Relative ticking rate nonsense
Richard
_____K'____
1) | |
|___________|--> v
oo oo ____________
| |
2) |_____K______|
oo oo
Two railway carriages are in motion wrt each other along the x axis, as
depicted in the diagram above. According to K (the rest frame of
carriage 2), carriage 1 and carriage 2 are equal in length (this is
taking into account the relative contraction of carriage 1 wrt K).
As 1 passes by the left side of 2 the time interval between the
correspondence of the right and left sides of 1 with the left side of 2
wrt K, is
dt = L_o/v
The time interval of the same two events wrt K' (the rest frame of
carriage 1) is
dt' = L_o gamma/v
Thus K' measures a longer time interval than does K between these two
events, and it follows that the K' clock is ticking faster than the K
clock. Thus in this experiment it is the moving clock that ticks faster.
Moreover the ratio of intervals is provided by
L_o gamma/dt' = L_o/dt
dt' = dt L_o gamma/L_o
or
dt' = dt gamma
OTOH we have also in the same sequence the additional two events which
are the correspondence of the left and right sides of 2 with the right
side of 1. Wrt K this time interval is exactly the same as the first,
since according to him the carriages are equal in length. However,
assuming reciprocity of length contraction the time interval wrt K' is
dt' = L_o/gamma v
But L_o = dtv, just as before
Thus
dt' = dt/gamma
Which is opposite in sense to the ticking rate that was derived above.
Thus which clock ticks faster seems to depend entirely upon the motion
of some arbitrary extended object wrt each. If the object is at rest wrt
K then the moving clock is ticking slower, but if it is at rest wrt K'
then the moving clock is ticking slower. If there are two objects, one
at rest wrt each, then the clocks are simultaneously ticking slower and
faster than each other. Moreover, the ticking ratio only assumes the
simplified form above when the object(s) is/are moving at v wrt one of
the frames, i.e. given an object that is moving wrt both frames, the
ticking rate does not resolve to either of the above forms, but assumes
a different value for every alternate value of x/t, or x'/t' that is not
equal to v. IOW SR is gibberish.
Richard Perry
Richard
> [faster].
Dirk Van de moortel
"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3F6DBB66...@yahoo.com...
>
>
> Richard wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > _____K'____
> > 1) | |
> > |___________|--> v
> > oo oo ____________
> > | |
> > 2) |_____K______|
> > oo oo
> >
> >
> > Two railway carriages are in motion wrt each other along the x axis, as
> > depicted in the diagram above. According to K (the rest frame of
> > carriage 2), carriage 1 and carriage 2 are equal in length (this is
> > taking into account the relative contraction of carriage 1 wrt K).
> >
> > As 1 passes by the left side of 2 the time interval between the
> > correspondence of the right and left sides of 1 with the left side of 2
> > wrt K, is
> >
> > dt = L_o/v
> >
> > The time interval of the same two events wrt K' (the rest frame of
> > carriage 1) is
> >
> > dt' = L_o gamma/v
No.
The two events are separated by dx which is L_o.
So dt' = gamma( dt - dx*v/c^2 )
= gamma( L_o/v - L_o*v/c^2)
= gamma*L_o/v*(1-v^/c^2)
= gamma*L_o/v/gamma^2
= L_o / (v*gamma)
How many times have you made this mistake?
Until now I count 6:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=%Qmab.26896$0H4.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3f698ba7$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3f4dc0a0$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=XKN4b.13777$KC1.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=hjM3b.7389$K57.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=cb623e6.03090...@posting.google.com
[snip on first error]
Dirk Vdm
Chris
I don't understand this or relativity. Not any of it?
I was always under the impression that relativity was an optical effect like
perspective, after all any two frames of reference may be taken as a "rest"
frame, so why do we insist on the "twin paradox". I just don't understand
it. Special relativity deals with uniform motion with no hint of
acceleration. So how can it be used to compute the path of a return trip.
The clocks of your passing craft only appear to be slow to you, if you could
speak to the observer on the other craft he would say that your clocks are
going slow. So how can we say ours is special? I just don't understand
it.... Similarly if you are in a fast craft on its way to alpha centurii
you would say that as your velocity increased so the measured distance of
your journey has become aparrently shrunk. Our Earth-based observer says
the spacraft has shrunk. But if you track the crafts journey using light it
will be seen, by measurements like radar that the crafts journey distance
has been shrunk also. I just don't understand it. Seems to me that the
4-velocity is the true velocity and both observers will agree on both the
time taken and the distance travelled, and this time and distance will be
less than estimates based on normal observations of distance and the
velocity of the craft. But really, I don't understand it and I never
will - I guess I'm stupid. I never did get that Starships pilot/navigator
job! Just plain old electronics. Still its better than washing - up.
(The pay is better).
Chris.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Chris" <nimbo@(nospam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:wSmbb.43$mm...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Comment:
>
> I don't understand this or relativity. Not any of it?
>
> I was always under the impression that relativity was an optical effect like
> perspective,
It is not a question of perspective but of measurement.
The only thing we can do, is measure things, and we can
measure the effects of special relativity. That's all we have.
> after all any two frames of reference may be taken as a "rest"
> frame, so why do we insist on the "twin paradox". I just don't understand
> it. Special relativity deals with uniform motion with no hint of
> acceleration. So how can it be used to compute the path of a return trip.
SR can and does deal with acceleration without any problem:
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
> The clocks of your passing craft only appear to be slow to you, if you could
> speak to the observer on the other craft he would say that your clocks are
> going slow. So how can we say ours is special?
The twin paradox is about two identical clocks being
together, going apart, and then getting together again
- with acceleration, or if you want without if we are
allowed to "jump from one inertial frame to another".
When the two clocks are together again, they can be
meaningfully compared. And we see a real difference.
> I just don't understand
> it.... Similarly if you are in a fast craft on its way to alpha centurii
> you would say that as your velocity increased so the measured distance of
> your journey has become aparrently shrunk.
When you move away from alpha centauri the distance
also shrinks.
> Our Earth-based observer says
> the spacraft has shrunk. But if you track the crafts journey using light it
> will be seen, by measurements like radar that the crafts journey distance
> has been shrunk also.
No, the journey distance seen from earth will be the
same as if there were no spacecraft.
> I just don't understand it. Seems to me that the
> 4-velocity is the true velocity and both observers will agree on both the
> time taken and the distance travelled, and this time and distance will be
> less than estimates based on normal observations of distance and the
> velocity of the craft. But really, I don't understand it and I never
> will - I guess I'm stupid.
I don't think you are stupid at all.
I think you have been reading the wrong introduction(s) to the subject.
It's not easy and very counter-intuitive.
You might have a go at
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part1.html
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part2.html
and ask specifically targetted questions. I'm sure someone
will help...
Or have a look at the FAQ
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/index.html
and the book list:
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
I'd recommend Robert Geroch's little book.
Questions are welcome, I'm sure.
> I never did get that Starships pilot/navigator
> job! Just plain old electronics. Still its better than washing - up.
> (The pay is better).
:-)
Good luck.
Dirk Vdm
Perfectly Innocent
> If there are two objects, one at rest wrt each, then
> the clocks are simultaneously ticking slower and
> faster than each other. ... IOW SR is gibberish.
Richard,
The fallacy you've uncovered is discovered every five minutes. The
fact that a relative ticking rate is nonsense doesn't mean that the
essence of SR is beyond repair. The challenge is to diagnose the
critical flaw and suggest an invincible modification. This has already
been done. http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Standard SR presupposes a sense of simultaneity.
Shubertian relativity (SR) abandons this unessential constraint.
How can we understand the meaning of the Lorentz transformation
equations without requiring a sense of simultaneity? The answer may be
seen in Shubertian SR if you recognize that a notion of simultaneity
isn't relied on anywhere in its formulation.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Eugene Shubert
ghytrfvbnmju7654
> 1) | |
> |___________|--> v
> oo oo ____________
> | |
> 2) |_____K______|
> oo oo
>
>
> Two railway carriages are in motion wrt each other along the x axis, as
> depicted in the diagram above. According to K (the rest frame of
> carriage 2), carriage 1 and carriage 2 are equal in length (this is
> taking into account the relative contraction of carriage 1 wrt K).
>
> As 1 passes by the left side of 2 the time interval between the
> correspondence of the right and left sides of 1 with the left side of 2
> wrt K, is
x held constant
> dt = L_o/v
>
> The time interval of the same two events wrt K' (the rest frame of
> carriage 1) is
>
> dt' = L_o gamma/v
>
> Thus K' measures a longer time interval than does K between these two
> events, and it follows that the K' clock is ticking faster than the K
> clock. Thus in this experiment it is the moving clock that ticks faster.
> Moreover the ratio of intervals is provided by
>
> L_o gamma/dt' = L_o/dt
>
> dt' = dt L_o gamma/L_o
>
> or
>
> dt' = dt gamma
@t'/@t = gamma (partial derivative; x held constant)
> OTOH we have also in the same sequence the additional two events which
> are the correspondence of the left and right sides of 2 with the right
> side of 1. Wrt K this time interval is exactly the same as the first,
> since according to him the carriages are equal in length. However,
> assuming reciprocity of length contraction the time interval wrt K' is
dx' held constant
> dt' = L_o/gamma v
>
> But L_o = dtv, just as before
>
> Thus
>
> dt' = dt/gamma
dt' * gamma = dt
dt = dt' * gamma
@t/@t' = gamma (partial derivative; x' held constant)
The Lorentz transformation equations are:
t' = gamma * (t - vx/c^2)
x' = gamma * (x - vt)
t = gamma * (t' + vx'/c^2)
x = gamma * (x' + vt')
So:
@t'/@t = gamma
@t/@t' = gamma
exactly as calculated above.
> Which is opposite in sense to the ticking rate that was derived above.
>
> Thus which clock ticks faster seems to depend entirely upon the motion
> of some arbitrary extended object wrt each. If the object is at rest wrt
> K then the moving clock is ticking slower, but if it is at rest wrt K'
> then the moving clock is ticking slower. If there are two objects, one
> at rest wrt each, then the clocks are simultaneously ticking slower and
> faster than each other. Moreover, the ticking ratio only assumes the
> simplified form above when the object(s) is/are moving at v wrt one of
> the frames, i.e. given an object that is moving wrt both frames, the
> ticking rate does not resolve to either of the above forms, but assumes
> a different value for every alternate value of x/t, or x'/t' that is not
> equal to v. IOW SR is gibberish.
>
> Richard Perry
>
> http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
When you are working with partial derivatives, you must be careful.
t' depends not only on t but upon x; i.e., simultaneity is relative.
Richard
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> "Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3F6DBB66...@yahoo.com...
> >
> >
> > Richard wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _____K'____
> > > 1) | |
> > > |___________|--> v
> > > oo oo ____________
> > > | |
> > > 2) |_____K______|
> > > oo oo
> > >
> > >
> > > Two railway carriages are in motion wrt each other along the x axis, as
> > > depicted in the diagram above. According to K (the rest frame of
> > > carriage 2), carriage 1 and carriage 2 are equal in length (this is
> > > taking into account the relative contraction of carriage 1 wrt K).
> > >
> > > As 1 passes by the left side of 2 the time interval between the
> > > correspondence of the right and left sides of 1 with the left side of 2
> > > wrt K, is
> > >
> > > dt = L_o/v
> > >
> > > The time interval of the same two events wrt K' (the rest frame of
> > > carriage 1) is
> > >
> > > dt' = L_o gamma/v
>
> No.
> The two events are separated by dx which is L_o.
Wrong Dirk! These two events are separated by dx = 0.
We have the ends of a carriage 1 moving respectively past a fixed point
in K , that fixed point being the left side of carriage 2, which is at
rest wrt K. Both events occur at the same fixed point wrt K, and thus
dx=0
> So dt' = gamma( dt - dx*v/c^2 )
> = gamma( L_o/v - L_o*v/c^2)
> = gamma*L_o/v*(1-v^/c^2)
> = gamma*L_o/v/gamma^2
> = L_o / (v*gamma)
So dt' = gamma( dt - 0 ) = gamma dt
or just dt' = gamma dt
But dt = L_o/v , thus
dt' = L_o gamma/v Just like I said.
>
> How many times have you made this mistake?
What mistake?
