Steve Carlip's "Miracle"
Johnnie In The Billows
shall find!)
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9909087v2
I just wondered. Is there anything in Steve's proposal that is
actually empirically testible?
Johnnie In The Billows
wrote:
> "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" (seek for "miracle" and ye
>
> I just wondered. Is there anything in Steve's proposal that is
> actually empirically testible?
I.e, if the terms cancel out (due to "conservation laws or whatever),
is there anything observable to distinguish that gravity is "really"
moving at c rather than a much higher (or infinite) speed?
dedanoe
wrote:
> On 30 ÷ÅÒ, 12:25, Johnnie In The Billows <brightice2...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" š(seek for "miracle" and ye
> > shall find!)http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9909087v2
>
> > I just wondered. šIs there anything in Steve's proposal that is
> > actually empirically testible?
>
> I.e, if the terms cancel out (due to "conservation laws or whatever),
> is there anything observable to distinguish that gravity is "really"
> moving at c rather than a much higher (or infinite) speed?
gzoglav kurolizac,
obidi se da napravish fizika bez masa i polnez,
pa ke pravime muabet na taa tema.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Johnnie In The Billows" <bright...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:4d281486-6c23-4d67...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Kopeikin's attempt to measure the speed of gravity ended up just
measuring c (as I understand it).
David A. Smith
Tom Roberts
> Kopeikin's attempt to measure the speed of gravity ended up just
> measuring c (as I understand it).
That is certainly what he said at a Colloquium at Fermilab this spring.
He was discussing other tests of GR using the Fermilab accelerator
magnets (his suggestion to do so did not seem feasible).
Tom Roberts
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
> "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" (seek for "miracle" and ye
>
> I just wondered. Is there anything in Steve's proposal that is
> actually empirically testible?
We (at Conception Dynamics) have determined
an empirical test is the measurement of the
direction of the *semi-major* axis of a sat
orbit around the Earth, tidally affected by
the Sun, such that said axis will point at
the *apparent* position of the Sun and NOT
at the Nwetonian location.
Our analysis suppresses "radiative terms"
Dr. Carlip has predicted, but have never
been detected even after extensive testing,
thereby rendering C-Dyn's solution superior,
so far.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
srp...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" (seek for "miracle" and ye
>
> I just wondered. Is there anything in Steve's proposal that is
> actually empirically testible?
The conundrum regarding so-called speed of gravity always was
trying to assign a speed to it.
If the force of gravity is permanently present between bodies, no
speed
can be involved by definition. It then can only exist with no speed
involved. Just as Newton assumed it possibly was.
André Michaud
Sam Wormley
Come on André, you're smarter than that. We's talk'n gravity WAVE
propagation being the same speed as the propagation of light as
is indicated by general relativity.
Uncle Al
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087v2
Newton assumes action at a distance, Einstein allows information
propagation at no faster than lightspeed, Van Flandern is an
acknowledged crackpot. Where is the problem?
"If gravity could be described exactly as an instantaneous, central
interaction, the mechanical energy and angular momentum of a system
such as a binary pulsar would be exactly conserved, and orbits could
not decay."
Said orbits do decay and in a manner consistent with GR.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
dedanoe
> Johnnie In The Billows wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" (seek for "miracle" and ye
> > shall find!)
> >http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9909087v2
>
> > I just wondered. Is there anything in Steve's proposal that is
> > actually empirically testible?
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087v2
>
> Newton assumes action at a distance, Einstein allows information
> propagation at no faster than lightspeed, Van Flandern is an
> acknowledged crackpot. Where is the problem?
>
> "If gravity could be described exactly as an instantaneous, central
> interaction, the mechanical energy and angular momentum of a system
> such as a binary pulsar would be exactly conserved, and orbits could
> not decay."
>
> Said orbits do decay and in a manner consistent with GR.
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
hey crankass, the force always goes along the displacement not along
the line connecting the centers of mass. by the way mass and charge
are illusory properties cause force and distance are enough they cover
every physical aspect. F'=Fcos-Dsin and D'=Fsin+Dcos is the lever
behind gravity -- try plotting it and you'll see. you will be rated
one frozen star by the maindeck sch.e.rif assignator. if you have a
dispute follow this link: http://dedanoe.googlepages.com (while you
wait for the virus database download you can explore our random virus
generator) einstein made a barbarian misstake by assigning two
meanings to (x,t) and (x',t'): 1) they are properties of moving body
in K and K' frame 2) they are properties of light signal. his other
misstake is making every speed equal to c! as for the third gay he is
luckey cause i don't know a thing about him!
Uncle Al
>
> On Sep 30, 7:50 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > Johnnie In The Billows wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" (seek for "miracle" and ye
> > > shall find!)
> > >http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9909087v2
> >
> > > I just wondered. Is there anything in Steve's proposal that is
> > > actually empirically testible?
> >
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087v2
> >
> > Newton assumes action at a distance, Einstein allows information
> > propagation at no faster than lightspeed, Van Flandern is an
> > acknowledged crackpot. Where is the problem?
> >
> > "If gravity could be described exactly as an instantaneous, central
> > interaction, the mechanical energy and angular momentum of a system
> > such as a binary pulsar would be exactly conserved, and orbits could
> > not decay."
> >
> > Said orbits do decay and in a manner consistent with GR.
> hey crankass, the force always goes along the displacement not along
> the line connecting the centers of mass. by the way mass and charge
> are illusory properties cause force and distance are enough they cover
> every physical aspect. F'=Fcos-Dsin and D'=Fsin+Dcos is the lever
> behind gravity -- try plotting it and you'll see. you will be rated
> one frozen star by the maindeck sch.e.rif assignator. if you have a
> dispute follow this link: http://dedanoe.googlepages.com (while you
> wait for the virus database download you can explore our random virus
> generator) einstein made a barbarian misstake by assigning two
> meanings to (x,t) and (x',t'): 1) they are properties of moving body
> in K and K' frame 2) they are properties of light signal. his other
> misstake is making every speed equal to c! as for the third gay he is
> luckey cause i don't know a thing about him!
babbling idiot
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
<http://loscuatroojos.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/youranidiot.jpg>
<http://www.dementedferret.com/contents/media/t_Idiot-Seeks-Village.jpg>
--
Uncle Al
Edward Green
I'm not smart enough to understand what this means, but I'm smart
enough to take an educated guess and say this is the predicted speed
of gravity waves in some low field linear approximation. You have
some really intense "gravity waves", and you may be hard pressed to
assign a "speed" to them, as they are going to bend the Beelzebub out
of spacetime.
Edward Green
wrote:
> On 30 ÷ÅÒ, 12:25, Johnnie In The Billows <brightice2...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" š(seek for "miracle" and ye
> > shall find!)http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9909087v2
>
> > I just wondered. šIs there anything in Steve's proposal that is
> > actually empirically testible?
>
> I.e, if the terms cancel out (due to "conservation laws or whatever),
> is there anything observable to distinguish that gravity is "really"
> moving at c rather than a much higher (or infinite) speed?
IOW (perhaps), is there any way to signal with gravity?
srp...@gmail.com
Your take would hold water if hypothetical "gravity waves" were ever
detected, which is not the case since all attempts to detect them
FAILED.
Still no more than hypothetical and unproven like quite a bit of
stuff
about GR.
What I was referring to was "real physically existing gravity" that
pervades
the universe, not hypothetical unproven theory.
André Michaud
Tom Roberts
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9909087v2
> I just wondered. Is there anything in Steve's proposal that is
> actually empirically testible?
This is not a "proposal", it is a discussion of a well-known theory of
wide applicability, General Relativity. Go look for tests of it. There
have been quite a few, including some that directly address the question
of aberration:
a) the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar is spiraling in with the rate computed
from the emission of gravitational radiation, using GR. This is fully
consistent with GR and the notion that gravity travels with speed c;
there _IS_ aberration in that binary pulsar system.
b) the perihelion of mercury is precessing with an amount consistent
with the prediction of GR. Again this is fully consistent with GR and
the notion that gravity travels with speed c; there _IS_ aberration in
the sun-mercury system. Ditto for several other innser-solar-system objects.
c) the perihelia of the outer planets are not precessing by an
observable amount. This, too, is consistent with GR and the notion that
gravity travels with speed c, but the aberration here is just too small
to be measured.
Tom Roberts
xxein
wrote:
> On 30 ÷ÅÒ, 12:25, Johnnie In The Billows <brightice2...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" š(seek for "miracle" and ye
> > shall find!)http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9909087v2
>
> > I just wondered. šIs there anything in Steve's proposal that is
> > actually empirically testible?
>
> I.e, if the terms cancel out (due to "conservation laws or whatever),
> is there anything observable to distinguish that gravity is "really"
> moving at c rather than a much higher (or infinite) speed?
xxein: Terms? What terms? You mean from a subjective viewpoint that
shows some consistency without an objective base that can be shown to
back it up?
Gravity is not moving. It changes. The effective rate of change is
contingent to where mass is in a configuration, how much mass, it's
movement and the distance to other mass. We can figure that out
pretty well, but not why. We seem to have no idea of why a gravity
exists except that we measure some related effects between masses.
To ask of the speed of gravity requires little more than understanding
it's essence. This essence seems to allude us (well, not me). The
speed is variable and depends on the strength of the field we can
certainly measure.
I can go back to my favorite thought. Light can be bent around mass.
How is light "bent" coming directly to mass? Don't try to tell me
there is no effect. See where I'm going here? If light is not
objectively understood, how can gravity be understood without an
objective concept?
Oh! Light can escape from Earth but not from a BH. What does that
tell you about the speed of light except to be objectively portrayed
by a gravity or motion? A motion? Wrt to what?
You could do yourself a favor and find yourself an ether that can
dictate the speed of light (or gravity change). Although two
different things, motion and gravity share the same ether. One is
associated with a constant ether (motion, FORs) and the other
(gravity), which involves an acceleration.
But are they of the same ether? You betcha. It is a movable energy
field. If you examine it from the inside, you get all the relativity
you want. Feel free to make equations. But from the outside, it
shows a different and objective behavior.
We are so stupid though, we took a basic cosmology through the hurdles
of gods and concentricies to a workable gravitational, expansion-able
universe. In the middle ground, we made ourselves believe everything
is relative and then we went Q which contains no gravity but perhaps a
smidgen of relativity.
But we went into a further mess to try to resurrect a physics with
strings. Come on here. Let's add a couple of hundred other
dimensions. Just kidding.
The point here is that we cannot think with an inverted boundary. The
clearest view is the cosmos. We can almost nail that viewpoint down
for what it is. We start to have problems with dissecting it.
Although Relativity seems to work well for us, we cannot make a direct
connection to the cosmos. Further and deeper, Q's and Strings cannot
connect to either.
