Prev: As pepper sprinkled over rotten, stinking eggs - such are corrupt einsteinians; no balls, no legs
Next: Quantum History
From: blackhead on 27 Jun 2010 07:05
On 26 June, 17:24, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
> "blackhead" <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote in message
>
> news:6399f79b-2754-43b8-8403-7e5ce8f15426(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 June, 01:46, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
>
> > "blackhead" <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:d7366fa1-8130-46c8-9646-6a027f0cc210(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > On 25 June, 00:58, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
>
> > > "blackhead" <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote in message
>
> [snipped]
>
>
>
>
>
> > > |
> > > | Examples in electrodynamics where the effects depend only on relative
> > > | motion. The current induced in a coil by a magnet depends only upon
> > > | their relative motion and not on which is stationary and which is
> > > | moving, for example.
>
> > > Well done. Very good, an intelligent reply.
> > > So the Principle of Relativity is...
> > > (trumpet fanfare, drum roll...TA..DAAAaaa...)
> > > ... relative motion.
> > >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/1stPostulate.gif
>
> > > Why doesn't genius Einstein say what relative motion is instead of
> > > giving one lousy example? Naturally we are supposed to know what
> > > relative motion is because he hasn't told us. It's an axiom.
>
> > > Describing an axiom is like describing a colour. I can't tell you what
> > > red is, I can only point to a rose and say red is like that flower.
> > > Green
> > > is like the grass. Blue is like the sky. I'm giving examples, you have
> > > to KNOW what red is, what green is, what blue is. Yes, I know there
> > > are yellow roses (of Texas, the only girl for me) and white roses
> > > and pink roses, but the rose I'm pointing to is RED and I'm not going
> > > to get sidetracked about flowers when I'm talking about colours.
>
> > > Have a go, do it for him. See if you can describe relative motion
> > > with a simple equation, without all the flowery mumbo jumbo about
> > > some vague laws of physics being the same in all references of
> > > non-existent absolutely relative frames of coordinate systems inert.
>
> > > It isn't easy to find the right words, so look it up in a dictionary.
> > > I have a suggestion. "If A meets B then B meets A simultaneously"
> > > is a corollary of relative motion. It sound obvious, but stating the
> > > obvious is the skill of the mathematician. Rene DesCartes was a
> > > mathematician. He said "I think, therefore I am". It is UNDENIABLE.
> > > When you have an axiom you have a primitive statement that is
> > > not provable yet is undeniable. If it can be tested, if it can be
> > > denied,
> > > it is NOT an axiom (or postulate). It is at best an hypothesis, and
> > > all that is constructed from it is just so much verbal diarrhea.
> > > Einstein's second postulate isn't a postulate, it is an assertion.
> > > Einstein's THIRD postulate, that he calls a definition, is along
> > > the same lines as "all roses are red".
>
> > > The Principle of Relativity is an axiom. Say what relative motion is
> > > with an equation for me. You can jump ahead 15 years and look here:
> > >http://www.bartleby.com/173/5.html
>
> > Let A, B be 2 identical coordinate systems, with A_ and B_ labels for
> > their respective measurements there. If a(A_x, A_y, A_z, A_t) is the
> > equation of motion of a point in A, we say its motion is relative to
> > A. Its relative motion wrt to B is b(B_x, B_y, B_z, B_t).
> > ==============================================
> > That's a start. You've labelled two coordinate systems, although why you
> > left
> > out A_apple and B_apple and put in A_t and B_t has me somewhat bemused.
> > I believe "motion" can be described as displacement as function of time,
> > can't it? Something to do with
> > v = x/t or
> > v = sqrt(x^2 + y^2)/t or
> > v = sqrt( x^2/t^2 + y^2/t^2) perhaps?
> > Or even
> > v = sqrt( x^2/t^2 + y^2/t^2 + z^2/t^2) perhaps?
> > Let's just keep it simple, motion is mv = m.x/t where m is the mass
> > of the apple. What is *relative* motion?
>
> You have defined motion to be momentum and therefore asking what is
> relative momentum.
>
> ==============================================
> Yes indeed.
>
> DEFINITION I.
> The quantity of matter is the measure of the same, arising from its density
> and bulk conjunctly.
>
> THUS air of double density, in a double space, is quadruple in quantity; in
> a triple space, sextuple in quantity. The same thing is to be understood of
> snow, and fine dust or powders, that are condensed by compression or
> liquefaction; and of all bodies that are by any caused whatever differently
> condensed. I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is,
> that freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies. It is this
> quantity that I mean hereafter everywhere under the name of body or mass.
> And the same is known by the weight of each body; for it is proportional to
> the weight, as I have found by experiments on pendulums, very accurately
> made, which shall be shewn hereafter.
>
> DEFINITION II.
> The quantity of motion is the measure of the same, arising from the velocity
> and quantity of matter conjunctly.
>
> The motion of the whole is the sum of the motions of all the parts; and
> therefore in a body double in quantity, with equal velocity, the motion is
> double; with twice the velocity, it is quadruple. -- "Principia
> Mathematica" - Sir Isaac Newton.
>
> ===================================================
>
> You can define it however you want, bearing in mind
> that it's already been done by other physicists who generally agree on
> this definition.
>
> ===================================================
>
> Motion was defined by Newton. I'm not changing the definition.
>

Also:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=momentum&searchmode=none

momentum
1699, "quantity of motion of a moving body," from L. momentum
"movement, moving power" (see moment). Fig. use dates from 1782.

It's interesting that Newton used motion rather than moving power -
momentum, in his definition. Nowadays, I think most people would
define the motion of a body as the change in a body's position wrt to
time.

> ===================================================
> You would need to define what it's relative to, and in what coordinate
> system the measurement is going to take place.
>
> ===================================================
>
> Very good.
>
> ===================================================
>
> So if you have
> particles p1, p2 with momentum m1v1 m2v2 respectively in a coordinate
> system, you could define the relative momentum of p1 wrt p2 as m1v1 -
> m2v2 using the same coordinate system, or as being the momentum of
> particle 1 in a coordinate system where the momentum of particle 2 is
> zero. I think the last definition is the one commonly used.
> ===================================================
>
> Very good.
>
> But you now have two motions measured in one coordinate system which has no
> mass or velocity of its own, and originally you stated
>
> "If a(A_x, A_y, A_z, A_t) is the equation of motion of a point in A, we say
> its motion is relative to A. Its relative motion wrt to B is b(B_x, B_y,
> B_z, B_t). "

> How about:
> If b(A_x, A_y, A_z, A_t) is the equation of motion of a point in B
> then a(B_x, B_y, B_z, B_t) is the equation of motion of a point in A?

I haven't made my notation clear. For b(A_x, A_y, A_z, A_t), the b
refers to a particular moving point particle labelled b, which will
have a position A_x, A_y, A_z at time A_t as measured using A's space
and time coordinates by an observer stationary there.

Does that change what you're suggesting?

> Now you can put in your m1v1 - m2v2 definition and say difficult words
> like "symmetry".
> That way we eliminate the third universal absolute at rest empty space
> coordinate system inertial frame of reference, yes?
> Or we can put it back in...

>
> II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external,
> remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable
> dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by
> its position to bodies; and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space;
> such is the dimension of a subterraneaneous, an æreal, or celestial space,
> determined by its position in respect of the earth. Absolute and relative
> space, are the same in figure and magnitude; but they do not remain always
> numerically the same. For if the earth, for instance, moves, a space of our
> air, which relatively and in respect of the earth remains always the same,
> will at one time be one part of the absolute space into which the air
> passes; at another time it will be another part of the same, and so,
> absolutely understood, it will be perpetually mutable.
>
> So you see, I have a problem that I want your help with.
> It is this:
> Uncle Bonehead Green Ph.D. (look him up in American Men of Science) tells
> me I don't know the difference between a closing velocity and a relative
> velocity, and he's right, I don't; but the old meanie won't tell me what it
> is.
> Which pair or pairs of inertial frames of reference systems of coordinates
> have the closing velocity, which have the relative velocity, and which is
> the one at rest?
>  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/closing.gif
> We have to pin this down, because

Say you have two moving particles p1 and p2. Their closing velocity is
how fast they close in one one another in any coordinate system i.e.,
the change in their distance apart wrt t, so you subtract one velocity
from the other. The relative velocity of p1 wrt p2 is the velocity of
p1 in a coordinate sytem where the velocity of p2 is zero.

> "light is always propagated in empty space
> (aka  universal absolute at rest coordinate system inertial frame of
> reference that doesn't exist)
> with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
> the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a
> simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based
> on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a
> ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view
> here to be developed will not require an ``absolutely stationary space''
> provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of
> the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place" and we do
> want a simple and consistent theory, don't we?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
From: harald on 28 Jun 2010 03:48
On Jun 24, 11:07 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> On 24 jun, 10:14, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 22, 5:48 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> > > On 22 jun, 07:53, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 22, 1:43 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> > > > > Let be two material points M and m (one with a great mass M, and the
> > > > > other with a small mass m<<M). We can consider then M practically the
> > > > > Centre of Mass (CM) of the 2-point system (for example, M and m can
> > > > > model Earth and an electron). In the corresponding CM inertial system,
> > > > > let be r the distance between M and m.
> > > > > From the 27Sep1905 Einstein’s paper we know that “The mass of a body
> > > > > is a measure of its energy-content”. In 1905, a body Total Energy E=K
> > > > > +U, where K is the Kinetic Energy and U the Potential Energy. About
> > > > > the presence of Potential Energy in 1905 Relativity see the following
> > > > > link:http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/t...
> > > > > If the body is at rest, K=0, being then U measured by the rest mass.
> > > > > In the case we are addressing, for the body m we have then U(r)=m_0(r)
> > > > > c^2, where m_0(r) is the body m rest mass and c the constant vacuum
> > > > > light speed. We know that the gravitational potential energy increases
> > > > > when r increases. Its limit maximal value when r tends to infinite is
> > > > > then m_0m c^2, where m_0m is the corresponding limit maximal value of
> > > > > the rest mass m_0. We have then
>
> > > > >  U(r)= m_0(r) c^2=m_0m c^2 – (GM/r)m_0(r)
>
> > > > > Here G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, and –(GM/r) is the
> > > > > gravitational potential owed to M with a supposed arbitrary value 0 at
> > > > > r infinite. U(r) takes the very definite maximal value m_0m c^2 at r
> > > > > infinite. With some simple algebraic handling we obtain
>
> > > > >  m_0(r)=m_0m/(1+GM/rc^2)
>
> > > > > We have then derived from 1905 Relativity (1905R) how the rest mass of
> > > > > a small body changes as a function of its position r in the central
> > > > > gravitational field of a great mass M body. The arbitrary additive
> > > > > constant characteristic of potential energy disappears in 1905R,
> > > > > appearing an absolute zero potential energy point at r=0. If M and m
> > > > > are the Earth and an electron, m_0m is the ordinary rest mass of a
> > > > > free electron (its maximal value at r infinite). The frequency emitted
> > > > > by an atomic clock is proportional to the rest mass of the electron
> > > > > involved in the change of state.
>
> > > > Again, please mention your ad-hoc *assumption* of ceteris paribus:
> > > > that nothing else changes (in particular dimensions).
>
> > > Hello Harald. Yes, I remember in our past talking in the other thread
> > > that you say something about dimension. I supposed in that occasion
> > > that you were referring to the atomic scale (evidently, I missed
> > > something important). My answer was that Newtonian equations hold good
> > > following 1905 Einstein’s definition of stationary system.
>
> > Not entirely, as 1905 SRT makes at least the following modifications:
>
> Remember that I distinguish between 1905R and the Special Relativity
> (SR) introduced by 1916 Einstein. In first place, gravity is declared
> out of the scope of SR, and we are precisely addressing here
> gravitational effects on rest clocks. Obviously, I am considering
> included in the Newtonian equations the gravitational ones.
> Exists here a very important detail that I want now to address. How if
> by definition the Newtonian equations hold good, can we derive later a
> modification of them? This is a very profound logic topic close
> related to the dialectic of the scientific increasing knowledge
> process. Once new principles or postulates are admitted as the base of
> a new theory, the consequences can’t be known immediately. The
> experimental evidence plays then a decisive role here and, as the
> history of science development put out of any doubt, contradictions
> arise in all the process. Not knowing your philosophical ideas, let us
> see if we can continue our talking without going any further in this
> rather  difficult topic.
>
> > - Contraction of material objects
> > - slowdown of clocks
> > - increase of dynamic "mass"
>
> Fortunately, your three modifications are speed dependent and don’t
> apply to rest clocks. By other part, I am especially interested in the
> speed up of rest clocks when increasing the gravitational potential,
> owed to the increase in the rest mass. You can see in the following
> link my arguments supporting the presence of potential energy
> (including the gravitational one, of course) in 1905 Relativity:
> Potential energy in Einstein’s 1905 Relativityhttp://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/t...
>
> > Now, as I emphasized before, Einstein gave in 1905 (but not in 1911)
> > the good example, when he made a ceteris paribus assumption, that he
> > indeed made such an assumption.
>
> Good news. My goal is to follow 1905 Einstein in his historic context
> without introducing any new concept from me.> To elaborate: one should account for all obvious possible effects.
> > - if you neglect any possible effect of acceleration on clock
> > frequency either because your theory does not provide for any clue of
> > what that effect should be, if any, or because you really think that
> > acceleration has a negligible influence for the considered case, this
> > should be stated (as Einstein did in 1905, although without
> > elaboration).
>
> Remember that I have no theory at all, or at least I am trying to no
> have. As the experimental evidence of today GPS shows, clocks can be
> moving with any variable velocity, without affecting the application
> to them of 1905 Relativity results, the old ones (speed dependent) or
> the new derived by me (gravitational potential dependent) respecting
> the 1905 historic context.> - similarly, if you neglect any possible effect of gravitation  on
> > clock frequency due to a change of the size of objects, either because
> > your theory does not provide for any clue of what that effect should
> > be, if any, or because you think that gravitationally induced size
> > change has a negligible influence for the considered case, this should
> > be stated (a point that Einstein also overlooked in 1911 -
> > seehttp://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath115/kmath115.htm).
>
> Thanks to your recent very valuable contribution giving me access to
> an English version of the 1911 paper, I am now able to make the
> following comments about it.

You're welcome!
But, regretfully (since you simply ignored it and start talking about
something else), you appear to not have understood the basic principle
that I tried to explain here above:
If you have no theory, you should state that you assume either ad hoc
or for simplicity that nothing else is affected by the gravitational
field, because you have no theory that tells you what the effect would
be.

Regards,
Harald

> I repeat here the first part of paragraph
> 2:
> [ 2. On the Gravitation of Energy
> ONE result yielded by the theory of relativity is that the inertia
> mass of a body increases with the energy it contains; if the increase
> of energy amounts to E, the increase in inertial mass is equal to E/
> c^2 when c denotes the velocity of light.
> Now is there an increase of gravitating mass corresponding to this
> increase of inertia mass? If not, then a body would fall in the same
> gravitational field with varying acceleration according to the energy
> it contained. That highly satisfactory result of the theory of
> relativity by which the law of the conservation of mass is merged in
> the law of conservation of energy could not be maintained, because it
> would compel us to abandon the law of the conservation of mass in its
> old form for inertia mass, and maintain it for gravitating mass.
> But this must be regarded as very improbable. On the other hand, the
> usual theory of relativity does not provide us with any argument from
> which to infer that the weight of a body depends on the energy
> contained in it. But we shall show that our hypothesis of the
> equivalence of the systems K and K' gives us gravitation of energy as
> a necessary consequence. ]
>
> The last text is sufficient to convince me that 1911 Einstein do not
> realize all the consequences of the 27Sep1905 paper where the
> universal relationship between mass and energy is showed. In this
> paper the word “inertia” appears only two times, in the title and in
> the last line.
> [Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?]
> [If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia
> between the emitting and absorbing bodies.]
> As you see, you can substitute “inertia” by “gravitating mass” (or
> simply  “mass”) without altering at all the essential content of the
> paper. 1911 Einstein has no right at all to say that 1905 Relativity
> (1905R) only address “inertial mass” and not “gravitating mass”, by
> the very simple reason that he doesn’t say a word (literal) about that
> in 1905. In my thread “Potential energy in 1905 Relativity” (I gave
> you already the link) I put out of any doubt that Potential energy is
> present in 1905R (and then also the “gravitating mass” generating the
> corresponding Potential field).
> In the paper the word “mass” appears four times, all in the following
> text (the more important one):
> [If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> diminishes by L/c^2. The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body
> becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we
> are led to the more general conclusion that
>   The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy
> changes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/9 x 10^22, the
> energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes. ]
> As you see, no word at all making different “inertial mass” from
> “gravitating mass”.
> Both Potential energy and Kinetic energy have mass measuring it, and a
> body in free fall maintains constant its total energy (and then also
> its total mass) according to the Conservation Principle of Energy. The
> increase in dynamic mass is compensated by the decrease in rest mass
> and vice versa (at least for a bound body, like Mercury orbiting the
> Sun, or an electron orbiting a nucleus (before QM epoch).
> It is ridiculous 1911 Einstein saying that “the usual theory of
> relativity does not...
>
> read more »