> Until now I count 6:
Maybe you should look in the mirror Dirk, sorry, but try agian!
ROTFLMAO!;)
Richard Perry
Paul B. Andersen
"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding news:3F6DB6C2...@yahoo.com...
>
>
> _____K'____
> 1) | |
> |___________|--> v
> oo oo ____________
> | |
> 2) |_____K______|
> oo oo
>
>
> Two railway carriages are in motion wrt each other along the x axis, as
> depicted in the diagram above. According to K (the rest frame of
> carriage 2), carriage 1 and carriage 2 are equal in length (this is
> taking into account the relative contraction of carriage 1 wrt K).
>
> As 1 passes by the left side of 2 the time interval between the
> correspondence of the right and left sides of 1 with the left side of 2
> wrt K, is
>
> dt = L_o/v
Right.
Notice that in K, the spatial interval between the events is zero,
that is, the time L_o/v is a proper time, which can be measured
with one clock (At the left end of 2.).
The space time interval is L_o*c/v
> The time interval of the same two events wrt K' (the rest frame of
> carriage 1) is
>
> dt' = L_o gamma/v
Right.
The temporal interval between the event in K' is L_o*gamma/v.
Notice however that the spatial inerval between the events in K'
is gamma*L_o. That means that the temporal interval is not
a proper time, it is the difference between the reading of two
separate clocks. (One at each end of carriage 1.)
The space time interval is:
sqrt((L_o*gamma*c/v)^2 - (gamma*L_o)^2) = L_o*c/v
> Thus K' measures a longer time interval than does K between these two
> events,
Right.
> and it follows that the K' clock is ticking faster than the K
> clock.
Wrong!
There are TWO "moving clocks".
You cannot conclude anything about what the rate of a clock
is without having two different readings _of the same clock_!
You have only one reading of each clock.
Note that "the rate of a moving clock" is:
dt'/dt when dx' = 0
dt/dt' when dx = 0
or in other words:
to measure the rate of a moving clock you must
compare two readings on the moving clock to
two reading on two separate (coordinate) clocks!
You have only got one reading from each of the TWO
moving clocks. You can conclude nothing about their
rate observed in K from that.
> Thus in this experiment it is the moving clock that ticks faster.
> Moreover the ratio of intervals is provided by
>
> L_o gamma/dt' = L_o/dt
>
> dt' = dt L_o gamma/L_o
>
> or
>
> dt' = dt gamma
Exactly.
And since dt is read off one clock while dt' is read off
two separate clocks, we can conclude:
The rate of the moving clock in 2 is dt/dt' = 1/gamma
as observed in K'.
> OTOH we have also in the same sequence the additional two events which
> are the correspondence of the left and right sides of 2 with the right
> side of 1. Wrt K this time interval is exactly the same as the first,
> since according to him the carriages are equal in length. However,
> assuming reciprocity of length contraction the time interval wrt K' is
>
> dt' = L_o/gamma v
>
> But L_o = dtv, just as before
>
> Thus
>
> dt' = dt/gamma
Exactly.
Since dt' in this case is read of one clock while dt is read of two
separate clocks, we can conclude:
The rate of the moving clock in 1 is dt'/dt = 1/gamma
as observed in K'.
> Which is opposite in sense to the ticking rate that was derived above.
No.
The ticking rates of the single, moving clock are in both cases
the same, namely 1/gamma.
> Thus which clock ticks faster seems to depend entirely upon the motion
> of some arbitrary extended object wrt each. If the object is at rest wrt
> K then the moving clock is ticking slower, but if it is at rest wrt K'
> then the moving clock is ticking slower. If there are two objects, one
> at rest wrt each, then the clocks are simultaneously ticking slower and
> faster than each other. Moreover, the ticking ratio only assumes the
> simplified form above when the object(s) is/are moving at v wrt one of
> the frames, i.e. given an object that is moving wrt both frames, the
> ticking rate does not resolve to either of the above forms, but assumes
> a different value for every alternate value of x/t, or x'/t' that is not
> equal to v. IOW SR is gibberish.
If you are a sensible guy, you will have realized wher you went wrong.
Are you?
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:WRjbb.32348$5q7.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> "Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3F6DBB66...@yahoo.com...
> >
> >
> > Richard wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _____K'____
> > > 1) | |
> > > |___________|--> v
> > > oo oo ____________
> > > | |
> > > 2) |_____K______|
> > > oo oo
> > >
> > >
> > > Two railway carriages are in motion wrt each other along the x axis, as
> > > depicted in the diagram above. According to K (the rest frame of
> > > carriage 2), carriage 1 and carriage 2 are equal in length (this is
> > > taking into account the relative contraction of carriage 1 wrt K).
> > >
> > > As 1 passes by the left side of 2 the time interval between the
> > > correspondence of the right and left sides of 1 with the left side of 2
> > > wrt K, is
> > >
> > > dt = L_o/v
> > >
> > > The time interval of the same two events wrt K' (the rest frame of
> > > carriage 1) is
> > >
> > > dt' = L_o gamma/v
>
> No.
> The two events are separated by dx which is L_o.
Oooops.
I think you have misread his scenario.
The events are:
1: right end of carriage 1 passing left end of carriage2,
2: left end of carriage 1 passing _left_ end of carriage 2.
So the spatial interval between the events is zero in K,
while it is gamma*L_o in K'. (The proper length of 1)
He has correctly calculated the temporal intervals,
but his conclusion of the rate of the clocks is wrong.
Paul
Jeff Relf
Regarding a pair of non-accelerating particles
traveling near the speed of light , You say :
" If there are two objects
[ each at rest with respect to the other ]
then the clocks are simultaneously ticking slower
and faster than each other . "
The equations of relativity are all about the speed of light ,
and how long actual physical " Data " takes to propagate .
Because the speed of light is observed to be the
same in all inertial and free fall frames :
" Information " , i.e. a type of " Reality " if you will ,
is " Retarded " , held back by this limit .
Hypothetically ( In your mind ) you might know that
the two distant frames are " Simultaneous " ,
but the actual physical " Data "
always takes some Finite time to propagate .
Newtonian gravity's deficiency is that :
It assumes instantaneous transmission .
Check out Steve Carlip's Sci.Physics FAQ entry . ( below )
He says that the observed dampening of binary pulsar systems
shows that speed of gravity travels at the speed of light
... at least as far as the GR model is concerned .
( It's instant as far as the Newtonian model is concerned . )
And a GR-independent verification requires that
either LIGO et al. gain much more precision
or that a super nova happens real close .
A pulsar spins extremely fast ,
but the earth is spinning too .
Gravity Probe-B is designed to measure
how the earth's " wobbly spin " , i.e. it's precessions ,
effect the moon .
Correct me if I'm wrong ,
but I think Newtonian gravity ,
with it's instant speed of gravity ,
could not fully account for the moon's orbit .
...
From :
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html
" While current observations
do not yet provide a direct model-independent
measurement of the speed of gravity ,
a test within the framework of general relativity
can be made by observing the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16 .
The orbit of this binary system is gradually decaying ,
and this behavior is attributed to the loss of energy
due to escaping gravitational radiation .
But in any field theory ,
radiation is intimately related to
the finite velocity of field propagation ,
and the orbital changes due to gravitational radiation
can equivalently be viewed as damping
caused by the finite propagation speed .
( In the discussion above ,
this damping represents a failure of the ' retardation '
and ' noncentral , velocity-dependent ' effects
to completely cancel . )
The rate of this damping can be computed ,
and one finds that it
depends sensitively on the speed of gravity .
The fact that gravitational damping is measured at all
is a strong indication that
the propagation speed of gravity is not infinite .
If the calculational framework
of general relativity is accepted ,
the damping can be used to calculate the speed ,
and the actual measurement confirms that the speed of gravity
is equal to the speed of light to within 1% .
( Measurements of at least one other binary pulsar system ,
PSR B1534+12 , confirm this result ,
although so far with less precision . ) "
Richard
You're absolutely right on your last point, and that 'was' the point,
just in case it flew over your head. SR leads to direct mathematical
contradictions, and thus does not give the actual ticking rate ratios.
What you morons have done is attempt to twist space and time intervals
to provide invariance of light speed, and at first sight this seems to
be doable, but it isn't. Case in point, the argument above.
Suppose you tell me how Hafele-Keating verified the prediction of SR,
when in fact there are an infinite number of predictions posited by the
math of SR regarding the relative ticking rate of any two given clocks.
As for the remainder of your kook clan, who have taken it upon
themselves to ridicule 'my' theory, FWIW, I don't have a new fucking
relativistic theory morons. What I do have though is the same old
relativistic theory that predated your unambiguously flawed crap. And
no, you have not one tittle of empirical evidence that falsifies Newton,
not one.
Richard Perry
Gregory L. Hansen
Chris <nimbo@(nospam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>Comment:
>
>I don't understand this or relativity. Not any of it?
>
>I was always under the impression that relativity was an optical effect like
>perspective,
The lengthening of the lifetimes of fast particles, for an example, is not
an optical effect. The usual presentation of special relativity assumes
an "intelligent" observer that knows how to determine and correct for
things like finite signal propagation times.
>after all any two frames of reference may be taken as a "rest"
>frame, so why do we insist on the "twin paradox". I just don't understand
>it.
The twin paradox is a paradox, that is, an apparant contradiction, because
you'd think either twin could be considered at rest. But one turns
around, the other doesn't, so they're not symmetric. From the point of
view of the travelling twin, a lot happens to the Earth twin's clock when
he turns around.
>Special relativity deals with uniform motion with no hint of
>acceleration. So how can it be used to compute the path of a return trip.
Special relativity deals with accelerations just fine. Boosts
(transformation to a moving reference frame) is a valid Lorentz
transformation. Acceleration is nothing more than a succession of little
boosts. The notion that special relativity cannot deal with accelerations
is about ninety years out of date.
But no accelerated frame in special relativity can represent gravity.
--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible
Richard
The Newtonian formula is for the ideal case of 'point' masses 'at rest'.
It is derivable from first principles, i.e. if on atom experiences a
force of x, then an identical atom in the same position in the field
will experience the same force. Thus the force on two atoms, is
collectively twice the force on one atom. If mass is unaffected by
position wrt other atoms, then the mass of two identical atoms is also
twice that of one atom, thus the force is proportional to mass. The
inverse square field is 'defined' and it is arbitrarily defined to be
so. A 'flat' field will work just as well, we need only have the
'gravitational' mass change with vicinity to other masses. If for
instance the force is constant with r, and the gravitational mass
decreases as r, then the force still drops as r^2. The inverse square
field of Newton was 'assumed' but it is as good an assumption as any
other, all of them can be built upon when any one is taken to be a
definition. Empirical variations to the 'general' law, can always be
attributed to extraneous fields. Learn the difference between reality
and theory.
If you want to account for deviations in an orbit introduced by
differences in volumes, differences in density gradients and density
distributions within the masses, unaccounted for fields extending
through the solar system, zero point field variations, locally generated
electromagnetic fields, and temperature differences between the masses
as well as temperature gradients within the masses, particle exchange
with the surroundings, radiation pressure, chirality, and tidal
deformations, etc. then none of those are in themselves contradictory to
Newton, and none to the special case formula that neglects all of these,
among the many nonlisted extraneous other influences on the orbit.
Newton's system is true by definition, it is a logical system and simply
cannot be falsified. There are perhaps portions of it that should be
more clearly defined in order to rule out misinterpretations by others.
If he ill-defined a term or two, then the solution isn't to generate a
mutually exclusive alternate system, but simply to make the corrections
to the existing system, which I'll wager weren't even originally there,
but were introduced by some confused individuals that came after.
Richard Perry
Bill Hobba
> I think you have been reading the wrong introduction(s) to the subject.
> It's not easy and very counter-intuitive.
> You might have a go at
> http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part1.html
> http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part2.html
> and ask specifically targetted questions. I'm sure someone
> will help...
> Or have a look at the FAQ
> http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/index.html
> and the book list:
>
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Administrivia/rel_booklist.
html
> I'd recommend Robert Geroch's little book.
> Questions are welcome, I'm sure.
>
I second Dirk for saying that. People who post here sometimes have badly
formed ideas. That does not make them stupid. What makes some of them
'stupid' is to think they have discovered a flaw that has escaped really
smart people like Feynman, Weinberg etc. It is not impossible but if you
think about it is not likely.
