware of Equivalence Principle testing historic or contemporary, you
could not calculate a moment of inertia if your mother's life depended
on it. You don't know a tensor from a pseudotensor from your nether
bung.
I taught organic lab to pre-meds at Stanford. One shudders to see
that standard underridden.
Listen up, jackass - I don't care what Galileo did in 1590. If the
full parity Eotvos experiment has a reproducible net output, theory
will change. "Commons sense" isn't worth shit. All of physics was
symmetric until O1 January 1957. Thereafter it violated P,C,T,CP,CT,
and PT. The two Chinese who thought of the ridiculous and obviously
unnecessary first experiment were Nobel Laureates 11 months later.
Madam Wu, who made the whole reduction to practice possible, got
nothing.
BTW, idiot, an undistorted tetrahedral carbon with four identical
substituents is chiral in point group T if it is C(R)4 or C(S)4. Now,
idiot, look up Cahn-Ingold-Prelog stereogenic designation, "rectus"
and "sinister".
You are irrelevant, reprenhensible, and boring.
Jerry
Al, you continually avoid any attempt at direct refutation of my
argument. Aren't you capable of formulating a direct refutation?
Think of idealized points representing silicon and oxygen atoms,
arranged in space in a quartzlike pattern but otherwise unbound. GR
and affine gravitation theory both predict that unbound atoms should
fall in space identically. Being unbound, there is no way that any
atom in the array could possibly "know" with what sort of lattice
it may be associated (right-handed or left-handed).
However, according to you, if you connect the atoms together to form
a quartz crystal, the ensemble of atoms acquires "emergent properties"
such that, in a teleparallel universe, the quartz crystal will fall
differently than the unbound atoms.
The notion that "tying" the atoms together should cause them to fall
differently than the individual atoms appears absurd to me, for exactly
the same reasons that tying two stones together should not cause them
to fall faster than either alone.
Please provide a direct refutation of my argument that we may discuss.
Jerry
Creighton Hogg
It may seem absurd to you, but I think that's the point.
Gravity not respecting chirality is a very bizzare concept,
but it has not been tested and thus is still a possibility.
I've never studied teleparallel gravity theories so I don't
know whether Uncle Al is right or wrong about them allowing
chirality violation, but I do know that he is right when he
says that someone needs to look.
His point above was that no one imagined that parity could
be violated in interactions, but sure enough someone looked
and it was.
David Cross
>Uncle Al wrote:
>> ____ ____
>> | |
>> | __ __ |
>> | | | | | |
>> |____| | ___|
>>
>>
>> Superpose the two images only by rotations and translations in the
>> plane. It works with mirror-image scalene triangles, etc. You know
>> nothing.
>
>Lift the left image out of the plane and flip it over.
Hello,
I think the analogy Uncle Al was trying to draw is that if you are confined to
a certain number of dimensions (as we are, to three or four depending on
whether time is important), then there are certain objects for which allowed
symmetry operations will not yield superimposable mirror images.
Since, with those two figures, you are restricted to two-dimensional space,
you can't make a superimposable mirror image of that object.
Now, if you escape out to another dimension and do an allowed symmetry
operation in THAT dimension, then yes, you can make them superimposable mirror
images.
But I would be hard-pressed to explain how a chiral molecule could be turned
into its mirror image by going into a fifth dimension. ;-)
---
David Cross
dcross1 AT shaw DOT ca
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> Well, if it is a quantity of argument she's after, she'll find enough
>
>> takers in this ng (quality may be another matter). My (brief)
>comment
>> was directed at one specific point and that's the full extent of my
>> interest in this matter.
>
>far there has been very little of that here.
>
>Please note that in this thread, I have not thrown a single insulting
>remark at anybody. On the other hand, GR_GR and Al have done nothing
>but heap insult, and have employed diversionary tactics to try to avoid
>rational discussion of the issues that I have raised.