I don't have this problem. An incompleteness, yes, but I certainly
get tired of the same old copycat beliefs that are posted here. None
seem to do anything but fortify a self-belief. The math can make me
laugh. Many ways to write it and many ways to interpret it.
There are no physicists here.
Ken S. Tucker
> Johnnie In The Billows wrote:
>
> > "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" by S. Carlip.
> >http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9909087v2
> > I just wondered. Is there anything in Steve's proposal that is
> > actually empirically testible?
>
> This is not a "proposal", it is a discussion of a well-known theory of
> wide applicability, General Relativity. Go look for tests of it. There
> have been quite a few, including some that directly address the question
> of aberration:
>
> a) the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar is spiraling in with the rate computed
> from the emission of gravitational radiation, using GR. This is fully
> consistent with GR and the notion that gravity travels with speed c;
> there _IS_ aberration in that binary pulsar system.
Well it could be EMR, instead of g-waves.
> b) the perihelion of mercury is precessing with an amount consistent
> with the prediction of GR. Again this is fully consistent with GR and
> the notion that gravity travels with speed c; there _IS_ aberration in
> the sun-mercury system.
Do you have a ref for that calculation?
(I think you might be right, but some GRist's
don't like it ... from years ago).
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
thomheg
my personal point of view is, that spacetime of GR would provide a nice
'ether'. It is not something, that fills space, but a space itself.
As quaternions could be used for relativity as for Maxwells fields, it
could be possible to model particles with that, too. I personally think
it's possible. This make particles kind of nodes in a vortex. Matter in
this model is a three-dimensional pattern of rotations in that kind of
space.
Since this is about rotation, the particles deviate the direction of
influences passing through, hence make the pattern move into the
direction of other masses. This is so because the pattern had to be
recreated. It's the idea of a light cone. If that is deviated, it moves
the core into the direction of the deviation.
That makes gravity some kind of inverse of the em-field. I have tried to
figure that out, but unfortunately it's a bit too difficult for me.
Thomas heger
Koobee Wublee
> Johnnie In The Billows wrote:
> > "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" by S. Carlip.
> > http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9909087v2
> > Is there anything in Steve's proposal that is
> > actually empirically testible?
Johnnie is assuming Professor Carlip’s proposal does even pass the
Newtonian physics. Well, it does not. Dr. Van Flandern has already
written a response to this using just Galilean transform (namely the
principle of relativity). Professor Carlip’s proposal does not even
pass Newtonian physics. <shrug>
> This is not a "proposal", it is a discussion of a well-known theory of
> wide applicability, General Relativity. Go look for tests of it. There
> have been quite a few, including some that directly address the question
> of aberration:
Just because Rosen could matheMagically pull out a wave equation out
of the geodesic variation equation in which also yield the Riemann
curvature tensor, it failed at predicting the propagating speed of
gravity at the speed of light. The role model of this in which the
religious nuts of GR are trying to emulate is the electromagnetism-
equivalence of the permittivity and the permeability in which it
unmistakenly identifies the propagating speed of light as c. There is
no such conclusive mathematics backing it up in GR. <shrug>
> a) the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar is spiraling in with the rate computed
> from the emission of gravitational radiation, using GR. This is fully
> consistent with GR and the notion that gravity travels with speed c;
> there _IS_ aberration in that binary pulsar system.
The Rosen derivation of the gravitational wave is exceedingly
questionable. The Hulse-Taylor episode can only be cleverly doctored
interpretations of the data. This shows how little the physicists
actually understood Rosen’s derivation, and none of them wants to
admit not seeing the emperor’s clothes. Ahahaha...
> b) the perihelion of mercury is precessing with an amount consistent
> with the prediction of GR.
There are several derivations to this. Only Paul Gerber’s derivation
applied to GR yields the expected Mercury’s perihelion advance. Yeah,
if Gerber’s did not work, the Einstein Dingleberries would find other
means and trumpet GR’s triumph. <shrug>
> Again this is fully consistent with GR and
> the notion that gravity travels with speed c;
No, this is not true. The perihelion advance of Mercury has nothing
to do with the speed of gravity but the second order effect in the
Schwarschild metric. Below is g_tt.
c^2 (1 – 2 U + O U^2 +...)
Where
** U = G M / c^2 / r
** O = 2nd order effect which is null in Schwarzschild metric
> there _IS_ aberration in
> the sun-mercury system. Ditto for several other innser-solar-system objects.
Again, aberration satisfies the principle of relativity in which
Professor Carlip’s paper does not.
> c) the perihelia of the outer planets are not precessing by an
> observable amount. This, too, is consistent with GR and the notion that
> gravity travels with speed c, but the aberration here is just too small
> to be measured.
Hmmm... I have not encountered what you are claiming. The effect of
aberration should be more prominent into higher orbital distances. Do
you have any reference on this subject?
Eric Gisse
> On Sep 30, 5:47 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Johnnie In The Billows wrote:
>
> > > "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" by S. Carlip.
> > >http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9909087v2
> > > I just wondered. Is there anything in Steve's proposal that is
> > > actually empirically testible?
>
> > This is not a "proposal", it is a discussion of a well-known theory of
> > wide applicability, General Relativity. Go look for tests of it. There
> > have been quite a few, including some that directly address the question
> > of aberration:
>
> > a) the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar is spiraling in with the rate computed
> > from the emission of gravitational radiation, using GR. This is fully
> > consistent with GR and the notion that gravity travels with speed c;
> > there _IS_ aberration in that binary pulsar system.
>
> Well it could be EMR, instead of g-waves.
No.
Explain the fundamental difference between electromagnetic and
gravitational radiation.
[snip]
Hayek
Hi xxein.
Glad to read your post, and see you alive and kicking. :-)
Did you read the latest Lee Smolin criticism on String Theory ?
In short it is : "30 years of ST and nothing on"....
Lee also says he was lucky then to find any funding for his Quantum Loop
Gravity approach as all the money went to ST.
Another proof of nowaday's science tunnel vision.
> The point here is that we cannot think with an inverted boundary. The
> clearest view is the cosmos. We can almost nail that viewpoint down
> for what it is. We start to have problems with dissecting it.
> Although Relativity seems to work well for us, we cannot make a direct
> connection to the cosmos. Further and deeper, Q's and Strings cannot
> connect to either.
>
> I don't have this problem. An incompleteness, yes, but I certainly
> get tired of the same old copycat beliefs that are posted here. None
> seem to do anything but fortify a self-belief. The math can make me
> laugh. Many ways to write it and many ways to interpret it.
>
> There are no physicists here.
I agree.
Did you read Duesberg on science ?
http://www.xs4all.nl/~notime/Duesberg_On_Science.html
Uwe Hayek.
--
Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in België] naar een
andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd.
-- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige.
Thomas Heger
"Johnnie In The Billows" <bright...@yahoo.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4d281486-6c23-4d67...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
There is a very common mistake in the interpretation of relativity that you
could see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
since what we call space is not the hypersurface called now, but our past
light cone. We look into the sky and look into the past, no other way
possible because of the speed of light. But what does speed mean? Distance
passed devided by time elapsed.
Now, why is that relative to the observer? Because the observer measures
time. The observer moves along its worldline and the hypersurface called now
is invisible to him, but he could imagine it, hence calls it imaginary
space. In that direction speed is infinite, because such a wave is
stationary with him and he could measure it as stationary field. If we make
light very slow it wouldn't pass through any space. Both waves are not
behaving like light. Light is inbetween and passes through the vacuum with
c. Hence the vacuum is only one state possible out of a continuum, but that
with the highest observed speed of those influences. Faster we couldn't
observe and slower doesn't get very far.
Now we must think, that time is related to past and future and the past is
gone and the future doesn't exist yet. So there is nothing but presence,
that can't be seen now, but after some time.
Since what stays with the observer we usually call matter, its influences
passing through this imaginary space with infinite speed, what is the way
gravity behaves.
Now, if we think about matter as represented by those imaginary circulations
stationary with the observer, we could imagine this seen from somewhere else
(and now call that an object). If that object accelerates, the circle gets
tilted and the rotation gets visible and we see matter radiate.
TH
srp...@gmail.com
> On Sep 30, 5:47 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Johnnie In The Billows wrote:
>
> > > "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" by S. Carlip.
> > >http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9909087v2
> > > I just wondered. Is there anything in Steve's proposal that is
> > > actually empirically testible?
>
> > This is not a "proposal", it is a discussion of a well-known theory of
> > wide applicability, General Relativity. Go look for tests of it. There
> > have been quite a few, including some that directly address the question
> > of aberration:
>
> > a) the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar is spiraling in with the rate computed
> > from the emission of gravitational radiation, using GR. This is fully
> > consistent with GR and the notion that gravity travels with speed c;
> > there _IS_ aberration in that binary pulsar system.
>
> Well it could be EMR, instead of g-waves.
Most definitely, since gravitational radiation were never detected
by any means whatsoever.
André Michaud
Eric Gisse
> On 30 sep, 23:00, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 5:47 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > Johnnie In The Billows wrote:
>
> > > > "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" by S. Carlip.
> > > >http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9909087v2
> > > > I just wondered. Is there anything in Steve's proposal that is
> > > > actually empirically testible?
>
> > > This is not a "proposal", it is a discussion of a well-known theory of
> > > wide applicability, General Relativity. Go look for tests of it. There
> > > have been quite a few, including some that directly address the question
> > > of aberration:
>
> > > a) the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar is spiraling in with the rate computed
> > > from the emission of gravitational radiation, using GR. This is fully
> > > consistent with GR and the notion that gravity travels with speed c;
> > > there _IS_ aberration in that binary pulsar system.
>
> > Well it could be EMR, instead of g-waves.
>
> Most definitely, since gravitational radiation were never detected
> by any means whatsoever.
>
> André Michaud
Gosh Andre, it almost sounds like you don't know the fundamental
difference between gravitational and electromagnetic radiation!
In addition it sounds like you are completely unfamiliar with the
decay of multiple binary systems that are working in accordance of GR.
[...]
Tom Roberts
> On Sep 30, 5:47 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> a) the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar is spiraling in with the rate computed
>> from the emission of gravitational radiation, using GR.
>
Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. Saying "it could be invisible blue
fairies" is not useful, even when replaced by a more normal-sounding
physical phenomenon.
Electromagnetic radiation cannot possibly account for the observations,
by many orders of magnitude when one assumes sensible charges on the
stars. Moreover, even if one assumed truly enormous charges on them, EM
radiation reaction has a different form and would not fit the data;
specifically: dipole vs. quadrupole.
>> b) the perihelion of mercury is precessing with an amount consistent
>> with the prediction of GR. Again this is fully consistent with GR and
>> the notion that gravity travels with speed c; there _IS_ aberration in
>> the sun-mercury system.
>
> Do you have a ref for that calculation?