Thanks
Bill
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003
Jeff Relf
You say : " Newton's system is true by definition "
You think the speed of gravity is instantaneous ?
You think gravity is " Spooky action at a distance " ,
rather than a local propagation ?
Even though we can imagine instant propagation ,
Nothing is known to propagate faster than
the speed of light .
While the mind is finite and fantastical ,
Nature's complexity and breadth are infinite .
So while nature likely has absolute material determinism ,
scientific determinism , i.e. the axioms of science ,
will always be finite and artificial .
And with absolute material determinism :
Natural time is spatial ... Static ... A timescape .
And there may even be cause to define
a fifth spatial dimension , a static heatscape ,
to describe the universe's " Transition "
from the effectively infinite heat of the big bang
to the effectively infinite cold of the big freeze .
Dirk Van de moortel
"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3F6E1547...@yahoo.com...
Yep, I was wrong interpreting your sentence:
| As 1 passes by the left side of 2 the time interval between
| the correspondence of the right and left sides of 1 with the
| left side of 2 wrt K, is ...
Now that you have clarified, it's clear.
I did my best to understand what you were saying. Sorry.
I might have a look at the rest later today...
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:bkl5oc$38o$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
[snip]
> > Thus which clock ticks faster seems to depend entirely upon the motion
> > of some arbitrary extended object wrt each. If the object is at rest wrt
> > K then the moving clock is ticking slower, but if it is at rest wrt K'
> > then the moving clock is ticking slower. If there are two objects, one
> > at rest wrt each, then the clocks are simultaneously ticking slower and
> > faster than each other. Moreover, the ticking ratio only assumes the
> > simplified form above when the object(s) is/are moving at v wrt one of
> > the frames, i.e. given an object that is moving wrt both frames, the
> > ticking rate does not resolve to either of the above forms, but assumes
> > a different value for every alternate value of x/t, or x'/t' that is not
> > equal to v. IOW SR is gibberish.
>
> If you are a sensible guy, you will have realized wher you went wrong.
> Are you?
Ha, Paul, glad to see that you already took care of it.
That saves me the trouble of trying to understand the
remainder of that message.
Apparently I went too fast on this one.
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> skrev i melding news:bkl5oc$38o$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> >
> > L_o gamma/dt' = L_o/dt
> >
> > dt' = dt L_o gamma/L_o
> >
> > or
> >
> > dt' = dt gamma
>
> Exactly.
> And since dt is read off one clock while dt' is read off
> two separate clocks, we can conclude:
> The rate of the moving clock in 2 is dt/dt' = 1/gamma
> as observed in K'.
>
> > OTOH we have also in the same sequence the additional two events which
> > are the correspondence of the left and right sides of 2 with the right
> > side of 1. Wrt K this time interval is exactly the same as the first,
> > since according to him the carriages are equal in length. However,
> > assuming reciprocity of length contraction the time interval wrt K' is
> >
> > dt' = L_o/gamma v
> >
> > But L_o = dtv, just as before
> >
> > Thus
> >
> > dt' = dt/gamma
>
> Exactly.
> Since dt' in this case is read of one clock while dt is read of two
> separate clocks, we can conclude:
> The rate of the moving clock in 1 is dt'/dt = 1/gamma
> as observed in K'.
Oooops.
Should be:
The rate of the moving clock in 1 is dt'/dt = 1/gamma
as observed in K.
Paul
Henry Wilson
wrote:
>Comment:
>
>I don't understand this or relativity. Not any of it?
No intelligent person can understand relativity because the whole thing is
plain bull from start to finish.
Clock rates and rod lengths DO NOT change with velocity variation.
The proof is trivial.
YBM
[...]
> No intelligent person can understand relativity because the whole thing is
> plain bull from start to finish.
>
> Clock rates and rod lengths DO NOT change with velocity variation.
>
> The proof is trivial.
I love this one.
poor, poor Henry...
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:5fktmvsehpiq5g1l4...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 19:40:26 +0100, "Chris" <nimbo@(nospam)ukonline.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Comment:
> >
> >I don't understand this or relativity. Not any of it?
>
> No intelligent person can understand relativity because the whole thing is
> plain bull from start to finish.
>
> Clock rates and rod lengths DO NOT change with velocity variation.
>
> The proof is trivial.
Trivial bull indeed.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cornered.html
Title: "Henry Wilson Well and Truly Cornered"
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding news:3F6E3E60...@yahoo.com...
>
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> >
> >
> > He has correctly calculated the temporal intervals,
> > but his conclusion of the rate of the clocks is wrong.
> >
> > Paul
>
> You're absolutely right on your last point, and that 'was' the point,
> just in case it flew over your head. SR leads to direct mathematical
> contradictions, and thus does not give the actual ticking rate ratios.
So your point was to get the clock rates wrong in order to
show that SR leads to mathematical contradictions?
Thanks for explaining, that point did indeed fly over my head.
Se my other response to your scenario.
Notice what I say about the clock rates.
> What you morons have done is attempt to twist space and time intervals
> to provide invariance of light speed, and at first sight this seems to
> be doable, but it isn't. Case in point, the argument above.
>
> Suppose you tell me how Hafele-Keating verified the prediction of SR,
> when in fact there are an infinite number of predictions posited by the
> math of SR regarding the relative ticking rate of any two given clocks.
The H&K experiment wasn't about "ticking rates".
It was about comparing the proper time of clocks.
And if you think GR give but one prediction for the proper
time of each clock, you must be pretty stupid.
Do you? Are you?
> As for the remainder of your kook clan, who have taken it upon
> themselves to ridicule 'my' theory, FWIW, I don't have a new fucking
> relativistic theory morons. What I do have though is the same old
> relativistic theory that predated your unambiguously flawed crap. And
> no, you have not one tittle of empirical evidence that falsifies Newton,
> not one.
A nice day to you too.
Paul
jmfb...@aol.com
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <wSmbb.43$mm...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>Chris <nimbo@(nospam)ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
Would pointing Chris at "The Mechanical Universe" videos help?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
alen
> I don't understand this or relativity. Not any of it?
If you understand the fundamental principle of the
constancy of the velocity of light, you understand
the kernel of all the peculiarities associated with SR.
But I say that, if you don't understand the explanations
given to dispose of the twin's paradox, you shouldn't
worry. The acceleration explanation is an elaborate
contrivance to make the twins different from one another.
I don't understand this explanation, either, because
I don't think that it is correct.
As far as the velocity of light is concerned, you have
to decide how the same photon can travel in a
stationary reference frame and in a moving reference
frame at the same velocity in both. If you don't
change the velocity in one of the frames, you have
to change the frame itself. That is, if the moving
frame is forced to provide a shorter distance of
travel for the photon in an apparently shorter time,
you can have the photon travelling at the same velocity
in both frames at once, despite the relative motion.
Thus, one can solve the problem by means of
foreshortening and time dilation in the moving frame.
Assuming that this is the real situation, the question
follows: what is the mechanism by which this is
achieved by nature? I say that that is a further
matter, and something that has not been
adequately explained. But I don't say that therefore
it is not true.
Alen
Richard
Oh, yeah, I see the error, I forgot to stick my head up my ass like you
just did! Sorry.
The clocks are both set to zero upon the intersection of the left side
of 2 and the right side of 1, an objective event that occurs in both
frames. This is reading 1 that you requested.
The K' clock is situated at the right side of 1, and the K clock is
situated at the right side of 2. When these clocks' positions coincide,
both sets of events dealt with above will have simultaneously concluded
wrt K, and at that point the clocks will be adjacent, and thus can be
compared. This is the second reading that you requested. Why you ever
though there was only one reading I'll never know, I can only assume
that you felt the need to pull at least something out of your ass, right
or wrong. Is that it? LOL.
The predicted difference in the clock readings upon coincidence of the
clocks, according to the lorentz transform, depends entirely upon which
of the pair of events is considered, but these pairs of events are
concurrent wrt K, and exactly equal in duration, and thus the observer
in K seeks an objective difference in his clock reading wrt the other,
i.e. that he was promised by you. SR cannot decide what to tell him
though, i.e. whether the other clock has ticked more or whether it has
ticked less than his. QED.
You guys are morons, do you understand what a contradiction is? I'll
give you a clue, it looks something like
a =/= 0
b =/= 0
c =/= 1
a = bc
a = b/c
This contradiction 'should' look familiar, it was just derived before
your eyes from the lorentz fucking transform.
Richard Perry
Dirk Van de moortel
> >
> >
> >
> > _____K'____
> > 1) | |
> > |___________|--> v
> > oo oo ____________
> > | |
> > 2) |_____K______|
> > oo oo
> >
[snip]
I have been looking at the rest of your text.
I'll let Paul deal with the details.
I have this question for you:
Take the Lorentz transformation:
dt' = g( dt - v/c^2 dx ) [1]
dx' = g( dx - v dt ) [2]
and the equivalent inverse:
dt = g( dt' + v/c^2 dx' ) [3]
dx = g( dx' + v dt' ) [4]
For two events with dx = 0 follows from [1]
dt' = g dt
For two events with dx' = 0 follows from [3]
dt = g dt'
Do you really think that this is a contradiction?
For two events with dt = 0 follows from [2]
dx' = g dx
For two events with dt' = 0 follows from [4]
dx = g dx'
Do you really think that this is a contradiction?
Dirk Vdm
Henry Wilson
wrote:
What a load of crap.
Under conditions of local source dependency, a clock moving away at v appears
to be running slower by (c-v)/c.
One approaching at v appears fast by (c+v)/c.
If you don't believe me, try using Jupiter's rotation as your clock. Or maybe
you don't believe that what one OBSERVES is also what one SEES.
Note: without source dependency, the above ratios are, c/(c+v) and c/(c-v)
respectively. At large distances, the whole situation is complicated by the
intricacies of my H-aether theory.
>
>Paul
>
Androcles
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jef...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:1fl43ewhumoio$.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf...
looks mildly interesting, mind if I poke in? Well, I will anyway.
Do we think the speed of gravity is instantaneous, huh?
Tough question, I don't know. Let's have a thought experiment.
Out there, some distance away, let's make it 4 light years, the distance to
the nearest star system, E = mc^2 suddenly happens. A star blows itself to
smithereens. Not quite sure what 'smithereens' are, but anyway, it goes
supernova and converts itself entirely to energy. No mass left. Just lots of
photons flying away. Having no mass, it now has no gravity. So its original
gravity, if it were detectable, has now vanished. A step function, from some
to none. But the star is (was) a long way off. How long (if we could detect
it anyway) would it take for us to notice that it's gravitational field was
missing?
Do you think the speed of gravity is instantaneous? if you answer 'no', why?
If you answer 'no', why not? On what basis (or prejudice) would you base
your assumption? If you answer 'Don't know', then I'll be in full agreement
with you.
Androcles
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Z7Mbb.764$yn2...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
...
> Do you think the speed of gravity is instantaneous? if you answer 'no',
why?
> If you answer 'no', why not? On what basis (or prejudice) would you base
> your assumption? If you answer 'Don't know', then I'll be in full
agreement
> with you.
I will answer "doesn't matter". Since the space created by any collection
of mass/energy "orbits" with it (Mach, Einsten), and we cannot make the
stuff truly disappear, such a concept is a nonsequitur.
David A. Smith
Androcles
"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:JeMbb.6804$gv5.5137@fed1read05...
Play fair and don't snip, David.
Androcles
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8YMbb.1343$yn2...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> news:JeMbb.6804$gv5.5137@fed1read05...
> > Dear Androcles:
> >
> > "Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:Z7Mbb.764$yn2...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > ...
> > > Do you think the speed of gravity is instantaneous? if you answer
'no',
> > why?
> > > If you answer 'no', why not? On what basis (or prejudice) would you
base
> > > your assumption? If you answer 'Don't know', then I'll be in full
> > agreement
> > > with you.
> >
> > I will answer "doesn't matter". Since the space created by any
collection
> > of mass/energy "orbits" with it (Mach, Einsten), and we cannot make the
> > stuff truly disappear, such a concept is a nonsequitur.
>
> I said it was a thought experiment, didn't I?
> Play fair and don't snip, David.
Sorry.
David A. Smith
Jeff Relf
You say : " Having no mass , it now has no gravity . "
All energy , including photons ,
is gravitated and also gravitates .
