John K. Clark

[Alan Grayson]

Do you have an advanced degree in EE? If so, from what University? Are you now retired? Just curious. AG

[Alan Grayson]

I found some stuff about you. Not very interesting, but somewhat explanatory. I gather you're subliminally jealous of my relationship with Carl Sagan, but for me it's not a big deal. I have a major regret that he didn't go through and publish what would have been my third citation during that period. I met him (and Pollack) again during Voyager 2's Neptune encounter at JPL. That was in 1989. Little did I suspect that five short years later Pollack would pass away, and two years later Sagan. AG

[Alan Grayson]

Did you know that Sean Carroll is moving to John Hopkins University? Rumor has it he was booted from Caltech after an insolent episode with its President. Sean insisted that energy of each world of the MWI reduces via applying Born's rule and that planets will nontheless remain in orbit despite reductions in gravity. Sean further asserted that the phenonomen would remain undetected -- to which the President asked if the Sun would still be seen in daytime after a few iterations of this process. Sean replied; "Who the fuck asked you to look out the window?" AG

[John Clark]

You Sir are an ass.

John K Clark 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0ef6b63e-8ad0-462e-a501-39eda02b6b73n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

Why do you lack the guts to explain how planetary orbits can remain intact in the MWI, if Sean's claim that they reduce in energy according to Born's rule as the splits occur? AG

[John Clark]

  Yep, short term memory loss.

John K Clark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4b18bac3-2adf-4999-a38d-e13cdd41b4efn%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

You're  incapable of having an honest discussion. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 3:18:49 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

You're  incapable of having an honest discussion. AG

I don't think you get it. No one responded to your claim because they viewed you as a hopeless case. AG 

[Brent Meeker]

If the mass-energy of the Sun is halved, then for the Earth to continue in the same orbital path, it's mass-energy must also be halved.  The period, a year, will go up by a factor of sqrt(2).  Will the SI definition of the second also go up by sqrt(2)?  I think so.  But if the Earth is slower in the same orbit, the measurements of the speed of light by stellar aberration will change.

Brent

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4b18bac3-2adf-4999-a38d-e13cdd41b4efn%40googlegroups.com.

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 10:45 AM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

If the mass-energy of the Sun is halved, then for the Earth to continue in the same orbital path, it's mass-energy must also be halved.  The period, a year, will go up by a factor of sqrt(2).  Will the SI definition of the second also go up by sqrt(2)?  I think so.  But if the Earth is slower in the same orbit, the measurements of the speed of light by stellar aberration will change.

The problem I see is that orbital mechanics depend on the product of the masses, not the ratio, so if the energy (and masses) halve, the orbits must change. For example, the energy of the earth in orbit is the sum of the gravitational and potential energies:

       E_T = KE +PE = I/2 mv^2 - GMm/r = GMm/(2r) - GMm/r = -GMm/(2r),

where M is the mass of the sun, m is the mass of the earth, and r the earth-sun distance. We note that the total energy is negative. If the total energy is to halve, the radius must change since Mm/(2r) is divided by 4, not 2. In other words, the radius of the orbit must also halve. If the KE simply halves, the velocity will remain the same. But if the orbit changes, the velocity must change also.

The problems are magnified when we consider the potential energy of a mass lifted from the surface of the earth:

PE = mgh. Now g = GM/(r^2), so it halves along with the mass m. So mgh is reduced by a factor of 4 unless the height doubles in order for the PE to change only by a factor of two. I think these effects would be very noticeable, so the idea that one can halve the energy in a branch without causing any changes within the branch is just a nonsense.

The idea that the SI definition of the second will also change to compensate other changes is as silly a notion as one could imagine.

Bruce

[Brent Meeker]

On 5/5/2022 6:04 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 10:45 AM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

If the mass-energy of the Sun is halved, then for the Earth to continue in the same orbital path, it's mass-energy must also be halved.  The period, a year, will go up by a factor of sqrt(2).  Will the SI definition of the second also go up by sqrt(2)?  I think so.  But if the Earth is slower in the same orbit, the measurements of the speed of light by stellar aberration will change.