It's done in every GR textbook, because this is one of the classic tests
of GR. Look for geodesics in Schwarzschild spacetime.
Tom Roberts
Ken S. Tucker
On Oct 1, 5:49 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 30 sep, 23:00, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 5:47 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
> > > a) the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar is spiraling in with the rate computed
> > > from the emission of gravitational radiation, using GR. This is fully
> > > consistent with GR and the notion that gravity travels with speed c;
> > > there _IS_ aberration in that binary pulsar system.
>
> > Well it could be EMR, instead of g-waves.
>
> Most definitely, since gravitational radiation were never detected
> by any means whatsoever.
Yeah it's quite simple really. GR doesn't
care what the nature of the mass/energy of
the gravitating bodies are, therefore an
electrically created energy can be posited
consisting of a neutral charge configuration.
That statement is an extension of Equivalence
Principle.
Using those principles we solved the Einstein
Field Equations for the described bodies here,
(charge couples can be summed indefinitely)
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
A glance at Eq.(2) therein, using a partial
derivative yields,
&g_00/&t = a*&E(b)/&t + b*&E(a)/&t
where the LHS is the predicted orbital radiation
and the RHS is the familiar EMR transmission Eq.
That analysis is quite ingenious, as it unifies
Gravitation and Electricity, by using EFE's, a
result that even Einstein missed, and it is
testable by the LIGO type apparatus and a radio
telescope tuned to the predicted EMR frequency
emission.
Obviously we're in favor of refining the LIGO
g-wave search, and if the null result continues
we'll need introduce the Super General Theory
of Relativity, that I term "UNITIVITY".
> André Michaud
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
kxsxt8
Dirk Van de moortel
9bdbbdfb-bd36-4189...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
> On Sep 30, 5:47 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Johnnie In The Billows wrote:
>
>>> "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" by S. Carlip.
>>> http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9909087v2
>>> Is there anything in Steve's proposal that is
>>> actually empirically testible?
>
> Newtonian physics. Well, it does not. Dr. Van Flandern has already
made an immortal fool of himself
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
Dirk Vdm
Ken S. Tucker
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 5:47 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> a) the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar is spiraling in with the rate computed
> >> from the emission of gravitational radiation, using GR.
>
> > Well it could be EMR, instead of g-waves.
>
> Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. Saying "it could be invisible blue
> fairies" is not useful, even when replaced by a more normal-sounding
> physical phenomenon.
>
> Electromagnetic radiation cannot possibly account for the observations,
> by many orders of magnitude when one assumes sensible charges on the
> stars. Moreover, even if one assumed truly enormous charges on them, EM
> radiation reaction has a different form and would not fit the data;
> specifically: dipole vs. quadrupole.
NOPE Tom.
See my previous post today to Andre.
> >> b) the perihelion of mercury is precessing with an amount consistent
> >> with the prediction of GR. Again this is fully consistent with GR and
> >> the notion that gravity travels with speed c; there _IS_ aberration in
> >> the sun-mercury system.
>
> > Do you have a ref for that calculation?
>
> It's done in every GR textbook, because this is one of the classic tests
> of GR. Look for geodesics in Schwarzschild spacetime.
NOPE Tom, cite a ref for the group.
> Tom Roberts
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: Tom I'm getting seriously bored of correcting
the GR you learned off a box of Cheerios, take a
course!!!!
xxein
> xxeinwrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: I just did. Thx. But it is only a further citation to what I
already believe about that aspect of it all.
The question remains as to where the thinkers of a physic are. I am
not hiding behind any such curtain. I may not be exactly right with
the physic, but it is certainly more comprehensive than yesterday's
proposals. OK, I'm tooting my horn here, but I see that these other
approaches to understanding the physic are doomed to failure. The
only way I could realize something like that is to know a little bit
better. It's not a consensu$ gathering thing with me (although it
started that way). It has become altruistic with a touch of "can't
be sure". But it sure looks like a needed asset to help understand
the physic.
Too bad the minds are already closed, huh?
xxein
> "Johnnie In The Billows" <brightice2...@yahoo.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:4d281486-6c23-4d67...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 30 ÷ÅÒ, 12:25, Johnnie In The Billows <brightice2...@yahoo.co.uk>
xxein: Gravity does not behave in such a way, sorry.
Eric Gisse
> On Sep 30, 5:47 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Johnnie In The Billows wrote:
>
> > > "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" by S. Carlip.
> > >http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9909087v2
> > > I just wondered. Is there anything in Steve's proposal that is
> > > actually empirically testible?
>
> > This is not a "proposal", it is a discussion of a well-known theory of
> > wide applicability, General Relativity. Go look for tests of it. There
> > have been quite a few, including some that directly address the question
> > of aberration:
>
> > a) the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar is spiraling in with the rate computed
> > from the emission of gravitational radiation, using GR. This is fully
> > consistent with GR and the notion that gravity travels with speed c;
> > there _IS_ aberration in that binary pulsar system.
>
> Well it could be EMR, instead of g-waves.
No it isn't, Ken. Looks like you don't know the difference and why
this is impossible.
>
> > b) the perihelion of mercury is precessing with an amount consistent
> > with the prediction of GR. Again this is fully consistent with GR and
> > the notion that gravity travels with speed c; there _IS_ aberration in
> > the sun-mercury system.
>
> Do you have a ref for that calculation?
Every general relativity textbook.
Try reading one.
> (I think you might be right, but some GRist's
> don't like it ... from years ago).
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
Gawd you have no idea what you are talking about.
Koobee Wublee
>On Sep 30, 10:12 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Johnnie is assuming Professor Carlip s proposal does even pass the
> > Newtonian physics. Well, it does not. Dr. Van Flandern has already
> > written a response to this using just Galilean transform (namely the
> > principle of relativity). Professor Carlip’s proposal does not even
> > pass Newtonian physics. <shrug>
Oh, I want to add “satisfactory response”.
> made an immortal fool of himself
> http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
Well, Dr. Van Flandern may believe in the alien artifacts on Mars, and
Professor Carlip can believe in his very own fairy. These personal
beliefs are really irrelevant to these discussions. <shrug>
Professor Carlip really screwed up by solving a classical problem
without the principle of relativity in mind, and Dr. Van Flandern
believe in the validity of a transform that does not have the Galilean
transform as its limit case. Both seem to be very clueless to me.
Perhaps, it is a PhD thing. However, in this case, Dr. Van Flandern
did point out Professor Carlip’s mistake. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> On Sep 30, 7:00 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
> > I'm getting seriously bored of correcting
> > the GR you learned off a box of Cheerios, take a
> > course!!!!
I am still chucking over Mr. Tucker’s comment.
> Gawd you have no idea what you are talking about.
Speaking as a multi-year super-senior, Gisse rejects the following
basic concept in differential geometry outright. <shrug>
** [g]^ij are elements to the inverse of [g] the metric with elements
[g]_ij.
Koobee Wublee
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. Saying "it could be invisible blue
> fairies" is not useful, even when replaced by a more normal-sounding
> physical phenomenon.
I don’t believe Mr. Tucker is talking about invisible blue fairies.
Physics should be a QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE and not some MATHEMATICALLY
FUDGED FORGERY. <shrug>
> Electromagnetic radiation cannot possibly account for the observations,
> by many orders of magnitude when one assumes sensible charges on the
> stars. Moreover, even if one assumed truly enormous charges on them, EM
> radiation reaction has a different form and would not fit the data;
EM could actually play a very important role. However, the biggest
issue is the misunderstanding of the non-conservation of energy in a
binary system. According to the Euler-Lagrange equations or the
geodesic equations, the energy should be conserved which grossly
contradicts Rosen’s derivation of gravitational radiation. <shrug>
> specifically: dipole vs. quadrupole.
Adding more mysticism, quadrupole is more mystified than a dipole.
The gross abuse in the mathematics is all over this case. I am very
certain that you do not understand the mathematics involved.
> > Do you have a ref for that calculation?
>
> It's done in every GR textbook, because this is one of the classic tests
> of GR. Look for geodesics in Schwarzschild spacetime.
Again, knowing Schwarzschild spacetime is not enough to arrive at
Mercury’s perihelion advance. You also have to specify a specific
calculation. Only Gerber’s calculation does so. Since Gerber’s work
is already pooh-pooh-ed by all the physicists, what make you think his
method is valid?
Eric Gisse
Don't blame me because I don't understand terminology and notation you
make up on the spot that directly contradicts how it is taught.
Koobee Wublee
> On Oct 1, 8:39 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > ** [g]^ij are elements to the inverse of [g] the metric with elements
> > [g]_ij.
>
> Don't blame me because I don't understand terminology and notation you
> make up on the spot that directly contradicts how it is taught.
Oh, believe me that I am not blaming you for your own failure in
understanding [g]^ij or g^ij as elements to the inverse of the matrix
metric [g] or g with elements [g]_ij or g_ij. Your failure is solely
of your own responsibility. That is why you are still a multi-year
super-senior today. <shrug>
srp...@gmail.com
Interesting indeed. You may recall that I also concluded
that both gravity and electrostatic force are one and the
same from simple analysis of the variables making up G.
http://www.wbabin.net/science/michaud1.pdf
I'll try to see if I can harmonize your fields approach
with my own strictly force conclusion.
> Obviously we're in favor of refining the LIGO
> g-wave search, and if the null result continues
> we'll need introduce the Super General Theory
> of Relativity, that I term "UNITIVITY".
I have no doubt whatsoever that the LIGO results
will remain thin air. There is no way to measure
angels' wings thickness.
As a side issue, I wonder if you ever were intrigued
by the electron magnetic moment anomaly.
If so, you may be interested in having a look at
this latest paper I extracted from my book.
http://pages.globetrotter.net/srp/unraveling_the_mystery_of_the_electron_magnetic_moment_anomaly.pdf
Best
Dono
> Interesting indeed. You may recall that I also concluded
> that both gravity and electrostatic force are one and the
> same from simple analysis of the variables making up G.
>
> http://www.wbabin.net/science/michaud1.pdf
>
Still peddling you shit as science, Andre?
stric...@gmail.com
Still think your butt is your brain, rabid doug?
doug
stric...@gmail.com wrote:
You need to learn to read. The post was from a different
person who points out your mistakes and ignorance.
Dirk Van de moortel
> On Oct 1, 10:46 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 10:12 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> Johnnie is assuming Professor Carlip s proposal does even pass the
>>> Newtonian physics. Well, it does not. Dr. Van Flandern has already
>>> written a response to this using just Galilean transform (namely the
>>> pass Newtonian physics. <shrug>
>
> Oh, I want to add �satisfactory response�.
>
>> made an immortal fool of himself
>> http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
>
> Well, Dr. Van Flandern may believe in the alien artifacts on Mars, and
... utterly miserably fail to understand the most basic concepts
of special relavity:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1TVF.pdf
and 11th grade mathematics:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TVFSeries.html
You are a fan. It shows.
