Prev: As pepper sprinkled over rotten, stinking eggs - such are corrupt einsteinians; no balls, no legs
Next: Quantum History
From: valls on 30 Jun 2010 12:52
On 29 jun, 13:35, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
> 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 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 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: s⁻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:
> > “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!)”
> > 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.Bohr’s 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.
>
I am really very curious to know why your insistence saying that I do
what I not do. I assume, as almost always in similar cases, that I am
missing something important here. I revised already the “ceteris
paribus” meaning in some detail with the help of wikipedia (I confess
you that this Latin phrase didn’t belong to the ones managed by me)..
But now I think to have an adequate knowledge of its meaning. For
example, at the end of paragraph 4 of the 30Jun1905 Einstein’s paper
(the clocks in the rotating Earth case that we are yet addressing in
other part) we can read “under otherwise identical conditions”. I
understand that 1905 Einstein is making here a clear “ceteris
paribus” assumption. If that is true, I repeat once more that I am NOT
making that kind of assumption. Let me try to explain why.
Einstein doesn’t know in 1905 that gravitational potential affects
clock running. Today we know that clocks in the geoid run at equal
rate. But even then, the 30Jun1905 Einstein prediction is right,
because we must consider the clocks at equal gravitational potential
to fulfil the “ceteris paribus” assumption made by Einstein.. Let us
consider now precisely the clock behaviour in a gravitational field,
with a knowledge derived from the 27Sep1905 Einstein’s paper, only
about three months later!
I revised some ordinary Physics books, confirming that the frequency
emitted by an atom is proportional to the electron rest mass (with or
without Quantum Mechanics). As you can guess, I put some attention to
other variables that could be present, the ones that following you
must be the object of a “ceteris paribus” assumption from my part.
Well, I don’t find any variable at all, but two very known constants,
the electric charge of the electron (e) and the Planck’s constant (h).
Taking into account that the rest mass of the electron is considered
today an intrinsic constant, I will consider (e) and (h) as two
variables in the analysis. Let us suppose that exists some theory
stating that (e) is a variable (I don’t know depending on what) and
that it affects clock running (a similar remark respect (h)). Having
me now formulas where a variable rest mass measures gravitational
potential energy, adding a “ceteris paribus” assumption like 1905
Einstein, that formulas would be considering making a right prediction
about the clock running. But the fact is that I do NOT make that
assumption, and that even then the formulas predict the experimental
measured clock frequency. In reality I don’t make any prediction at
all. Knowing (thanks to 1905 Einstein) that rest mass measures
potential energy, I was curious to see what effect it must have in the
clock frequency, obtaining for my very big surprise that the effect
coincides with the predictions of General Relativity and all the
experimental evidence available today. Those results seem then to
imply that the change in rest mass is the unique affecting clock
running, not any (e) and (h) ones (assuming valid 1905R, of course,
and making GR superfluous at least for this case). Let us see if you
continue yet saying that I do a “ceteris paribus” assumption.
By the way, what importance do you attribute to the fact that I do or
not do that assumption? It seems to me not important at all, at least
comparing with the importance of the derived formulas from 1905R. I
checked already in the 1911 Einstein’s paper that his road going to
General Relativity is completely different to the one I am referring
here from 1905R.