The problem I see is that orbital mechanics depend on the product of the masses, not the ratio, so if the energy (and masses) halve, the orbits must change. For example, the energy of the earth in orbit is the sum of the gravitational and potential energies:

       E_T = KE +PE = I/2 mv^2 - GMm/r = GMm/(2r) - GMm/r = -GMm/(2r),

where M is the mass of the sun, m is the mass of the earth, and r the earth-sun distance. We note that the total energy is negative. If the total energy is to halve, the radius must change since Mm/(2r) is divided by 4, not 2. In other words, the radius of the orbit must also halve. If the KE simply halves, the velocity will remain the same. But if the orbit changes, the velocity must change also.

To a good approximation the mass of the Earth doesn't matter.  Whatever it's mass, it can continue in the same radius orbit if the Sun's mass is halved and it's speed is reduced by a factor of 1/sqrt(2).  There's more than one way to halve the energy and you're trying do it changing r and keeping v the same...which would certainly be noticeable to move closer to the Sun.  The way I see it is to keep the same orbital path at a lower speed...which is measureable by the change in stellar abberation, event if atomic clocks tick slower because of the energy change.

The problems are magnified when we consider the potential energy of a mass lifted from the surface of the earth:

PE = mgh. Now g = GM/(r^2), so it halves along with the mass m. So mgh is reduced by a factor of 4 unless the height doubles in order for the PE to change only by a factor of two. I think these effects would be very noticeable, so the idea that one can halve the energy in a branch without causing any changes within the branch is just a nonsense.

The idea that the SI definition of the second will also change to compensate other changes is as silly a notion as one could imagine.

It's determined by the energy difference of two levels of the cesium atom.  Why wouldn't it change?

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

Thanks for these replies. I intuited that Clark's scenario must be wrong since after not too many splits, gravity is gone and so will closed orbits. AG 

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 2:43 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:05:47 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

On 5/5/2022 6:04 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 10:45 AM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

If the mass-energy of the Sun is halved, then for the Earth to continue in the same orbital path, it's mass-energy must also be halved.  The period, a year, will go up by a factor of sqrt(2).  Will the SI definition of the second also go up by sqrt(2)?  I think so.  But if the Earth is slower in the same orbit, the measurements of the speed of light by stellar aberration will change.

The problem I see is that orbital mechanics depend on the product of the masses, not the ratio, so if the energy (and masses) halve, the orbits must change. For example, the energy of the earth in orbit is the sum of the gravitational and potential energies:

       E_T = KE +PE = I/2 mv^2 - GMm/r = GMm/(2r) - GMm/r = -GMm/(2r),

where M is the mass of the sun, m is the mass of the earth, and r the earth-sun distance. We note that the total energy is negative. If the total energy is to halve, the radius must change since Mm/(2r) is divided by 4, not 2. In other words, the radius of the orbit must also halve. If the KE simply halves, the velocity will remain the same. But if the orbit changes, the velocity must change also.

To a good approximation the mass of the Earth doesn't matter. 

It does matter for the kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2, although it cancels out when you equate the gravitational acceleration to the centripetal acceleration of a circular orbit. 

Whatever it's mass, it can continue in the same radius orbit if the Sun's mass is halved and it's speed is reduced by a factor of 1/sqrt(2).  There's more than one way to halve the energy and you're trying do it changing r and keeping v the same...which would certainly be noticeable to move closer to the Sun.

That is the trouble. When the energies change it is not clear that anything can be kept fixed. You do have trouble with things like gravitational PE near the earth's surface. mgh is hard to halve at a constant height.

  The way I see it is to keep the same orbital path at a lower speed...which is measureable by the change in stellar abberation, event if atomic clocks tick slower because of the energy change.

I think we agree that however you cut it,  there are going to be noticeable changes because we use secondary standards for things like distance and time -- we do not refer everything to Caesium clocks (even if that is the standard).

Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

Not that it matters, but Sean will be moving to JohnS Hopkins on July 1, 2022. In my quest for perfection, I looked up references to that university, and the first one, which I posted, got it WRONG, leaving out the S at the end of "John". AG 

[spudb...@aol.com]

Larry Krauss and Sir Martin Rees both had made jokes about the dangers of astronomers causing a collapse of the cosmos by viewing it? I am hoping that your tale is allegorical, but being something of a rightist, I see the crap that goes on at "public" universities, and grind my molars.  In either case my attitude to the good university president at Caltech is fuck him if he can't take a joke. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0ef6b63e-8ad0-462e-a501-39eda02b6b73n%40googlegroups.com

.