Dirk Vdm
Ken S. Tucker
Trying to stay on topic :-), I agree *mostly*
with Dr. Carlip, even if LIGO stays quiet, his
radiatives appear as EMR, which of course
propagates at "c", so we're on the same page.
I read you're paper...good stuff, but we'll
digress to much, perhaps post it to SPF, where
the noise level is less, and start a dedicated
discussion.
> > Obviously we're in favor of refining the LIGO
> > g-wave search, and if the null result continues
> > we'll need introduce the Super General Theory
> > of Relativity, that I term "UNITIVITY".
>
> I have no doubt whatsoever that the LIGO results
> will remain thin air. There is no way to measure
> angels' wings thickness.
> As a side issue, I wonder if you ever were intrigued
> by the electron magnetic moment anomaly.
>
> If so, you may be interested in having a look at
> this latest paper I extracted from my book.
> http://pages.globetrotter.net/srp/unraveling_the_mystery_of_the_elect...
Yes, but that too is another topic.
> Best
> André Michaud
Cheers
Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker
> > On Sep 30, 7:00 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
> > > I'm getting seriously bored of correcting
> > > the GR you learned off a box of Cheerios, take a
> > > course!!!!
>
> I am still chucking over Mr. Tucker’s comment.
Well I'm ok with Robert's suggestion, and looking
forward to a ref, but slapping "Speed of Gravity"
with aberration onto a Euclidean/Newtonian field
and then expecting a semi-major axis rotation is a
calculation I'd like to see.
I tried it (without using Schwarz.) and it was a
bit of a stretch, but I'm open minded, so that's
why I suggested we have a ref available to our
group, that we can all learn from, simple enough.
If Robert's has one, I'd be much obliged.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
...
srp...@gmail.com
Well, I tried spf once in the past and felt no
interest whatsoever for my work.
I am all for dedicated discussion, but not really
into trying to convince anyone that the message
warrants interest.
I must say that I have long lost interest in moderated
ngs. Same old stuff endlessly rebounding in a
variety of flavors. Nothing new ever.
If anyone finds interest on his own, then fine. I come
here on sp once in a while.
> > > Obviously we're in favor of refining the LIGO
> > > g-wave search, and if the null result continues
> > > we'll need introduce the Super General Theory
> > > of Relativity, that I term "UNITIVITY".
>
> > I have no doubt whatsoever that the LIGO results
> > will remain thin air. There is no way to measure
> > angels' wings thickness.
> > As a side issue, I wonder if you ever were intrigued
> > by the electron magnetic moment anomaly.
>
> > If so, you may be interested in having a look at
> > this latest paper I extracted from my book.
> >http://pages.globetrotter.net/srp/unraveling_the_mystery_of_the_elect...
>
> Yes, but that too is another topic.
Definitely.
Regards
André Michaud
Ken S. Tucker
That's the way it should be. The only time
I get interested in my own stuff is when it
provides a unique prediction.
> I am all for dedicated discussion, but not really
> into trying to convince anyone that the message
> warrants interest.
Discussion is the sharing of understanding,
sometimes I ref to my own stuff if it's cleared
than available internet refs.
> I must say that I have long lost interest in moderated
> ngs. Same old stuff endlessly rebounding in a
> variety of flavors. Nothing new ever.
I see some good stuff in the details.
> If anyone finds interest on his own, then fine. I come
> here on sp once in a while.
Ok, in your paper,
1) I'd look hard at using "e^2" for charge
squared, it's looks unphysical to me.
2) Try subbing a charge configuration for
mass-energy, I find "m" is too generic.
3) Determine how the "Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar"
radiates energy using your formula.
If you want to discuss that here that's fine.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
srp...@gmail.com
Same for me.
> > I am all for dedicated discussion, but not really
> > into trying to convince anyone that the message
> > warrants interest.
>
> Discussion is the sharing of understanding,
> sometimes I ref to my own stuff if it's cleared
> than available internet refs.
Definitely. Up to now however, I met no one here who
even grasped the concept of the expanded space
geometry that underlies all that I describe.
No one came forward anyhow.
Without it as a foundation, no understanding possible.
> > I must say that I have long lost interest in moderated
> > ngs. Same old stuff endlessly rebounding in a
> > variety of flavors. Nothing new ever.
>
> I see some good stuff in the details.
>
> > If anyone finds interest on his own, then fine. I come
> > here on sp once in a while.
>
> Ok, in your paper,
> 1) I'd look hard at using "e^2" for charge
> squared, it's looks unphysical to me.
Really ? Not really a charge "squared",
but simply the standard coulomb relation
between two equal charges. Looks like
a charge squared, but it is really the
product of two separate charges.
> 2) Try subbing a charge configuration for
> mass-energy, I find "m" is too generic.
Could you explain more? Don't really see what
you mean.
I work very little with m except in this sequence,
since the purpose was simply to show that
all classical force equations mathematically boiled
down to F=ma and can all be interchanged whenever
a mass is being accelerated by natural force,
gravity or electrostatic.
> 3) Determine how the "Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar"
> radiates energy using your formula.
Afraid I don't have any data pertaining to this case.
I don't have that great an access to detailed data.
Even if I had, whatever I could come up could only
be speculative just as all that was theorized about
it.
> If you want to discuss that here that's fine.
Sure. Let's discuss.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
Best
André Michaud
Ken S. Tucker
> On 3 oct, 15:02, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>Tucker's old junk
>>http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
>>A glance at Eq.(2) therein, using a partial
>> derivative yields,
...
> > Discussion is the sharing of understanding,
> > sometimes I ref to my own stuff if it's cleared
> > than available internet refs.
>
> Definitely. Up to now however, I met no one here who
> even grasped the concept of the expanded space
> geometry that underlies all that I describe.
> No one came forward anyhow.
> Without it as a foundation, no understanding possible.
Well, I'll give it a shot.
...
> > Ok, in your paper,
> > 1) I'd look hard at using "e^2" for charge
> > squared, it's looks unphysical to me.
>
> Really ? Not really a charge "squared",
> but simply the standard coulomb relation
> between two equal charges. Looks like
> a charge squared, but it is really the
> product of two separate charges.
Yes, above in Tucker's junk, I have separate
charges denoted "a" and "b" for that reason.
((e^2 creates a bunch of crap)).
> > 2) Try subbing a charge configuration for
> > mass-energy, I find "m" is too generic.
>
> Could you explain more? Don't really see what
> you mean.
Sure. IIRC you're an electrical genious, so you
know what "Electrical Potential Energy of a
system of charges" is. Something like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_energy#Three_or_more_charged_particles
divided by c^2 creates mass electrically.
Now, when your mixing gravity and electicity,
both the generic mass "m" AND the EPE must
work equally because of Equivalence.
> I work very little with m except in this sequence,
> since the purpose was simply to show that
> all classical force equations mathematically boiled
> down to F=ma and can all be interchanged whenever
> a mass is being accelerated by natural force,
> gravity or electrostatic.
Ok, that's semantics, I guess you're in inertial
frames??
> > 3) Determine how the "Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar"
> > radiates energy using your formula.
>
> Afraid I don't have any data pertaining to this case.
> I don't have that great an access to detailed data.
> Even if I had, whatever I could come up could only
> be speculative just as all that was theorized about
> it.
Ok, take a partial diff of your "g-potential",
and see if get EMR out, it will look like
a &(Electric Field)/&(Time), (somewhat like in
Tucker's junk above).
> > If you want to discuss that here that's fine.
> Sure. Let's discuss.
Yes, it's a very interesting subject.
> Best
> André Michaud
And best to you.
Ken S. Tucker
srp...@gmail.com
> On Oct 3, 1:03 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3 oct, 15:02, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> ...
> > > On Oct 2, 12:44 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
> >Tucker's old junk
> >>http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
> >>A glance at Eq.(2) therein, using a partial
> >> derivative yields,
> >> &g_00/&t = -a*&E(b)/&t -b*&E(a)/&t
> ...
> > > Discussion is the sharing of understanding,
> > > sometimes I ref to my own stuff if it's cleared
> > > than available internet refs.
>
> > Definitely. Up to now however, I met no one here who
> > even grasped the concept of the expanded space
> > geometry that underlies all that I describe.
> > No one came forward anyhow.
> > Without it as a foundation, no understanding possible.
>
> Well, I'll give it a shot.
> ...
Really ! I explained most aspects of it here piecemeal
over the course of the past 10 years, but I'm afraid any
"local" synthetized description could not completely
do the job.
How would you undertake to explain SR to a newbee
(so he really understands) who has no notion of Riehman
and Minkowski ?
But as a starter, it is based wholely on energy in motion
and Maxwell, but Maxwell (meant to support wave
treatment) expanded so it can support local quantized
energy events (photons and massive elementary
particles) as existing and moving separately from the
moment of emission while permanently conserving
all electromagnetic characteristics classically assigned
to EM waves.
This requires the existence of three 3D spaces
orthogonal to each other interconnected at the center
of each individual energy quanta.
Plus time, this boils up to the model requiring
10 dimensions.
That's about the best summary I can think of that I
can give it here. I'm afraid that full proper set up
could be had only through reading and painstakingly
integrating the complete logical description.
> > > Ok, in your paper,
> > > 1) I'd look hard at using "e^2" for charge
> > > squared, it's looks unphysical to me.
>
> > Really ? Not really a charge "squared",
> > but simply the standard coulomb relation
> > between two equal charges. Looks like
> > a charge squared, but it is really the
> > product of two separate charges.
>
> Yes, above in Tucker's junk, I have separate
> charges denoted "a" and "b" for that reason.
Never thought of this. Interesting.
Ok. If you substitube each occurence of e^2
by ab in my paper, that should do the trick
on this issue.
> ((e^2 creates a bunch of crap)).
Not in my model. In fact, it makes quite a bit of
sense when de Broglie's twin particle photon is
taken into account.
> > > 2) Try subbing a charge configuration for
> > > mass-energy, I find "m" is too generic.
>
> > Could you explain more? Don't really see what
> > you mean.
>
> Sure. IIRC you're an electrical genious,
Never thought of myself as such, and I assure
you this is not the case.
> so you know what "Electrical Potential Energy of a
> system of charges" is. Something likehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_energy#Three_or_more_charged_...
> divided by c^2 creates mass electrically.
> Now, when your mixing gravity and electicity,
> both the generic mass "m" AND the EPE must
> work equally because of Equivalence.
I see. Well, as I analyzed "potential" energy, I ended
up observing that it always was equal to the lower
integration limit in any definite integral involving it
and kinetic energy. I actually did away completely
with the concept in my model to deal only with
real kinetic energy.