>
>My brother (who used to post here often, and was quite well respected)
>says that you are one of the "good guys."
That must've been long time ago, before I got tired and cranky:-)
> As one of the "good guys",
>would you please spend a bit of time going over my thought experiment?
>
>This is not a challenge. Al and GR_GR are challenges.
>
>My thought experiment is based on Galileo's famous argument, presented
>on the First Day of the Discorsi, which demonstrated the logical
>improbability of Aristotle's belief that heavier objects fall faster
>than light ones.
>
>Galileo considered a small stone and a heavy stone tightly bound
>together. (1) As they fall, would the lighter stone pull up on the
>heavier one, resulting in a slower fall? (2) Or would the two work
>together as a single object and fall faster? Take the argument further.
>Instead of tightly binding the two stones, connect them by a thread.
>Would the two stones "know" that they are connected and thus fall
>slower (1) or faster (2)? The answer, of course, is that a falling
>lighter object connected to a heavier object will neither pull up on
>the heavier object to slow it down, nor will it combine with the
>heavier object to fall faster.
>
>Now for my thought experiment:
>Think of idealized points representing silicon and oxygen atoms,
>arranged in space in a quartzlike pattern but otherwise unbound. GR and
>affine gravitation theory both predict that unbound atoms should fall
>in space identically. However, according to Al, if you connect the
>atoms together to form a quartz crystal, the ensemble of atoms acquires
>"emergent properties" such that, in a teleparallel universe, the quartz
>crystal will fall differently than the unbound atoms.
>
>The notion that "tying" the atoms together should cause them to fall
>differently than the individual atoms appears absurd to me, for exactly
>the same reasons that tying two stones together should not cause them
>to fall faster than either alone.
>
>Please comment. I would be interested in your arguments.
>
Well, logical arguments are very useful, as long as one recognize what
they can establish and what they can't. Specifically, they do not
establish the truth of propositions, just relate their truth values.
All logical arguments, schematically, amount to "if X then Y". Ah,
but how do you know that X is true? Well, its "truth" might've come
from an earlier "if P then X". But what about P? Eventually, when
you trace the chain back far enough, you find something which was
simply assumed to be true. Can't avoid it, the logic pump needs to be
primed. Thus, an important thing to keep in mind, with any logical
argument, is "what are the assumptions?"
Lets imagine that you're performing an experiment where you shine a
light beam, from a point source, on a slit, with a screen behind it.
To keep it simple, assume that the slit is 1m from the source, with
the screen further 1m behind it. So, you open the slit to 10 mm and
you see a bright spot, 20 mm wide, on the screen. You close to 5 mm
and the bright spot is halved as well, to 10 mm. And so on, and so
on. And, you can immediately draw the ray diagram showing why it has
to be so and how every point on the screen is illuminated by a ray
passing through a single point of the slit and therefore it is obvious
and self evident that when you'll be closing the slit further, the
size of the bright spot will keep diminishing in the same ratio.
Only, it ain't so. when you'll keep closing further, you'll reach a
point where the size of the bright spot stops diminishing and then,
surprise, surprise, starts growing again. And you may say, "just a
moment, this is impossible, since the illumination is just a point to
point mapping from the slit to the screen, it *must* keep getting
smaller". Ah, but the illumination is *not* point to point mapping.
That was an assummption, not unshakeable truth. An assumption based
on a ray model, to be exact. And light, actually, is a wave, not a
set of rays, and the "mapping" is "whole slit to each point, with
appropriate weights".
So, why is it relevant? Because there is a hidden assumption, both in
Galileo's argument and in GR (and everything in between). It is an
assumption of "independence", meaning that no matter how you subdivide
a system into component parts (including the limit of infinitsimal
parts), the action of gravity on each one is independent of the
presence or absence of the other ones. In Gallilean and Newtonian
physics the assumption is explicit, in GR (where you really don't talk
about "influence of gravity" but rather of the local curvature) it is
implicit, through the equivalence principle, but it is there.