In fact , According to Stephen Hawking , on cosmic scales
there are only two types of energy :
-- Gravity , which is negative .
-- All other energy , which is positive .
And the net energy of the universe is observed to be zero .
If gravity did not propagate at the speed of light ,
and instead propagates instantly ,
then Newton was right and Einstein was wrong .
When pigs fly dude ...
Gravity obviously propagates at the speed of light .
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jef...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:ac2u935lo9wa$.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf...
If a body is extended, in the words of Einstein, to the space around it,
then one can say that there is presence of mass/energy at any point. If
one can say this, then the curvature of spacetime due to any collection of
mass/energy travels with it. Since we cannot make mass instantaneously
disappear, we can never know at what speed gravity "propagates". So pick a
speed.
Until we have a "Dune" type star drive, we'll never know.
David A. Smith
tadchem
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jef...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
<snip>
> If gravity did not propagate at the speed of light ,
> and instead propagates instantly ,
> then Newton was right and Einstein was wrong .
>
> When pigs fly dude ...
> Gravity obviously propagates at the speed of light .
After calculating *all* the effects on the orbit of Mercury by the other
planets predicted by Newtonian mechanics, there remains an unexplainable
advance in its perihelion of 42".84 +/- 0".41 per century. Einstein used GR
to predict an advance of 42".9
Using Newtonian theory, light (which has no rest mass) should not be
affected by gravitation, but it is.
Newtonian mechanics also fails to account for gravitational red-shift.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Henry Wilson
wrote:
Did Newton think of the magnetic field caused by imbalance of residual electric
charge on the planet's surface?
>
>
>Tom Davidson
>Richmond, VA
>
Androcles
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jef...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
> Hi Androcles ,
> You say : " Having no mass , it now has no gravity . "
>
>
> All energy , including photons ,
> is gravitated and also gravitates .
converting itself entirely to photons (I thought it was rather obvious that
they wouldn't hang around in the same place) would produce the largest
possible negative-going gravity pulse imaginable. I also suggested that this
event took place as near to the Solar system as the nearest star system.
This would raise a question in the mind of a thinking physicist (not too
many of those on this ng).
> In fact , According to Stephen Hawking , on cosmic scales
> there are only two types of energy :
> -- Gravity , which is negative .
> -- All other energy , which is positive .
>
> And the net energy of the universe is observed to be zero .
>
> If gravity did not propagate at the speed of light ,
> and instead propagates instantly ,
> then Newton was right and Einstein was wrong .
I don't think Newton ever said anything about how rapidly gravity
propagates. I think you are blustering.
>
> When pigs fly dude ...
> Gravity obviously propagates at the speed of light .
Obviously, huh? Well, not to me it isn't, I have no data to make an
assessment. I don't think it is obvious to you, either. Rather, I think you
are shooting from the hip, following your intuition. Dangerous, is that. You
might shoot yourself in the foot. I'd caution you against bigotry, too.
Androcles
Jeff Relf
" All energy , including photons ,
is gravitated and also gravitates . "
I meant to say :
" All energy , including photons ,
is gravitated and also causes gravitation . "
Androcles
"tadchem" <tadche...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QIRbb.234$ai7...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
claims in support of their precious beliefs? Once a day? Twice a day? Every
post? Did the calculators include the massive rotation of the nearby Sun?
Did they include the Moon? Did they include radiation pressure from the Sun?
Did they REALLY calculate *all* effects?
Where did Newton ever claim light has no rest mass? I agree it doesn't, but
why do you think Newtonian theory say light should be unaffected by gravity?
It doesn't say that at all, because it doesn't say ANYTHING about it. If
Newtonian theory say anything about the bending of light rays from a distant
star during a solar eclipse, it says it does happen, the light passes
through the upper fringes of the solar atmosphere and is REFRACTED.
Newton didn't know about gravitational red-shift, and to be honest, I don't
know much about it either, having no data to base an assessment on it.
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to post the unedited and raw data?
Androcles
Androcles
"Henry Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:26:56 GMT, "tadchem" <tadche...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jeff Relf" <__.Jef...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
> >news:ac2u935lo9wa$.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> If gravity did not propagate at the speed of light ,
> >> and instead propagates instantly ,
> >> then Newton was right and Einstein was wrong .
> >>
> >> When pigs fly dude ...
> >> Gravity obviously propagates at the speed of light .
> >
> >After calculating *all* the effects on the orbit of Mercury by the other
> >planets predicted by Newtonian mechanics, there remains an unexplainable
> >advance in its perihelion of 42".84 +/- 0".41 per century. Einstein used
GR
> >to predict an advance of 42".9
> >
> >Using Newtonian theory, light (which has no rest mass) should not be
> >affected by gravitation, but it is.
> >
> >Newtonian mechanics also fails to account for gravitational red-shift.
>
> >
> >
> >Richmond, VA
> >
>
> Did Newton think of the magnetic field caused by imbalance of residual
electric
> charge on the planet's surface?
>
Tidal lock? I was told once (in a different ng) that Mercury rotates exactly
twice during its year, much as our moon rotates exactly once during it's
'year' (a month), keeping the same face toward us, but I've never checked
any sources.
And of course there is always this one.... how long has the advance of
perihelion of Mercury been going on? Millions of years? Was it retarded a
couple of centuries ago, when no one was looking? Does it really happen?
Hmm.. I think that one is pretty weak. Still, it should be considered, even
if discarded. Here's another. How far has the solar system progressed in its
orbit around the galactic centre? Has this been considered as well?
Androcles.
Androcles
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jef...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
Ok, seems reasonable. So when my imaginary local supernova event occurs, all
the photons carry off the mass of the star in the form of energy in an ever
expanding shell, and the centre of gravity of all this remains right where
it always was, at the star? Hence no gravity pulse? So how are we ever going
to detect 'gravity waves', and why is anyone wasting time and money on a
hopeless experiment looking for them?
On the other hand, if, as I suggested, there was the biggest gravitational
pulse imaginable, how large would it be when it reached us? Work that out,
and then ask why is anyone wasting time and money on a hopeless experiment
looking for gravity waves?
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:ACUbb.3567$yn2...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Geez, where did Newton ever claim that the conservation
of energy is "unnecessary to answer the question":
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EnergyConservation.html
?
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:3f701dfc$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:SgVbb.3594$yn2...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:3f701dfc$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> >
[snip]
> > > Geez, how often to relativists make unsubstantiated, prejudiced and
> biased
> > > claims in support of their precious beliefs? Once a day? Twice a day?
> Every
> > > post? Did the calculators include the massive rotation of the nearby
> Sun?
> > > Did they include the Moon? Did they include radiation pressure from the
> Sun?
> > > Did they REALLY calculate *all* effects?
> > > Where did Newton ever claim light has no rest mass?
> >
> > Geez, where did Newton ever claim that the conservation
> > of energy is "unnecessary to answer the question":
> >
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EnergyConservation.html
> > ?
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fumbles.htm
Are you sure everything is okay up there?
I mean, *really* sure?
Dirk Vdm
Robert J. Kolker
Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> Did Newton think of the magnetic field caused by imbalance of residual electric
> charge on the planet's surface?
Newton did not conceive of either magnetic fields or electric fields.
His notions were based on force that one body exerts on another. He did
not make energy the central concept of his physics.
Farady invented the field concept.
Bob Kolker
BernardZ
says...
> Hi Androcles ,
> You say : " Having no mass , it now has no gravity . "
>
>
> All energy , including photons ,
> is gravitated and also gravitates .
>
In black holes we would have no mass as such but energy. It has gravity.
Paul B. Andersen
"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding news:3F6F3A49...@yahoo.com...
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> >
> > If you are a sensible guy, you will have realized where you went wrong.
> > Are you?
> I forgot to stick my head up my ass like you
> just did!
[..]
> I can only assume
> that you felt the need to pull at least something out of your ass,
[..]
> You guys are morons,
[..]
> > the lorentz fucking transform.
I guess this answers my question.
Paul
Androcles
"BernardZ" <Berna...@OPTUShotmail.com remove OPTUS> wrote in message
news:MPG.19dadc228988194c989793@news...
Sounds to me to be on a par with "All bright green flying elephants lay
eggs".
But I did NOT say
> > All energy , including photons ,
> > is gravitated and also gravitates .
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:bkpl5t$994$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
hm... I was referring to the other details for you to take
care off, but never mind, I'll wait for an answer to my
question to him...
Dirk Vdm
Richard
I'll get back to you on that when I get time Dirk. BTW, I meant the term
'morons' to be taken in a friendly sort of way, forgot the :),
In short, you aren't following the argument Dirk, more later:)
Richard Perry
Paul B. Andersen
"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding news:3F708D6D...@yahoo.com...
You seem to have forgotten a lot of smileys.
But an ass with a smiley attached is still an ass.
I have addressed the issues raised by you in a posting a couple
of years ago. The scenario is for all practical purposes identical
to yours. Notice that I have specifically addressed the issues
you find contradictory.
Here it is again: (best read with a fixed width font)
The "mutual time dilation" is no problem if you
realize what you are comparing.
Let's have two synchronized clocks in each of two frames
of reference, let the clocks be a proper distance d from each other
in their respective frames, let the frames move with a relative
speed v.
-d 0 x'
K' frame: B'------A'--> -> v
K frame: A ------B--> 0 d x
There are three events of interest:
E1: A and A' adjacent
E2: A and B' adjacent
E3: B and A' adjacent
Let's calculate what the clocks will show at these events:
E1: A = t1 = 0, A' = t1' = 0 (by fiat, we set the clocks thus)
E2:
In the K' frame, A will be at the position -d at t2' = d/v
LT: t2 = (d/v + (-d)*v/c^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
t2 = (d/v)*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
E3:
In the K frame, A' will be at the position d at t3 = d/v
LT: t3' = (d/v - d*v/c^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
t3' = (d/v)*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Summing up, the readings of the clocks will be:
E1: A = t1 = 0, A'= t1'= 0
E2: A = t2 =(d/v)*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),B'= t2'= d/v
E3: B = t3 = d/v, A'= t3'=(d/v)*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
The symmetry is obvious.
So which clock is running slow or fast relative to which?
The answer depend on how we compare the clocks!
===============================================
In the K-frame, we can measure the rate dt'/dt of
the moving A' clock by comparing the reading of A'
with the _two_ clocks A and B as it passes them:
dt'/dt = (t3' - t1')/(t3 - t1) = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Conclusion #1:
A' runs slow as measured in the K frame.
=======================================
In the K'-frame, we can measure the rate dt/dt' of
the moving A clock by comparing the reading of A
with the _two_ clocks A' and B' as it passes them:
dt/dt' = (t2 - t1)/(t2' - t1') = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Conclusion #2;
A runs slow as measured in the K' frame.
=======================================
Conclusion #1 does not contradict conclusion #2.
They state in fact two different things.
But we can draw more conclusions:
We can measure the rate R' at which an observer in K'
will see the co-ordinate time of K run by reading the
clocks A and B as they passes the A' clock:
R' = (t3 - t1)/(t3' - t1') = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Conclusion #3:
The co-ordinate time of K runs _fast_ as measured in the K'-frame
=================================================================
We can measure the rate R at which an observer in K
will see the co-ordinate time of K' run by reading the
clocks A' and B' as they passes the A clock:
R = (t2' - t1')/(t2 - t1) = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Conclusion #4:
The co-ordinate time of K' runs _fast_ as measured in the K-frame
=================================================================
There is nothing contradictory between conclusion #3 and #4 either,
as they too state different things.
It is in fact conclusions #1 and #3 and conclusions #2 and #4
respectively that state the same facts.
Paul
Mitchell
The end of time is also The End of everything(else). If you end time
you end space - and if there is no longer space-time there can be no
mass.
What you are saying Androcles eliminates black holes.
The strength of gravity is limited.
It can be understood as an acceleration equivalent.
The speed of light is the limit. You can only have a
less than light speed acceleration strength of gravity.
If gravity is motion it will obey the motion laws.
General Relativity as it stands does not go far enough.
Einstein missed the inconsistancy between the Special theory and GR
that crops up in black holes. But he never believed in them(black
holes) himself. He didn't think it could go that far.
But also he failed to think of his gravity's strength through his
equivalence principle. He was to involved with curved geometry to
see the obvious.
