Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: Esa Riihonen on 21 Mar 2010 19:33 mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Mar 20, 10:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 20, 9:58 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Mar 20, 9:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Mar 20, 12:17 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > On Mar 19, 8:14 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> >> > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> > > > > >> If you choose not understand what causes your battery >> > > > > >> operated clock to tick slower then has time change? >> >> > > > > Nope. And I can even measure that this is not a case. I could >> > > > > for example compare how often I have to shave my beard and >> > > > > myriad other things to the clock progression. NOTE: You have apparently choosed to split this discussion in to separate threads. There might be a good reason for it, but I have two comments: 1) When splitting the answer in to separate threads it is a bit puzzling that you have apparently totally ignored the clearly indicated main question stated in my previous message - actually you have not answered any of my questions, why is that? 2) You have made several follow-ups to your own messages - this is a bit confusing - at what point should I start replying. Would it be too much for you to give yourself a bit more time, so that you could put everything in just one message. >> > > > Instead of shaving your beard you are in a space ship and you >> > > > measure where you are relative to the distant stars. >> >> > > > You are in a space ship orbiting the Earth. The associated aether >> > > > pressure on the atomic clock in the space ship is less than a >> > > > comparable clock on the Earth and the atomic clock in the space >> > > > ship ticks faster than the comparable clock on the Earth. >> >> > > > Your space ship is in a geo-synchronous orbit and orbits at the >> > > > same rate at which the Earth spins. >> >> > > > You stay in the space ship for one complete orbit around the Sun. >> > > > You are in as close to the exact same position with respect to >> > > > the distant stars as you were when the experiment began. >> >> > > > From your view of the surrounding distant stars, the Earth and >> > > > the Sun you determine 365 and 1/4 days have passed. This is in >> > > > exact agreement with the atomic clock on the Earth. >> >> > > > You started the experiment on January 1st 2009. >> >> > > > You have two atomic clocks on the space ship. One was altered to >> > > > remain in sync with the atomic clock on the Earth. The other >> > > > atomic clock was not altered. The altered atomic clock says 365 >> > > > and 1/4 days have passed since the beginning of the experiment. >> > > > The unaltered atomic clock on the space ship says 370 days have >> > > > passed since the beginning of the experiment. >> >> > > > What day is it and how much time has passed since the beginning >> > > > of the experiment? >> >> > > > It is January 1st 2010 and one year has passed since the >> > > > beginning of the experiment. The unaltered atomic clock was not >> > > > modified to tick according to the aether pressure it exists in. >> >> > > > Do you insist it is January 6th 2010 because that is what the >> > > > unaltered atomic clock states the time to be? If so, how do you >> > > > account for the fact that you have not yet passed the point in >> > > > orbit around the Sun where you were on January 1st 2009 and in >> > > > fact you are as close to the exact same point in orbit relative >> > > > to the Sun based on your measurements against the distant stars >> > > > as you were on January 1st 2009 as you are going to be? How is it >> > > > not January 1st 2010? >> >> > > One complete orbit of the Sun by the Earth is one year, regardless >> > > of the rate at which an atomic clock ticks. >> >> > Why is the rate at which an atomic clock ticks more accurate at >> > determining how much time has passed than the Earth's orbit around >> > the Sun? It isn't. >> >> > If there is a second astronaut on the space ship who does not have >> > access to any of the atomic clocks on the space ship and that >> > astronaut determines one year has passed because of measurements >> > based upon the stars then that astronaut is correct. >> >> You have a clock with a paddle for the second hand. You drop the clock >> off the side of a boat. The further and further the clock drops into >> the ocean the slower it 'ticks', as determined by a clock on the boat. >> The clock 'ticks' slower because of the increase in the hydrostatic >> pressure on the paddle. >> >> If you refuse to believe in the existence of water then does time >> change? >> >> You have an atomic clock on the space