> All the best,
> Harald
>
Thanks a lot again for the 1911 paper!,
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: harald on 30 Jun 2010 18:08
On Jun 30, 6:52 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> On 29 jun, 13:35, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
> > 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 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 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: s⁻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:
> > > “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!)”
> > > 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.Bohr’s 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.
>
> I am really very curious to know why your insistence saying that I do
> what I not do. I assume, as almost always in similar cases, that I am
> missing something important here. I revised already the “ceteris
> paribus” meaning in some detail with the help of wikipedia (I confess
> you that this Latin phrase didn’t belong to the ones managed by me).
> But now I think to have an adequate knowledge of its meaning. For
> example, at the end of paragraph 4 of the 30Jun1905 Einstein’s paper
> (the clocks in the rotating Earth case that we are yet addressing in
> other part) we can read “under otherwise identical conditions”. I
> understand that 1905 Einstein is making here a clear  “ceteris
> paribus” assumption. If that is true, I repeat once more that I am NOT
> making that kind of assumption. Let me try to explain why.
> Einstein doesn’t know in 1905 that gravitational potential affects
> clock running. Today we know that clocks in the geoid run at equal
> rate. But even then, the 30Jun1905 Einstein prediction is right,
> because we must consider the clocks at equal gravitational potential
> to fulfil the “ceteris paribus” assumption made by Einstein. Let us
> consider now precisely the clock behaviour in a gravitational field,
> with a knowledge derived from the 27Sep1905 Einstein’s paper, only
> about three months later!
> I revised some ordinary Physics books, confirming that the frequency
> emitted by an atom is proportional to the electron rest mass (with or
> without Quantum Mechanics). As you can guess, I put some attention to
> other variables that could be present, the ones that following you
> must be the object of a “ceteris paribus” assumption from my part.
> Well, I don’t find any variable at all, but two very known constants,
> the electric charge of the electron (e) and the Planck’s constant (h).
> Taking into account that the rest mass of the electron is considered
> today an intrinsic constant, I will consider (e) and (h) as two
> variables in the analysis. Let us suppose that exists some theory
> stating that (e) is a variable (I don’t know depending on what) and
> that it affects clock running (a similar remark respect (h)). Having
> me now formulas where a variable rest mass measures gravitational
> potential energy, adding a “ceteris paribus” assumption like 1905
> Einstein, that formulas would be considering making a right prediction
> about the clock running. But the fact is that I do NOT make that
> assumption, and that even then the formulas predict the experimental
> measured clock frequency.  In reality I don’t make any prediction at
> all. Knowing (thanks to 1905 Einstein) that rest mass measures
> potential energy, I was curious to see what effect it must have in the
> clock frequency, obtaining for my very big surprise that the effect
> coincides with the predictions of General Relativity and all the
> experimental evidence available today. Those results seem then to
> imply that the change in rest mass is the unique affecting clock
> running, not any  (e) and (h) ones (assuming valid 1905R, of course,
> and making GR superfluous at least for this case). Let us see if you
> continue yet saying that I do a “ceteris paribus” assumption.
> By the way, what importance do you attribute to the fact that I do or
> not do that assumption? It seems to me not important at all, at least
> comparing with the importance of the derived formulas from 1905R. I
> checked already in the 1911 Einstein’s paper that his road going to
> General Relativity is completely different to the one I am referring
> here from 1905R.
>
> > All the best,
> > Harald
>
> Thanks a lot again for the 1911 paper!,
> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

Here above you contradict yourself again without realizing it:

"But the fact is that I do NOT make that
assumption, and that even then the formulas predict the experimental
measured clock frequency. In reality I don’t make any prediction at
all. "

Rafael, in absence of any assumption about the other variables you do
not *have* "the formulas" that explain atomic clock behaviour in a
gravitational field - you can't eat the cake and keep it!

As a matter of fact, you have three constants of which f is a
function: m, h, c. You reason that since you know (or think to know)
how m varies with height (measured with non-local standards), you can,
without caring how h and c change, predict f, although f depends on
them all. No!
As a matter of fact, according to GRT c also changes with height, as
confirmed by light bending and Shapiro experiments.

OK enough explained, either you get it now or you won't.
And as we agreed, it's not very important for your discussion
(although it is important for the development of theory). So I won't
be back to this.

Goodbye,
Harald
From: valls on 1 Jul 2010 16:18
On 30 jun, 17:08, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
> On Jun 30, 6:52 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> > On 29 jun, 13:35, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
> > > 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 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 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: s⁻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:
> > > > “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!)”
> > > > 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.Bohr’s 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.
>
> > I am really very curious to know why your insistence saying that I do
> > what I not do. I assume, as almost always in similar cases, that I am
> > missing something important here. I revised already the “ceteris
> > paribus” meaning in some detail with the help of wikipedia (I confess
> > you that this Latin phrase didn’t belong to the ones managed by me).
> > But now I think to have an adequate knowledge of its meaning. For
> > example, at the end of paragraph 4 of the 30Jun1905 Einstein’s paper
> > (the clocks in the rotating Earth case that we are yet addressing in
> > other part) we can read “under otherwise identical conditions”. I
> > understand that 1905 Einstein is making here a clear  “ceteris
> > paribus” assumption. If that is true, I repeat once more that I am NOT
> > making that kind of assumption. Let me try to explain why.
> > Einstein doesn’t know in 1905 that gravitational potential affects
> > clock running. Today we know that clocks in the geoid run at equal
> > rate. But even then, the 30Jun1905 Einstein prediction is right,
> > because we must consider the clocks at equal gravitational potential
> > to fulfil the “ceteris paribus” assumption made by Einstein. Let us
> > consider now precisely the clock behaviour in a gravitational field,
> > with a knowledge derived from the 27Sep1905 Einstein’s paper, only
> > about three months later!
> > I revised some ordinary Physics books, confirming that the frequency
> > emitted by an atom is proportional to the electron rest mass (with or
> > without Quantum Mechanics). As you can guess, I put some attention to
> > other variables that could be present, the ones that following you
> > must be the object of a “ceteris paribus” assumption from my part.
> > Well, I don’t find any variable at all, but two very known constants,
> > the electric charge of the electron (e) and the Planck’s constant (h).
> > Taking into account that the rest mass of the electron is considered
> > today an intrinsic constant, I will consider (e) and (h) as two
> > variables in the analysis. Let us suppose that exists some theory
> > stating that (e) is a variable (I don’t know depending on what) and
> > that it affects clock running (a similar remark respect (h)). Having
> > me now formulas where a variable rest mass measures gravitational
> > potential energy, adding a “ceteris paribus” assumption like 1905
> > Einstein, that formulas would be considering making a right prediction
> > about the clock running. But the fact is that I do NOT make that
> > assumption, and that even then the formulas predict the experimental
> > measured clock frequency.  In reality I don’t make any prediction at
> > all. Knowing (thanks to 1905 Einstein) that rest mass measures
> > potential energy, I was curious to see what effect it must have in the
> > clock frequency, obtaining for my very big surprise that the effect
> > coincides with the predictions of General Relativity and all the
> > experimental evidence available today. Those results seem then to
> > imply that the change in rest mass is the unique affecting clock
> > running, not any  (e) and (h) ones (assuming valid 1905R, of course,
> > and making GR superfluous at least for this case). Let us see if you
> > continue yet saying that I do a “ceteris paribus” assumption.
> > By the way, what importance do you attribute to the fact that I do or
> > not do that assumption? It seems to me not important at all, at least
> > comparing with the importance of the derived formulas from 1905R. I
> > checked already in the 1911 Einstein’s paper that his road going to
> > General Relativity is completely different to the one I am referring
> > here from 1905R.
>
> > > All the best,
> > > Harald
>
> > Thanks a lot again for the 1911 paper!,
> > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
>
> Here above you contradict yourself again without realizing it:
>
> "But the fact is that I do NOT make that
> assumption, and that even then the formulas predict the experimental
> measured clock frequency.  In reality I don’t make any prediction at
> all. "
>
> Rafael, in absence of any assumption about the other variables you do
> not *have* "the formulas" that explain atomic clock behaviour in a
> gravitational field - you can't eat the cake and keep it!
>
> As a matter of fact, you have three constants of which f is a
> function: m, h, c. You reason that since you know (or think to know)
> how m varies with height (measured with non-local standards), you can,
> without caring how h and c change, predict f, although f depends on
> them all. No!
There exists some typo error here, is an “e” (the first letter of
“electron”) electron electrical charge, not “c” (vacuum light speed).
Let us see if we can reach a common understanding in this point. We
start analysing the 27Sep1905 text where the mass-energy relationship
is showed. There we find using the historic method (to not take into
account any concept developed in the future) that rest mass measures
potential energy. I consider then a body with small mass m<<M at
distance r from a material point with great mass M generating a
gravitational field, finding the formula m_0(r)=[1/(1+ GM/rc^2)]m_0m,
where m_0(r) is the variable rest mass of m depending on radial
distance r from M, with maximal value m_0m at infinite.
Remembering now that an atom output frequency is proportional to the
today considered constant intrinsic rest mass of a free electron
(m_0m), I found that the factor between [ ] in the formula give us the
per cent (or better, per one) of the diminution on frequency owed to
the change in the electron rest mass in the gravitational field of
the Earth with mass M. In this moment I have no idea at all about the
variables affecting the clock frequency, and also don’t make any
assumption at all about them (I know nothing in that epoch about the
meaning of “ceteris paribus”). As you know already, I receive a big
surprise when confirming that the computed frequency gives us the
measured one in the Pound&Rebka experiment and the managed in today
GPS function, following GR predictions.
I can’t understand yet to what are you saying now No! Instead of
variables we find two very known constants “e” and “h”. To go the
more near possible to your thinking I suppose they were variables, and
you finish now saying that without caring how “h” and “e” change no
prediction at all is possible! At least I don’t know any theory
managing a possible change in “e” or “h”. That the measured variation
of frequency corresponds only to the variation in rest mass following
1905R is an experimental FACT, predicted by nobody, and then without
any added assumption at all, “ceteris paribus” or any other.. But I
consider this not waited at all result as a very strong support of
what I am denoting 1905 Relativity and its future possibilities.
A final remark. You talk above about some measure of mass (I suppose
you refer to the electron rest mass). From my knowledge, it is
absolutely impossible to make any direct measure of a bound electron
mass inside an atom, not only for technological limitations, but more
important for theoretical ones. In my opinion, that increases a lot
the theoretical importance of the derived result from 1905R.

