Prev: folks really believe that oilcos hate cap&trade on fossilized fuels TM?
Next: BP's the Man in Moon, Gulf, Alaska, ARCO etc. -- go with their cap&trade, or nationalize?
From: waldofj on 28 Jun 2010 04:33
On Jun 28, 12:46 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> waldofj wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 2:46 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> >>> (1) The value of the gravitational coupling factor G' has never been
> >>> measured within an Atomic Scale system [atom, ion or particle].
> >> Yes. There are several efforts to do this, including both hydrogen atoms and
> >> anti-hydrogen atoms. I participated in a Fermilab proposal to do this, but it
> >> has not been approved, and most likely will not be.
>
> > That's a real shame. I think this is a very important line of
> > research. Over the decades I have read many "discussions" about things
> > like: quantum gravity, just what is anti-matter, better tests of the
> > equivalence principle, and so on. This line of research would go a
> > long way in reducing the "noise factor"
>
> I agree that this is a very important experiment. The program advisory committee
> at Fermilab agrees, with the caveat that the measurement must be sufficiently
> sensitive
(nobody expects anti-hydrogen to fall up,

I'm inclined to agree with that but I would still like
confirmation ;-)
here is an interesting article I found on anti-matter
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/AntiMatter/AntiMatter.html
I like the quote from Wheeler: "There is only one electron in the
universe!"

> at most a few parts in 10^8
> difference from hydrogen is expected; some models have limits much smaller than
> that). Our proposal was close to meeting their desired sensitivity. But the
> Fermilab current plan is to turn off the antiproton source before we could
> perform this experiment, and that scheduling issue is a major reason it was not
> approved.
>
> At least one experiment to measure the gravitational fall of both hydrogen and
> anti-hydrogen has been approved at CERN, and will probably happen in a few years
> or so.

Hope so!

> Ironically, it is technically MUCH more difficult to do this with hydrogen than
> with anti-hydrogen, because detecting hydrogen atoms with kinetic energies in
> the milli-eV range is a challenge (they must be that slow for gravity to have an
> appreciable effect). Fortunately, hydrogen is quite plentiful, so they plan to
> ignore >99.99% of it and just measure excited atoms as they de-excite inside the
> gravitational interferometer. The challenge with anti-hydrogen is trapping
> enough anti-protons to make it; detecting them is easy as they annihilate
> whenever they hit anything.
>
> Tom Roberts

From: Hayek on 28 Jun 2010 04:53
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> On Jun 26, 8:29 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Well, even though I probably know more physics than you [...]
>> Since I have formal training in the subject and you don't, I rather much
>> doubt that.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> But you are more than a little uncertain about that, aren't you
> Woofster?

It is the only argument he has. Just leave him that. :-)

Uwe Hayek.

> RLO
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/menu.html
>
>


--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 28 Jun 2010 14:29
On Jun 27, 11:57 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nope. Thirty years ago lots of my ideas would be publication worthy, but
> every one of mine that I have investigated has been done sometime between
> the mid 70's and the last decade.
---------------------------------------------------

So you could've been a contender, but lacked the will? Training?
Literacy?
>

> that you can't remember, or that you never stepped foot in the library. Most
> likely the former, given your age.
-----------------------------------------------

Whenever possible I used the carrels in the Suzzallo Library.

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
From: Mitchell Jones on 28 Jun 2010 21:11
In article <0MGdnVOA4aOS47rRRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com>,
Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Mitchell Jones wrote:
> > ***{Time is that which is measured by a standard clock and by every
> > other clock which has been designed to match the readings of a standard
> > clock. The acceptance of this definition is, for example, why a clock
> > intended to be used in a GPS satellite is designed to lose 38
> > microseconds per day when at sea level: the goal is that it match the
> > readings of a standard clock on the ground, while it is in orbit. Since
> > it will speed up by 38 microseconds per day when placed in orbit, it has
> > to lose 38 microseconds per day while on the ground.
>
> Some of this is correct. But note that to an observer on a GPS satellite, the
> satellite's clock does not measure standard time; nor does a ground clock.
> You are implicitly assuming that earth is a VERY special place, in that only
> clocks on its surface correctly display "time" -- that's an OUTRAGEOUSLY
> parochial view.