station. You 'drop' the clock off >> the 'side' of the space station. The further and further the clock >> 'drops' towards the Earth the slower it 'ticks', as determined by a >> clock on the space station. The clock 'ticks' slower because of the >> increase in the aether pressure on the clock. >> >> If you refuse to believe in the existence of aether then does time >> change? > > That same increase in aether pressure which is causing the rate at which > the atomic clock ticks to slow, is also gravity. Cheesh - are you done yet? ... ok - here we go: According to my (GR) view (the time difference of 6 days is of course too big for one year on GeoStat, but never mind) the situation is actually very simple. If I decide to use the clocks on Earth (or the altered atomic clock on board) my shag will be too long every time I shave and my boiled eggs are hard but have turned greenish - plus if I synch my LP- player rotation (33 rpm) with an Earth clock the pitch is too low. Same with every _local_ phenomena involving time. If and when the 'year' is defined as one Earth revolution around the Sun, then of course it is just that - time of one revolution. However, how many seconds it will take is a different matter. Let me explain, we usually speak of time in calendar/clock terms: years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds and parts of seconds. That is a natural way when living on a surface of a revolving and turning planet. In physics it is better to just think of seconds (with decimal parts) and consider the calendar/clock times just labels for any instance (measured in seconds). The labels conveniently tell whether it is day or night, should I consider digging seeds in ground or harvesting the crops and thus they should be kept in synch with the physical world, so we use leap days to keep dates drifting in relation to the Earths actual position and leap seconds to keep noon close to the actual time Sun is above. Note that no days are actually added nor seconds added (or removed) we just shift our labeling system a bit by adding special labels (or not using one) every now and then. The year (once around the Sun) as observed from orbit just takes these 6*24*60*60 seconds longer - no problem. And I will continue to use my unaltered atomic clock, thank you. The earth clock is of no use for me because I don't want to relearn that boiling a hard egg takes 9 minutes instead of 10 and proper LP revolution speed is 37 rpm instead of 33. I will probably even keep labeling my (proper) time events using the classical formula, because I'm used to 24 hour days etc, and in that sense I will start new 'year' about 6 days earlier than you will do on ground, but I will understand that my labeling doesn't synch with the earth rotation anymore - so I will not get confused. Your clock with the paddle-hand. How does the increase of hydrostatic pressure slow down the hand rotation? And in any case what has this rotating handle to do with the operation of an atomic clock? Does the atomic clock have some rotating paddle that interacts with aether - if so where? I already asked you before to clarify how does the aether pressure on the nucleus affect the reading of an atomic clock - this can be considered as the same question - please answer. And as an extra gift, I copy here my major question (with corollary) from the previous message that you forgot to answer. I will add to the question to make it a bit more concrete. Now that I have answered all your questions (once again) I assume you will return the courtesy before we will proceed further. Here is my main question: a) You have said that the GPS atomic clock time follow the GR equations (somehow because of the aether pressure on nuclei) b) You have said that biological/chemical processes (aging) won't follow the GR equations (but they can't be used as a clock either, something to do with the 'time being a concept' or something) Question: how did you come up with the insight expressed in statement b? Addition: how do you know that this aether pressure that affects atomic clock operations doesn't affect the chemical reactions (aging, boiling of eggs) similarly? This of course breaks down GR theory - so it seems that you are in the brink of a major breakthrough (PI) here. You just have to collect the parts of GR that are still working (it seems that something must be working because of the GPS clocks) and make a new combination with the (assumingly Newtonian) part containing the aether. It seems also necessary to clarify your position regarding 'time' - what is this parameter t standing for, in all those equations. Cheers, Esa(R) -- A Neanderthal child rode to school with a boy from Hamilton. When his mother found out she said, "What did I tell you? If you commute with a Hamiltonian you'll never evolve!"
