Gravitational waves of rotating dumbbell
mollwollfumble
symmetry. Does it radiate gravitational waves?
Person 1 says that because of Mach's principle the rotating frame of
reference can be transformed into a stationary one. There are no
gravitational waves generated in the stationary frame of reference so
there are none generated by the rotation of the dumbbell.
Person 2 says that the radiation of gravitational waves depends on the
third derivative of the quadrupole gravitational field. Because simple
harmonic motion has a nonzero third derivative the rotation of the
dumbbell generates gravitational waves.
Who is correct?
Is there an analogy in electromagnetic waves? eg. a macroscopic rigid
body with a + charge at one end and a - charge at the other end?
Androcles
"mollwollfumble" <David.P...@csiro.au> wrote in message
news:5e4ddcdc-bc53-4548...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Consider a dumbbell rotating about an axis other than its axis of
> symmetry. Does it radiate gravitational waves?
http://easytide.ukho.gov.uk/EasyTide/EasyTide/ShowPrediction.aspx?PortID=0517&PredictionLength=7
eric gisse
> Consider a dumbbell rotating about an axis other than its axis of
> symmetry. Does it radiate gravitational waves?
Simple progression.
a) Does a dumbbell have a quadrupole moment?
b) Is it changing?
Hint: a) Yes, b) no.
>
> Person 1 says that because of Mach's principle the rotating frame of
> reference can be transformed into a stationary one. There are no
> gravitational waves generated in the stationary frame of reference so
> there are none generated by the rotation of the dumbbell.
That's not Mach's principle, that's the principle of relativity.
>
> Person 2 says that the radiation of gravitational waves depends on the
> third derivative of the quadrupole gravitational field.
Second derivative.
> Because simple
> harmonic motion has a nonzero third derivative the rotation of the
> dumbbell generates gravitational waves.
a) There is no such thing as a "gravitational field" in GR.
b) QUADRUPOLE MOMENT. LOOK IT UP.
>
> Who is correct?
Neither. Both cases were stated poorly.
>
> Is there an analogy in electromagnetic waves? eg. a macroscopic rigid
> body with a + charge at one end and a - charge at the other end?
Quadrupole ---> dipole
Mass ---> charge
There you go.
mollwollfumble
> mollwollfumble wrote:
> > Consider a dumbbell rotating about an axis other than its axis of
> > symmetry. Does it radiate gravitational waves?
> a) Does a dumbbell have a quadrupole moment?
> b) Is it changing?
> Hint: a) Yes, b) no.
Don't you mean b) Yes?
If it was rotating along it's symmetry axis then it would be "No", but
I asked for an axis other than it's symmetry axis, so it's got to be
"Yes". In rotation the motion is simple harmonic, or very close to it.
> > Person 2 says that the radiation of gravitational waves depends on the
> > third derivative of the quadrupole [moment].
> Second derivative.
That's strange. Some websites say second derivative, others say third.
Let's say second.
> b) QUADRUPOLE MOMENT. LOOK IT UP.
OK, have done.
> > Who is correct?
>
> Neither. Both cases were stated poorly.
Not very useful, yet.
> Quadrupole ---> dipole
> Mass ---> charge
Ta.
mollwollfumble
i.e. for a dumbbell with two masses M "the quadrupole moment is Q_ij =
M (x_i*x_j - delta_ij). x_i is the unit vector in the x-direction. As
the system orbits, the x-vector will rotate, which means that it will
have a nonzero second time derivative. Thus, the system will radiate
gravitational waves."
eric gisse
> On Aug 12, 10:49 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> mollwollfumble wrote:
>> > Consider a dumbbell rotating about an axis other than its axis of
>> > symmetry. Does it radiate gravitational waves?
>
>> a) Does a dumbbell have a quadrupole moment?
>> b) Is it changing?
>
>> Hint: a) Yes, b) no.
>
> Don't you mean b) Yes?
This is not a date. "No" does not mean "yes".
>
> If it was rotating along it's symmetry axis then it would be "No", but
> I asked for an axis other than it's symmetry axis, so it's got to be
> "Yes". In rotation the motion is simple harmonic, or very close to it.
Your dumbbell has a nonzero quadrupole moment but it is NOT CHANGING.
The quadrupole moment has to *change* and have a nonzero second derivative.
[...]
eric gisse
Write the quadrupole moment tensor in a non-rotating frame.
Edward Green
> mollwollfumble wrote:
> > On Aug 12, 10:49 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> mollwollfumble wrote:
> >> > Consider a dumbbell rotating about an axis other than its axis of
> >> > symmetry. Does it radiate gravitational waves?
>
> >> a) Does a dumbbell have a quadrupole moment?
> >> b) Is it changing?
>
> >> Hint: a) Yes, b) no.
>
> > Don't you mean b) Yes?
>
> This is not a date. "No" does not mean "yes".
