Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 22 Mar 2010 16:25 On Mar 22, 2:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 3:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 22, 1:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 22, 2:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 22, 12:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 22, 1:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 12:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 1:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 12:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 12:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 5:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 2:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 8:16 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is what Spaceman thought, too. Then again, he thought the product > > > > > > > > > > > > of two negative numbers was a negative number. > > > > > > > > > > > > I realize when you watch a battery operated clock start to tick slower > > > > > > > > > > > you think time is actually changing. > > > > > > > > > > > That depends. If it's ticking slower at the same rate as other clocks > > > > > > > > > > of different constructions and design principles, and all the rates of > > > > > > > > > > those clocks are as predicted by relativity, then I'd say what's going > > > > > > > > > > on is what relativity says is going on. > > > > > > > > > > I would like to see an experiment where the clock on the airplane is > > > > > > > > > not an atomic clock. Or the clock in the GPS satellite is not an > > > > > > > > > atomic clock. Another experiment would be to place an atomic clock and > > > > > > > > > other types of clocks into a centrifuge like the one astronauts train > > > > > > > > > in. > > > > > > > > > G. Gwinner, Experimental Tests of Time Dilation in Special > > > > > > > > Relativity, Mod. Phys. Lett. 1, 20, no. 11 (2005), pg 791. > > > > > > > > Most of the experiments I see listed have to do with light, pions, > > > > > > > muons and other processes which would not be physically different than > > > > > > > the rate at which a caesium atom 'ticks'. > > > > > > > Well, the process by which pions operate is dramatically different > > > > > > than the one by which muons operate, for example. One is a hadron made > > > > > > of quarks, and the other is a lepton not made of quarks. Both of these > > > > > > in turn are dramatically different than the operation of a cesium > > > > > > clock, which has to do with atomic resonance, and neither pions nor > > > > > > muons are atoms and so do not have atomic resonances. > > > > > > > So you'd have to show with calculations that your aether pressure > > > > > > should affect the operation of pions, the operation of muons, and > > > > > > atomic resonances in exactly the same way. > > > > > > > Now I'm waiting for you to say, "It just does, dammit." > > > > > > What about the 'clock' where the Earth orbits the Sun. An Observer on > > > > > a GPS Satellite will determine one year has passed based upon the > > > > > distant stars. > > > > > > This 'clock' seems more accurate. > > > > > Despite what seems to be more accurate to you, this local, Earth-based > > > > definition of time has no physical merit. Spaceman thought it should > > > > because we live here. But then again, physics doesn't care which > > > > planet scientists live on. And then again, Spaceman is a tire > > > > salesman. > > > > > It may also amuse you to know that GPS doesn't the distant stars for > > > > any reference. The system can't even SEE the distant stars. > > > > > Third, it may amuse you to know that the precision of atomic clocks is > > > > better than the variability of the Earth's orbit from year to year, > > > > which has both a systematic and a stochastic variation. > > > > > But feel free to splutter some more. > > > > When the atomic clock is placed in the GPS satellite, obviously due to > > > your ignorance and delusional denial, you think everything having to > > > do with an atomic clock in the GPS satellite is exactly like the > > > atomic clock on the Earth except for the fact that it ticks at a > > > different rate. Do you understand one atomic clock is on the Earth and > > > one atomic clock is in a GPS satellite? You do realize the Earth and a > > > GPS satellite are two different physical environments, correct? > > > Yes of course. But two clocks of different construction and different > > operating principles will not be slowed the same amount in the same > > physical environment. > > > I'll give you an example. Suppose you take a pendulum clock and a > > spring-driven wristwatch, both of which run at the same rate on the > > Earth. Now you take them both to the moon. They are still in the same > > physical environment, but the pendulum clock's rate will be slowed > > differently than the wristwatch's rate. > > > > Obviously, for there to be an Observer on the GPS satellite there is a > > > window in which the Observer looks out in order to determine one year > > > has passed. > > > Oh. My. God. Are you thinking there are PEOPLE on the GPS > > satellites???? > > What kind of a doofus are you? > > Never mind. I don't really need an answer to that, as you've already > > provided it. > > It's an analogy. I could have easily placed an atomic clock on the > space station. > > So, there is an atomic clock on the space station. The space station > is in a geostationary orbit and is traveling fast enough in orbit > around the Earth that after one year an atomic clock on the space > station states 360 days have passed. > > In order to determine how much time has actually passed an Observer on > the space station makes measurements against the distant stars in > order to determine one year has passed. > > The Observer on the space station understands the Earth orbits the Sun > every year. > > The Earth's orbit of the Sun is a more correct 'clock'. I can't believe you thought there were windows on the GPS satellite for the observers on board to look at the stars. Geez, what an idiot! This moment will live for a long time in posterity.