From: Esa Riihonen on 21 Mar 2010 19:33 mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Mar 19, 8:14 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> Let me try to clarify my issue. You have compared aether with water >> (bowling ball in water) - now it doesn't mean anything to me if someone >> says 'water is a field'. A volume of water has properties like density, >> that have some value at each point - and we can speak about density >> field. What is the property of an aether field - 'aetherness'? And how >> we can measure it or otherwise associate some value for each point? >> >> >> "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. >> >> I don't think you quite understand what de Broglie's 'material waves' >> are. They more or less 'just are' the particles themselves - there is >> no independent background such as aether in that model. NOTE: You have apparently choosed to split this discussion in to separate threads. There might be a good reason for it, but I have two comments: 1) When splitting the answer in to separate threads it is a bit puzzling that you have apparently totally ignored the clearly indicated main question stated in my previous message - actually you have not answered any of my questions, why is that? 2) You have made several follow-ups to your own messages - this is a bit confusing - at what point should I start replying. Would it be too much for you to give yourself a bit more time, so that you could put everything in just one message. > What part of: > > '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.' > > are you not able to understand? Replied in an other message. > Here is another one: > > "If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature > would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. > It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be > contrary to relativity theory." > > There is a sub-quantum medium, the aether. Notice the 'If' (it is there at the very beginning of the first sentence), there are also several 'coulds' and 'woulds' inserted in the text (find them yourself). They are there not without purpose - de Broglie is hypotizing about the further developments - which however have not realized. You could look for example on 'hidden variable theories'. > It does not serve as a universal reference medium because its state is > determined by its connections with the matter. > > Nature, aether and matter, is the universal reference medium. Whatever - you have totally misunderstood these de Broglie texts. Cheers, Esa(R) -- Classification of mathematical problems as linear and nonlinear is like classification of the Universe as bananas and non-bananas.
From: Esa Riihonen on 21 Mar 2010 19:38 mpc755 kirjoitti: > On Mar 19, 8:14 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: >> mpc755 kirjoitti: >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> Let me try to clarify my issue. You have compared aether with water >> (bowling ball in water) - now it doesn't mean anything to me if someone >> says 'water is a field'. A volume of water has properties like density, >> that have some value at each point - and we can speak about density >> field. What is the property of an aether field - 'aetherness'? And how >> we can measure it or otherwise associate some value for each point? >> >> >> "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. >> >> I don't think you quite understand what de Broglie's 'material waves' >> are. They more or less 'just are' the particles themselves - there is >> no independent background such as aether in that model. NOTE: You have apparently choosed to split this discussion in to separate threads. There might be a good reason for it, but I have two comments: 1) When splitting the answer in to separate threads it is a bit puzzling that you have apparently totally ignored the clearly indicated main question stated in my previous message - actually you have not answered any of my questions, why is that? 2) You have made several follow-ups to your own messages - this is a bit confusing - at what point should I start replying. Would it be too much for you to give yourself a bit more time, so that you could put everything in just one message. > What part of: > > '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.' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf page 4, paragraph after eq-4 > are you not able to understand? As you should well know (or actually not), it's sometimes very hard to know when and what one is not able to understand. But I try to clarify my (lack of) understanding below - perhaps you could be better able to educate me based on that. > Or are you saying the EXTERNAL FIELD acting on the particle is the > particle itself? Nope, the _EXTERNAL_ FIELD is not the particle itself. If you actually read the paper you would (perhaps) understand at least two things: 1) This _external_ field he is speaking about is for example an _external_ electric field acting on an electron - discussed in section III. He first develops his 'physical wave' theory without _external_ fields and then _generalizes_ the resulting 'guidance model' to include also _external_ fields. This _external_ field is quite distinct concept to the de Broglie's physical/material waves. 2) Starting from bottom of the page 9, you could have read: "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located." NOTE: "particle is defined as a ... region of the wave ...", just as I already told you earlier. You could also read the other paper you referenced (beware of the wrap: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates//1929/broglie- lecture.pdf If you still entertain the idea that de Broglie's views somehow correspond to your aether waves pushing particles around: Page 252: "Is it even still possible to assume that at each moment the corpuscle occupies a well-defined position in the wave and that the wave in its propagation carries the corpuscle along in the same way as a wave would carry along a cork? These are difficult questions and to discuss them would take us too far and even to the confines of philosophy. All that I shall say about them here is that nowadays the tendency in general is to assume that it is not constantly possible to assign to the corpuscle a well-defined position in the wave." That view was then 'not constantly possible', nor it is nowadays either. Page 256 (last paragraph of the paper): "Thus to describe the properties of matter as well as those of light, waves and corpuscles have to be referred to at one and the same time. The electron can no longer be conceived as a single, small granule of electricity; it must be associated with a wave and this wave is no myth; its wavelength can be measured and its interferences predicted. It has thus been possible to predict a whole group of phenomena without their actually having been discovered. And it is on this concept of the duality of waves and corpuscles in Nature, expressed in a more or less abstract form, that the whole recent development of theoretical physics has been founded and that all future development of this science will apparently have to be founded." He is of course speaking of the 'wave-particle duality', a standard concept in QM. You see there is a reason 'aether' or 'ether' is not mentioned in these texts (except as a rejected historical concept). Cheers, Esa(R) -- One day, Jesus said to his disciples: "The Kingdom of Heaven is like 3x squared plus 8x minus 9." St. Thomas looked very confused and asked St. Peter: "What does the teacher mean?" St.Peter replied: "Don't worry - it's just another one of his parabolas."