>
>
>
> > If it was rotating along it's symmetry axis then it would be "No", but
> > I asked for an axis other than it's symmetry axis, so it's got to be
> > "Yes". In rotation the motion is simple harmonic, or very close to it.
>
> Your dumbbell has a nonzero quadrupole moment but it is NOT CHANGING.
Oh? Apply the discrete definition found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrupole
to a dumbbell with masses originally at (-1,0,0) and (1,0,0), rotating
about the z-axis. The xy weighted terms in the tensor are definitely
changing. In some sense the quadrupole moment is not changing, but I
don't think that's the sense that's wanted here. It's changing in a
local inertial coordinate system.
Does a rotating electric dipole radiate (not rotated about its
symmetry axis)? In some sense the dipole moment does not change, and
yet I believe it radiates. Analogy.
Edward Green
First, since this is an informal forum, and Mach is dead, let me
informally say that I think of "Mach's principle" as a crock o'. It's
not even a "principle" which must or can be applied to novel
situations, it's simply a thought experiment, like Schroedinger's cat
(another thought experiment sometimes knowingly mentioned, as if we
had established something).
Further, to the extent we can "apply" it anyway, I think it is
misapplied by your person 1. He may as well say that in the canonical
rotating bucket, since we can transform to a frame where the bucket is
not rotating but the distant stars are rotating instead around the
bucket, that the water level does _not_ form a paraboloid.
Like the bucket, the thought experiment simply asks if we can
distinguish a rotating object from the universe rotating about that
object, it does not say therefore (contrary to fact) that rotation has
no effects.
Knowing people sometimes say that linear motion is relative, rotation
is absolute. We _can_ distinguish physics in a rotating frame from a
non-rotating frame, and therefore if the dumbbell is rotating in an
inertial frame, I'm going with gravitational radiation. For whatever
little that is worth.
We should have some Kerr metric floating around somewhere also, no?
mollwollfumble
Tom Roberts
> Consider a dumbbell rotating about an axis other than its axis of
> symmetry. Does it radiate gravitational waves?
In GR, yes. I don't know how to answer your question except in the
context of GR. That's OK, as GR is the only generally-accepted theory in
which gravitational waves occur.
> Is there an analogy in electromagnetic waves? eg. a macroscopic rigid
> body with a + charge at one end and a - charge at the other end?
EM radiation only needs a time-varying dipole moment; so charges
wiggling back-and-forth in a line will generate EM radiation (e.g. a
typical dipole radio antenna). Not so for gravitational radiation.
Tom Roberts
Sue...
> mollwollfumble wrote:
> > Consider a dumbbell rotating about an axis other than its axis of
> > symmetry. Does it radiate gravitational waves?
>
> In GR, yes. I don't know how to answer your question except in the
> context of GR. That's OK, as GR is the only generally-accepted theory in
> which gravitational waves occur.
>
> > Is there an analogy in electromagnetic waves? eg. a macroscopic rigid
> > body with a + charge at one end and a - charge at the other end?
>
-------------
> EM radiation only needs a time-varying dipole moment; so charges
> wiggling back-and-forth in a line will generate EM radiation (e.g. a
> typical dipole radio antenna). Not so for gravitational radiation.
That assumes gravity/inertia is a fundamental
force. There is no evidence that it is fundamental.
<< it is now a relatively common opinion, maybe not
mainstream but definitely a strong minority opinion,
that gravity (and in particular the whole notion of
spacetime and spacetime geometry) might be no more
“fundamental” than is fluid dynamics. The word “fundamental”
is here used in a rather technical sense - fluid mechanics
is not fundamental because there is a known underlying
microphysics, that of molecular dynamics, of which fluid
mechanics is only the low-energy low-momentum limit.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3
Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204062
<< Of the discoveries the LHC might make, the possibility of
the discovery of the supersymmetric partners and the Higgs
particle have been keenly awaited by physicists for over 30 years,
although neither of these can be considered certainties >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
Sue...
>
> Tom Roberts
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> mollwollfumble wrote:
> > On Aug 12, 10:49 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> mollwollfumble wrote:
> >> > Consider a dumbbell rotating about an axis other than its axis of
> >> > symmetry. Does it radiate gravitational waves?
> Your dumbbell has a nonzero quadrupole moment but it is NOT CHANGING.
Sure it is. The quadrupole moment is a tensor, not a scalar, and as the
dumbbell rotates, the directions -- for example, the directions of the
principle axes -- change.
The answer to the original question is that in general relativity, the
rotating dumbbell will definitely emit gravitational radiation. This
hasn't been directly tested experimentally; the signal is too weak.
But in principle, the set-up is very much like a binary pulsar -- think
of a dumbbell made of two neutron stars stuck together on a rod,
and then take the limit as the rod becomes infinitely thin. Here,
while we haven't yet directly detected gravitational waves, we've
seen that several such systems show orbital decay at precisely the
rate one would predict from energy loss due to gravitational radiation.