To me use of potential energy is just a convenient
mathematical shortcut that I felt was was preventing
progress at the fundamental level. Personal opinion
of course.
Here is the text of a footnote I placed in the very
intro of my book to set things straight in this regard,
and that describes my take on this and how it is
dealt with in the model:
"Note that increase in kinetic energy through
acceleration has traditionally been treated in
correlation with the notion of a reciprocal
decrease in potential energy so that the
"principle" of conservation of energy is respected.
In this work however, to simplify description, we
will talk of induction of kinetic energy by means
of acceleration (gravitational, electrostatic or
magnetostatic) without constant reference to
"potential energy". The reader can of course
keep the notion of reciprocal potential energy
decrease in the back of his mind as he proceeds.
But he may also find that simply doing away with
it, although feeling strange at first, will soon
become quite easy, as he acquires a wholly
new and intriguing perspective on particles
interaction, which is becoming aware of an
utterly fascinating and fertile possibility that
we will explore in this model.
That is, the possibility that if it is postulated
that kinetic energy could physically exist as
a substance, it could very well come into being
(that is, be induced or created) in accelerating
particles by the force acting between particles
as a function of the well known inverse square
of the distance between them for gravity and
the electrostatic force, and as a function of
the inverse cube of the distance for magnetostatic
interaction.
This energy, directed in the direction mandated
by the causal force, would then tend to cause
motion as a function of the accumulated quantity,
being expressed as a velocity of the related
particles, which in turn would give rise to their
inertia; or alternately, if the local electromagnetic
equilibrium makes it impossible for this energy
to be expressed as a velocity, give rise to a
pressure being applied (weight) against other
particles in immediate contact with this particle,
as occurs between bodies lying at the surface
of the Earth and the Earth itself."
> > I work very little with m except in this sequence,
> > since the purpose was simply to show that
> > all classical force equations mathematically boiled
> > down to F=ma and can all be interchanged whenever
> > a mass is being accelerated by natural force,
> > gravity or electrostatic.
>
> Ok, that's semantics,
More than semantics in my view. Mathematical
sequence showing that gravity and electrostatic
force are one and the same.
Actually, the same conclusion you seem to
have reached by other means.
> I guess you're in inertial frames??
Definitely. For simplicity I defined all aspects of the
model from an absolute reference frame angle.
Quote from the Foreword of my book:
"The subject being so abstract in its own right, it
was deemed judicious not to overburden the text
with observer relative and relative inertial reference
frames considerations, and to restrict to bare
minimum references to integrals and derivatives,
to keep it within easy reach of non specialists.
All motion is thus treated from an implied absolute
reference frame viewpoint as Newton did. Expert
readers will easily relate and add the required
frames relative superset."
> > > 3) Determine how the "Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar"
> > > radiates energy using your formula.
>
> > Afraid I don't have any data pertaining to this case.
> > I don't have that great an access to detailed data.
> > Even if I had, whatever I could come up could only
> > be speculative just as all that was theorized about
> > it.
>
> Ok, take a partial diff of your "g-potential",
> and see if get EMR out, it will look like
> a &(Electric Field)/&(Time), (somewhat like in
> Tucker's junk above).
Your reference to time why I first said "I'll try to see
if I can harmonize your fields approach with my own
strictly force conclusion."
My model is not based on force, fields, energy as
a function of time, but as a function of distance.
At the fundamental level, energy is induced as
a function of distance between charges and for
any given distance is indifferent to time elapsed.
Not so easy to match both approaches. I need
time (when I can spare some) to convert your
math to distance based forms so I can match
both approaches.
> > > If you want to discuss that here that's fine.
> > Sure. Let's discuss.
>
> Yes, it's a very interesting subject.
Looking forward to see how this pans out.
Best
André Michaud
srp...@gmail.com
> On Oct 3, 1:03 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
Hi Ken
I answered yesterday but my message isn't there. I probably
hit the wrong button as I meant to send.
Giving it another shot now.
> > On 3 oct, 15:02, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> ...
> > > On Oct 2, 12:44 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
> >Tucker's old junk
> >>http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
> >>A glance at Eq.(2) therein, using a partial
> >> derivative yields,
> >> &g_00/&t = -a*&E(b)/&t -b*&E(a)/&t
> ...
> > > Discussion is the sharing of understanding,
> > > sometimes I ref to my own stuff if it's cleared
> > > than available internet refs.
>
> > Definitely. Up to now however, I met no one here who
> > even grasped the concept of the expanded space
> > geometry that underlies all that I describe.
> > No one came forward anyhow.
> > Without it as a foundation, no understanding possible.
>
> Well, I'll give it a shot.
> ...
I must say that I probably explained all of it here
piecemeal over the course of the past 10 years,
but I'm afraid it would be difficult to summarize
it locally so that it makes complete sense.
How would you go about explaining SR on a ng
to a newbee who has no notion of Riehman and
Minkowski for the curved geometry and Lorentz
for the ideas so that he FULLY understands SR?
But basically, it is based on the notion that all
existing energy is kinetic in nature and remains
permanently quantized and local as it moves
from the moment of emission (gosh, I explained
better yesterday!)
For Maxwell, which is based on the notion that
energy is waves at the fundamental level, to
fully describe localized moving EM quanta, the
space geometry needs to be expanded into
three 3D spaces orthogonal to each other and
that interconnect at the center of each energy
quantum.
That about summarizes the geometry, but
for it to make sense and real understanding
to set in, I'm afraid that would require careful
studying and painstaking integration of the full
description.
> > > Ok, in your paper,
> > > 1) I'd look hard at using "e^2" for charge
> > > squared, it's looks unphysical to me.
>
> > Really ? Not really a charge "squared",
> > but simply the standard coulomb relation
> > between two equal charges. Looks like
> > a charge squared, but it is really the
> > product of two separate charges.
>
> Yes, above in Tucker's junk, I have separate
> charges denoted "a" and "b" for that reason.
Interesting idea. So just substituting all occurences
of e^2 by ab in my paper should do the trick for you.
> ((e^2 creates a bunch of crap)).
Not in the 3-spaces model. Quite the contrary
in fact when deBroglie's twin particle photon
is fully integrated. It then turns out that sign
is an extrinsec property of charges that is
acquired as electron-positron pairs come into
being as photons of sufficient energy destabilize,
and that fundamental charges seem to be
intrinsically neutral.
> > > 2) Try subbing a charge configuration for
> > > mass-energy, I find "m" is too generic.
>
> > Could you explain more? Don't really see what
> > you mean.
>
> Sure. IIRC you're an electrical genious,
Really! Not from my perspective.
> so you
> know what "Electrical Potential Energy of a
> system of charges" is. Something likehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_energy#Three_or_more_charged_...
> divided by c^2 creates mass electrically.
> Now, when your mixing gravity and electicity,
> both the generic mass "m" AND the EPE must
> work equally because of Equivalence.
I see. Well of course any energy equation divided
by c^2 will turn out as equivalent mass, but as
for potential energy, I long ago concluded that
since in all definite integrals involving kinetic
energy, potential energy always ends up being
equal to the lower intgration limit, It simply was
just a convenient mathematical artefact and had
no real physical meaning in reality.
Here is the text of a note to the introduction of my
book on this issue that sums up how it is dealt
with in the model:
---------------------------------
for magnetostatic interaction (see Appendix A for
the latter case).
This energy, directed in the direction mandated
by the causal force, would then tend to cause
motion as a function of the accumulated quantity,
being expressed as a velocity of the related
particles, which in turn would give rise to their
inertia; or alternately, if the local electromagnetic
equilibrium makes it impossible for this energy
to be expressed as a velocity, give rise to a
pressure being applied (weight) against other
particles in immediate contact with this particle,
as occurs between bodies lying at the surface
of the Earth and the Earth itself."
--------------------------
> > I work very little with m except in this sequence,
> > since the purpose was simply to show that
> > all classical force equations mathematically boiled
> > down to F=ma and can all be interchanged whenever
> > a mass is being accelerated by natural force,
> > gravity or electrostatic.
>
> Ok, that's semantics, I guess you're in inertial
> frames??
Not really semantics. More mathematically highlighting
why gravity and electrostatics can very possibly be the
same single force.
As for my describing within an inertial frames, yes.
Here is a quote from the foreword of my book setting
the stage for the model description:
-------------------
"The subject being so abstract in its own right, it was
deemed judicious not to overburden the text with
observer relative and relative inertial reference frames
considerations, and to restrict to bare minimum
references to integrals and derivatives, to keep it
within easy reach of non specialists. All motion is
thus treated from an implied absolute reference frame
viewpoint as Newton did. Expert readers will easily
relate and add the required frames relative superset."
-------------------
> > > 3) Determine how the "Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar"
> > > radiates energy using your formula.
>
> > Afraid I don't have any data pertaining to this case.
> > I don't have that great an access to detailed data.
> > Even if I had, whatever I could come up could only
> > be speculative just as all that was theorized about
> > it.
>
> Ok, take a partial diff of your "g-potential",
> and see if get EMR out, it will look like
> a &(Electric Field)/&(Time), (somewhat like in
> Tucker's junk above).
Derivation with respect to "time" is what prompted my
initial comment "I'll try to see if I can harmonize your
fields approach with my own strictly force conclusion."
Since energy is induced by force as a function of
distance between charged particles and not as a
function of time elapsed, the whole model is described
from this perspective. Converting your stuff to distance
base for me to compare takes some work, when I
can spare some.
Working with time based math never was obvious
for me.
> > > If you want to discuss that here that's fine.
> > Sure. Let's discuss.
>
> Yes, it's a very interesting subject.
We'll see how this pans out then.
Best
André Michaud
srp...@gmail.com
> On Oct 3, 1:03 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
Hi Ken
I answered yesterday but my message isn't there. I probably
hit the wrong button as I meant to send.
Giving it another shot now.
> > On 3 oct, 15:02, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> ...
> > > On Oct 2, 12:44 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
> >Tucker's old junk
> >>http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
> >>A glance at Eq.(2) therein, using a partial
> >> derivative yields,
> >> &g_00/&t = -a*&E(b)/&t -b*&E(a)/&t
> ...
> > > Discussion is the sharing of understanding,
> > > sometimes I ref to my own stuff if it's cleared
> > > than available internet refs.
>
> > Definitely. Up to now however, I met no one here who
> > even grasped the concept of the expanded space
> > geometry that underlies all that I describe.
> > No one came forward anyhow.
> > Without it as a foundation, no understanding possible.
>
> Well, I'll give it a shot.
> ...
I must say that I probably explained all of it here
> > > Ok, in your paper,
> > > 1) I'd look hard at using "e^2" for charge
> > > squared, it's looks unphysical to me.
>
> > Really ? Not really a charge "squared",
> > but simply the standard coulomb relation
> > between two equal charges. Looks like
> > a charge squared, but it is really the
> > product of two separate charges.