> As a matter of fact, according to GRT c also changes with height, as
> confirmed by light bending and Shapiro experiments.
>
> OK enough explained, either you get it now or you won't.
> And as we agreed, it's not very important for your discussion
> (although it is important for the development of theory). So I won't
> be back to this.
>
OK, but I seem to be a little more optimist than you about the
reaching of agreement in the very difficult topics we are
addressing.
> Goodbye,
> Harald

Thanks a lot for your very valuable continued attention,
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

From: glird on 14 Jul 2010 14:04
On Jul 14, 11:44 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z>
wrote:
>
>< Einstein wrote:
..5[tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t + x'/(c+v) + x'/(c-v))] = tau(x',0,0, t
+ x'/(c-v)) >

In his equation, tau is a time co-ordinate of system k, which is
moving on X of system K at a velocity v. The equation expresses tau as
a function of 0,0,0,t, in which 0,0,0 represent co-ordinate values x,
y, and z, on the X, Y, and Z axis of system K and t is the time value
of K. the x', in that equation, denotes the position on X of cs K of
a point on xi of system k, at t = 0, and at any later time,t, Einstein
set x' = x-vt to denote that same point on Xi of cs k.

>< He wasn't consistent either. Allow me to correct him.
1/2[tau(0',0',0',t) + tau(0',0',0',t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))] = tau(x',0',
0', t+ x'/(c-v))
There, that's better. >

That not only isn't "better", it has no relation to _*anything*_ in
Einstein's paper.

>Look! Do you see the 0' ?

Not "the" 0'; THESE 0's.

>0' = 0-vt.

Your equation, which is unrelated to Einstein's math or his thesis,
requires that 0' is NOT a co-ordinate of cs K. Since you put your 0's
inside the parenthesis, it isn't a co-ordinate of cs k either.
From your earlier manure deposited on these web pages, it is clear
that your 0' is a co-ordinate of a mythical system kappa
(x',y',z';t'); invented by Johnny Walker to hide his arrogant
ignorance of the real meaning of Einstein's equations. The fact that
some of E's were defective is unrelated to your misrepresentation of
HIS subject-equation; which is NOT one of the many of his that are
wrong.


>I can't write 0 = 0-vt, that doesn't make any sense.

It makes as much sense as you do, which is 0 = 0' = none.
First  |  Prev  | 
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