Atomic clock behaviour in a gravitational field explained with 1905 Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: As pepper sprinkled over rotten, stinking eggs - such are corrupt einsteinians; no balls, no legs
Next: Quantum History
From: harald on 29 Jun 2010 03:25 On Jun 28, 10:18 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > 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 donât 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 Einsteinâs > paper). Thatâs 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) I did not think that you use the equation f=m, which however MUST be your equation if, as you suggest, no other variables play a role for clock frequency. Please realise that that is erroneous, as you can easily verify with dimensional analysis: sâ»1 =/= kg. ;-)
From: Androcles on 29 Jun 2010 03:32 "harald" <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:4e535ddc-8dca-487e-9851-77c5c3933d77(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Jun 28, 10:18 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > 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) I did not think ======================================================= Who accused you of thinking? Sue them, I'll be your witness.
From: valls on 29 Jun 2010 08:15 On 29 jun, 02:25, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jun 28, 10:18 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > 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 donât 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 Einsteinâs > > paper). Thatâs 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) > > I did not think that you use the equation f=m, which however MUST be > your equation if, as you suggest, no other variables play a role for > clock frequency. Please realise that that is erroneous, as you can > easily verify with dimensional analysis: sâ»1 =/= kg. ;-) In your last post you say that I am using a resonant frequency equation that contain other variables. The literal words are the following: âthe 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!)â In my last post I request you about that equation with these other variables, because I have no idea at all about what equation are you referring. Now you do some comment about the equation, suggesting that f=m (obviously dimensionally incorrect) MUST be my equation, because I suggest that no other variables play a role for clock frequency. This is not exacts, I am suggesting nothing about those variables. My unique statement about this point is that since 1913 (N.Bohrâs H model) it is known that the frequency emitted by an atom is proportional to the electron rest mass (supposed today an intrinsic constant). About how many other physical magnitudes are involved here (if any), I have no idea at all, and I am saying nothing about them. Knowing (derived from 1905R) that rest mass measures potential energy, I simply make the corresponding computation for the change in frequency owed to the change in rest mass, without making any assumption at all about the others physical magnitudes than can be involved. That the measured change in frequency can be obtained by this procedure is an experimental result supporting 1905R (with its rest mass measuring potential energy). RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Dono. on 29 Jun 2010 10:56 On Jun 29, 5:15 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > Knowing (derived from 1905R) that rest mass measures potential energy, no, it doesn't , old fart > I simply make the corresponding computation for the change in > frequency owed to the change in rest mass, -there is no such thing as a "change in rest mass", idiot. Rest mass is invariant. -there is no correspondence between rest mass and frequency change That the measured change in frequency can be obtained by > this procedure is an experimental result supporting 1905R (with its > rest mass measuring potential energy). > No, it isn't , old goat.
From: harald on 29 Jun 2010 14:35
On Jun 29, 2:15 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 29 jun, 02:25, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > On Jun 28, 10:18 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > 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 donât 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 Einsteinâs > > > paper). Thatâs 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) > > > I did not think that you use the equation f=m, which however MUST be > > your equation if, as you suggest, no other variables play a role for > > clock frequency. Please realise that that is erroneous, as you can > > easily verify with dimensional analysis: sâ»1 =/= kg. ;-) > > In your last post you say that I am using a resonant frequency > equation that contain other variables. The literal words are the > following: > âthe 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!)â > In my last post I request you about that equation with these other > variables, because I have no idea at all about what equation are you > referring. Now you do some comment about the equation, suggesting that > f=m (obviously dimensionally incorrect) MUST be my equation, because I > suggest that no other variables play a role for clock frequency. This > is not exacts, I am suggesting nothing about those variables. My > unique statement about this point is that since 1913 (N.Bohrâs H > model) it is known that the frequency emitted by an atom is > proportional to the electron rest mass (supposed today an intrinsic > constant). About how many other physical magnitudes are involved here > (if any), I have no idea at all, and I am saying nothing about them. > Knowing (derived from 1905R) that rest mass measures potential energy, > I simply make the corresponding computation for the change in > frequency owed to the change in rest mass, without making any > assumption at all about the others physical magnitudes than can be > involved. Sure you DO - as I have been telling you now for weeks, you DO make the assumption about those other physical entities (which MUST be involved, as I now emphasized), that they are not affected, or in such a way that they compensate each other. For weeks I only pointed out to you this obvious fact and that you should mention that. I never guessed that something so obvious (and standard, as ceteris paribus is) would take more than 10 seconds to explain. All the best, Harald > That the measured change in frequency can be obtained by > this procedure is an experimental result supporting 1905R (with its > rest mass measuring potential energy). > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |