Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: Uncle Al on 18 Mar 2010 21:29 mpc755 wrote: [snip] > The pressure associated with the aether determines the rate at which > an atomic clock ticks. idiot http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004) http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973) Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974) <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf> No aether <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html> Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010) http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929 No Lorentz violation idiot -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 21:39 The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object is gravity. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The pressure associated with the aether determines the rate at which an atomic clock ticks.
From: BURT on 18 Mar 2010 21:43 On Mar 18, 5:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 7:37 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > > > > > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > > On Mar 18, 5:47 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > The pressure associated with aether displaced by a massive object is > > > > > gravity. > > > > > idiot > > > > >http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 > > > > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml > > > > Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973) > > > > Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974) > > > > <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf> > > > > No aether > > > > > <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html> > > > > Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929 > > > > No Lorentz violation > > > > > idiot > > > > > -- > > > > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > > > > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm > > > > Pressure associated with aether displaced by a massive object is > > > gravity. > > > The confluence of overwhelming ignorance with overweening arrogance. > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > is gravity. > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > The pressure associated with the aether determines the rate at which > an atomic clock ticks.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - What then is the clock rate for the moving C-60 molecule? Does its own wave exert a pressure that slows its clock down? And how do we measure this? Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 18 Mar 2010 22:31 On Mar 18, 9:43 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 5:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 7:37 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 5:47 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > > > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > The pressure associated with aether displaced by a massive object is > > > > > > gravity. > > > > > > idiot > > > > > >http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 > > > > > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml > > > > > Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973) > > > > > Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974) > > > > > <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf> > > > > > No aether > > > > > > <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html> > > > > > Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929 > > > > > No Lorentz violation > > > > > > idiot > > > > > > -- > > > > > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > > > > > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm > > > > > Pressure associated with aether displaced by a massive object is > > > > gravity. > > > > The confluence of overwhelming ignorance with overweening arrogance. > > > The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object > > is gravity. > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > The pressure associated with the aether determines the rate at which > > an atomic clock ticks.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > What then is the clock rate for the moving C-60 molecule? Does its own > wave exert a pressure that slows its clock down? > And how do we measure this? > > Mitch Raemsch In terms of the displacement wave and the aether the following analogy may help: 'Frictionless supersolid a step closer' http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html "Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such particles keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer who takes one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the swimming pool." So, in this analogy the C-60 molecule is the swimmer and the aether is the water. The faster the swimmer moves through the water the greater the water pressure on the swimmer. If the swimmer were made of millions of individual particles where the water was able to surround each and every particle then the pressure would not only be 'on' the swimmer but through the swimmer. The faster the swimmer moves with respect to the water the greater the water pressure on and through the swimmer. If the swimmer were an atomic clock and the water the aether the faster the atomic clock was moving with respect to the aether the greater the aether pressure on and throughout the clock, causing it to tick slower.
From: mpc755 on 19 Mar 2010 01:04
On Mar 18, 6:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 4:33 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > wrote: > > > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics > > > by the double solution theory > > > Louis de BROGLIE' > > >http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf > > No mention of aether (nor ether) there. So it really doesn't help to see > > how the equations should be interpreted using the aether concept. > > > 'I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the > > > wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case > > > of an external field acting on the particle.' > > > In Aether Displacement the external field acting on the particle is the > > > aether. > > Saying that some substance like aether is the field, makes no immediate > > sense to me > > Then that is your issue. Things can tend to get slightly more > complicated when you actually figure out what is occurring physically > in nature and can't just use a label like 'field' and actually