Steve Carlip
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> On Aug 14, 12:33 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > mollwollfumble wrote:
> > > Consider a dumbbell rotating about an axis other than its axis of
> > > symmetry. Does it radiate gravitational waves?
> > In GR, yes. I don't know how to answer your question except in the
> > context of GR. That's OK, as GR is the only generally-accepted theory in
> > which gravitational waves occur.
> > > Is there an analogy in electromagnetic waves? eg. a macroscopic rigid
> > > body with a + charge at one end and a - charge at the other end?
> > EM radiation only needs a time-varying dipole moment; so charges
> > wiggling back-and-forth in a line will generate EM radiation (e.g. a
> > typical dipole radio antenna). Not so for gravitational radiation.
> That assumes gravity/inertia is a fundamental
> force. There is no evidence that it is fundamental.
No, it doesn't. Any reasonable theory of induced gravity, such as
Sakharov's model, makes the same predictions about dipole and
quadrupole gravitational radiation.
Steve Carlip
Sue...
> Sue... <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > On Aug 14, 12:33 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > mollwollfumble wrote:
> > > > Consider a dumbbell rotating about an axis other than its axis of
> > > > symmetry. Does it radiate gravitational waves?
> > > In GR, yes. I don't know how to answer your question except in the
> > > context of GR. That's OK, as GR is the only generally-accepted theory in
> > > which gravitational waves occur.
> > > > Is there an analogy in electromagnetic waves? eg. a macroscopic rigid
> > > > body with a + charge at one end and a - charge at the other end?
> > > EM radiation only needs a time-varying dipole moment; so charges
> > > wiggling back-and-forth in a line will generate EM radiation (e.g. a
> > > typical dipole radio antenna). Not so for gravitational radiation.
===========
> > That assumes gravity/inertia is a fundamental
> > force. There is no evidence that it is fundamental.
>
> No, it doesn't. Any reasonable theory of induced gravity, such as
> Sakharov's model, makes the same predictions about dipole and
> quadrupole gravitational radiation.
While I won't argue against the possibility that long-range (1/r^2)
EM components may be included in GR's tensor expressions,
(who could do the maths) this article indicates short range
components (1/r^3):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrupole#Gravitational_quadrupole
Induction gravity has long-range components as a part of the
attractive mechanism, so it might actually better explain the
losses in a system like Hulse-Taylor.
BB cosmologists are likely not fond of the notion that
such radiations could appear in the microwave spectrum.
The observation of some mass-carriers at LHC would add
considerably to your side of the argument about what is
fundamental. For the time being, I'll stick with the
minority and predict a meso-atomic violation of Newton's
law is found before a Higgs boson, if ever.
I believe you are familiar with the concept through one
of your colleagues but I will include it again for benefit
of those that are accustomed to better writing than mine.
6.3 Emergent gravity
--Carlos Barceló and Stefano Liberati and Matt Visser
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3
Sue...
>
> Steve Carlip
eric gisse
But is that _sufficient_? The objection in my mind is that the dumbbell in
this setup is a solid object whose only energy is rotation.
Some reason I have it stuck in my head that in order for there to be
radiation, the masses have to be able to move with respect to the overall
center of mass point.
>
> Steve Carlip
Tom Roberts
> carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>> The answer to the original question is that in general relativity, the
>
> But is that _sufficient_? The objection in my mind is that the dumbbell in
> this setup is a solid object whose only energy is rotation.
Yes it is sufficient, remembering that the rotation axis is not the
symmetry axis of the dumbbell.
> Some reason I have it stuck in my head that in order for there to be
> radiation, the masses have to be able to move with respect to the overall
> center of mass point.
But they do! That is, in a locally-inertial frame of the c-o-m, the
masses move relative to the c-o-m.
Remember it was stipulated earlier that the rotation is NOT around the
symmetry axis of the dumbbell. As both Steve and I pointed out, for
rotation perpendicular to the symmetry axis and a negligibly-thin strut,
this is equivalent to two equal masses in circular orbits around their
c-o-m. And we know such orbiting masses emit gravitational radiation.
Tom Roberts
eric gisse
[...]
> But they do! That is, in a locally-inertial frame of the c-o-m, the
> masses move relative to the c-o-m.
>
> Remember it was stipulated earlier that the rotation is NOT around the
> symmetry axis of the dumbbell.
GAH. I'm arguing about the wrong thing.
Reading is fundamental....
[...]
Ken S. Tucker
> eric gisse wrote:
Wrong Tom, No EMR from a rotating bar bar magnet, electric
dipole and certainly not from a dumbbell EMR or g-waves,
any radiation contravenes the PoE, and GC by simply using
a constantly rotating FoR, figure it out.
Ken
Jenny
> GAH. I'm arguing about the wrong thing.
> Reading is fundamental....