So, without commenting specifically about the topic of "teleparallel"
(of which I know next to nothing), your argument really amounts to
"assuming that the action of gravity on an object does not depend on
how its atoms are arranged, then it doesn't depend on how its atoms
are arranged". Or, less generally perhaps but with specific model in
mind, "assuming that GR is correct, chirality can have no effect".
True. This is not a reason not to perform the experiment. In fact,
this is a very strong reason to perform the experiment. Because,
based on the above, if chirality turns out to have an effect, then GR
isn't right. Mind you, I wouldn't bet highly on it unless somebody
gives me really exceptional odds. But, worth trying.
You may want to read something about Poisson's initial rejection of
Fresnel's wave theory, and the grounds for said rejection. It
illustrates how careful one has to be with arguments along the lines
of "but this is absurd".
Jerry
You've given me a lot to think about with your wave mechanics analogy!
I am used to thinking that any theory beyond GR must, at least, violate
the strong equivalence principle, and possibly the Einstein equivalence
principle.
What you have pointed out is that the very notion of "independence"
must be examined. Both GR and teleparallel theories being classical
theories, the argument applies to both. A theory beyond GR must be
quantum.
Thanks very much for your detailed critique!
Jerry
Jerry
The arguments were flying pretty hot and heavy, weren't they? :-)
Al made the claim that his test masses are chiral in higher dimensions,
which is an absurd claim. Then he shot me a insulting question asking
me to do the impossible, flip a two-dimensional chiral image into its
mirror image entirely within the plane.
So I ignored him and flipped his figure in three space, just as I can
flip Al's test masses in four-space by rotating 180 degrees about the
xw plane using the rotation matrix
-1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 -1
Thanks,
Jerry
Jerry
> It may seem absurd to you, but I think that's the point.
> Gravity not respecting chirality is a very bizzare concept,
> but it has not been tested and thus is still a possibility.
> I've never studied teleparallel gravity theories so I don't
> know whether Uncle Al is right or wrong about them allowing
> chirality violation, but I do know that he is right when he
> says that someone needs to look.
> His point above was that no one imagined that parity could
> be violated in interactions, but sure enough someone looked
> and it was.
Mati gave me an extremely insightful response in
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c7d1adbf57bd802f
I think the basic point Mati made was, that as a classical argument
concerning the ability of Al's experiment to distinguish between
classical GR and classical affine gravitation, my reasoning seems
solid.
But the experiment must still be done, because a deep hidden assumption
in my argument was the notion of "independence". The world is quantum,
and my argument certainly fails on that level. Unexpected effects
having nothing whatsoever to do with the distinction between GR and
affine gravitation could cause a non-null result.
Thanks,
Jerry
Uncle Al
It depends. Chirality is diminished in even-numbered dimensions.
However, there is a calculable restricted subset of chirality for
which this is not true. I have demonstrated, above, that there are
2-D forms that are persistently chiral in 2-D, though never in 3-D.
Scalene triangles are also 2-D chiral. CHI=0.5 is as good as you can
do in 2-D. In general, a chiral point array in 3-D if immersed in 4-D
can be rotated through the now four Eulerian angles to exactly
superpose with its 3-D enantiomorph when their centers of mass
coincide. There are specific exceptions.
Given Petitjean's QCM software and a (small, to expedite things) 3-D
set of initially identical points - same color, same weight - one can
create configurations that will *retain* chirality when immersed in
four physical dimensions, or in any number of physical dimensions.
Remarkably, graph theoretic analysis of such initially anonymous
points does *not* reproduce point group symmetry elements. The
tellurium crystal lattice very definitely has two C2-axes. The
[6.6]chiralane carbon skeleton very definitely has three C2 axes and
four C3 axes. After crunching coordinates we uniformly see COR=1
(identity element only), DSI=0 (stays chiral immersed in higher
dimensions), and every atom is uniquely color-labeled. CHI asymptotes
to 1 with increasing tellurium radii. CHI=1 exactly for chiralane to
seven significant figures, with either crude mm+ structure
optimization or ab initio Hartree Fock/6-31G(d) structure
optimization.