have to > understand aether is a material and a moving C-60 molecule has an > associated aether displacement wave. > > "Editors Note: But Louis de Broglie, as he explains in the first lines > of his article, was a realist, and he could not believe observable > physical phenomena to only follow from abstract mathematical wave- > functions. Somehow, these latter had to be connected to real waves, at > variance with the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation, and with his > keen sense for physics, Louis de Broglie did find a way out of the > maze !" > > The real waves described by de Broglie are aether waves. > > If you choose to not understand this then that is up to you. > > > - do you for example mean the density field of the aether? If > > so, how does the interaction with the matter (force) derive from it. You > > really need to formulate the mathematical model for your aether. I assume > > entities like aether density, compressibility, pressure formula > > (interaction with matter) etc are required. Specifically I would like to > > see how the force on the C-60 particle rises from the interfering ether > > waves and the equation of the resulting particle trajectories. > > The equations are in the articles you are unwilling to read or refuse > to read because of your 'understanding' of a field. > > If you want to state the aether is a substance and therefore not a > field and therefore the de Broglie wave mechanics do not represent a > moving C-60 molecule and its associated aether displacement wave then > that is up to you. > > It is obvious you are going to do whatever you require in order to > insist the aether as a material is different then a field. > > > > > > 'LOUIS DE BROGLIE > > > The wave nature of the electron > > > Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1929' > > >http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie- > > lecture.pdf > > The only mentions of aether (ether) there, are in the introduction > > section where he tells about how the ether model historically failed - > > you must be more specific - and that means mathematical. > > >> Similarly how does the aether pressure effect the decay rates of the > > >> radioactive nuclei (the core process of the atomic clocks AFAIK). A > > >> conceptualized model with an equation (or several) is needed. I like to > > >> add that in order to produce same predictions as GR the aether pressure > > >> must also have identical effect also on e.g. mechanical and chemical > > >> clocks. > > > Correct. The associated aether pressure exists throughout the body. > > > However, This does not mean in the Twin Paradox that the twin on the > > > space ship, if the space ship is traveling fast enough that the aether > > > pressure exerted throughout the space ship is greater than the > > > associated aether pressure on the clock which remains on the Earth, is > > > going to cause the twin on the space ship to age less. We need to > > > differentiate between the rate at which an atomic clock ticks and time. > > Fascinating. Isn't it a wonderful coincidence that the theory developed > > almost a century before atomic clocks were invented just happens to > > accurately describe their behavior in gravitational fields e.g. GPS, > > while these are the first time keepers that (seem) accurate enough for > > testing these GR time effects. And then you say that they don't even > > measure time at all - as I already said, a wonderful coincidence. > > But according to you, it seems that the chemical clocks (e.g. aging or > > cooking a hard boiled egg) will not follow suite. > > That is not what I said. I said the rate at which a clock ticks has > nothing to do with time. The same for the biological process in the > human body or the rate at which a hard boiled egg cooks. > > If you are on top of a mountain and it requires longer for your egg to > cook then has time changed? > > No, of course not. It takes longer to cook stuff at elevation because > there is less pressure. > > > I wonder what would be > > the right device to measure time then? And more importantly how do you > > derive this mostly important insight that atomic clock time and the > > actual time (biological time) are different? > > Time is a concept. The rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do > with time. > > If you own a battery operated clock and it starts to tick slower has > time changed, or do you replace the batteries? > > You replace the batteries because you understand what is physically > occurring to the clock in order for it to tick slower. > > Just because you refuse to understand the rate at which an atomic > clock ticks is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists does > does not mean time has changed. > > If you choose not understand what causes your battery operated clock > to tick slower then has time change? As your battery operated clock begins to tick slower and slower compared to the other clocks in your house do you stare at the battery operated clock in disbelief as time changes for this particular clock? If this particular clock was the only clock in your house as it begins to tick slower and slower compared to every other clock in existence would time have changed in your house? What's the difference between a battery operated clock and an atomic clock in a GPS satellite? You understand what is occurring physically to your battery operated clock in order to cause it to tick slower so you replace the batteries. Since you refuse to understand the rate at which an atomic clock ticks is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists you allow yourself to incorrectly assume time changes. So, I ask you once again, if you do not know what is causing your battery operated clock to tick slower and it is the only clock in your house does time change in your house? If not, how is this different than simply refusing to understand what causes atomic clocks to tick at different rates? Einstein's concept 'space-time' is described physically as follows: - 'curved space-time' is the aether displaced by a massive object. - Motion with respect to the aether, and gravity (the pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object), determine the aether pressure on each and every nuclei which is the matter which is the object. The greater the aether pressure the slower atoms oscillate. "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move" Matter tells aether how to displace, and displaced aether tells matter how to move. |