***{Your opinion that I view the world from an extremely backward and
limited perspective is noted.

What I'm saying is that we need to select a standard of time and stick
to it, so that our measurements of time will be comparable. It is only
the fact that humans are presently limited to the vicinity of Earth that
forces us to use a standard clock situated here. If human civilization
extended throughout the galaxy, there would be no reason in principle to
not use a standard clock located somewhere out in the Cygnus spiral arm,
or even in the galactic halo for that matter.

I'm also saying that the non-mathematical, natural-language gobbledygook
used by Einstein to intrerpret the mislabeled "time dilation" equations
is not, in fact, representative of what humans actually do in the real
world. It is, for example, ludicrous for relativists to constantly cite
GPS as an example supporting Einstein's ridiculous, non-mathematical,
natural-language interpretive framework--a framework which explicitly
and repeated denies that time advances at the same rate throughout the
universe--when in order to make GPS work they have been forced to rely
on the very premise that they deny--which means: (a) they set the clocks
in the CPS satellites to keep pace with standard clocks on the ground;
and (b) they use the very equations which, in their non-mathematical,
natural-language ravings, they claim refute Newtonian absolute time, to
set the clocks and thereby bring them into compliance with the Newtonian
framework.

You guys can't have it both ways. You can't continue to claim, in your
non-mathematical, natural-language statements, that time is what a local
clock that has not been "set" measures, when in the only real-world
applications where you have encountered the opportunity to act in
accordance with that definition, you have been forced to abandon it and
set your clocks to agree with clocks in different locations! It's time
to walk Einstein's talk, or else to concede that his talk was bullshit.

Let me be very specific. It has been known for centuries--long before
Einstein--that various factors operated to cause clocks to disagree with
one another. During the heyday of mechanical windup clocks, for example,
wear might cause the internal spring to weaken, slowing the clock down.
An accumulation of dust, or oil, or moisture in a humid climate, or
rust, or dust mites crushed by the gears, might cause internal friction
to increase. Such things could also cause a mechanical clock to run more
slowly. On the other hand, if the accumulation occurred due to
disuse--e.g., if the clock sat in a box for a year for some reason--then
a resumption of use might gradually wear off the accumulated rust, etc.,
from the gears, and the clock would gradually, progressively, speed back
up again. Because such facts were well known, mechanical clocks were
built with designed-in features which allowed them to be "set." Here is
the way it worked:

(1) You would compare your clock to a clock known to be "correct"
(meaning that it showed good agreement with the accepted standard for
that time zone) and, if they did not agree, you would use the knobs
provided on the back to set the hands on the face of your clock to match
those on the face of the other clock.

(2) After a sufficient time had passed, you would again compare your
clock to a clock known to be correct, and if the readings no longer
matched, you would use a thumbwheel on the back of your clock to adjust
its speed. If your clock had gained time relative to the standard clock,
you would adjust the thumbwheel in the direction of the "S" engraved
next to it, in order to slow it down; and if your clock had lost time,
you would adjust the thumbwheel in the other direction, toward the "F,"
to speed it up.

The above-described clock-setting procedure was based on the Newtonian
concept of absolute time, which stipulated that time advances at a
constant rate throughout the universe. Why accept such a stipulation?
Because clocks that have not been set are useless. An appointment to
meet Bill at the coffee shop at 2 pm means nothing unless the two of you
are willing to accept the premise that time advances at the same rate at
different locations. Why must you do that? Because you are going to be
at different locations until the appointed time, of course.

Unfortunately, when Einstein noticed that experimentally derived
equations indicated that clocks would be affected by the velocity at
which they were moving and by the gravitational intensity where they
were located, he apparently failed to recognize that they still would
have to be set to agree with clocks at different locations, or else
insurmountable practical obstacles would arise. GPS is the perfect
example of that. It is a case where both the velocity and gravitational
effects are present, and where, as a practical matter, the GPS clocks
must still be set to agree with clocks on the ground, or else hideously
costly workarounds must be invoked to avoid doing so.

The solution that has been adopted is to set the GPS clocks so that they
agree with clocks on the ground--which means, in effect, to accept the
Newtonian concept of absolute time. That means the engineers who
implemented the GPS system chose to treat the effects of velocity and
gravitational intensity in exactly the same way that their predecessors
150 years ago treated an accumulation of rust on the gears: they
concluded that the clock rates were being affected by extraneous
factors, and that the solution was to set them, thereby forcing them to
agree despite the operation of those extraneous factors.

Do you see the difference between the interpretation of the engineers
and that of Einstein? Here, let me spell it out: they acted on the
premise that gravitational intensity and velocity differences were
affecting the clock rates, rather than on the premise that gravitational
intensity and velocity differences were causing time to advance at a
different rate in the GPS orbits than on the ground.

How are those interpretations different? Simple: they chose to "set" the
GPS clocks, to bring them into agreement with clocks on the ground. The
implication: if a GPS clock gained 38 microseconds per day, it was
WRONG. Note very explicitly that if, as Einstein's theory required, time
was advancing at a different rate in the GPS orbits than on the ground,
then an accurate clock would say so. That would mean an accurate clock
in a GPS orbit would gain 38 microseconds per day, relative to an
identical clock on the ground. And,of course, if a clock is accurate,
you don't have to set it, now do you? :-) However, the reality was
different: these clocks had to be set, for the same reason clocks that
got out of step with standard clocks were set in Newton's time: because
people couldn't use clocks to coordinate their activities, if the
clocks did not agree. That reality is the cold, hard fact which supports
the edifice of Newtonian absolute time, and which will continue to
support it, in whatever time and places men may roam, whether
"reletivists" like it or not.

Does that mean that it is only things which ordinary people would label
as "clocks" which have their rates affected by velocity and
gravitational intensity? No, all of the entities and processes accepted
by mainstream science appear to be so affected. But the fact remains:
the only sane way to conceive of the situation is to acknowledge that it
is the rates of change of those physical processes which are affected by
velocity and gravitational intensity, not the rate of advancement of
time itself. We cannot stubbornly cling to the Einsteinian dogma that
it is not the speeds of processes which change, but the rate of
advancement of time itself, for the simple yet sufficient reason that
clocks which haven't been set are next to useless in the real world.
Moreover, and this is important: the loss of utility by a clock that
hasn't been set does not depend on the nature of the factors that have
caused it to fall out of agreement with a standard clock. It doesn't
make a tinker's damn whether Bill's clock disagrees with Sam's because
of rust on its gears, or because Bill is circling the Earth in a GPS
satellite. Either way, Bill can't keep an appointment to speak to Sam by
radio at 2 pm, unless they both are relying on clocks that have been
set.

--Mitchell Jones}***

> > The implication: time advances at the same rate throughout the universe,
> > by definition.
>
> You will find it impossible to follow through on that notion. In particular,
> there is no global notion of "time" in GR. All one can find is the proper
> times of individual objects, observers, and trajectories, or time coordinates of
> various coordinate charts. NONE of those can be extended to the "entire
> universe" [*]. NONE of those has any justification to claim to be "universal
> time" -- each is valid only LOCALLY.

***{That's a required statement for persons such as yourself--i.e., for
proponents of the non-mathematical, natural-language interpretive
framework of "GR." The reality, however, is that clocks which have not
been set to agree with a common standard cannot be used to coordinate
human activities. It doesn't matter whether the activities that are to
be coordinated are in a tiny village in Africa, or across an
interstellar civilization: individual A cannot meet individual B at time
T, if their clocks do not agree. It makes no difference whether they get
to the appointed location at the appointed time by donkey or by starship.

Note, specifically, that I am NOT denying the validity of the
process-rate equations--i.e., the equations which are labeled "time
dilation" equations within the ridiculous, non-mathematical,
natural-language interpretative framework of GR. Those equations were
designed to give good agreement with experimental results, and they do
so. Thus they are appropriate and above-board in all respects.

What they tell us, however, is that causal processes, including clocks,
advance at rates which in part depend on their local velocities and
gravitational intensities. What they do NOT tell us that time itself
advances at variable rates depending on those considerations. For the
reasons already given, we have to set our clocks so that they agree with
a common standard, else they become virtually useless.

--Mitchell Jones}***

> [*] Except in exceptionally simple manifolds that cannot possibly
> model the world we inhabit.
>
> Your notion of a "universal time" is also in conflict with an important
> observation about the world we inhabit: all physics is local. A "universal
> time" would be irrelevant -- physical phenomena would progress according
> to their usual rates in local conditions, ignoring any sort of "universal time".

***{Yup. Back in 1880 a mechanical clock, left to its own devices, might
begin to run slow, due to the gradual accumulation of rust on its gears.
It would, as you say, "progress according to its usual rate in local
conditions, ignoring any sort of 'universal time.' "

However, people even back in those allegedly more primitive times were
able to recognize what supposedly "modern" relativists do not: that a
clock left to its own devices and allowed to progress at its usual rate
in local conditions, ignoring any sort of 'universal time,' was next to
useless.