It bothers me but does not bother the mathematician at all. I defer
to the expert. The graph theory results merge both local and global
symmetries for all possible connectivites of the points. The software
does not "see" a molecule. Computation time increases as the
factorial of the number of points. Only coordinates influence COR,
DSI, and CHI.
Crystal lattices have two possble chiral contributors: Chiral or
achiral unit cell contents; chiral or achiral space groups. When
crystal structures are explicitly calculated we find that three pairs
of enantiomorphic space groups out of 230 total 3-D regular space
groups *always* give the most stringent diagnostics: P3(1,2)21
P3(1,2)12 and P3(1,2). The first is the quartz group, the last has
problems with ferroelectric twinning. Sohncke space group P2(1)3 also
gives uniformly good numbers, but it has other potential problems.
Only the lattice space group matters in an aggregated macroscopic
crystal. One can trivially assemble two or more identical (congruent
in the geometric sense) homochiral objects to give achiral composites
("La Coupe du Roi").
<http://pages.pomona.edu/~ksk14747/Chem176/090204/Coupe_du_roi_ppt.pdf>
A perfectly achiral solid sphere can be sliced into an *unlimited*
number of congruent homochiral segments, "La Coupe du Parlement."
Parity Eotvos experiments utterly go against "common wisdom" dating
back to Galileo that the trajectory of any mass can be reduced to the
trajectory of its center of mass (ignoring classical quadrupole
contributions that rotate and elongated mass. and GR gravitoelectric
and gravitomagnetic components). If gravitation contains a
demonstrable parity anomaly, no prior observation is impacted. It
could happen. Oh momma, that's where the fun is!
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>I am used to thinking that any theory beyond GR must, at least, violate
>the strong equivalence principle, and possibly the Einstein equivalence
>principle.
>
>What you have pointed out is that the very notion of "independence"
>must be examined.
Good, I'm glad you realize this. We all have various notions
ingrained into us at some early stage of our education, notions which
we take as so "obvious and natural" that it just doesn't occur to us
that "it may not be so". Yet, as experience of centuries tells us,
nothing is above suspicion.
> Both GR and teleparallel theories being classical theories, the
>argument applies to both. A theory beyond GR must be quantum.
Yes, right. The current holy grail of physics, but it is not an easy
going.
>
>Thanks very much for your detailed critique!
>
Sure, you're very welcome.
David Cross
>Al made the claim that his test masses are chiral in higher dimensions,
>which is an absurd claim. Then he shot me a insulting question asking
>me to do the impossible, flip a two-dimensional chiral image into its
>mirror image entirely within the plane.
>
>So I ignored him and flipped his figure in three space, just as I can
>flip Al's test masses in four-space by rotating 180 degrees about the
>xw plane using the rotation matrix
>-1 0 0 0
> 0 1 0 0
> 0 0 1 0
> 0 0 0 -1
But it seems to me that if you are restricted to three-dimensional space
(assuming for the moment that we cannot use time as we can space) then
anything that is chiral be it a crystal (and I actually saw chiral metal
lattices. That blew my mind. My materials science professor said "Here. Take
these overheads and try to superimpose the left-handed copper array onto the
right-handed one." I couldn't do it. I'd never believed you could get
chirality out of anything but heteroatomic molecules) or an ordinary
tetrasubstituted carbon can never be made over into its mirror image.
That, I think, is Uncle Al's point - that once the chiral arrays are made then
if spacetime disallows the rotation through time (as you hypothesize is
possible with that matrix), and the equivalence principle doesn't hold, then a
very complex chiral arrangement should let him test the necessary parity
violation by gravity.