From: mpc755 on 21 Mar 2010 20:45 On Mar 21, 7:33 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > > On Mar 20, 10:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 20, 9:58 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On Mar 20, 9:16 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > On Mar 20, 12:17 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > On Mar 19, 8:14 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> > > > > >> If you choose not understand what causes your battery > >> > > > > >> operated clock to tick slower then has time change? > > >> > > > > Nope. And I can even measure that this is not a case. I could > >> > > > > for example compare how often I have to shave my beard and > >> > > > > myriad other things to the clock progression. > > NOTE: > You have apparently choosed to split this discussion in to separate > threads. There might be a good reason for it, but I have two comments: > 1) When splitting the answer in to separate threads it is a bit puzzling > that you have apparently totally ignored the clearly indicated main > question stated in my previous message - actually you have not answered > any of my questions, why is that? > 2) You have made several follow-ups to your own messages - this is a bit > confusing - at what point should I start replying. Would it be too much > for you to give yourself a bit more time, so that you could put > everything in just one message. > > > > >> > > > Instead of shaving your beard you are in a space ship and you > >> > > > measure where you are relative to the distant stars. > > >> > > > You are in a space ship orbiting the Earth. The associated aether > >> > > > pressure on the atomic clock in the space ship is less than a > >> > > > comparable clock on the Earth and the atomic clock in the space > >> > > > ship ticks faster than the comparable clock on the Earth. > > >> > > > Your space ship is in a geo-synchronous orbit and orbits at the > >> > > > same rate at which the Earth spins. > > >> > > > You stay in the space ship for one complete orbit around the Sun.. > >> > > > You are in as close to the exact same position with respect to > >> > > > the distant stars as you were when the experiment began. > > >> > > > From your view of the surrounding distant stars, the Earth and > >> > > > the Sun you determine 365 and 1/4 days have passed. This is in > >> > > > exact agreement with the atomic clock on the Earth. > > >> > > > You started the experiment on January 1st 2009. > > >> > > > You have two atomic clocks on the space ship. One was altered to > >> > > > remain in sync with the atomic clock on the Earth. The other > >> > > > atomic clock was not altered. The altered atomic clock says 365 > >> > > > and 1/4 days have passed since the beginning of the experiment. > >> > > > The unaltered atomic clock on the space ship says 370 days have > >> > > > passed since the beginning of the experiment. > > >> > > > What day is it and how much time has passed since the beginning > >> > > > of the experiment? > > >> > > > It is January 1st 2010 and one year has passed since the > >> > > > beginning of the experiment. The unaltered atomic clock was not > >> > > > modified to tick according to the aether pressure it exists in. > > >> > > > Do you insist it is January 6th 2010 because that is what the > >> > > > unaltered atomic clock states the time to be? If so, how do you > >> > > > account for the fact that you have not yet passed the point in > >> > > > orbit around the Sun where you were on January 1st 2009 and in > >> > > > fact you are as close to the exact same point in orbit relative > >> > > > to the Sun based on your measurements against the distant stars > >> > > > as you were on January 1st 2009 as you are going to be? How is it > >> > > > not January 1st 2010? > > >> > > One complete orbit of the Sun by the Earth is one year, regardless > >> > > of the rate at which an atomic clock ticks. > > >> > Why is the rate at which an atomic clock ticks more accurate at > >> > determining how much time has passed than the Earth's orbit around > >> > the Sun? It isn't. > > >> > If there is a second astronaut on the space ship who does not have > >> > access to any of the atomic clocks on the space ship and that > >> > astronaut determines one year has passed because of measurements > >> > based upon the stars then that astronaut is correct. > > >> You have a clock with a paddle for the second hand. You drop the clock > >> off the side of a boat. The further and further the clock drops into > >> the ocean the slower it 'ticks', as determined by a clock on the boat. > >> The clock 'ticks' slower because of the increase in the hydrostatic > >> pressure on the paddle. > > >> If you refuse to believe in the existence of water then does time > >> change? > > >> You have an atomic clock on the space station. You 'drop' the clock off > >> the 