From: valls on 28 Jun 2010 11:33
On 28 jun, 02:48, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 11:07 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 24 jun, 10:14, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 5:48 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> > > > On 22 jun, 07:53, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 22, 1:43 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> > > > > > Let be two material points M and m (one with a great mass M, and the
> > > > > > other with a small mass m<<M). We can consider then M practically the
> > > > > > Centre of Mass (CM) of the 2-point system (for example, M and m can
> > > > > > model Earth and an electron). In the corresponding CM inertial system,
> > > > > > let be r the distance between M and m.
> > > > > > From the 27Sep1905 Einstein’s paper we know that “The mass of a body
> > > > > > is a measure of its energy-content”. In 1905, a body Total Energy E=K
> > > > > > +U, where K is the Kinetic Energy and U the Potential Energy. About
> > > > > > the presence of Potential Energy in 1905 Relativity see the following
> > > > > > link:http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/t...
> > > > > > If the body is at rest, K=0, being then U measured by the rest mass.
> > > > > > In the case we are addressing, for the body m we have then U(r)=m_0(r)
> > > > > > c^2, where m_0(r) is the body m rest mass and c the constant vacuum
> > > > > > light speed. We know that the gravitational potential energy increases
> > > > > > when r increases. Its limit maximal value when r tends to infinite is
> > > > > > then m_0m c^2, where m_0m is the corresponding limit maximal value of
> > > > > > the rest mass m_0. We have then
>
> > > > > >  U(r)= m_0(r) c^2=m_0m c^2 – (GM/r)m_0(r)
>
> > > > > > Here G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, and –(GM/r) is the
> > > > > > gravitational potential owed to M with a supposed arbitrary value 0 at
> > > > > > r infinite. U(r) takes the very definite maximal value m_0m c^2 at r
> > > > > > infinite. With some simple algebraic handling we obtain
>
> > > > > >  m_0(r)=m_0m/(1+GM/rc^2)
>
> > > > > > We have then derived from 1905 Relativity (1905R) how the rest mass of
> > > > > > a small body changes as a function of its position r in the central
> > > > > > gravitational field of a great mass M body. The arbitrary additive
> > > > > > constant characteristic of potential energy disappears in 1905R,
> > > > > > appearing an absolute zero potential energy point at r=0. If M and m
> > > > > > are the Earth and an electron, m_0m is the ordinary rest mass of a
> > > > > > free electron (its maximal value at r infinite). The frequency emitted
> > > > > > by an atomic clock is proportional to the rest mass of the electron
> > > > > > involved in the change of state.
>
> > > > > Again, please mention your ad-hoc *assumption* of ceteris paribus:
> > > > > that nothing else changes (in particular dimensions).
>
> > > > Hello Harald. Yes, I remember in our past talking in the other thread
> > > > that you say something about dimension. I supposed in that occasion
> > > > that you were referring to the atomic scale (evidently, I missed
> > > > something important). My answer was that Newtonian equations hold good
> > > > following 1905 Einstein’s definition of stationary system.
>
> > > Not entirely, as 1905 SRT makes at least the following modifications:
>
> > Remember that I distinguish between 1905R and the Special Relativity
> > (SR) introduced by 1916 Einstein. In first place, gravity is declared
> > out of the scope of SR, and we are precisely addressing here
> > gravitational effects on rest clocks. Obviously, I am considering
> > included in the Newtonian equations the gravitational ones.
> > Exists here a very important detail that I want now to address. How if
> > by definition the Newtonian equations hold good, can we derive later a
> > modification of them? This is a very profound logic topic close
> > related to the dialectic of the scientific increasing knowledge
> > process. Once new principles or postulates are admitted as the base of