From: mpc755 on 22 Mar 2010 16:32 On Mar 22, 4:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 2:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > It's an analogy. I could have easily placed an atomic clock on the > > space station. > > > So, there is an atomic clock on the space station. The space station > > is in a geostationary orbit and is traveling fast enough in orbit > > around the Earth that after one year an atomic clock on the space > > station states 360 days have passed. > > > In order to determine how much time has actually passed an Observer on > > the space station makes measurements against the distant stars in > > order to determine one year has passed. > > > The Observer on the space station understands the Earth orbits the Sun > > every year. > > > The Earth's orbit of the Sun is a more correct 'clock'. > > I can't believe you thought there were windows on the GPS satellite > for the observers on board to look at the stars. Geez, what an idiot! > This moment will live for a long time in posterity. I was using an Observer on a GPS satellite who uses the distant stars to determine a year passed as an analogy. I placed the Observer on the GPS satellite because we are in agreement an atomic clock on a GPS satellite ticks at a different rate than a similar atomic clock on the Earth. The fact that you are so desperate not to have to understand an Observer who uses the distant stars to determine a year has passed is correctly determining how much time has passed shows how delusional you are. The fact that you can not understand the Observer on the GPS Satellite with windows is an analogy shows how delusional you are.
From: Thomas Heger on 22 Mar 2010 16:33 MicroTech schrieb: > Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing issue? > > Many scientists (including Einstein) claim that gravity is not a > force, Well, what IS a force? f=m*a ? That a definition: some mass is accelerated by a force. So the force is the reason we assign to a curved path. The fact is: the path is curved and we assume a force. That is technically a definition of the term 'force', not a description of a mechanism. Since gravity curves paths, we can easily call gravity a force. > but the effect of mass on the "fabric of spacetime". No, because the path of a falling object is curved. Yes, because you could model objects (material bodies) out of the 'fabric of spacetime'. > Many other > scientists refer to gravity as one of the four fundamental > interactions (three, if one considers the unification of the weak and > electromagnetic interactions, the "electroweak" force). > Gravity is easier to define, than -say- electro-weak force. I have some doubts in forces in general to be fundamental. What those terms mean is a measure for certain observed behaviors. > Adding to the confusion, some scientists use both concepts with no > apparent difficulty: > Stephen Hawking (in his "A Brief History Of Time") first says that > gravity is not a force, but "simply" the effect of mass on the > "spacetime fabric" (making it "curve"). However, later in the book, he > refers to gravity as a fundamental force, carried by the graviton. > > So what is gravity, "really"? Does anybody really know? Or do we just > know its effects? Personally I think gravitational potential acts in the time domain and is an inverse to the electric potential, what is timeless. Why we have such effects at all (mass attracts mass), is only possible to understand, if you understand, what mass 'really' is. Actually I model particles 'out of spacetime', too. So things are more like vortices in a fluid and the 'fluid' is the 'real thing'. > Is it the mass of the Sun that "curves spacetime", so no force is > interacting with the Earth, it is just moving in a "straight line" > along a "curved spacetime" geodesic? If you define force as mass time acceleration, this is in terms of spacetime the curvature of a worldline (here: Earth orbit). So not the space is curved, but the orbital path. To call space 'curved' is silly, because 'space' denotes an abstraction. That requires an observer and denotes all possible distances to this observer. Since light needs time to travel, distance means also age of observed events. So, seen from an other point in the universe, the distances - hence the ages of observations- are different. So somewhere else we would see into a totally different space. What is curved in spacetime is something I call 'internal curvature'. Why and how, You may read in my book, if you like. > > At my current level of understanding, gravity should be one or the > other, and not both... > > If Einstein's concept of "curved spacetime" is "correct," where does > the (hypothetical?) "graviton" (and/or "gravitino") enter the picture? > > References to published papers (accessible online) would be much > appreciated! My paper you find here: http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 (could be downloaded - with the little arrow 'actions' down/left) greetings Th