After all, he's right. We all *assumed* the weak interaction conserved parity
just because the strong and the electromagnetic did. Now we know it doesn't.
Gravity is *assumed* to conserve parity because nothing we've seen so far
differentiates the behavior of one kind of mass from another kind of mass -
all that matters is the total mass of an object.
I for one am willing to withhold judgement until the results are published.
tj Frazir
same speed.
evry atom has the same % of gain in mass.
idiot..
learn what gravity is first .
tj Frazir
After wards your still stupid.
UP is a gain in mass IDIOT .
more mass is one one side of the center of the atom than the other.
Down is less mass .
1/2 of evry atom in the G field is up and 1/2 down.
More mass is falling to the center of the atom
as the parts orbit they change mass at C .
all the parts fall to the center of te atom.
The more mass falling is pushing the center more than the less mass
falling to the center from the other side of the atom.
The atom in the energy gradiant has a gain in mass going up and less
going down.
The gain in mass pushes the wieght of the atom.
F is the gain in mass pushing the atom.
all atoms fall the same speed because evry gain in mass is the same %
of gain in evry atom in the G field.
V is constant because F is the gain in mass pushing the wieght.
Just what Einstein told you and you still dont understand .
stupid
Ken S. Tucker
Studied Al's post.
Regarding EP (Equivalence Principle), IMO it's
embodied in, the vanishing covariant derivative
of metric, I'll ascii write as,
g_uv;w =0 .
(This is not my original thought, I read it some
where and can't retrieve the ref, as I thought it
was standard and obvious, i.e. needs no ref).
Nevertheless, one may glance at Weinberg's (3.2.7)
and find a transformation from the Minkowski metric
eta_ab to the g_uv in the usual way.
It's obvious two stationary objects in a Minkowski
space, (equivalent to way out in outer space where
there's no gravity or anything), will remain stationary
when the CS (Coordinate System) is changed.
For example, a FoR (Frame of Reference) that
happens to be thrusting and accelerating will find
the two said objects stationary, otherwise that FoR
would be creating relative kinetic energy between
those two objects, which would violate energy
conservation.
So those two objects have an equal acceleration
as EP predicts. We have at hand the eta_ab are
constant, therefore the covariant derivative,
eta_ab;w =0 ,
as established by the two objects. (These objects
have nil g-field), in accord with Newtons 1st
law that defines the geodesic in flat space.
They're the only two points available to measure
the metric.
In order to depart from EP, Al will need to vary
g_uv;w = / = 0 ,
that's contingent on Al if he's disagreeing with
EP, as he suggests very strongly.
I've consulted with mathematicians much brighter
than I, and sure enough g_uv;w=0 is an imposed
condition, that Al's attacking.
A very good reason why g_uv;w =0 is to do
association. Recall,
A_u = g_uv A^v (association),
and the covariant derivatives are conventionally,
A_u;w = g_uv A^v;w ,
based on the premise g_uv;w =0.
What I hope is Al will have a term in the g_uv,
that is antisymmetrical, but they would appear
as sub terms to the 6 antisymmetrical terms in
the g_uv matrix (g_uv = -g_vu) I'll call a_uv,
where
a12 = q*B(z) , a01 = q*E(x)....etc, and accounts
for the EM-field in spacetime.
Al's prouncements of the demise of EP and metric
space - even if he is correct - are hyperbole,
due to the resilence of GR, he's apparently unaware
of that.
General Relativity is a Principle. Al seems to
think it's a theory. (BTW Al, I respect your work,
so I'm using it as an example).
To clarify, The Principle of General Relativity,
can be stated very clearly =>
"absolute motion does not exist".
Let me provide an example,
In your desk is a 12 inch(=30cm) ruler, take it
out and wave it around. That ruler defines your
metric, it's the basis of your length measurement.