So what really happens? If mass would drop out of the universe the
gravity
of that mass would go - unraveling systems centers. obviously we do
not see this. We do see immense bursts of energy coming from where the
black holes
would be considered to be.
When the limit or apex of the strength of gravity is reached it seems
that mass must convert to energy and radiate outward rather than drop
out of the universe. When enough energy has been sloughed off the
object
can settle down with a lesser but stable gravity.
One thing is for sure - a new class of neutron star exists - a super
neutron star.
Androcles
"Mitchell" <macro...@internetCDS.com> wrote in message
news:9c3da975.03092...@posting.google.com...
high.
Androcles
HenriWilson
I pointed this out several months ago. Since Mercury is close to the sun,
rotates slowly and is quite hot, there is every chance that a large (mainly
surface) charge gradient always exists between its light and dark sides.
Although charge itself follows an inverse square law and should not affect the
orbit, the magnetic fields set up by the transverse and rotational movements of
the dipole might interact with the sun's magnetic moment and conceiveably
affect the rate of precession considerably.
Of course Newton didn't know much about E and M.
>
>
Henri Wilson.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
My latest: http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/movingrod.exe
Jeff Relf
Regarding the propagation speed of gravity , You say :
" I have no data to make an assessment . "
Sure you do :
While Newton's equations model instantaneous propagation ,
Einstein's equations model propagation at the speed of light .
There is overwhelming evidence that General Relativity
is more accurate than Newton's equations .
As I mentioned higher up in this thread
( news:1b5wbeqec6edx.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf )
the dampening of binary pulsars supports General Relativity .
The many likely black holes that we've seen also support GR .
The GPS system supports GR , etc. , etc. .
And if gravity doesn't propagate at the speed of light ,
then GR is just Plain Wrong .
Gravity Probe B , a nearby supernova picked up by LIGO ,
or a farther away supernova
picked up by one of LIGO's replacements ...
would just add to the mountain of proof .
Double-A
It's called a Quark Star.
Double-A
Jeff Relf
You say : " In black holes
we would have no mass as such but energy ... gravity . "
That depends on Where the observer is .
For an observer in a near infinitely distant free fall frame ,
Black holes , a.k.a. frozen starts ,
can never be observed to fully form .
Instead , mass would be observed to pile up at the horizon .
And , After a googol years or so ,
our entire universe is on course become
almost infinitely cold .
So Hawking radiation would make the frozen star
a bit warmer than the ambient universe .
And the frozen star would be " Observed " to evaporate .
That would signal the death of all energy :
The Big Freeze .
The counter point to
the near infinite heat of the big bang .
The end point in our universe's heatscape .
( http://www.NCPlus.NET/~jeff-relf/ )
Jeff Relf
You say :
how large would it be when it reached us ?
Work that out ,
and then ask why is anyone wasting time and money on
a hopeless experiment looking for gravity waves ? "
It's far from hopeless .
The accelerating mass and energy of a supernova
very likely does send out gravity waves .
Just like the accelerating mass of a pulsar does .
LIGO is looking for gravity waves from supernova ,
but it's probably not sensitive enough yet .
The supernova might have to be quite large and quite close .
But how large and how close ? No one really knows .
That's what LIGO et al. are trying to determine .
Until then , General Relativity ,
and it's speed of light propagation ,
is Very well supported by many other observations .
Jim Greenfield
Andro, sorry to butt in, but this seems an appropriate thread to ask:
if gravity acts from a 'center' wouldn't its speed be very easy to
calculate? Just release something, and see how long it takes to begin
moving (as we are some thousands of kms from earth center of gravity).
If there is a delay, indicates a time for information to be exchanged
between center and body. If motion immediate = very fast or infinite
speed of gravitational propagation.
Jim G
Jeff Relf
You wrongly think :
" Since we cannot make mass instantaneously disappear ,
we can never know at what speed gravity ' propagates ' .
So pick a speed . "
Sorry dlzc , instantaneous acceleration is not required .
Any time mass or energy accelerates
one could conceivably sense gravity waves ,
and that includes the angular acceleration of a pulsar .
The dampening orbit of binary pulsars supports
General Relativity .
( See news:news:1b5wbeqec6edx.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf )
Everyone one of the numerous experiments that support
General Relativity also Support the notion that
gravity propagates at the speed of light ...
at least as far as GR is applicable .
If you need _ Perfect _ proof ... Don't hold your breath .
Outside of GR ,
The next few generations of LIGO type instruments
are the best hope of supporting
the notion of gravity waves .
Jeff Relf
You suggest a test for measuring
the propagation speed of gravity :
" Just release something ,
and see how long it takes to begin moving ... "
There'd be immediate acceleration on the release .
But that doesn't mean that gravity isn't a local phenomenon .
( In fact it Very likely is local . )
General Relativity's field equations predict gravity waves
when mass or energy is _ Accelerated _ .
And GR says that
those waves will propagate at the speed of light .
But , given the current precision of LIGO et al. ,
these waves have been too weak to directly detect .
At any rate , GR , with it's speed of light propagation ,
is the best guess we have so far .
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:paccb.3988$ot1....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Jeff Relf" <__.Jef...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
> > Hi dlzc ,
> > You wrongly think :
> > " Since we cannot make mass instantaneously disappear ,
> > we can never know at what speed gravity ' propagates ' .
> > So pick a speed . "
> >
> >
> > Sorry dlzc , instantaneous acceleration is not required .
> hour. We, being smarter than the average bear,
Don't overestimate yourself:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Humour.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Chuckle.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AboutTheories.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ConArtist.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ProvePostulate.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Abstraction.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EnergyConservation.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SpeedInvariant.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndersenLogic.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jef...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:qvwwihrwujrw$.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf...
> You wrongly think :
> " Since we cannot make mass instantaneously disappear ,
> we can never know at what speed gravity ' propagates ' .
> So pick a speed . "
>
>
> Sorry dlzc , instantaneous acceleration is not required .
tends to zero, and use the derivative dx/dt when we talk about it.
Acceleration likewise, dx^2/d^2t. What is the derivative of acceleration?
Isn't acceleration instantaneous, occuring as soon as the thrusters light
up, or the gas pedal hits the floor? Likewise when the sh*t hits the fan or
the club hits the golf ball? The ball may distort before it moves, an
inertial effect, but the acceleration applied is instantaneous.
How about deceleration, when the jumper hits the pavement or the tree jumps
out into the path of the car? Isn't that extreme deceleration that
instantaneously ceases?
When you pull up at a red light, ever notice the little jerk as the
deceleration from your brakes ceases? I tend to take my foot off at the last
moment, letting the car roll another yard to prevent it.
> Any time mass or energy accelerates
> one could conceivably sense gravity waves ,
> and that includes the angular acceleration of a pulsar .
>
> The dampening orbit of binary pulsars supports
> General Relativity .
> ( See news:news:1b5wbeqec6edx.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf )
Does GR need support then? Well, I suppose you need to prop it up if you are
a relativist.
> Everyone one of the numerous experiments that support
> General Relativity also Support the notion that
> gravity propagates at the speed of light ...
> at least as far as GR is applicable .
>
> If you need _ Perfect _ proof ... Don't hold your breath .
>
Every experiment I've ever performed on various colours of flying elephants
supports the notion that only the bright green ones lay eggs.
If you need perfect proof, don't hold your breath, and I'm worried there may
be a dark red one hiding under a gooseberry bush that has sneaked an egg
into a bright green one's nest, cuckoo like, although it may just be a
gooseberry. It sure looks like a Victoria plum, but one can never be
certain. I'll have to wait for it to hatch. If it turns out to be a silly
goose (plenty of those around here) I'll know for sure.
> Outside of GR ,
> The next few generations of LIGO type instruments
> are the best hope of supporting
> the notion of gravity waves .
Outside the gooseberry bush, the next generation of flying elephants are the
best hope of stifling further rambling nonsense about GR, and we know that
ain't a-gonna happen, folks.
Androcles
Androcles
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jef...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
> Hi Androcles ,
> Regarding the propagation speed of gravity , You say :
> " I have no data to make an assessment . "
>
>
> Sure you do :
>
> While Newton's equations model instantaneous propagation ,
Look... I pass an electric current down a wire. This produces a magnetic
field. At a distance d from the wire is a point, P, and I place a compass
needle there. At the instant I throw the switch, there is a small delay
before I see the needle deflect. Some of that is due to the inertia of the
mass of the needle, but if we ignore that, there is still another delay
caused by it taking time for the field to reach P at speed c. Since em
radiation is partly magnetic, it is reasonable to presume that magnetic
fields propagate at c, right? Ok, then. Would Newton disagree? I don't think
he would, but he isn't here to answer, so I'll answer for him. He wouldn't
disagree. He'd say that he never got the chance to play around with
electricity, and he's all ears. Now, leaving the current permanently on,
without ever throwing the switch, I can move the compass from P to Q and
measure the strength and direction of the magnetic field, because there is
another magnetic field, the Earth's, also affecting the needle. Under these
conditions, I am no longer measuring how rapidly the field propagates. It is
just there. If I want to know the propagation speed, I must operate the
switch. Now, how in the blue blazes are we going to turn on or turn off
gravity?
I've already suggest that the biggest gravity pulse you could possibly hope
for would be a star that exploded entirely, releasing ALL its mass as
radiation, so that the gravity vanishes along with the mass, and taking the
inverse square law into account and imagining this event takes place 4 light
years away, the distance to the nearest star to our solar system, do you
think you could detect the gravity pulse? Likewise, do you think you could
measure the magnetic field in the wire with the compass on the other side of
the room, let alone down the street or in the next city? Because what you
are trying to do is the equivalent of measuring the field surrounding the
wire from a different continent. Now, if I throw the switch on and off, it
is conceivable that you might hear a click in your radio, but you'll have a
hard time detecting if that click came from my radio, there is a lot of
noise and clutter in the way. But you cannot detect the field with the
compass from a great distance when the field is left on. I don't know how to
operate a gravity switch. There is a gravity wave you can detect, that of
the Moon as the Earth rotates beneath it. It's effect can clearly be seen in
the tides of our waters. It is the equivalent of moving the wire toward and
away from the compass needle. It says nothing about the speed of propagation
of gravity, it only detects the field is present and varying in a regular
fashion. See if you can measure the gravity of Barnard's star as the tides
measure the moon's, that has a high proper motion, and not too far away as
astronomical distances go. I'll bet all I own to a dime you can't.
When you've devised a gravity switch, come back and see me and we'll discuss
the propagation speed of gravity waves and how to detect them. I wouldn't be
surprised to find that the 'gravity radio' could here the 'click' of the
gravity switch, but there is no way it will ever detect a 'gravity wave'
other than the one I've described with the rising and falling of water on
our coastlines.
> Einstein's equations model propagation at the speed of light .
>
Y'know, in 1987 a nearby supernova went pop, and we saw the neutrino shower
BEFORE we saw the light. Einstein's equations didn't predict that, se we'll
pretend it didn't happen because it couldn't have, it would make Einstein
wrong. Nor did we detect any gravity wave. Not because there wasn't one,
there probably was. It is just too far away for us to detect. The inverse
square law is a very powerful law. On the other hand, it may not have yet
arrived, and the speed of gravity waves is much less than c. Who knows? Keep
looking out for it, the train is running late.
> There is overwhelming evidence that General Relativity
> is more accurate than Newton's equations .
I'm not overwhelmed, but I am ever-whelmed at the insistence of relativists,
like Jehovah's Witnesses, that they are right and every other person has to
see it there way.
Remainder snipped, the jury is still waiting for the evidence concerning the
rate of propagation of gravity waves, and not yet ready for the attorney's
summation.
Overcome my objections above, and I'll be all ears. Until then I have no
opinion on the speed of propagation, and serious doubts that you can devise
an experiment to detect it. I'll reiterate. I have no data to make an
assessment. Theories are not data.
I don't object in any way that you experiment, though. Michelson's
experiment to measure the speed of light through the aether failed to
measure light's speed, but it did dispel the aether theory, even if it
started relativity off. Of course, by Occams' Razor, the simplest solution
is usually the correct one, and the simplest and most obvious solution to
MMX is that the velocity of light is source dependent, which is how I
interpret the raw data. Any objection you have to source dependency is based
on your prejudices, not on the data.