From: mpc755 on 22 Mar 2010 16:36 On Mar 22, 4:33 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > MicroTech schrieb:> Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing issue? > > > Many scientists (including Einstein) claim that gravity is not a > > force, > > Well, what IS a force? f=m*a ? That a definition: some mass is > accelerated by a force. So the force is the reason we assign to a curved > path. The fact is: the path is curved and we assume a force. > That is technically a definition of the term 'force', not a description > of a mechanism. Since gravity curves paths, we can easily call gravity a > force. > Aether displaced by matter curves paths. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object is gravity. The associated aether pressure is the force. > > but the effect of mass on the "fabric of spacetime". > > No, because the path of a falling object is curved. Yes, because you > could model objects (material bodies) out of the 'fabric of spacetime'. > The 'fabric of spacetime' is aether. > > Many other > > scientists refer to gravity as one of the four fundamental > > interactions (three, if one considers the unification of the weak and > > electromagnetic interactions, the "electroweak" force). > > Gravity is easier to define, than -say- electro-weak force. I have some > doubts in forces in general to be fundamental. What those terms mean is > a measure for certain observed behaviors. > > > Adding to the confusion, some scientists use both concepts with no > > apparent difficulty: > > Stephen Hawking (in his "A Brief History Of Time") first says that > > gravity is not a force, but "simply" the effect of mass on the > > "spacetime fabric" (making it "curve"). However, later in the book, he > > refers to gravity as a fundamental force, carried by the graviton. > > > So what is gravity, "really"? Does anybody really know? Or do we just > > know its effects? > > Personally I think gravitational potential acts in the time domain and > is an inverse to the electric potential, what is timeless. > Why we have such effects at all (mass attracts mass), is only possible > to understand, if you understand, what mass 'really' is. > Actually I model particles 'out of spacetime', too. So things are more > like vortices in a fluid and the 'fluid' is the 'real thing'. > > > Is it the mass of the Sun that "curves spacetime", so no force is > > interacting with the Earth, it is just moving in a "straight line" > > along a "curved spacetime" geodesic? > > If you define force as mass time acceleration, this is in terms of > spacetime the curvature of a worldline (here: Earth orbit). So not the > space is curved, but the orbital path. > To call space 'curved' is silly, because 'space' denotes an abstraction. Correct, that is why it is more accurate to describe the state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter the aether's state of displacement. > That requires an observer and denotes all possible distances to this > observer. Since light needs time to travel, distance means also age of > observed events. So, seen from an other point in the universe, the > distances - hence the ages of observations- are different. So somewhere > else we would see into a totally different space. > What is curved in spacetime is something I call 'internal curvature'. > Why and how, You may read in my book, if you like. > > > At my current level of understanding, gravity should be one or the > > other, and not both... > > > If Einstein's concept of "curved spacetime" is "correct," where does > > the (hypothetical?) "graviton" (and/or "gravitino") enter the picture? > > > References to published papers (accessible online) would be much > > appreciated! > > My paper you find here:http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > (could be downloaded - with the little arrow 'actions' down/left) > > greetings > > Th
From: Sue... on 22 Mar 2010 16:44
On Mar 22, 3:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > It's an analogy. I could have easily placed an atomic clock on the > space station. > > So, there is an atomic clock on the space station. The space station > is in a geostationary orbit and is traveling fast enough in orbit > around the Earth that after one year an atomic clock on the space > station states 360 days have passed. > > In order to determine how much time has actually passed an Observer on > the space station makes measurements against the distant stars in > order to determine one year has passed. > > The Observer on the space station understands the Earth orbits the Sun > every year. > > The Earth's orbit of the Sun is a more correct 'clock'. x x targets O |) |) Planet, 2 sight lines and 2 trajectories. ^ ^ 2 equal guns (joule, gram) elevations: sea level and 20,000 km 1. Which parabolic trajectory is more like a straight line? 2. Which bullet spends more time flying? < Application of Noether's theorem allows physicists to gain powerful insights into any general theory in physics, by just analyzing the various transformations that would make the form of the laws involved invariant. For example: * the invariance of physical systems with respect to spatial translation (in other words, that the laws of physics do not vary with locations in space) gives the law of conservation of linear momentum; * invariance with respect to rotation gives the law of conservation of angular momentum; * invariance with respect to time translation gives the well-known law of conservation of energy >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment Sue... |