Clocks aren't children, Tom. We don't need to let them "develop
self-esteem" by "expressing their individuality." If we do that, most of
their usefulness is lost. What we have to do, instead, is force them
into agreement with one another by whatever means that may require.

If that flies in the face of Einsteinian dogma, too bad.

Engineers are going to continue to use Newtonian absolute time whether
you and your blinkered cohorts like it or not, Tom. The principle that
forces them to do that even has an acronym: KISS--"Keep it simple,
Stupid."

--Mitchell Jones}***

> > Absolute time--time that advances at the same rate throughout the
> > universe--is the only concept of time that works in the real world.
>
> Not true. It may work in YOUR everyday life, and your rather simplistic
> notions

***{Your view that my opinions are "simplistic"--i.e., that I ignore
the complexities of an issue--is noted. --MJ}***

> of how that extends to the rest of the universe, but it does not
> work in GR. But then, GR has no need for any such global notions,
> because all physics is local.

***{The engineers who designed our communications systems must not know
any physics, then, since they operate on the naive belief that nodes
separated by vast distances are going to routinely have to talk with one
another! Hey, why don't you find some guy in the International Space
Station, get him to agree that you will both use clocks that have never
been set, and which only by random chance will agree with one another,
and make an appointment to speak to him again by radio in a few months!
I'll bet he stands you up! :-) --MJ}***

> > If the relativists don't like that, let 'em howl.
>
> It's not just "relativists" that "don't like" your attempt to do science by
> assertion, it is every scientist who ever lived. You must develop a theory,
> not just make disconnected statements about how you THINK the world works, or
> about how you HOPE it does.

***{Your expert opinions about my thought processes are noted, and have
been placed in the appropriate receptacle. --MJ}***

> And you must then TEST that theory. Such armchair
> theorizing worked for Aristotle; nobody accepts it today....

***{That's pretty funny, since your words are a perfect description of
what you are doing. :-) --Mitchell Jones}***

> > The reality is that their precious GPS would not work, if clocks in the
> > GPS satellites were not designed to advance at the same rate as
> > standard clocks on the ground.
>
> This is true (once stated properly, which you did not

***{By "stated properly," of course, you mean "stated in such a way as
to obscure the fact that this procedure flies in the face of the
hysterically preposterous, non-mathematical, natural-language verbiage
known as the "Theory of Relativity." --MJ}***

> ). Of course that's why
> the GPS was designed as it was, with rate offsets in the satellite clocks. But
> there is no notion of "absolute time" here,

***{Not overtly, of course. You guys have been looking down in haughty
disdain from your government-funded academic sinecures for a hundred
years, sneering at anyone who overtly questioned your transparently
preposterous nonsense, punishing them in any way available to you,
labeling their opinions as "parochial," or "simplistic," or "ignorant,"
or with whatever other pejoratives came to mind. Result: almost no one
has dared to stand up to you, including the engineers you had to hire to
make your schemes work. But the fact that they did not, for the most
part, openly question your ridiculous dogma, did not prevent them from
setting their clocks--which means: they behaved in accordance with the
notion that time advances at a constant rate throughout the universe,
even while, by their verbal utterances or by the nodding of their heads,
they seemed to be agreeing with you. And they will continue to set their
clocks, because the KISS principle forces them to do it, and eventually,
if mankind survives--by no means a sure bet--the truth will out. Someone
will say, "Why are we all spouting this nonsense, while doing the
opposite?" At that point, your ridiculous house of cards will come
tumbling down. --MJ}***

> it's just that the GPS approach is the
> simplest and most straightforward way to construct locally-Minkowski
> coordinates in a region near earth, using atomic clocks both on the ground and in
> satellites.

***{Men are going to set their clocks as long as men exist, and that
fact will, at all places and times, imply that you guys are totally,
completely, and utterly wrong, whether anyone bothers to say so or not.
--MJ}***

> It is not the only way....

***{No, it's just the right way. Doing things the wrong way is always an
option. You can, for example, remain standing in front of an onrushing
truck and get gelatinized, or you can step aside. It's your call.
--MJ}***

> > Result: they are hoist by their own petard.
>
> No. The problems and inconsistencies are all yours.

***{Wrong again. --MJ}***

> Tom Roberts

*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: folks really believe that oilcos hate cap&trade on fossilized fuels TM?
Next: BP's the Man in Moon, Gulf, Alaska, ARCO etc. -- go with their cap&trade, or nationalize?