The equation g_uv;w=0 states you can't see that
ruler differ as you move about, whether weightless
or subject to powerful accelerations, and you can
measure you metric (g_uv) with that ruler and
alway's find it's constant.
Now, if you were to ever notice your ruler to be
shorter, that would be evidence of g_uv;w =/=0 or
the existance of absolute motion, same thing.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
kxsxt
Richard Herring
Jerry <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> writes
>
>Jerry wrote:
>> GR_GR wrote:
>> > FrediFizzx wrote:
>> > > "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> > > news:1112766694.3...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > > GR_GR wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>Jerry wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>>Uncle Al wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>I take your brief comment as meaning that you are FINALLY
>> beginning
>> > >
>> > > to
>> > >
>> > >>>understand the fundamental problem with your experimental
>> > >
>> > > assumptions.
>> > >
>> > >>No, what actually happened is that you actually showed more
>stamina
>> > >
>> > > with
>> > >
>> > >>your stupidity than even Al has in deriding your stupidity.
>> > >>This is quite an accomplishment on your part, on par with the
>> > >
>> > > exploits
>> > >
>> > >>of frazir, porat and Harris.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>>I'm sorry that you feel so threatened. For the last six years,
>you
>> > >
>> > > have
>> > >
>> > >>>been obsessed with the parity Eotvos experiment, and to realize,
>> > >
>> > > only
>> > >
>> > >>>now, that your experiment is fatally flawed and is totally
>> > >
>> > > incapable of
>> > >
>> > >>>distinguishing between affine gravitation and GR, must be a
>severe
>> > >
>> > > blow
>> > >
>> > >>>to your ego.
>> > >>
>> > >>Spewing idiot.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > GR_GR, do you have a refutation to the thought experiments that I
>> have
>> > > posed?
>> >
>> > Ah, I should have know it was you, crack pot.
>> >
>> > And as refutation to your "thought" experiment, well you have not
>> useful
>> > thoughts. QED.
>>
>> >From the placement of your response, I take it that you think that
>I'm
>> FrediFizzx posting under another name? Whatever...
>>
>.
>.
>
>Google groups beta did ANOTHER of its trashing of attribution indents.
No, that's normal behaviour if you post a line that begins with From.
A quick search on "from-wedging" should explain why it happens.
--
Richard Herring
Bilge
The experimental question is interesting, but as the experiment
is conceived, a outcome which isn't null implies the ability to get
a free lunch, so to speak. Uncleal is being inconsistent by insisting
that this isn't the case. If the two masses differ only in the
arrangement of the constituent atoms, but fall differently in
the gravitational field, then by performing the following steps,
one obtains a perpetual motion machine:
(1) drop the mass in one configuration
(2) recover the energy from falling a distance h
(3) disassemble the mass and reassemble it into the other configuration
(4) Use the energy gained in falling to raise the reassembled mass
the same distance h. The energy required to raise the recongiured
mass will be less than the energy gained by the dropped mass.
(5) disassemble the mass and reassemble it into the first configuration.
(6) The experiment is now in the same configuration in which it began,
but more energy was gained dropping the mass than raising it.
Now repeat the procedure indefinitely.
By hypothesis, the handedness is responsible, so all of the assembly and
disassembly gives a net gain or loss of zero over each cycle. Since the
energy is not chiral, any differences in binding energies have to lead
to effects which follow usual laws of physics and therefore, those cannot
lead to a free lunch.
Ken S. Tucker
I agree with Bilge,
it seems the Principle of Equivalence (PoE)
and the law of energy conservation are so
intimate that they are indistinguishable,
at a fundamental level, i.e same thing.
For my part, that's why I have such a high
respect for PoE, it's really much more than
the popular elevator analogy, and Bilge puts
that plainly.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Jerry
Uncle Al's "out", of course, would be that the energy of formation
for right and left-handed masses -is- different, thus side-stepping
the perpetual motion issue. There is way too much hand-waving and
"new physics" in this argument for my taste.