>
> Yes, above in Tucker's junk, I have separate
> charges denoted "a" and "b" for that reason.
Interesting idea. So just substituting all occurences
of e^2 by ab in my paper should do the trick for you.
> ((e^2 creates a bunch of crap)).
Not in the 3-spaces model. Quite the contrary
in fact when deBroglie's twin particle photon
is fully integrated. It then turns out that sign
is an extrinsec property of charges that is
acquired as electron-positron pairs come into
being as photons of sufficient energy destabilize,
and that fundamental charges seem to be
intrinsically neutral.
> > > 2) Try subbing a charge configuration for
> > > mass-energy, I find "m" is too generic.
>
> > Could you explain more? Don't really see what
> > you mean.
>
> Sure. IIRC you're an electrical genious,
Really! Not from my perspective.
> so you
> know what "Electrical Potential Energy of a
> system of charges" is. Something likehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_energy#Three_or_more_charged_...
> divided by c^2 creates mass electrically.
> Now, when your mixing gravity and electicity,
> both the generic mass "m" AND the EPE must
> work equally because of Equivalence.
I see. Well of course any energy equation divided
> > I work very little with m except in this sequence,
> > since the purpose was simply to show that
> > all classical force equations mathematically boiled
> > down to F=ma and can all be interchanged whenever
> > a mass is being accelerated by natural force,
> > gravity or electrostatic.
>
> Ok, that's semantics, I guess you're in inertial
> frames??
Not really semantics. More mathematically highlighting
why gravity and electrostatics can very possibly be the
same single force.
As for my describing within an inertial frames, yes.
Here is a quote from the foreword of my book setting
the stage for the model description:
-------------------
"The subject being so abstract in its own right, it was
deemed judicious not to overburden the text with
observer relative and relative inertial reference frames
considerations, and to restrict to bare minimum
references to integrals and derivatives, to keep it
within easy reach of non specialists. All motion is
thus treated from an implied absolute reference frame
viewpoint as Newton did. Expert readers will easily
relate and add the required frames relative superset."
-------------------
> > > 3) Determine how the "Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar"
> > > radiates energy using your formula.
>
> > Afraid I don't have any data pertaining to this case.
> > I don't have that great an access to detailed data.
> > Even if I had, whatever I could come up could only
> > be speculative just as all that was theorized about
> > it.
>
> Ok, take a partial diff of your "g-potential",
> and see if get EMR out, it will look like
> a &(Electric Field)/&(Time), (somewhat like in
> Tucker's junk above).
Derivation with respect to "time" is what prompted my
initial comment "I'll try to see if I can harmonize your
fields approach with my own strictly force conclusion."
Since energy is induced by force as a function of
distance between charged particles and not as a
function of time elapsed, the whole model is described
from this perspective. Converting your stuff to distance
base for me to compare takes some work, when I
can spare some.
Working with time based math never was obvious
for me.
> > > If you want to discuss that here that's fine.
> > Sure. Let's discuss.
>
> Yes, it's a very interesting subject.
We'll see how this pans out then.
Best
André Michaud
xxein
> André Michaud- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: I snipped of course.
We could be so close. I didn't think anyone would 'get it'.
Needs a little work on universal expansion vs. gravity, but that will
come. Oh. I only read the posts and not any cited stuff. KST has an
ample mind and I'm sure you have more to discuss. I am looking
forward to it. THX.
Ken S. Tucker
On Oct 4, 7:38 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 3 oct, 16:50, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 1:03 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi Ken
> I answered yesterday but my message isn't there. I probably
> hit the wrong button as I meant to send.
> Giving it another shot now.
I think google had problems, I see 3 posts now.
> > > On 3 oct, 15:02, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > ...
> > > > On Oct 2, 12:44 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > ...
> > >Tucker's old junk
> > >>http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
> > >>A glance at Eq.(2) therein, using a partial
> > >> derivative yields,
> > >> &g_00/&t = -a*&E(b)/&t -b*&E(a)/&t
> > ...
> > > > Discussion is the sharing of understanding,
> > > > sometimes I ref to my own stuff if it's cleared
> > > > than available internet refs.
>
> > > Definitely. Up to now however, I met no one here who
> > > even grasped the concept of the expanded space
> > > geometry that underlies all that I describe.
> > > No one came forward anyhow.
> > > Without it as a foundation, no understanding possible.
>
> > Well, I'll give it a shot.
> > ...
>
> I must say that I probably explained all of it here
> piecemeal over the course of the past 10 years,
> but I'm afraid it would be difficult to summarize
> it locally so that it makes complete sense.
Understood.
> How would you go about explaining SR on a ng
> to a newbee who has no notion of Riehman and
> Minkowski for the curved geometry and Lorentz
> for the ideas so that he FULLY understands SR?
> But basically, it is based on the notion that all
> existing energy is kinetic in nature and remains
> permanently quantized and local as it moves
> from the moment of emission (gosh, I explained
> better yesterday!)
Feel free to gather your thoughts and repost.
> For Maxwell, which is based on the notion that
> energy is waves at the fundamental level, to
> fully describe localized moving EM quanta, the
> space geometry needs to be expanded into
> three 3D spaces orthogonal to each other and
> that interconnect at the center of each energy
> quantum.
In another post you mentioned something about
10 dimensions.
It's a problem with the meaning of the math.
A quantity like e^2 implies a charge acting
on itself.
> > > > 2) Try subbing a charge configuration for
> > > > mass-energy, I find "m" is too generic.
>
> > > Could you explain more? Don't really see what
> > > you mean.
>
> > Sure. IIRC you're an electrical genious,
>
> Really! Not from my perspective.
Well then you certainly care for the subject.
> > so you
> > know what "Electrical Potential Energy of a
> > system of charges" is. Something likehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_energy#Three_or_more_charged_...
> > divided by c^2 creates mass electrically.
> > Now, when your mixing gravity and electicity,
> > both the generic mass "m" AND the EPE must
> > work equally because of Equivalence.
>
> I see. Well of course any energy equation divided
> by c^2 will turn out as equivalent mass, but as
> for potential energy, I long ago concluded that
> since in all definite integrals involving kinetic
> energy, potential energy always ends up being
> equal to the lower intgration limit, It simply was
> just a convenient mathematical artefact and had
> no real physical meaning in reality.
What about a charged capacitor, that's real
electrical potential energy?
How does that work in view of Relativity?
Ok.
> > > > 3) Determine how the "Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar"
> > > > radiates energy using your formula.
>
> > > Afraid I don't have any data pertaining to this case.
> > > I don't have that great an access to detailed data.
> > > Even if I had, whatever I could come up could only
> > > be speculative just as all that was theorized about
> > > it.
>
> > Ok, take a partial diff of your "g-potential",
> > and see if get EMR out, it will look like
> > a &(Electric Field)/&(Time), (somewhat like in
> > Tucker's junk above).
>
> Derivation with respect to "time" is what prompted my
> initial comment "I'll try to see if I can harmonize your
> fields approach with my own strictly force conclusion."
>
> Since energy is induced by force as a function of
> distance between charged particles and not as a
> function of time elapsed, the whole model is described
> from this perspective. Converting your stuff to distance
> base for me to compare takes some work, when I
> can spare some.
>
> Working with time based math never was obvious
> for me.
What about Power, I'm using a 60 Watt light
bulb now, d(Energy)/d(time).
> We'll see how this pans out then.
> Best
> André Michaud
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
srp...@gmail.com
> Hi Andre
>
> On Oct 4, 7:38 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 3 oct, 16:50, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 3, 1:03 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hi Ken
> > I answered yesterday but my message isn't there. I probably
> > hit the wrong button as I meant to send.
> > Giving it another shot now.
>
> I think google had problems, I see 3 posts now.
Looks like it. Did my second answer yesterday then
after half an hour still didn't see this second one. Thought
I still had hit the wrong key and simply reposted a copy
(that I had made after drafting my second answer.
Then I got it... google trouble! I was a bit slow on this one :-]
Just look at my first answer. In fact the same thing
said otherwise.
> > For Maxwell, which is based on the notion that
> > energy is waves at the fundamental level, to
> > fully describe localized moving EM quanta, the
> > space geometry needs to be expanded into
> > three 3D spaces orthogonal to each other and
> > that interconnect at the center of each energy
> > quantum.
>
> In another post you mentioned something about
> 10 dimensions.
Well yes. 3 times 3 orthogonal space dimensions
plus time = 10 dimensions.
Maybe in your view or maybe in some classical
interpretation. But in the 3-spaces model, it always
means two identical charges interacting, just like in
the Coulomb equation.
> > > > > 2) Try subbing a charge configuration for
> > > > > mass-energy, I find "m" is too generic.
>
> > > > Could you explain more? Don't really see what
> > > > you mean.
>
> > > Sure. IIRC you're an electrical genious,
>
> > Really! Not from my perspective.
>
> Well then you certainly care for the subject.
In physics, what I care about is what has not yet
been explored with regards to stable and scatterable
fundamental elementary particles nature and
interaction. The rest is known and has been
taken care of by others.
> > > so you
> > > know what "Electrical Potential Energy of a
> > > system of charges" is. Something likehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_energy#Three_or_more_charged_...
> > > divided by c^2 creates mass electrically.
> > > Now, when your mixing gravity and electicity,
> > > both the generic mass "m" AND the EPE must
> > > work equally because of Equivalence.
>
> > I see. Well of course any energy equation divided
> > by c^2 will turn out as equivalent mass, but as
> > for potential energy, I long ago concluded that
> > since in all definite integrals involving kinetic
> > energy, potential energy always ends up being
> > equal to the lower intgration limit, It simply was
> > just a convenient mathematical artefact and had
> > no real physical meaning in reality.
>
> What about a charged capacitor, that's real
> electrical potential energy?
Not from my perspective. You have one plate whose
atoms are negatively overloaded to saturation with
electrons, the other plate whose atoms have been
deprived of most electrons (eventually all if time
allows) that can overcome nuclear attraction in
relation with the applied tension, and between
the plates you have the field made up of the acting
electrostatic force (Coulomb force) made up of the
sum of the individual forces acting between all
positive ions from one plate and all negetively
charged ions loading the other plate.
Nothing potential about any of this.
In what respect?
The only possible link is increase in relativistic
mass with velocity and/or electromagnetic
equilibrium (such as the electron in the hydrogen
rest state orbital, whether it moves about the
nucleus or is held somewhat stationary as in a
hydrogen molecule.)
Hey. Green stuff. A good point for you!
But at the fundamental level, that of elementary
scatterable charged particles, the notion of power
simply does not apply in any way shape or form
at any stage of their interactions.
André Michaud
Ken S. Tucker
> On 5 oct, 22:53, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > What about a charged capacitor, that's real
> > electrical potential energy?