How many times have I told you that?
Jenny
Sue...
> On Aug 19, 5:49 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > eric gisse wrote:
> > > carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > >> The answer to the original question is that in general relativity, the
> > >> rotating dumbbell will definitely emit gravitational radiation. [...]
>
> > > But is that _sufficient_? The objection in my mind is that the dumbbell in
> > > this setup is a solid object whose only energy is rotation.
>
> > Yes it is sufficient, remembering that the rotation axis is not the
> > symmetry axis of the dumbbell.
>
> > > Some reason I have it stuck in my head that in order for there to be
> > > radiation, the masses have to be able to move with respect to the overall
> > > center of mass point.
>
> > But they do! That is, in a locally-inertial frame of the c-o-m, the
> > masses move relative to the c-o-m.
>
> > Remember it was stipulated earlier that the rotation is NOT around the
> > symmetry axis of the dumbbell. As both Steve and I pointed out, for
> > rotation perpendicular to the symmetry axis and a negligibly-thin strut,
> > this is equivalent to two equal masses in circular orbits around their
> > c-o-m. And we know such orbiting masses emit gravitational radiation.
> > Tom Roberts
>
> Wrong Tom, No EMR from a rotating bar bar magnet...
The inner loop in this sketch is the
rotating bar magnet. (1/r^3)
http://www.kr1st.com/Images/loop.jpg or
http://www.geocities.com/gw0tqm/magloop/magbuild_files/loop50.gif
The outer loop is necessary for an effective
electric field aperture and radiation (1/r^2)
"How an antenna launches its input power
into radiation: the pattern of the Poynting
vector at and near an antenna"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506053
Sue...
Sue...
> >> The answer to the original question is that in general relativity, the
> >> rotating dumbbell will definitely emit gravitational radiation. [...]
>
> > But is that _sufficient_? The objection in my mind is that the dumbbell in
> > this setup is a solid object whose only energy is rotation.
>
> Yes it is sufficient, remembering that the rotation axis is not the
> symmetry axis of the dumbbell.
>
> > Some reason I have it stuck in my head that in order for there to be
> > radiation, the masses have to be able to move with respect to the overall
> > center of mass point.
>
> But they do! That is, in a locally-inertial frame of the c-o-m, the
> masses move relative to the c-o-m.
That means the barycentre does not move.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass#Animations
It is the barycentre which has a radiative far-field component.
~near and far fields~
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
>
> Remember it was stipulated earlier that the rotation is NOT around the
> symmetry axis of the dumbbell. As both Steve and I pointed out, for
> rotation perpendicular to the symmetry axis and a negligibly-thin strut,
> this is equivalent to two equal masses in circular orbits around their
> c-o-m.
==========
> And we know such orbiting masses emit gravitational radiation.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you
into trouble. It's what you know for sure
that just ain't so.” --Mark Twain
<< The discovery of apparent gravitational energy loss
by the Hulse-Taylor pulsar provides only indirect
evidence for the existence of gravitational waves. >>
--Haisch-Rueda
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/488/2/563/35926.text.html
Sue...
>
> Tom Roberts
eric gisse
[...]
> Wrong Tom, No EMR from a rotating bar bar magnet, electric
> dipole [...]
You gotta be kidding me.
Jerry
> Wrong Tom, No EMR from a rotating bar bar magnet, electric
> dipole and certainly not from a dumbbell EMR or g-waves,
Normally I ignore you, but the utter stupidity of that
statement is overwhelming, being completely at odds with
approx 1.5 centuries of theory and research.
Jerry
Juan R.
That has never been a problem for Ken. He lives in his own Universe not
our :-D
> Jerry
Tom Roberts
> No EMR from a rotating bar bar magnet, electric
> dipole and certainly not from a dumbbell EMR or g-waves,
> any radiation contravenes the PoE, and GC by simply using
> a constantly rotating FoR, figure it out.
Ken, I keep telling you that you need to re-learn the basics of physics,
and you keep ignoring me and blasting off into never-never land. This is
merely one more example of your failure to grasp rather basic physics.
You are wrong. LEARN from this: much of what you THINK you know about
basic physics is WRONG.
There is a fundamental difference between a "rotating FoR"
and an inertial frame -- that's why most modern authors
reserve the word "frame" (meaning Cartesian coordinates)
for inertial frames only. The difference, of course,
is that a rotating rigid 3-d framework of clocks and
rulers is NOT Cartesian (the spatial metric components
are NOT diag(1,1,1)).
Tom Roberts
Ken S. Tucker
On Aug 20, 7:55 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > No EMR from a rotating bar bar magnet, electric
> > dipole and certainly not from a dumbbell EMR or g-waves,
> > any radiation contravenes the PoE, and GC by simply using
> > a constantly rotating FoR, figure it out.
>
> Ken, I keep telling you...
That Tom's BULLSHIT science is true.