> > a new theory, the consequences can’t be known immediately. The
> > experimental evidence plays then a decisive role here and, as the
> > history of science development put out of any doubt, contradictions
> > arise in all the process. Not knowing your philosophical ideas, let us
> > see if we can continue our talking without going any further in this
> > rather  difficult topic.
>
> > > - Contraction of material objects
> > > - slowdown of clocks
> > > - increase of dynamic "mass"
>
> > Fortunately, your three modifications are speed dependent and don’t
> > apply to rest clocks. By other part, I am especially interested in the
> > speed up of rest clocks when increasing the gravitational potential,
> > owed to the increase in the rest mass. You can see in the following
> > link my arguments supporting the presence of potential energy
> > (including the gravitational one, of course) in 1905 Relativity:
> > Potential energy in Einstein’s 1905 Relativityhttp://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/t...
>
> > > Now, as I emphasized before, Einstein gave in 1905 (but not in 1911)
> > > the good example, when he made a ceteris paribus assumption, that he
> > > indeed made such an assumption.
>
> > Good news. My goal is to follow 1905 Einstein in his historic context
> > without introducing any new concept from me.> To elaborate: one should account for all obvious possible effects.
> > > - if you neglect any possible effect of acceleration on clock
> > > frequency either because your theory does not provide for any clue of
> > > what that effect should be, if any, or because you really think that
> > > acceleration has a negligible influence for the considered case, this
> > > should be stated (as Einstein did in 1905, although without
> > > elaboration).
>
> > Remember that I have no theory at all, or at least I am trying to no
> > have. As the experimental evidence of today GPS shows, clocks can be
> > moving with any variable velocity, without affecting the application
> > to them of 1905 Relativity results, the old ones (speed dependent) or
> > the new derived by me (gravitational potential dependent) respecting
> > the 1905 historic context.> - similarly, if you neglect any possible effect of gravitation  on
> > > clock frequency due to a change of the size of objects, either because
> > > your theory does not provide for any clue of what that effect should
> > > be, if any, or because you think that gravitationally induced size
> > > change has a negligible influence for the considered case, this should
> > > be stated (a point that Einstein also overlooked in 1911 -
> > > seehttp://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath115/kmath115.htm).
>
> > Thanks to your recent very valuable contribution giving me access to
> > an English version of the 1911 paper, I am now able to make the
> > following comments about it.
>
> You're welcome!
> But, regretfully (since you simply ignored it and start talking about
> something else), you appear to not have understood the basic principle
> that I tried to explain here above:
> If you have no theory, you should state that you assume either ad hoc
> or for simplicity that nothing else is affected by the gravitational
> field, because you have no theory that tells you what the effect would
> be.
>
I have no theory of my own, but I am following 1905 Relativity (1905R)
(in its historical context). I opened already the thread (few days
ago) “Potential energy in Einstein’s 1905 Relativity”, without
receiving yet a negative comment. I derived from the 27Sep1905
Einstein’s paper what I consider very important results. First of all,
that rest mass measures potential energy (without any additive
arbitrary constant!). Using that result for gravitational potential
energy, I had being able to predict the behaviour of an atomic clock
in a gravitational field (several years ago), and all the details are
public in this thread.
I don’t know if something else is affected by gravitation, derived
from 1905R. In any case, I am not making any assumption about it. What
I know is that the predictions done from 1905R are supported by
Pound&Rebka and the huge experimental evidence of today GPS.