Does an unbonded ensemble of atoms in a right-handed configuration
have a different total energy than a left-handed configuration?
Or is it only when you have a chemically bonded mass that
right and left-handed masses have different energies? Why should
chemical bonding make a difference to a gravitational theory?
OK, chemical bonding can't make a difference. So carry the
argument further. Let's say that right and left-handed ensembles
of unbonded atoms have different total energies. That means that
just moving the unbonded atoms around make a difference. That
implies that symmetry under translation would be violated, so
conservation of momentum falls.
It's not "just" GR that would need to be discarded. It's practically
all of physics. I don't like that. :-(
Jerry
Ken S. Tucker
Wonderful, now we need to comply to a chick's
taste, next thing is physics determined BJ's.
I agree with Al, things are getting too liberal.
> Does an unbonded ensemble of atoms in a right-handed configuration
> have a different total energy than a left-handed configuration?
> Or is it only when you have a chemically bonded mass that
> right and left-handed masses have different energies? Why should
> chemical bonding make a difference to a gravitational theory?
>
> OK, chemical bonding can't make a difference. So carry the
> argument further. Let's say that right and left-handed ensembles
> of unbonded atoms have different total energies. That means that
> just moving the unbonded atoms around make a difference. That
> implies that symmetry under translation would be violated, so
> conservation of momentum falls.
>
> It's not "just" GR that would need to be discarded. It's practically
> all of physics. I don't like that. :-(
> Jerry
Al, Jerry don't like what you do, I'm afraid
your scientfic experiments will need to be
curtailed, it's offensive to women, and sissy's,
and poodle dog's and rats.
If the Catholickies have class the next poop,
I mean pope, would be a jewish disabled niggress.
((the type of girl Al wants)).
I mention that, because Al is really warm inside.
ken :-)
Jerry
Emmy Noether was also a woman. Or don't you buy the symmetry
under translation argument?
Jerry
Bilge
>Bilge wrote:
>Uncle Al's "out", of course, would be that the energy of formation
>for right and left-handed masses -is- different, thus side-stepping
>the perpetual motion issue. There is way too much hand-waving and
>"new physics" in this argument for my taste.
Doesn't matter. The energy likely _is_ different. If you assume
different binding energies, and keep track of the binding energies,
they drop out.
>Does an unbonded ensemble of atoms in a right-handed configuration
>have a different total energy than a left-handed configuration?
Probably.
>Or is it only when you have a chemically bonded mass that
>right and left-handed masses have different energies? Why should
>chemical bonding make a difference to a gravitational theory?
>
>OK, chemical bonding can't make a difference. So carry the
>argument further. Let's say that right and left-handed ensembles
>of unbonded atoms have different total energies. That means that
>just moving the unbonded atoms around make a difference. That
>implies that symmetry under translation would be violated, so
>conservation of momentum falls.
Take it through a cycle assuming the equivalence principle holds.
You can't win playing the same game.
>It's not "just" GR that would need to be discarded. It's practically
>all of physics. I don't like that. :-(
Keep track of all the energies. You'll find they all balance so
long as the equivalence principle holds.
whop...@csd.uwm.edu
Subject: Four-Velocity and four-acceleration question.
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:04:37 -0700
>I am taking GR
(translation: "I don't know a damned thing about GR")
> and am working on a homework question.
(translation: "I'm too stupid to even handle a problem as simple as
this all by myself")
>The question asks me to show that the four-acceleration is orthogonal
to
>the four-velocity. Or, a.b = 0. I am having some difficulty with
>this problem
The 4-vector is constant which means its time-derivative is orthogonal
to the vector.
Damned newbie can't even handle a freshman question in GR, by his own
admission, and has to go blabbing about it all over the net.
GR_GR (talking about himself):
> Ah, I should have know it was you, crack pot.
Come back when you get a REAL education.