> Not from my perspective. You have one plate whose
> atoms are negatively overloaded to saturation with
> electrons, the other plate whose atoms have been
> deprived of most electrons (eventually all if time
> allows) that can overcome nuclear attraction in
> relation with the applied tension, and between
> the plates you have the field made up of the acting
> electrostatic force (Coulomb force) made up of the
> sum of the individual forces acting between all
> positive ions from one plate and all negetively
> charged ions loading the other plate.
>
> Nothing potential about any of this.
What weighs more, a dead battery or a charged
battery? (all other things being equal).
Ken
...
srp...@gmail.com
I'd say a dead battery weighs more.
Tension was applied from outside the system
to charge the battery, which resulted in
negative overload to saturation (with excess electrons
coming from outside the system) of atoms on the
negative plates and removal of an equal number of
electrons (removed from the system) from atoms on
the positive plates.
The excess electrons on the atoms of the negatively
charged plate are less strongly held by the host atoms
than those that were removed from the positive plates
atoms were, so the net result is less total carrying
energy associated with the same overall number of
particles, their rest masses remaining constant.
André Michaud
Sam Wormley
> On 7 oct, 07:04, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 9:03 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 5 oct, 22:53, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> What about a charged capacitor, that's real
>>>> electrical potential energy?
>>> Not from my perspective. You have one plate whose
>>> atoms are negatively overloaded to saturation with
>>> electrons, the other plate whose atoms have been
>>> deprived of most electrons (eventually all if time
>>> allows) that can overcome nuclear attraction in
>>> relation with the applied tension, and between
>>> the plates you have the field made up of the acting
>>> electrostatic force (Coulomb force) made up of the
>>> sum of the individual forces acting between all
>>> positive ions from one plate and all negetively
>>> charged ions loading the other plate.
>>> Nothing potential about any of this.
>> What weighs more, a dead battery or a charged
>> battery? (all other things being equal).
>> Ken
>> ...
>
> I'd say a dead battery weighs more.
<laughing>
Ken S. Tucker
Hmmm
Take a flashlight, turn it on and place it
on a weigh scale, then once the light goes
off and the battery is discharged, does
E=mc2 apply to change the weight?
Ken
srp...@gmail.com
Seems to me that yes.
As electrons from the outside can (ground) accelerate
to occupy the available more energetic available orbitals
on the positively ionized central rod, their energy
increases thus their relativistic mass as they occupy
available positions closer to nuclei than they were
before.
In my view, the energy going out as light can only be due
to the excess energy caused by their acceleration along
the wire towards the positive ions.
Stop and go from atom to atom along the bulb element
becomes more and more difficult (resistance increases)
as heat increases from constant release of excess
acceleration energy at each stop of each moving
electron and eventually bremmstrahlung photons
in the visible range start coming out and will keep
coming until all positive ions have completed their
electronic escort.
So yes, E=mc2 apply to change the weight?
André Michaud
.
Ken S. Tucker
Good, does the flashlight weigh more or less
after the battery is dead?
> André Michaud
Ken
srp...@gmail.com
More since all available more energetic orbitals of
positively ionized atoms in the central rod have been
occupied by electrons that were less energetic
prior to the flashlight being turned on with a
charged battery.
In a closed system, such as the flashlight, entropy
goes in only one direction, that is towards the
most stable state.
More energy implies more mass.
It weighs more and is more massive.
Simple matter of understanding what acceleration
is about.
André Michaud
Ken S. Tucker
Oh-boy, there goes the Conservation of Mass Energy
(CoME) Law. Is that what your theory is based on?
> Simple matter of understanding what acceleration
> is about.
> André Michaud
Ken
srp...@gmail.com
Definitely. A law made up when much less was known
about the elementary level.
> Is that what your theory is based on?
No. It is based on harmonizing Maxwell with localized
EM events.
André Michaud
Ken S. Tucker
> On 7 oct, 17:18, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
[snip, convo available in previous posts]
> > Oh-boy, there goes the Conservation of Mass Energy
> > (CoME) Law.
>
> Definitely. A law made up when much less was known
> about the elementary level.
Whoa. I sure hope the Big Bang is not your
evidence.
> > Is that what your theory is based on?
>
> No. It is based on harmonizing Maxwell with localized
> EM events.
> André Michaud
Ken
srp...@gmail.com
> On Oct 7, 2:36 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 7 oct, 17:18, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> [snip, convo available in previous posts]
>
> > > Oh-boy, there goes the Conservation of Mass Energy
> > > (CoME) Law.
>
> > Definitely. A law made up when much less was known
> > about the elementary level.
>
> Whoa. I sure hope the Big Bang is not your
> evidence.
No way.
BB impossible in my model.
Well, I did not really expect that you would consider
reconsidering classical physics foundations.
That would have been an intriguing first, really.
From my experience, only undergrads who have
not yet taken sides on fundamental issues are
likely to go this route.
This is why I wrote my book so it can be understood
at their level.
Best
André Michaud
Ken S. Tucker
> On 7 oct, 18:40, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 2:36 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 7 oct, 17:18, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > [snip, convo available in previous posts]
>
> > > > Oh-boy, there goes the Conservation of Mass Energy
> > > > (CoME) Law.
>
> > > Definitely. A law made up when much less was known
> > > about the elementary level.
>
> > Whoa. I sure hope the Big Bang is not your
> > evidence.
>
> No way.
>
> BB impossible in my model.
>
> Well, I did not really expect that you would consider
> reconsidering classical physics foundations.
> That would have been an intriguing first, really.
> From my experience, only undergrads who have
> not yet taken sides on fundamental issues are
> likely to go this route.
I'd never sell doubt on CoME to undergrads,
it's too well established by 1000's of good
fella's.
Would you suggest perpetual motion is possible?
in such a way it can be a continuous source of
power?
> This is why I wrote my book so it can be understood
> at their level.
> Best
> André Michaud
Ken
srp...@gmail.com
> On Oct 7, 4:17 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 7 oct, 18:40, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 7, 2:36 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On 7 oct, 17:18, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > > [snip, convo available in previous posts]
>
> > > > > Oh-boy, there goes the Conservation of Mass Energy
> > > > > (CoME) Law.
>
> > > > Definitely. A law made up when much less was known
> > > > about the elementary level.
>
> > > Whoa. I sure hope the Big Bang is not your
> > > evidence.
>
> > No way.
>
> > BB impossible in my model.
>
> > Well, I did not really expect that you would consider
> > reconsidering classical physics foundations.
> > That would have been an intriguing first, really.
> > From my experience, only undergrads who have
> > not yet taken sides on fundamental issues are
> > likely to go this route.
>
> I'd never sell doubt on CoME to undergrads,
> it's too well established by 1000's of good
> fella's.
No man made dogmas are eternal.
My opinion of course.
Like all past ideas, when the time is ripe, I have
no doubt it will be considered.
> Would you suggest perpetual motion is possible?
> in such a way it can be a continuous source of
> power?
Not in my model.
André Michaud
Ken S. Tucker
Then CoME holds in "your model", yes?
Ken
srp...@gmail.com
It does for straight line motion. This is why we can
see the stars and galaxies rather far away (very little
loss on the way due to very little bending of incoming
photon's trajectories.)
All cases other than straight line motion involve
expenditure of energy (2nd law of thermodynamics)
André Michaud
srp...@gmail.com
Ken, I am wondering where you were going with these
piecemeal questions.
This model is a superset. What you are doing is like
trying to assess stuff meaningful only in 3D by while
trying to fit in 2D and seeing that it doesn't fit.
It can't fit in 2D and this is all that you can
possibly conclude.
There is no understanding possible of the coherence
without mastering the underlying geometry and how
Maxwell then applies.
André Michaud
Ken S. Tucker
I think anyone who seriously fucks with
CoME better have a very good reason.
> This model is a superset. What you are doing is like
> trying to assess stuff meaningful only in 3D by while
> trying to fit in 2D and seeing that it doesn't fit.
Yes, in 4D, see,
http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
> It can't fit in 2D and this is all that you can
> possibly conclude.
>
> There is no understanding possible of the coherence
> without mastering the underlying geometry and how
> Maxwell then applies.
Been there, done that, recall I'm a theoretician.
> André Michaud
Ken
srp...@gmail.com
There are very good reasons.
> > This model is a superset. What you are doing is like
> > trying to assess stuff meaningful only in 3D by while
> > trying to fit in 2D and seeing that it doesn't fit.
>
> Yes, in 4D, see,http://physics.trak4.com/modern-spacetime.pdf
But not in 2D.
Ever tried to fit curved space time into flat space
classical mechanics ?
Simply meaningless since it seems to fuck with
flat space.
The same for CoME. Simply a limit case in
the expanded geometry.
> > It can't fit in 2D and this is all that you can
> > possibly conclude.
>
> > There is no understanding possible of the coherence
> > without mastering the underlying geometry and how
> > Maxwell then applies.
>
> Been there, done that, recall I'm a theoretician.
I don't think you really do understand, even if you think
you do, otherwise CoME would not have been such an
issue.
But ok. I wasn't really expecting anything out of this
anyway.
André Michaud
Ken S. Tucker
How do you derive E=mc2?
Ken
Eric Gisse
Cartan did it.
[snip]
srp...@gmail.com
I tried to simplify the full derivation to summarize it here,
but too much work. The derivation is too model dependent
to be explained out of context. Exceptionnally, I simply
pdfed the full chapter so you can have a peek.
I don't expect however you'll be able to make heads
or tails of it.
I'm afraid you will have to be content with the fact that it
simply works.
Don't ask me to explain the full model here, it simply
is impossible.
http://pages.videotron.com/ceber/from_classical_to_relativistic_mechanics_via_maxwell.pdf
André Michaud
Eric Gisse
>
> André Michaud
A SR derivation of E = mc^2 is one definition and 3 lines of algebra.
Sam Wormley
>
> I tried to simplify the full derivation to summarize it here,
> but too much work. The derivation is too model dependent
> to be explained out of context. Exceptionnally, I simply
> pdfed the full chapter so you can have a peek.
>
> I don't expect however you'll be able to make heads
> or tails of it.
>
> I'm afraid you will have to be content with the fact that it
> simply works.
>
> Don't ask me to explain the full model here, it simply
> is impossible.
>
> http://pages.videotron.com/ceber/from_classical_to_relativistic_mechanics_via_maxwell.pdf
>
> André Michaud
Einstein did it in just three pages... take a look.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/
Sam Wormley
Here André, let me draw your attention to the footnote, least you
have any difficulty.
The footnote is as it appeared in the 1923 edition. The 1923 English
translation modified the notation used in Einstein’s 1905 paper to conform
to that in use by the 1920’s; for example, c denotes the speed of light, as
opposed the V used by Einstein in 1905. In this paper Einstein uses L to
denote energy; the italicised sentence in the conclusion may be written as
the equation “m = L/c2” which, using the more modern E instead of L to
denote energy, may be trivially rewritten as “E = mc2”.
srp...@gmail.com
> srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I tried to simplify the full derivation to summarize it here,
> > but too much work. The derivation is too model dependent
> > to be explained out of context. Exceptionnally, I simply
> > pdfed the full chapter so you can have a peek.
>
> > I don't expect however you'll be able to make heads
> > or tails of it.
>
> > I'm afraid you will have to be content with the fact that it
> > simply works.
>
> > Don't ask me to explain the full model here, it simply
> > is impossible.
>
>
> > André Michaud
>
> Einstein did it in just three pages... take a look.
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/
Thanks for the ref. Interesting paper.
I note that he assumes the gamma factor from the start.
I derive it from Maxwell and Newton, since it can
be totally reconstructed brick by brick from understanding
real physical kinetic-electromagnetic interaction. .
As for deriving E=mc^2, I do it only to show students
that the real model based relativistic equations (15a)
and (22a) truly mathematically connect with traditional
E-mc^2.
Mass is just a side issue in the model, since all
at the fundamental level is plain directed kinetic and
electromagnetic oscillating energy.
As for the only 3 pages comment, he wrote for the
community. I write for undergrads to connect so I
put all aspects in full perspective for them to more
easily follow.
I know and knew from the start that no one in the
community is able to requestion premises. That's
why I don't write for the community at large.
André Michaud
Sam Wormley
> On 10 oct, 01:19, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I tried to simplify the full derivation to summarize it here,
>>> but too much work. The derivation is too model dependent
>>> to be explained out of context. Exceptionnally, I simply
>>> pdfed the full chapter so you can have a peek.
>>> I don't expect however you'll be able to make heads
>>> or tails of it.
>>> I'm afraid you will have to be content with the fact that it
>>> simply works.
>>> Don't ask me to explain the full model here, it simply
>>> is impossible.
>>> http://pages.videotron.com/ceber/from_classical_to_relativistic_mecha...
>>> André Michaud
>> Einstein did it in just three pages... take a look.
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/
>
> Thanks for the ref. Interesting paper.
>
> I note that he assumes the gamma factor from the start.
That 1905 paper was a follow-up to his 30-page paper
earlier that same year "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies" so of course Einstein assumes what he wrote in
the first paper.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Ken S. Tucker
> On 9 oct, 00:54, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > How do you derive E=mc2?
> > Ken
>
> I tried to simplify the full derivation to summarize it here,
> but too much work. The derivation is too model dependent
> to be explained out of context. Exceptionnally, I simply
> pdfed the full chapter so you can have a peek.
>
> I don't expect however you'll be able to make heads
> or tails of it.
Andre, it may surprise you that Paul Marmet and
I became friends, to the extent I'm sad when he
passed away.
He and I had many interesting discussions, and
neither of us belittled the others intelligence,
for example, his re-geometrization of the Lorentz
Transform was IMHO ingenious, and his use of QT
as it relates to gravitation was insightful.
His site was well worth the read for me.
> I'm afraid you will have to be content with the fact that it
> simply works.
Come on, that's NOT science, that's condescending.
Are you religious?
> Don't ask me to explain the full model here, it simply
> is impossible.
> http://pages.videotron.com/ceber/from_classical_to_relativistic_mecha...
> André Michaud
Returning to deriving E=mc2, the constant "c"
you presume (from SR) ended up deriving it,
that's SOP. In basic SR the Lorentz Transform,
based on "c", applied to Conservation of Momentum
(CoM) unified the Mass=Energy Conservations Law
(CoME), which in hind-sight is now simple.
Though Marmet didn't use tensors, he did a subtle
transform of the LT, if your interested.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
srp...@gmail.com
Ok then, so what was the meaning of your "only 3 pages"
then ?
So you mean that he needed 33 pages in reality while
I needed only 7 ?
So now fundamental physics boils down to who wrote
whatever he wrote with the least number of pages ?
No wonder seamless mathematical sequences are
considered rhetoric.
Guess why I don't really care for orthodox physicists'
opinion.
André Michaud
srp...@gmail.com
> On Oct 9, 6:07 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 9 oct, 00:54, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> ...
> > > How do you derive E=mc2?
> > > Ken
>
> > I tried to simplify the full derivation to summarize it here,
> > but too much work. The derivation is too model dependent
> > to be explained out of context. Exceptionnally, I simply
> > pdfed the full chapter so you can have a peek.
>
> > I don't expect however you'll be able to make heads
> > or tails of it.
>
> Andre, it may surprise you that Paul Marmet and
> I became friends, to the extent I'm sad when he
> passed away.
I remember you told me once.
> He and I had many interesting discussions, and
> neither of us belittled the others intelligence,
> for example, his re-geometrization of the Lorentz
> Transform was IMHO ingenious, and his use of QT
> as it relates to gravitation was insightful.
> His site was well worth the read for me.
>
> > I'm afraid you will have to be content with the fact that it
> > simply works.
>
> Come on, that's NOT science, that's condescending.
Not condescending really.
Since CoME is just a limit case in the model, and that
your previous comments in this regard excludes the
possibility, I simply assume that my derivations cannot
possibly make sense to you since they all imply as
much.
> Are you religious?
Not in any way.
> > Don't ask me to explain the full model here, it simply
> > is impossible.
> >http://pages.videotron.com/ceber/from_classical_to_relativistic_mecha...
> > André Michaud
>
> Returning to deriving E=mc2, the constant "c"
> you presume (from SR) ended up deriving it,
Not from SR, but from Maxwell. SR played no
role in the derivation nor in basic assumptions.
> that's SOP. In basic SR the Lorentz Transform,
> based on "c", applied to Conservation of Momentum
> (CoM) unified the Mass=Energy Conservations Law
> (CoME), which in hind-sight is now simple.
In my model, rest mass of elementary particles is
mass-energy conservant, mass of complex particles
depends on local gravity intensity. As for energy
in motion, it is invariant only for straight line motion.
So I totally differ with SR in this respect. SR was
never updated when it was learned that nucleons
are not elementary.
> Though Marmet didn't use tensors, he did a subtle
> transform of the LT, if your interested.
Yes I am.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
Best
André Michaud
Eric Gisse
> On 10 oct, 01:19, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > I tried to simplify the full derivation to summarize it here,
> > > but too much work. The derivation is too model dependent
> > > to be explained out of context. Exceptionnally, I simply
> > > pdfed the full chapter so you can have a peek.
>
> > > I don't expect however you'll be able to make heads
> > > or tails of it.
>
> > > I'm afraid you will have to be content with the fact that it
> > > simply works.
>
> > > Don't ask me to explain the full model here, it simply
> > > is impossible.
>
> > >http://pages.videotron.com/ceber/from_classical_to_relativistic_mecha...
>
> > > André Michaud
>
> > Einstein did it in just three pages... take a look.
> > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/
>
> Thanks for the ref. Interesting paper.
>
> I note that he assumes the gamma factor from the start.
>
> I derive it from Maxwell and Newton, since it can
> be totally reconstructed brick by brick from understanding
> real physical kinetic-electromagnetic interaction. .
SR leaves Maxwell's equations invariant, Galilean transformations do
not. Congratulations on picking a poor choice of transformations.
Ken S. Tucker
OK, I'm more CoMEly than you ;-).
Would you pls stop gauging my mind, you have NO idea
of what it is, most likely I know your theory better than
you do.
> > Are you religious?
>
> Not in any way.
>
> > > Don't ask me to explain the full model here, it simply
> > > is impossible.
> > >http://pages.videotron.com/ceber/from_classical_to_relativistic_mecha...
> > > André Michaud
>
> > Returning to deriving E=mc2, the constant "c"
> > you presume (from SR) ended up deriving it,
>
> Not from SR, but from Maxwell. SR played no
> role in the derivation nor in basic assumptions.
>
> > that's SOP. In basic SR the Lorentz Transform,
> > based on "c", applied to Conservation of Momentum
> > (CoM) unified the Mass=Energy Conservations Law
> > (CoME), which in hind-sight is now simple.
>
> In my model, rest mass of elementary particles is
> mass-energy conservant, mass of complex particles
> depends on local gravity intensity. As for energy
> in motion, it is invariant only for straight line motion.
>
> So I totally differ with SR in this respect. SR was
> never updated when it was learned that nucleons
> are not elementary.
>
> > Though Marmet didn't use tensors, he did a subtle
> > transform of the LT, if your interested.
>
> Yes I am.
While I regret Marmet couldn't use tensors, and that
severely restricted our communications, he predicted
*lengths perpendicular to motion" are NOT invariant,
maybe you can find a ref. at his site for us.
Next, check out the "Parton Model" of cross sectional
scattering of Hadron's and note it is several magnitudes
too large.
IIRC Paul and I discussed that, as a possible empirical
source supporting "ONE" of his arguments.
BTW, Paul lost his tenure at U of Ottawa, because of
his unorthodoxy, I'm not sure that was fair, but he was
using a ton of algebra when I was using oz's of tensors
to find the same thing.
IMO his approach was obsoleted.
> Best
> André Michaud
Thanks and Same to you
Ken S. Tucker
srp...@gmail.com
Definitely.
> Would you pls stop gauging my mind, you have NO idea
> of what it is, most likely I know your theory better than
> you do.
You will allow me to have doubts in this regard. But
who knows. Maybe you'll really surprise me eventually.
I am definitely interested. I will have a look. Do you mean
transverse length of rigid bodies ? My model predicts
that length, width and mass of rigid bodies are not
invariant (excludes elementary particles).
> Next, check out the "Parton Model" of cross sectional
> scattering of Hadron's and note it is several magnitudes
> too large.
> IIRC Paul and I discussed that, as a possible empirical
> source supporting "ONE" of his arguments.
>
> BTW, Paul lost his tenure at U of Ottawa, because of
> his unorthodoxy, I'm not sure that was fair,
Never fair. But it is the danger facing all true researchers
within the orthodox community. One thing I took great care
never to have to contend with. The price to pay for freedom
is isolation.
> but he was using a ton of algebra when I was using
> oz's of tensors to find the same thing.
> IMO his approach was obsoleted.
Well, not so sure about that. I think he wouldn't
have produced the magnetic mass with velocity
proof that underlies much of my mathematizing
if he had thought otherwise.
I had a look at tensors, and actually found no
use for them in flat space. Maybe he thought
the same.
It may be that I will have to use them though
to deal with quarks magnetic stress in
electrostatic-magnetostatic spaces energy
distribution. Still not there though.
I don't have that much time to work on the model.
> > Best
> > André Michaud
>
> Thanks and Same to you
> Ken S. Tucker
Regards
André Michaud