Tom you're highly ignorant of real physics including radiation,
did you ever build a TX?
(I'm a paid professional on the subject, we use REAL physics, to
build real TX's for real customers for real $$).
I'll give you and your friends a chance, prove a lone bar magnet
rotating in outer space, end over end, radiates EMR, use Maxwell's
Eqs. if you even know what they are, ever heard of ME's, look it up.
I should like to see how centrifugal acceleration (and so by PoE)
and gravitation cause a bar magnet to radiate.
My photon detector is ready Gents, fire it up.
Ken S. Tucker
...
Ken S. Tucker
I have a "need to know", you don't have any need to know,
so keep ignoring science, and read pop-sci.
See my post to Roberts, prove your statements.
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
No crowds, saves waiting in line ups.
"Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded".
Ken
eric gisse
God, the stupidity is amazing.
Juan R.
Ken S. Tucker
Mr. TacoBell and runt, does a H atom at ground state emit
radiation? ... it is after all a rotating dipole.
Forgive me, I do rather enjoy the shower of hilarity when
Juan, Roberts, Jerry and the runt all get together to build
a transmitter using a lonely bar magnet.
Thanks for the laff.
Ken
eric gisse
[...]
>
> Mr. TacoBell and runt, does a H atom at ground state emit
> radiation? ... it is after all a rotating dipole.
Ground states do not radiate, otherwise they wouldn't be GROUND.
The ground state of the Hydrogen atom is spherically symmetric. One cannot
help but wonder how you intend for a spherically symmetric object to have a
dipole moment.
[...]
Tom Roberts
> does a H atom at ground state emit
> radiation? ... it is after all a rotating dipole.
No, that is not a "rotating dipole".
As I keep telling you and you keep ignoring, what you think you know
about very basic things in physics is WRONG. You need to re-LEARN the
basics.
Tom Roberts
eric gisse
> On Aug 21, 11:39 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
>> > Mr. TacoBell and runt, does a H atom at ground state emit
>> > radiation? ... it is after all a rotating dipole.
>
>> Ground states do not radiate, otherwise they wouldn't be GROUND.
>
> I think that was his point - a rhetorical question.
Ken is an idiot.
>
>> The ground state of the Hydrogen atom is spherically symmetric. One
>> cannot help but wonder how you intend for a spherically symmetric object
>> to have a dipole moment.
>
>
> That might be correct, I don't know but isn't the magnetic moment
> associated with an electron orbit is given by
>
> mu = [{L(L + 1)}^0.5]*mu_b
For the ground state, L = 0.
>
> where mu_b is called the "Bohr magneton"?
>
> Although there is spherical symmetry, none of these values seem to be
> zero.
>
> Where am I going wrong?
>
>
> Jenny
John Park
was one the first arguments against the simple planetary (rotating dipole)
model of the atom.
--John Park
John Park
>> > radiation? ... it is after all a rotating dipole.
>
>> Ground states do not radiate, otherwise they wouldn't be GROUND.
>
>
> t
>> help but wonder how you intend for a spherically symmetric object to have=
> a
>> dipole moment.
>
>
> That might be correct, I don't know but isn't the magnetic moment
> associated with an electron orbit is given by
>
>
> where mu_b is called the "Bohr magneton"?
>
> Although there is spherical symmetry, none of these values seem to be
> zero.
>
> Where am I going wrong?
>
--John Park
Sue...
> On Aug 19, 5:49 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > eric gisse wrote:
> > > carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > >> The answer to the original question is that in general relativity, the
> > >> rotating dumbbell will definitely emit gravitational radiation. [...]
>
> > > But is that _sufficient_? The objection in my mind is that the dumbbell in
> > > this setup is a solid object whose only energy is rotation.
>
> > Yes it is sufficient, remembering that the rotation axis is not the
> > symmetry axis of the dumbbell.
>
> > > Some reason I have it stuck in my head that in order for there to be
> > > radiation, the masses have to be able to move with respect to the overall
> > > center of mass point.
>
> > But they do! That is, in a locally-inertial frame of the c-o-m, the
> > masses move relative to the c-o-m.
>
> > Remember it was stipulated earlier that the rotation is NOT around the
> > symmetry axis of the dumbbell. As both Steve and I pointed out, for
> > rotation perpendicular to the symmetry axis and a negligibly-thin strut,
> > this is equivalent to two equal masses in circular orbits around their
> > c-o-m. And we know such orbiting masses emit gravitational radiation.
> > Tom Roberts
>
=====================
> Wrong Tom, No EMR from a rotating bar bar magnet,
--> electric dipole <--
> and certainly not from a dumbbell EMR or g-waves,
> any radiation contravenes the PoE, and GC by simply using
> a constantly rotating FoR, figure it out.
> Ken
Ken,
Please share what you are drinking with us.