> Regards,
> Harald
>

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: harald on 28 Jun 2010 11:59
On Jun 28, 5:33 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> On 28 jun, 02:48, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 24, 11:07 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:

[..]

> - similarly, if you neglect any possible effect of gravitation  on
> > > > clock frequency due to a change of the size of objects, either because
> > > > your theory does not provide for any clue of what that effect should
> > > > be, if any, or because you think that gravitationally induced size
> > > > change has a negligible influence for the considered case, this should
> > > > be stated (a point that Einstein also overlooked in 1911 -
> > > > seehttp://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath115/kmath115.htm).
>
> > > Thanks to your recent very valuable contribution giving me access
> > > to an English version of the 1911 paper, I am now able to make the
> > > following comments about it.
>
> > You're welcome!
> > But, regretfully (since you simply ignored it and start talking about
> > something else), you appear to not have understood the basic
> > principle that I tried to explain here above:
> > If you have no theory, you should state that you assume either ad hoc
> > or for simplicity that nothing else is affected by the gravitational
> > field, because you have no theory that tells you what the effect
> > would be.
>
> I have no theory of my own, but I am following 1905 Relativity (1905R)
> (in its historical context).

Then my above comment applies: the resonance frequency equation which
you use does contain other variables, for which you have no theory
that tells you that they remain constant (and this was the third time,
so I won't repeat this again!).

Best regards,
Harald

> I opened already the thread (few days
> ago) “Potential energy in Einstein’s 1905 Relativity”, without
> receiving yet a negative comment. I derived from the 27Sep1905
> Einstein’s paper what I consider very important results. First of all,
> that rest mass measures potential energy (without any additive
> arbitrary constant!). Using that result for gravitational potential
> energy, I had being able to predict the behaviour of an atomic clock
> in a gravitational field (several years ago), and all the details are
> public in this thread.
> I don’t know if something else is affected by gravitation, derived
> from 1905R. In any case, I am not making any assumption about it. What
> I know is that the predictions done from 1905R are supported by
> Pound&Rebka and the huge experimental evidence of today GPS.
>
> > Regards,
> > Harald
>
> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

From: valls on 28 Jun 2010 16:18
On 28 jun, 10:59, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 5:33 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> > On 28 jun, 02:48, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 24, 11:07 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>
>
>
>
> > - similarly, if you neglect any possible effect of gravitation  on
> > > > > clock frequency due to a change of the size of objects, either because
> > > > > your theory does not provide for any clue of what that effect should
> > > > > be, if any, or because you think that gravitationally induced size
> > > > > change has a negligible influence for the considered case, this should
> > > > > be stated (a point that Einstein also overlooked in 1911 -
> > > > > seehttp://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath115/kmath115.htm).
>
> > > > Thanks to your recent very valuable contribution giving me access
> > > > to an English version of the 1911 paper, I am now able to make the
> > > > following comments about it.
>
> > > You're welcome!
> > > But, regretfully (since you simply ignored it and start talking about
> > > something else), you appear to not have understood the basic
> > > principle that I tried to explain here above:
> > > If you have no theory, you should state that you assume either ad hoc
> > > or for simplicity that nothing else is affected by the gravitational
> > > field, because you have no theory that tells you what the effect
> > > would be.
>
> > I have no theory of my own, but I am following 1905 Relativity (1905R)
> > (in its historical context).
>
> Then my above comment applies: the resonance frequency equation which
> you use does contain other variables, for which you have no theory
> that tells you that they remain constant (and this was the third time,
> so I won't repeat this again!).
>
Resonance frequency equation? I don’t realize what equation are you
talking about, or what other variables are you referring that need to
be maintained constant. Specify them in your next post. We manage only
a material point with a small mass m<<M at the radial distance r from
other material point with a large mass M. The classical Newtonian
equation for the gravitational potential energy per unit of rest mass
is assumed valid, and rest mass is considered measuring the
gravitational potential energy with zero potential energy where rest
mass equal zero (applying the conclusion of the 27Sep1905 Einstein’s
paper). That’s all. You can follow all the derivation in the initial
post of this thread. Since 1913 it is know that the frequency emitted
by any atom is proportional to the electron rest mass. The found
variation in the electron rest mass results exactly the required to
explain the variation in the output frequency of the atomic clock owed
to a change in the gravitational potential, verified experimentally
with Pound&Rebka and today GPS function.
> Best regards,
> Harald
>

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: As pepper sprinkled over rotten, stinking eggs - such are corrupt einsteinians; no balls, no legs
Next: Quantum History