'side' of the space station. The further and further the clock > >> 'drops' towards the Earth the slower it 'ticks', as determined by a > >> clock on the space station. The clock 'ticks' slower because of the > >> increase in the aether pressure on the clock. > > >> If you refuse to believe in the existence of aether then does time > >> change? > > > That same increase in aether pressure which is causing the rate at which > > the atomic clock ticks to slow, is also gravity. > > Cheesh - are you done yet? ... ok - here we go: > > According to my (GR) view (the time difference of 6 days is of course too > big for one year on GeoStat, but never mind) the situation is actually > very simple. If I decide to use the clocks on Earth (or the altered > atomic clock on board) my shag will be too long every time I shave You do not know this. There is no evidence of it. The rate at which your beard grows at zero Gs is probably not tied to the rate at which an atomic clock ticks. You fail to understand the rate at which an atomic clock ticks has nothing to do with time. > and my > boiled eggs are hard but have turned greenish - plus if I synch my LP- > player rotation (33 rpm) with an Earth clock the pitch is too low. You do not know this. > Same > with every _local_ phenomena involving time. > > If and when the 'year' is defined as one Earth revolution around the Sun, > then of course it is just that - time of one revolution. However, how > many seconds it will take is a different matter. Let me explain, we > usually speak of time in calendar/clock terms: years, months, days, > hours, minutes, seconds and parts of seconds. That is a natural way when > living on a surface of a revolving and turning planet. > > In physics it is better to just think of seconds (with decimal parts) and > consider the calendar/clock times just labels for any instance (measured > in seconds). The labels conveniently tell whether it is day or night, > should I consider digging seeds in ground or harvesting the crops and > thus they should be kept in synch with the physical world, so we use leap > days to keep dates drifting in relation to the Earths actual position and > leap seconds to keep noon close to the actual time Sun is above. Note > that no days are actually added nor seconds added (or removed) we just > shift our labeling system a bit by adding special labels (or not using > one) every now and then. > > The year (once around the Sun) as observed from orbit just takes these > 6*24*60*60 seconds longer - no problem. And I will continue to use my > unaltered atomic clock, thank you. The earth clock is of no use for me > because I don't want to relearn that boiling a hard egg takes 9 minutes > instead of 10 and proper LP revolution speed is 37 rpm instead of 33. I > will probably even keep labeling my (proper) time events using the > classical formula, because I'm used to 24 hour days etc, and in that > sense I will start new 'year' about 6 days earlier than you will do on > ground, but I will understand that my labeling doesn't synch with the > earth rotation anymore - so I will not get confused. > You may not get confused, but you will be incorrect. What is considered a second should be modified as follows: http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/second.html At its 1997 meeting the CIPM affirmed that: This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K at sea level. > Your clock with the paddle-hand. How does the increase of hydrostatic > pressure slow down the hand rotation? And in any case what has this > rotating handle to do with the operation of an atomic clock? Does the > atomic clock have some rotating paddle that interacts with aether - if so > where? I already asked you before to clarify how does the aether pressure > on the nucleus affect the reading of an atomic clock - this can be > considered as the same question - please answer. > This is the definition of a second: http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/second.html "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." The rate at which the caesium 133 atom transitions between the two hyperfine levels is dependent upon the aether pressure in which it exists. The greater the pressure associated with the aether, the longer it takes for the caesium atom to transition between the two hyperfine levels. > And as an extra gift, I copy here my major question (with corollary) from > the previous message that you forgot to answer. I will add to the > question to make it a bit more concrete. > > Now that I have answered all your questions (once again) I assume you > will return the courtesy before we will proceed further. > > Here is my main question: > a) You have said that the GPS atomic clock time follow the GR equations > (somehow because of the aether pressure on nuclei) > b) You have said that biological/chemical processes (aging) won't follow > the