<<This animation shows the radiation pattern from an
electric dipole whose dipole moment completely reverses
over the course of the sequence. >>
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/dipoleRadiationReversing/DipoleRadiationReversing.htm
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > does a H atom at ground state emit
> > radiation? ... it is after all a rotating dipole.
>
> No, that is not a "rotating dipole".
Of course it is, it's experimentally verified.
This is basically HS stuff.
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
>
> Sue...
Read about Maxwell's Equations, pay attention to
&(Electric field)/&t, then get back to us.
Ken
Sue...
>
> > Sue...
>
> Read about Maxwell's Equations,
OK Right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications
> pay attention to
> &(Electric field)/&t, then get back to us.
I don't see any t. :-(
Oh My! You have that stuff with the worm in the bottle dontch?
I have heard that worm makes it hallucinogenic but I never
believed it 'till now. :o)
Sue...
> Ken
Ken S. Tucker
> On Aug 23, 1:27 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
...
> > Read about Maxwell's Equations,
>
> OK Right here:
>
>
> > pay attention to
> > &(Electric field)/&t, then get back to us.
>
> I don't see any t. :-(
That's the theoretical foundation of Maxwell's "displacement current"
predicting
radio wave transmission (TX), look harder.
> Oh My! You have that stuff with the worm in the bottle dontch?
> I have heard that worm makes it hallucinogenic but I never
> believed it 'till now. :o)
Sue, sober up, sounds like you drink to much to understand science.
You are a well
know anti-relativistist, (as is Roberts and the runt), AE explained on
the 1st page of
his 1905 SR paper, the relativity of electrodynamics.
Basically one needs to vary the energy, (q1 q2 / r), voltage and
current to TX EMR.
Such as increments like,
(-) => <=(+) ~~~~~~>photon
by a variation of "r".
NOTE: changing energy, voltage and current in accord with Relativity,
that's how
TX antennae work.
A "fixed r" dipole, rotating or equivalently stationary, cannot
TX since r, and therefore energy, is constant and Power = d(energy/dt)
= 0,
so without a Power source no EMR can occur, and you get NO WATTS.
You people shouldn't be making me explain these EMR SR basics, that is
High
School physics.
Same reasoning applies to g-radiation from a barbell rotating, you'd
need a source
of power, and none exists.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Sue...
> On Aug 23, 11:10 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 23, 1:27 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> ...
> > > Read about Maxwell's Equations,
>
> > OK Right here:
>
>
> > > pay attention to
> > > &(Electric field)/&t, then get back to us.
>
> > I don't see any t. :-(
>
> That's the theoretical foundation of Maxwell's "displacement current"
> predicting
> radio wave transmission (TX), look harder.
I zoomed in 400x . No delta t to be found.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications
>
> > Oh My! You have that stuff with the worm in the bottle dontch?
> > I have heard that worm makes it hallucinogenic but I never
> > believed it 'till now. :o)
>
> Sue, sober up, sounds like you drink to much to understand science.
> You are a well
> know anti-relativistist, (as is Roberts and the runt), AE explained on
> the 1st page of
> his 1905 SR paper, the relativity of electrodynamics.
If I have to use fridge magnets that Einstein designed in
1905 please include a 100 year supply of batteries for
my magnets along with my portion of the tequila you should be
sharing.
Now scroll back and see I did not disagree about the spinning
bar magnet. I separated the electric dipole and offered a
paper by Jackson as support.
> Basically one needs to vary the energy, (q1 q2 / r), voltage and
> current to TX EMR.
> Such as increments like,
> (-) => <=(+) ~~~~~~>photon
> by a variation of "r".
> NOTE: changing energy, voltage and current in accord with Relativity,
> that's how
> TX antennae work.
> A "fixed r" dipole, rotating or equivalently stationary, cannot
> TX since r, and therefore energy, is constant and Power = d(energy/dt)
> = 0,
> so without a Power source no EMR can occur, and you get NO WATTS.
I gave you some URLs for REAL antenna where you can separate E and H
plane energy. You can follow the E field around the larger constant
radius
loop. Build one yourself if you think the author is making making
up tall tales to post on the internet.
>
> You people shouldn't be making me explain these EMR SR basics, that is
> High
> School physics.
No one twisted your arm to take on Jackson with High School physics.
> Same reasoning applies to g-radiation from a barbell rotating, you'd
> need a source
> of power, and none exists.
We can discuss bar magnets and neutral masses after you fix your
HUGE PROBLEM in the E-plane.
Sue...
To save the operators of your bush telegraph a bit of
scrolling and drumming:
~Near and Far field~
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
http://www.kr1st.com/Images/loop.jpg or
http://www.geocities.com/gw0tqm/magloop/magbuild_files/loop50.gif
The outer loop is necessary for an effective
electric field aperture and radiation (1/r^2)
"How an antenna launches its input power
into radiation: the pattern of the Poynting
vector at and near an antenna"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506053
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications
Sue...