Androcles
Robert J. Kolker
Androcles wrote:
>
> Y'know, in 1987 a nearby supernova went pop, and we saw the neutrino shower
> BEFORE we saw the light. Einstein's equations didn't predict that, se we'll
> pretend it didn't happen because it couldn't have, it would make Einstein
> wrong.
Nonsense. The neutrino emission occurred well before the star exploded.
The neutrino emission acompanied the loss of mass that ultimately lead
to the star becoming a nova.
Bob Kolker
Androcles
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:0ju1nvo9tocf3dkvi...@4ax.com...
I'll go with a physical cause over magimaths any day.
Androcles
Robert J. Kolker
Androcles wrote:
> I guess the jury is still out on the cause of the advance of perihelion, but
> I'll go with a physical cause over magimaths any day.
Physical causes are hypothetical. Have you seen an atom lately? The only
things that are factual are readings of laboratory instruments used in
making experiments. Only the perceived can be certain. Anything that is
outside the realm of the directly perceived is guess work.
Examples: Heat was once assumed to be a fluid (Caloric). Now it is
presumed to be the motion of molecules. Seen any molecules lately?
Since virtually all causes are hypothetical the only way to develop
testable quantative predictions based on hypothetical causes with by way
of mathematical inference.
Newton characterized forces as vectors. But vectors are mathematical
abstractions. Newton got all of his results by geometrical reasoning.
Read his -Principia Mathematica- sometime. Physics cannot exist without
mathematics.
And even when you nail down a hypothetical cause by way of repeated
experimental verification, there is the matter of finding the cause of
the cause. The cause of the cause of the cause ..... etc.. It never
ends. Rock bottom causes cannot be establish perceptually.
David Hume pointed out that cause is a persistent association of
perceived events. The necessary connection between one event (the cause)
and another even ( the effect ), lives up in our heads. In short all our
dearest causes are abstractions. Which seems to bother you. Why?
Bob Kolker
Jeff Relf
You ask :
" Do you think you could detect the gravity pulse ? "
I get the impression that your mind is made up on the issue .
My mind is made up too :
Relativity is the best theory so far ,
and only minor refinements to it
are ever likely to appear any time soon .
You say relativity is wrong ?
I see no reason to take your word over the word of Nasa ,
and so many other scientists .
Jeff Relf
You say :
While it's very likely that
you've never done these experiments ...
It's very likely that the Nasa , an other such scientists ,
have done the work that they claim to have done .
It's also very likely that you're just plain nuts .
Androcles
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jef...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
> Hi Androcles ,
> You say :
> " On the other hand , if , as I suggested ,
> there was the biggest gravitational pulse imaginable ,
> how large would it be when it reached us ?
> Work that out ,
> and then ask why is anyone wasting time and money on
> a hopeless experiment looking for gravity waves ? "
>
>
> It's far from hopeless .
over.
First measure the gravity wave from the moon by letting off a hydrogen bomb
on the other side and perturbing its orbit. If you can manage that, I'll be
all ears.
>
> The accelerating mass and energy of a supernova
> very likely does send out gravity waves .
>
> Just like the accelerating mass of a pulsar does .
>
> LIGO is looking for gravity waves from supernova ,
> but it's probably not sensitive enough yet .
>
> The supernova might have to be quite large and quite close .
>
> But how large and how close ? No one really knows .
>
> That's what LIGO et al. are trying to determine .
>
> Until then , General Relativity ,
> and it's speed of light propagation ,
> is Very well supported by many other observations .
Uh huh... I should really stop and listen to Jehovah's Witnesses, too, I
suppose. Doubtless they think their ideas are well supported.
A rainbow is God's sign from Heaven... That is well supported, too, and I
can't ignore the data. I've even been to the end of a rainbow, right beside
it. I was riding a bicycle in the rain, before me was the rainbow in the
sky, and right beside me, in the spray from the passing cars, was the end,
touching the ground. Unfortunately the crock of gold was at the other end,
there was only a crock of horse manure this side with a chuckling leprechaun
driving by as he sprayed me. I didn't mind though, it was a gloriously warm
day and I have a waterproof skin. Of course there ARE some of us that think
a rainbow has something to do with internal reflection and refraction of
light, but it is nice to think of it as something wonderfully magical. And
guess what? It even moved along with me, staying right beside me. Perhaps I
was travelling at the speed of light.
Produce the data, and I'll listen. Produce a faulty pet theory, and I'm not
interested.
That'll be 5 house points to Gryffindor, none to Slitherin. Must try harder.
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:qBecb.517$%Z3....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Are you going to bring Santa back one of these days?
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Aandrocles+santa
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Aandroclesinflorida+santa
We miss him.
Dirk Vdm
BernardZ
says...
> That depends on Where the observer is .
>
The observer inside the black hole might see mass being squeezed into
energy yet he would not notice any reduction in gravity.
--
If you believe there are witches, and you look hard, you will probably
find them; they did so in the Middle Ages.
Jeff Relf
You say :
too "
Your mind must be really screwed up if you can't
tell the difference between which things are more likely
and which things are less likely .
You're drug addled mind wants perfect proof ?
All I can say is : You'll have to wait ... Forever .
Androcles
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jef...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
aww... really? I don't like plain nuts. I like 'em when they've got some
chocolate around 'em.
Look, nobody disputes empirical data and calls themself I scientist. But
anyone can dispute reduced data, and dispute the theory that underlines the
experimenters motives in performing the experiment. Any fool can see the Sun
and Moon go around the Earth, that is empirical data. Does that mean the
Earth is at the centre of the Universe? It's a little wild, don't think, to
claim that the Earth turns, the Sun is at centre, yet the Moon does orbit
the Earth? The guy that came up with that idea must have been nuts... anyone
with half a brain can see the sun crossing the sky. So why do we believe him
today? Because it makes sense, that's why. Because the Copernican theory is
actually a simpler solution to the empirical data than the Ptolemaic theory.
And why I am I nuts for disputing you? All you've produced is your theory of
propagation of gravity waves, no data. How do I check it? Yet when I present
my theory of bright green flying elephant's eggs, you say I'm nuts. What's
the difference? My theory is stupid because I'm talking about things that
don't exist, and yours isn't? If you think gravity propagates at c, explain
why, don't tell me GR says so. Don't tell me NASA scientists have performed
experiments to detect the speed of gravity waves, they haven't. The best
they can hope for is to detect one at all, regardless of its speed. I know
I'm nuts, but I seem to be in plenty of company.
Androcles
Jeff Relf
You say :
mass being squeezed into energy yet
he would not notice any reduction in gravity . "
A galaxy's worth of energy
compacted into an infinitesimal volume
would be nearly infinitely hot .
But at that heat ,
who's can say that any " Observers " even exist .
Yet , to a distant observer , it's a " Frozen Star " ,
colder than the cosmic microwave background radiation .
Jeff Relf
You say :
elephant's eggs , you say I'm nuts .
What's the difference ? "
The fact that you can't see the difference ,
when the difference is as plain as the nose on your face ,
and when many have foolishly tried to explain it to you ,
That makes you nuts .
While all evidence suggests that
relativity is the soundest theory ,
There is precious little evidence that you have a brain .
Androcles
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:bkrr36$597ie$1...@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> Androcles wrote:
>
> > I guess the jury is still out on the cause of the advance of perihelion,
but
> > I'll go with a physical cause over magimaths any day.
>
> Physical causes are hypothetical. Have you seen an atom lately? The only
> things that are factual are readings of laboratory instruments used in
> making experiments. Only the perceived can be certain. Anything that is
> outside the realm of the directly perceived is guess work.
I have no dispute with empirical data, only the theory that explains it.
> Examples: Heat was once assumed to be a fluid (Caloric). Now it is
> presumed to be the motion of molecules. Seen any molecules lately?
Personally, no. I do believe some IBM guys managed to place some atoms
very precisely, to spell 'IBM', and used an electron microscope to view it,
although I am vague on the details, it was some time ago and I can't quote
the source. Possibly others will. If memory serves me (it often doesn't
these days) there was a picture in New Scientist.
> Since virtually all causes are hypothetical the only way to develop
> testable quantative predictions based on hypothetical causes with by way
> of mathematical inference.
I'd love to fire a pulse to the Moon and back from an orbiter, to directly
test Einstein's HYPOTHESIS, not postulate, concerning the source dependency
or independency of light. Mathematical inference suggests his claim is
impossible.
ref. http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/, I'm not going to reproduce
it here.
>
> Newton characterized forces as vectors. But vectors are mathematical
> abstractions. Newton got all of his results by geometrical reasoning.
> Read his -Principia Mathematica- sometime. Physics cannot exist without
> mathematics.
It's a pity Einstein lacked the same reasoning power of Newton.
> And even when you nail down a hypothetical cause by way of repeated
> experimental verification, there is the matter of finding the cause of
> the cause. The cause of the cause of the cause ..... etc.. It never
> ends. Rock bottom causes cannot be establish perceptually.
Yes, I agree. If leptons and baryons are made of quarks, what are quarks
made of...
Greater fleas have smaller fleas on their backs to bite 'em,
and smaller fleas have lesser fleas, and so on, ad infinitum.
> David Hume pointed out that cause is a persistent association of
> perceived events. The necessary connection between one event (the cause)
> and another even ( the effect ), lives up in our heads. In short all our
> dearest causes are abstractions. Which seems to bother you. Why?
>
> Bob Kolker
No, it doesn't bother me at all. I just happen to have a different
abstraction in my head than you do. I wish to study cause and effect (for no
other perceived reason than curiosity, another abstraction which I cannot
explain the cause of, but maybe its evolutionary chemistry), and I cannot
accept that mathematics is the cause; mathematics can only help explain the
underlying physical cause that is an abstraction in my head, and relativity
fails to do that. That seems to bother you, or you wouldn't be writing about
it.
Androcles
Androcles
Androcles
Androcles
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jef...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
Ok, we've reached an impasse. You think the speed of gravity waves can be
measured, I'm not sure they exist.
Just remember that majority opinion has been proven wrong in nearly every
advance of the sciences.
Copernicus (Astronomy)
Galileo (Astronomy)
Darwin (Biology, still has strong opposition, clashes with biblical
teaching)
Wegner (Geophysics) etc.,etc.,
and you don't have to take my word that you have no evidence of gravity
waves, I'm open-minded on that issue. Produce the evidence and I'll take a
look at it. I'm not going to theorize about something I have no knowledge
of, that's all, anymore than you would theorize about the reproductive
habits of bright green flying elephants.
By all means follow the sheep if that is what you wish. Only a few people
can think for themselves, the majority merely parrot what they've heard
elsewhere. That is particularly true in the case of 'Darwin v Word of God',
and I expect it in 'Androcles v Einstein'. I can only win over the thinkers,
not the followers. You can lead a man to reason, but you can't make him
think.
Androcles
Androcles
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jef...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
Uh huh... I'm quite used to abuse and insult. It is a tactic my opponents
employ when they are lost for a sensible reply. And, incidentally, I'm quite
capable of returning it. Mind your manners, little boy. They make you look
as foolish as I.
Androcles
Androcles
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jef...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
Well, you ARE getting upset, aren't you? I've never touched drugs in my
life, son. My addled mind is all my own, fully impaired without the aid of
chemicals.
When will you learn the difference between facetiousness, sarcasm, analogy,
satire and just plain say it the way it is?
I always invite the J.W's in. They seldom come back for another round. In
fact, I can't recall them wanting a return bout. Ever. Nor do you, I fancy.
(chuckling)
Androcles
Richard
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
> "Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding news:3F708D6D...@yahoo.com...
> >
> >
> > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > >
> > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:bkpl5t$994$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> > > >
> > > > "Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding news:3F6F3A49...@yahoo.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you are a sensible guy, you will have realized where you went wrong.
> > > > > > Are you?
> > > >
> > > > > I forgot to stick my head up my ass like you
> > > > > just did!
> > > > [..]
> > > > > I can only assume
> > > > > that you felt the need to pull at least something out of your ass,
> > > > [..]
> > > > > You guys are morons,
> > > > [..]
> > > > > > the lorentz fucking transform.
> > > >
> > > > I guess this answers my question.
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > >
> > > hm... I was referring to the other details for you to take
> > > care off, but never mind, I'll wait for an answer to my
> > > question to him...
> > >
> > > Dirk Vdm
> >
> > I'll get back to you on that when I get time Dirk. BTW, I meant the term
> > 'morons' to be taken in a friendly sort of way, forgot the :),
> > In short, you aren't following the argument Dirk, more later:)
>
> You seem to have forgotten a lot of smileys.
> But an ass with a smiley attached is still an ass.
>
> I have addressed the issues raised by you in a posting a couple
> of years ago. The scenario is for all practical purposes identical
> to yours. Notice that I have specifically addressed the issues
> you find contradictory.
>
> Here it is again: (best read with a fixed width font)
>
> The "mutual time dilation" is no problem if you
> realize what you are comparing.
>
> Let's have two synchronized clocks in each of two frames
> of reference, let the clocks be a proper distance d from each other
> in their respective frames, let the frames move with a relative
> speed v.
>
> -d 0 x'
> K' frame: B'------A'--> -> v
> K frame: A ------B--> 0 d x
>
> There are three events of interest:
> E1: A and A' adjacent
> E2: A and B' adjacent
> E3: B and A' adjacent
>
> Let's calculate what the clocks will show at these events:
> E1: A = t1 = 0, A' = t1' = 0 (by fiat, we set the clocks thus)
> E2:
> In the K' frame, A will be at the position -d at t2' = d/v
> LT: t2 = (d/v + (-d)*v/c^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> t2 = (d/v)*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> E3:
> In the K frame, A' will be at the position d at t3 = d/v
> LT: t3' = (d/v - d*v/c^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> t3' = (d/v)*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>
> Summing up, the readings of the clocks will be:
> E1: A = t1 = 0, A'= t1'= 0
> E2: A = t2 =(d/v)*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),B'= t2'= d/v
> E3: B = t3 = d/v, A'= t3'=(d/v)*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> The symmetry is obvious.
> So which clock is running slow or fast relative to which?
> The answer depend on how we compare the clocks!
> ===============================================
>
> In the K-frame, we can measure the rate dt'/dt of
> the moving A' clock by comparing the reading of A'
> with the _two_ clocks A and B as it passes them:
> dt'/dt = (t3' - t1')/(t3 - t1) = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> Conclusion #1:
> A' runs slow as measured in the K frame.
> =======================================
>
> In the K'-frame, we can measure the rate dt/dt' of
> the moving A clock by comparing the reading of A
> with the _two_ clocks A' and B' as it passes them:
> dt/dt' = (t2 - t1)/(t2' - t1') = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> Conclusion #2;
> A runs slow as measured in the K' frame.
> =======================================
>
> Conclusion #1 does not contradict conclusion #2.
> They state in fact two different things.
>
> But we can draw more conclusions:
>
> We can measure the rate R' at which an observer in K'
> will see the co-ordinate time of K run by reading the
> clocks A and B as they passes the A' clock:
> R' = (t3 - t1)/(t3' - t1') = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> Conclusion #3:
> The co-ordinate time of K runs _fast_ as measured in the K'-frame
> =================================================================
>
> We can measure the rate R at which an observer in K
> will see the co-ordinate time of K' run by reading the
> clocks A' and B' as they passes the A clock:
> R = (t2' - t1')/(t2 - t1) = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> Conclusion #4:
> The co-ordinate time of K' runs _fast_ as measured in the K-frame
> =================================================================
>
> There is nothing contradictory between conclusion #3 and #4 either,
> as they too state different things.
>
> It is in fact conclusions #1 and #3 and conclusions #2 and #4
> respectively that state the same facts.
>
> Paul
Wrong.
In order to eliminate the confusion between interval ratios, and ticking
ratios, we'll let the events be the very ticks of the clocks.
Two identical laser clocks are oriented so that the photons are
propagating perpendicular to the x axis, and thus along the y axis. Both
clocks have counters attached that literally ticks off numbers as the
photon reflects of off the bottom end of each clock.
One clock (K') is set into motion at v wrt the other (K), and towards
it.
The clock on the right, the rest clock (frame K) has a fixed limb
extending toward the left clock which is parallel to the x axis, and its
length is L_o wrt K, and thus L_o/gamma wrt K'.
The K' clock's counter is switched on as it passes the end of the
extended limb.
According to K' and to K, the number of ticks on the K' counter will be
the same wrt both frames, as you also derived above, however neither of
these observers will agree upon the number of ticks counted on the K
counter. K predicts that his counter will be the one with the higher
reading when the clocks intersect, but K' predicts that his counter
will have the higher reading.
Why? Well from the K frame his prediction is obvious, i.e. the K' clock
is ticking slower.
But from the K' frame it is the K clock that is ticking slower.
Noting that both frames predict the same number of K' ticks is just a
diversion away from the fact that both frames predict a different number
of K ticks.
Richard Perry
Paul B. Andersen
"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding news:3F719316...@yahoo.com...
But you are not able to point out what is wrong,
because you didn't actually read it.
If you had, you would have seen that it is identical to your
scenario, but described in an unambiguous manner,
and it is define how "tick rate" is measured.
> In order to eliminate the confusion between interval ratios, and ticking
> ratios,
.. you are introducing yet another scenario where you demonstrate
your confusions about the very issues my posting was meant to clear up,
a scenario which I therefore
[snip]
I suggest you go back to my version of your original scenario,
and point out exactly what you think is wrong.
But you won't do that of course.
Because you won't find any errors to point out.
Paul
Androcles
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.03092...@posting.google.com...
below, but your premise deserves a little consideration.
Actually, gravity acts from atom to atom, or molecule to molecule.
What we refer to as the centre of gravity is merely a convenience, we can
compute orbits using a single point to model the whole planet. HOWEVER, it
is only an approximation.
As you know, the orbiters (shuttle, HST, space station umder construction)
are usually are in low orbit, taking approximately 90 minutes to go once
around the Earth. Further out are the GPS sats, taking 12 hours. At 23,300
miles or so are the geostationary comm sats, the ones we point out TV dishes
at. They take 24 hours, and since the Earth revolves in 24 hours as well
they appear to remain overhead (of the equator) and 'stationary'. If they
didn't, we'd be constantly moving the dish. Even further out is our natural
satellite, the Moon, although you could almost claim the Earth Moon system
to be a double planet. it takes about 28 days to make one orbit.
So we see that the further out the satellite is placed, the slower it moves.
The orbiters barrel along at 17,000 mph, the moon (having much further to
go - you can work it out, it's about 280,000 miles -radius- times
pi -circumference- divided by time, 28 * 24 hours).
Now, suppose we imagine that we have a long rigid rod connecting the Moon
and the orbiter, like a lopsided dumbell. Instead of two centres of gravity,
we now have only one, and it is slightly close to the Earth than the centre
of the moon currently is.
Also, the orbiter is experience a strong pull than the moon, being closer.
Putting that idea to one side for a moment, consider how fast the orbiter
'wants' to go. It wants to get all the way around the Earth in just 90
minutes, but the moon is going to lag behind, taking 28 days. Which will
win? yep, the Moon. Why? 'cos its bigger. But now suppose our orbiter is
given a push, what happens then? It will try to turn the moon, then swing
back, like a pendulum. Eventually, it will stop swinging, and remain hanging
'down' from the moon. it cant go as fast as it wants to, and the moon can't
go as slow as it wants to, it will be in a new orbit that is slightly lower
than before (bring our lower c of g back again), and lower orbits are
faster. But something else has happened. The hanging pendulum with the
orbiter on the end of it has forced the moon to always face the Earth. And
it does. You see, we can view to moon as two separate halves, one on our
side and the other on the so-called 'dark' side, which isn't really dark
except at full moon. This makes a dumbell, except the rod between the halves
has vanished. The further half wants to be in a slower orbit than the
closer half, but it can't, they are rigidly connected. And so the closer
half hangs down from the further half, and the pendulum stops swinging.
Result, the moon keeps the same face toward the Earth. We call this 'tidal
lock'. The Earth is also having the same problem, and will one day keep one
face toward the Moon. The length of the day is getting ever longer, caused
by the moon. Heat is being generated by sea floor friction with the waters
above, the energy of rotation of the Earth is gradually being lost, radiated
away into space. The rocks of the crust are being tugged, and earthquakes
waiting to happen because of other forces are sometimes triggered by tidal
forces from the moon. If our moon were larger, tidal forces could break it
into pieces and we'd be a ringed, moonless world, like Saturn. The asteroid
belt is a planet that never happened, it was ripped apart (or never formed)
by Jupiter and the sun combined. So be careful when your math model of a
planet as a single point, it isn't. The 'speed of gravity' issue I've tried
to deal with below.
begin copy
Androcles
Patrick Reany
> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
[snip]
> > Henri Wilson.
> >
> > See my animations at:
> > http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
> > My latest: http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/movingrod.exe
> I guess the jury is still out on the cause of the advance of perihelion, but
> I'll go with a physical cause over magimaths any day.
> Androcles
Newton's theory doesn't "explain" in physical terms how gravity works
either. He just postulated action-at-a-distance between point mass
particles but claimed no mechanism for how it works. To him it was
just a magimath that works. At least GR gets rid of the "unphysical"
action-at-a-distance and "explains" the equivalence of inertial and
gravitational mass.
Patrick
Starblade Darksquall
> Hi Androcles ,
> You say :
> Work that out ,
>
>
> It's far from hopeless .
>
> very likely does send out gravity waves .
>
> Just like the accelerating mass of a pulsar does .
>
> LIGO is looking for gravity waves from supernova ,
> but it's probably not sensitive enough yet .
>
Nor does it look for gravity waves at all angles. What it needs to do
is to measure all two polarization states at all three directions.
They need to build one with at least 20 plates, in icosohedron form.
Or some other shape, so that gravity waves in any direction or
polarization state can be detected.
> The supernova might have to be quite large and quite close .
>
> But how large and how close ? No one really knows .
>
> That's what LIGO et al. are trying to determine .
>
> Until then , General Relativity ,
> and it's speed of light propagation ,
> is Very well supported by many other observations .
Can't they just use GR to see how massive a burst will be necessary in
order to be able to detect the gravity waves from it?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Richard
Oh yes, I read it, you plainly produced the same contradiction, in that
each frame will expect the other's clock to have ticked less upon the
intersection of the clocks.
>
> If you had, you would have seen that it is identical to your
> scenario, but described in an unambiguous manner,
> and it is define how "tick rate" is measured.
>
No it isn't identical, but it works every bit as well to provide the
contradiction.
> > In order to eliminate the confusion between interval ratios, and ticking
> > ratios,
>
> .. you are introducing yet another scenario where you demonstrate
> your confusions about the very issues my posting was meant to clear up,
> a scenario which I therefore
>
> [snip]
>
> I suggest you go back to my version of your original scenario,
> and point out exactly what you think is wrong.
What is wrong, is :
"The co-ordinate time of K runs _fast_ as measured in the K'-frame"
"The co-ordinate time of K' runs _fast_ as measured in the K-frame"
Reciprocity, and it is simply not achievable in a causal universe.
>
> But you won't do that of course.
> Because you won't find any errors to point out.
>
> Paul
Your math was sound, it soundly led you directly into positing
contradictory statements.
Richard Perry
Richard
Oh yes, I read it, you plainly produced the same contradiction, in that
each frame will expect the other's clock to have ticked less upon the
intersection of the clocks.
>
> If you had, you would have seen that it is identical to your
> scenario, but described in an unambiguous manner,
> and it is define how "tick rate" is measured.
>
No it isn't identical, but it works every bit as well to provide the
contradiction.
> > In order to eliminate the confusion between interval ratios, and ticking
> > ratios,
>
> .. you are introducing yet another scenario where you demonstrate
> your confusions about the very issues my posting was meant to clear up,
> a scenario which I therefore
>
> [snip]
>
> I suggest you go back to my version of your original scenario,
> and point out exactly what you think is wrong.
What is wrong, is :
"The co-ordinate time of K runs _fast_ as measured in the K'-frame"
"The co-ordinate time of K' runs _fast_ as measured in the K-frame"
Reciprocity, and it is simply not achievable in a causal universe.
>
> But you won't do that of course.
> Because you won't find any errors to point out.
>
> Paul
Your math was sound, it soundly led you directly into positing
contradictory statements.
Richard Perry
Dirk Van de moortel
"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3F71D1AF...@yahoo.com...
>
>
> What is wrong, is :
>
> "The co-ordinate time of K runs _fast_ as measured in the K'-frame"
> "The co-ordinate time of K' runs _fast_ as measured in the K-frame"
>
> Reciprocity, and it is simply not achievable in a causal universe.
That's a problem many people don't understand.
And it's so simple: as soon as the clocks get and
stick together again, or even stop moving wrt each
other, they can be more meaningfully compared.
It's all caused by how you define measurements.
When the clocks get together again the measurements
become standard again, so everyone understands.
It can be compared with the situation where we (you
and me) are looking at each other from a distance
between our fingers, and we both see the other one
as being shorter than ourself... and calling this activity
a measurement. When we get together, we can do it
the proper way and get a more meaningful result.
Nothing mysterious about it.
But again, many people seem to have a problem with
it. Nothing to be ashamed about really :-)
Dirk Vdm
Lester Zick
sci.physics wrote:
>"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<O0ecb.186$%Z3...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>
>[snip]
>> > Henri Wilson.
>> >
>> > See my animations at:
>> > http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
>> > My latest: http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/movingrod.exe
>> I guess the jury is still out on the cause of the advance of perihelion, but
>> I'll go with a physical cause over magimaths any day.
>> Androcles
Well the jury may have some new evidence to consider. Perhaps we'll
have to reopen the case.
>
>Newton's theory doesn't "explain" in physical terms how gravity works
>either. He just postulated action-at-a-distance between point mass
>particles but claimed no mechanism for how it works. To him it was
>just a magimath that works. At least GR gets rid of the "unphysical"
>action-at-a-distance and "explains" the equivalence of inertial and
>gravitational mass.
>
>Patrick
Regards - Lester
Paul B. Andersen
"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding news:3F71D1AF...@yahoo.com...
[..]
> > I suggest you go back to my version of your original scenario,
> > and point out exactly what you think is wrong.
I see you have accepted that the clocks will show what
I said they will show at the different events.
> What is wrong, is :
>
> "The co-ordinate time of K runs _fast_ as measured in the K'-frame"
This is a simple observation of the clocks.
Stationary, synchronized clocks ARE co-ordinate clocks.
They show the co-ordinate time at their location in the frame
in which they are stationary, in this case in the K frame.
When an observer stationary in the K' frame observe the readings
of the co-ordinate clocks as they pass by him, he WILL observe
that the co-ordinate time in the passing K frame are running faster
than his own clock.
> "The co-ordinate time of K' runs _fast_ as measured in the K-frame"
Same as above.
If you accept that the clocks are reading what I said,
then this conclusion follows from a simple observation
of said clocks.
> Reciprocity, and it is simply not achievable in a causal universe.
Notice that the two conclusions above are based on two
different set of clock readings, that is two different set of events.
They are NOT stating two reciprocal relationships between
the same set of events.
That's why they are NOT contrary to each other.
I specifically commented this fact in my posting.
> > But you won't do that of course.
> > Because you won't find any errors to point out.
> >
> > Paul
>
> Your math was sound, it soundly led you directly into positing
> contradictory statements.
If you accept that there is nothing contradictory about that
the clocks shows what I said they show, then my four conclusions
are inescapable and cannot be contradictory as they are
simple observations of what the clock are showing.
If you want to prove the scenario and my conclusions
contradictory, you have to prove that the readings
of the clocks at the different events cannot be as I said
they was.
Paul
ghytrfvbnmju7654
> Yes, I agree. If leptons and baryons are made of quarks, what are quarks
> made of...
Leptons are not believed to be made of quarks. Just thought you
might want to know.
Jeff Relf
You ask :
" Can't they just use GR to see
how massive a burst will be necessary in order to
They tie the gravity wave detectors , such as LIGO ,
to observed supernovas .
They can filter out the noise because
there are Many networked observatories around the globe .
Gravity waves go though everything , nothing shields it .
And they know what signatures to look for .
The only thing they don't know is :
How far can they see ?
Which makes sense , because it's like asking :
How many stars can your telescope see ?
It's a question of intensity .
Jeff Relf
You say : " Mind your manners , little boy . "
I'm not trying to insult you ,
I just think you're nuts ... One man's opinion .
All evidence suggests that
relativity is the soundest theory .
That's all there is , a _ Best _ guess ...
And a damn good one too !
Jeff Relf
You say :
They seldom come back for another round .
Ever . Nor do you , I fancy . ( Chuckling ) "
If you are so repulsive
that even the Jehovah Witnesses won't deal with you ...
Well now ... That's repulsive !
Jeff Relf
You say :
I'm open-minded on that issue . "
What a lie ! ( You're fooling no one but yourself . )
If you're open minded about this
then I'm the queen of England .
I showed you how the orbits of binary pulsars
( Pulsars are rapidly spinning neutron stars )
are dampened just as general relativity predicts ,
and the data from that suggests that
gravity propagates at the speed of light ,
plus or minus one percent .
( See news:1b5wbeqec6edx.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf )
Besides GR is the Best theory :
what do you expect ?
Do you want people to use the Worst theory ?
Jim Greenfield
Noted Thanks:
I am inclined to think that alEMR consists of particles (mass), and
therefore a SN would STILL have a center of gravity (head scratch
inserted). As the mass lost density, its center of gravity might
become dissipated between other local systems (the waves you talk
about transfering the field)
Jim G
Androcles
"ghytrfvbnmju7654" <ghytrfvb...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:cb623e6.03092...@posting.google.com...
If you want to catch a crab, bait the pot with something the crab will bite
on. Did you know they are quite partial to chicken, turkey and crab?(grins).
Trouble is, this one has nibbled the bait and fled the trap. Oh well, there
may be another one along soon. The pot is still lying on the mud.
Androcles.
Androcles
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jef...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
> Hi Androcles ,
> You say :
> " And you don't have to take my word
> that you have no evidence of gravity waves ,
> I'm open-minded on that issue . "
>
>
> What a lie ! ( You're fooling no one but yourself . )
>
> If you're open minded about this
> then I'm the queen of England .
>
> I showed you how the orbits of binary pulsars
> ( Pulsars are rapidly spinning neutron stars )
> are dampened just as general relativity predicts ,
> and the data from that suggests that
> gravity propagates at the speed of light ,
> plus or minus one percent .
> ( See news:1b5wbeqec6edx.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf )
Have I shown you that bright green flying elephants lay eggs?
No, of couse not. All I've done is said it. I don't believe it, and why
should you? Nevertheless it is a VALID statement. Not TRUE, but valid. Every
bit as valid as
"If it rains, I'll take my umbrella". Is that a TRUE statement? Nope, I
don't own an umbrella.
You haven't SHOWN me even one binary pulsar, let alone shown me the orbits
of binary pulsars (plural) are dampened. Your claim is wild, unsupported by
any evidence produced by you. You may have some evidence to support it, but
you certainly have NOT shown it to me. So all I can say to your claim to
having shown me is "What a lie!"
>
> Besides GR is the Best theory :
> what do you expect ?
> Do you want people to use the Worst theory ?
And your definitions of "Best " and "Worst" are?
Here's the problem. According to the Ptolemaic theory, the Earth is at the
centre of the Universe, the planets move in epicycles, and these epicycles
are perfect circles. According to the Copernican theory, the Sun is at the
centre of the Universe and the planet move in perfect circles. I can use
either to predict eclipses, but will still have an error, Kepler showed the
Copernican theory to be wrong, the planets move in ellipses. Today we
wouldn't claim the Sun to be at the centre of the Universe, either. Now, if
Kepler had diligently applied himself to the Ptolemaic theory, he might have
made the necessary corrections to the Ptolemaic to enable me to predict
planetary positions more accurately. I don't know whether that would be the
best or the worst theory though. I do prefer the Copernican over the
Ptolemaic, but that is only bias on my part, I wouldn't ask you to accept it
based on my prejudice.
Now, please tell me, is the Ptolemaic a workable theory, able to predict
planetary positions, or is it hopelessly wrong?
I happen to think that it is hopelessly wrong.
I happen to think that relativity is hopelessly wrong too.
Does it matter that you find, in Nature, events to support it?
Not to me, it doesn't. Planetary position are events in Nature that support
the Ptolemaic, and the Ptolemaic is hopelessly wrong.
So if you are determined to support Einstein's relativity in any debate with
me, you must first overcome my objections, handwaving isn't convincing, the
burden of proof is upon the claimant.
You have not produced one shred of evidence, therefore you are handwaving.
I shall reiterate. I have no evidence of gravity waves. I am open-minded on
that issue. I don't give a hoot what GR predicts, it is as hopelessly wrong
as the Ptolemaic theory and IF any gravity wave is found, even that isn't
evidence of GR being correct.
You are trying to present an argument on similar lines to
God made the world,
the world obviously exists,
therefore God exists.
That is just not acceptable.
GR predicts gravity waves
Gravity waves exist (do they?)
Therefore GR is correct.
That is just not acceptable either.
Androcles
Androcles
and gamma radiation in the form of photons, it is clearly evident that radio
antenna emit a more wavelike form of EMR.
In that sense we can view the electron as a tiny antenna, releasing a single
pulse of light, and the rod or cone in your eye as a tiny reciever, tuned to
the frequency of the EM pulse.
I don't think you want to call that particles of mass, or do you?
Let us gently collide an electron with a positron. Each has mass. What
happens? Two photons with gamma-frequency fly off in opposite directions,
and the electron and positron cease to exist. The mass has been *converted*
to energy, m = E/c^2.
There is no mass in the photons. They can strike an atom and give up their
energy, and that in turn can release that energy as several lower energy
photons, but the mass has gone forever and along with it any detectable
gravity.
Ritz, a French emission theorist (emission theory <=> source dependency of
light) of Einstein's era, but older, died before completing his work, but he
thought gravity was a by-product of electromagnetics.
I can almost see why, given the above, but it is just outside my grasp, and
I need to ponder it.
So while the SN would still have a centre, it would be the centre of no
gravity, the centre the radiation was coming from. Of course, real SN's
leave a remnant, unlike my hypothetical SN that loses ALL its mass.
Not quite sure what you mean by 'mass losing density', except as an analogy
to the energy losing density. That I will accept. Consider... We have an
ordinary star far away, emitting light constantly. The light leaves the star
in an ever-expanding sphere, and we can consider a thin shell of light
taking up an ever increasing area, ignoring the thickness of the shell. The
amount of energy in the shell is constant and finite, but is spread ever
more thinly (less dense). Now we must look at this from two models, that of
a photonic model and that of a wave model. Let's take the wave model first,
it's easier, we can use ripples on water as an analogy. Expanding ripples on
water gradually lose their amplitude, until it becomes less than the
brownian motion of the water molecules (the pond is to be considered larger
than the expanding ripple circle). There is one other thing to notice, which
I have not yet experimented with, but it does appear to me that the speed of
the ripple slows down as the amplitude decreases. This may be illusion, I
really should use doppler radar to check.
Thereafter the energy of the wave is dissipated as conducted heat, speeding
up the brownian motion, eventually to be radiated as EM. I hope you can see
there is a limit to how far the ripples can extend. Generalizing, Waves go
in all directions, but not forever. Particles go forever, but not in all
directions. For our shell of light with a wave model in mind, we have to
consider in a similar way this limit. There is a star out there so far away
we can never see it, the light doesn't reach us. Suppose it is closer, at
the limit of the expanding sphere? Suppose the wavefront is slowing down.
Now, it should be obvious to anyone that even though the frequency of the
ripples has not changed, even though the amplitude has, the wavelength has
decreased. From c = lambda.nu, we find a reduction in the value of c. What
would we observe? Red shift. Pure and simple. The further away the star is,
the greater the red shift. Not because of doppler, the star isn't moving
away ever faster, but because the light is slowing down as it approaches us.
The shell of energy is becoming less dense, the light is spread ever more
thinly. Is the Universe expanding? I don't think it is. It makes no sense to
me to assume that red shift is attributable only to doppler.
True, if the star really IS moving away, then yes, doppler shift must be
applied, but if the star is simply a long way off, I EXPECT to find the
light from it shifted toward the red end of the spectrum.
I'll leave the photon model to a later date, I'm out of time on this one.
Remind me later, please.
Androcles