GR equations (but they can't be used as a clock either, something to > do with the 'time being a concept' or something) > > Question: how did you come up with the insight expressed in statement b? > Addition: how do you know that this aether pressure that affects atomic > clock operations doesn't affect the chemical reactions (aging, boiling of > eggs) similarly? > > This of course breaks down GR theory It does not break down GR theory. It is simply pointing out that the rate at which an atomic clock ticks is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. The aether pressure on and through the human body will also affect the human body but to think everything associated with the human body will simply slow down, for example the digestion of food, at a rate associated with the rate at which an atomic clock ticks is unfounded. > - so it seems that you are in the > brink of a major breakthrough (PI) here. You just have to collect the > parts of GR that are still working (it seems that something must be > working because of the GPS clocks) and make a new combination with the > (assumingly Newtonian) part containing the aether. It seems also > necessary to clarify your position regarding 'time' - what is this > parameter t standing for, in all those equations. > > Cheers, > > Esa(R) > > -- > A Neanderthal child rode to school with a boy from Hamilton. When his > mother found out she said, "What did I tell you? If you commute with a > Hamiltonian you'll never evolve!"
From: mpc755 on 21 Mar 2010 20:49
On Mar 21, 7:33 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > > On Mar 19, 8:14 pm, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > >> mpc755 kirjoitti: > > >> > 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. > > >> Let me try to clarify my issue. You have compared aether with water > >> (bowling ball in water) - now it doesn't mean anything to me if someone > >> says 'water is a field'. A volume of water has properties like density, > >> that have some value at each point - and we can speak about density > >> field. What is the property of an aether field - 'aetherness'? And how > >> we can measure it or otherwise associate some value for each point? > > >> >> "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. > > >> I don't think you quite understand what de Broglie's 'material waves' > >> are. They more or less 'just are' the particles themselves - there is > >> no independent background such as aether in that model. > > NOTE: > You have apparently choosed to split this discussion in to separate > threads. There might be a good reason for it, but I have two comments: > 1) When splitting the answer in to separate threads it is a bit puzzling > that you have apparently totally ignored the clearly indicated main > question stated in my previous message - actually you have not answered > any of my questions, why is that? > 2) You have made several follow-ups to your own messages - this is a bit > confusing - at what point should I start replying. Would it be too much > for you to give yourself a bit more time, so that you could put > everything in just one message. > > > What part of: > > > '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.' > > > are you not able to understand? > > Replied in an other message. > You did not answer the above in the other message. What part of 'external field' do you not understand? > > Here is another one: > > > "If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature > > would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. > > It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be > > contrary to relativity theory." > > > There is a sub-quantum medium, the aether. > > Notice the 'If' (it is there at the very beginning of the first > sentence), there are also several 'coulds' and 'woulds' inserted in the > text (find them yourself). They are there not without purpose - de > Broglie is hypotizing about the further developments - which however have > not realized. You could look for example on 'hidden variable theories'. > de Broglie is discussing the aether. Maybe de Broglie had the same misconceptions of the aether as did Newton. Maybe they both did not understand the existence of frictionless superfluids or frictionless supersolids. Doesn't matter, the sub-quantum medium de Broglie is referring to, is the aether. > > It does not serve as a universal reference medium because its state is > > determined by its connections with the matter. > > > Nature, aether and matter, is the universal reference medium. > > Whatever - you have totally misunderstood these de Broglie texts. > Thinking 'external field' means the particle itself is about as much of a misunderstanding as you can have. > Cheers, > > Esa(R) > > -- > Classification of mathematical problems as linear and nonlinear is like > classification of the Universe as bananas and non-bananas. |