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker
> On Aug 23, 3:05 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 23, 11:10 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 23, 1:27 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > ...
> > > > Read about Maxwell's Equations,
>
> > > OK Right here:
>
> > > > pay attention to
> > > > &(Electric field)/&t, then get back to us.
>
> > > I don't see any t. :-(
>
> > That's the theoretical foundation of Maxwell's "displacement current"
> > predicting
> > radio wave transmission (TX), look harder.
>
> I zoomed in 400x . No delta t to be found.
>
>
>
>
> > > Oh My! You have that stuff with the worm in the bottle dontch?
> > > I have heard that worm makes it hallucinogenic but I never
> > > believed it 'till now. :o)
>
> > Sue, sober up, sounds like you drink to much to understand science.
> > You are a well
> > know anti-relativistist, (as is Roberts and the runt), AE explained on
> > the 1st page of
> > his 1905 SR paper, the relativity of electrodynamics.
>
> If I have to use fridge magnets that Einstein designed in
> 1905 please include a 100 year supply of batteries for
> my magnets along with my portion of the tequila you should be
> sharing.
Sue, I think your relaxer battery's need charging ;-).
You and many posters to this thread have not yet learned
relativitic electrodynamics, and are to damn old to teach,
including Roberts and the runt.
If you didn't get it in HS, you're brain is fucked.
YOU NEED POWER.
Ken
...
eric gisse
Ken, a Hydrogen atom in its' ground state doesn't have a dipole moment.
Notice how you will be wholly unable to provide the literature reference
that substantiate your claim.
Why do you insist on posting in a newsgroup about science when you don't
know the first thing about it?
Ken S. Tucker
> > dipole and certainly not from a dumbbell EMR or g-waves,
> > any radiation contravenes the PoE, and GC by simply using
> > a constantly rotating FoR, figure it out.
> There is a fundamental difference between a "rotating FoR"
> and an inertial frame -- that's why most modern authors
> reserve the word "frame" (meaning Cartesian coordinates)
> for inertial frames only. The difference, of course,
> is that a rotating rigid 3-d framework of clocks and
> rulers is NOT Cartesian (the spatial metric components
> are NOT diag(1,1,1)).
> Tom Roberts
While Robert's post is very primitive, we might extrapolate some
physics
from the babble. One may use a CS with rotation that have off diagonal
non symmetrical non-zero values, for example, consider a current loop
such as a solenoid.
When a DC (current) is applied to a solenoid we have effectively a
circular
rotation of electrons around a loop that evidently creates a polarized
electro
magnet. That is Public School stuff, wrap a wire around a nail and you
can
pick up paper clips with the nail using a constant DC battery source.
But that electromagnet will NOT radiate EMR due to the constancy of
the
rotation of the electrons.
If one applies an AC power to the electromagnet, then EMR occurs,
that's
why there is so much stray 60 cycle hum that can get into circuits.
Mathematically, an off diagonal metric such as g_12, with an
antisymmetric
component "a_12" due to rotation, can only radiate if &a_12 / &t >0.
In the case of DC the &a_12 / &t = 0 since the rotation rate is
constant and
it will NOT radiate.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Sue...
A coil of wire on a nail at 60Hz, Eh?
It is too bad these folks didn't get your advise before
they acquired all that land for waves only 1/1000 as long
"Masts of the Rugby VLF transmitter in England"
http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Rugby%20radio%20station/
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker
Yeah we advanced North American folks use 60 cycle 120V relays,
and hope one day to introduce it to you people 'down under' in OZ.
You must be an S&M freak to want to make science difficult,
here's one for ya, (name fits),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_electromagnet
Ken
...
Juan R.
More typical of Ken... Do you really wait that sniping and adding noise
you will hide your nonsenses about rest mass being not invariant :-D
guskz
Alaska.
http://www.facebook.com/eric.gisse
Psycoptath fat head loser stuffed with junk food.
Never seen anyone who looks so pathetic.
Ken S. Tucker
I read that the relative length of fingers is indicative
of homosexuality, so I measure my fingers, and my right
hand is hetro and my lefy hand is a bit fruity, but I
figure that's cuz I use my left hand to fondle myself
and so it went part gay.
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
Does a clock at rest keep invariant time?
Ken
Juan R.
Ken S. Tucker
Juan, go back to selling Taco's, you have a limited IQ,
quite insufficient to be a theoretician, and that's from
a real theoretician. I see a lot of ding-bats with some
pretension of engaging in thought, such as yourself, why
do you bother? My take on your physics ability is like
watching an infant crawling on a rug picking up bits of
fluff, tasting it, and exclaiming you discovered something
new, and some of that fell out of your diaper.
Take a guy like me for example, got an IQ off scale, with
a theoretics compulsion since 4 years old, it's addiction.
I have the class of a Bloodhound chasing a scent, can't
quit running down a new sniff, but everyone knows that
about me, it's my true nature.
Ken
Juan R.
This is more of your usual personal attack against people who correct
your nonsenses and idiocies. But if you think about this (if you can) you
would be noticing that you are claiming that those you consider simple
mortals are able to correct your idiocies and nonsenses. This says
nothing good about you Ken.
> I see a lot of ding-bats with some pretension of engaging in thought,
> such as yourself, why do you bother? My take on your physics ability is
> like watching an infant crawling on a rug picking up bits of fluff,
> tasting it, and exclaiming you discovered something new, and some of
> that fell out of your diaper.
>
> Take a guy like me for example, got an IQ off scale, with a theoretics
> compulsion since 4 years old, it's addiction. I have the class of a
> Bloodhound chasing a scent, can't quit running down a new sniff, but
> everyone knows that about me, it's my true nature.
Everyone knows your "true nature".
Ken S. Tucker
> > On Aug 25, 2:10 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:55:18 -0700:
>
> >> > On Aug 24, 4:17 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> >> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:21:25 -0700:
>
> >> >> > On Aug 21, 8:03 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> >> >> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:22:03 -0700:
>
> >> >> >> > To Tom et al.
>
> >> >> >> > On Aug 20, 7:55 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > No EMR from a rotating bar bar magnet, electric dipole and
> >> >> >> >> > certainly not from a dumbbell EMR or g-waves, any radiation
> >> >> >> >> > contravenes the PoE, and GC by simply using a constantly
> >> >> >> >> > rotating FoR, figure it out.
There is but one verified means to propagate radiation using the
spacetime medium,
and that can be described metrically by the anti symmetrical equation,
a_uv,w + a_vw,u + a_wu,v = 0 ,
that readily becomes the standard EMR eq. when a_uv = kq F_uv.
Regards
Ken
eric gisse
> On Aug 26, 3:23 am, "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:41:57 -0700:
>
>> > On Aug 25, 2:10 am, "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez
>> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:55:18 -0700:
>>
>> >> > On Aug 24, 4:17 am, "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez
>> >> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:21:25 -0700:
>>
>> >> >> > On Aug 21, 8:03 am, "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez
>> >> >> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:22:03 -0700:
>>
>> >> >> >> > To Tom et al.
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Aug 20, 7:55 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > No EMR from a rotating bar bar magnet, electric dipole and
>> >> >> >> >> > certainly not from a dumbbell EMR or g-waves, any radiation
>> >> >> >> >> > contravenes the PoE, and GC by simply using a constantly
>> >> >> >> >> > rotating FoR, figure it out.
>
> There is but one verified means to propagate radiation using the
> spacetime medium,
> and that can be described metrically by the anti symmetrical equation,
>
> a_uv,w + a_vw,u + a_wu,v = 0 ,
>
> that readily becomes the standard EMR eq. when a_uv = kq F_uv.
> Regards
> Ken
What breathtaking stupidity. You have no idea why the Faraday tensor obeys
the Jacobi identity, do you?
eric gisse
[...]
> Take a guy like me for example, got an IQ off scale, with
> a theoretics compulsion since 4 years old, it's addiction.
> I have the class of a Bloodhound chasing a scent, can't
> quit running down a new sniff, but everyone knows that
> about me, it's my true nature.
> Ken
You are chasing your own tail.
After several years of watching you post your inept "drafts" about general
relativity, it is quite safe to conclude that you never really understood
the subject. If you think I'm wrong, notice how you still haven't been able
to write the Einstein-Maxwell equations and show how gravitational radiation
is electromagnetic in nature.
Ken S. Tucker
An interesting bit of mathematical logic starting with,
a_uv,w + a_vw,u + a_wu,v = 0 ,
with a swap of "w" and "u" in the last term gives,
a_uv,w + a_vw,u - a_uw,v = 0 ,
Let's see how the Christoffel (1st kind) reacts with that.
Use s_uv to be symmetric and a_uv to be the antisymmetric
components of the Christoffel then,
2 [wu,v] = g_uv,w + g_vw,u - g_uw,v
= s_uv,w + s_vw,u - s_uw,v + { a_uv,w + a_vw,u - a_uw,v } = 0.
See that bracket {}=0, meaning a nonsymmetrical metric is
compatible with a symmetrical Christoffel, because only the
symmetrical's (such as s_uv,w) define the Christoffel, so one
may have a symmetrical Christoffel and a nonsymmetrical
metric.
What does that mean physically?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
eric gisse
[...]
> See that bracket {}=0, meaning a nonsymmetrical metric is
> compatible with a symmetrical Christoffel, because only the
> symmetrical's (such as s_uv,w) define the Christoffel, so one
> may have a symmetrical Christoffel and a nonsymmetrical
> metric.
> What does that mean physically?
It means, physically, that you don't know what you are talking about.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker