Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: Esa Riihonen on 24 Mar 2010 07:59 mpc755 kirjoitti: > 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 are right - I don't _know_ that, we have not yet been able to compare beard growth rates at different depths in gravity wells with enough accuracy. But as I said this is the result predicted by GR. I asked you before - how do you know it _probably_ not tied to it? How does your aether pressure model allow you to make that conclusion? > You fail to understand the rate at which an atomic clock ticks has > nothing to do with time. Totally agree - I certainly fail at it. I assumed we have dropped this esoteric time concept that has nothing to do with clocks already - why bring this _useless_ concept back here? When discussing physics we should keep using 'time' as a concept that can be measured (by clocks). I questioned you below (you didn't answer of course) what is this symbol 't' appearing in all these physical equations standing for? It must be measurable somehow (this is physics after all) - how to measure it? >> 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. You are right - no accurate measurements yet to be sure, but the point was that this is nevertheless the result that GR tells us. >> 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. This is the current definition of the second. Clocks should be calibrated against this definition - so what? >> 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. This doesn't make much sense. You quite clearly don't know how an atomic clock works. Otherwise you wouldn't have written 'the longer it takes for the caesium atom to transition between the two hyperfine levels' - this is just pathetic. General vague statements 'aether pressure affects the atomic clock somehow' are just not enough - no matter how many time you repeat them. Please explain your model, by which mechanism the aether pressure does affect the operation of atomic clocks - and with such detail that we can actually calculate the quantitative results. Otherwise your 'theory' is useless. And I'm still waiting you to explain how increasing hydrostatic pressure would slow down the movement of the 'paddle hand' in water? >> 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. This must be your most stupid statement thus far (quite an achievement actually). Earlier you stated that e.g., record player (a device combining electromagnetic and mechanical aspects of the universe) rotation speed would not follow GR prediction, and now you say that this doesn't break GR - too stupid to be even hilarious. > 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. It is founded on the what GR predicts. GR is the other most successful theory in physics thus far. Please note that among other facts to support the theory we have flown several types of atomic clocks on orbits (different orbits, different nuclei, different energy transitions) and all have behaved according to the GR prediction. What you are saying is that this is just a _coincidence_ and an effect due to an _undefined_ interaction with aether pressure. I don't believe in that kind of coincidences before you give me a very good reason to do so. No one will take you seriously before you can show how to model your aether and how to actually calculate the associated pressure effects. >> - 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) -- Issue: Bears in Yellowstone foraging food from the trashcans. Q: "Why won't you develop bear proof trashcans?" A: "Well, there is a considerable overlap between the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists."
From: Esa Riihonen on 24 Mar 2010 08:20 mpc755 kirjoitti: > 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? Certainly did - check yourself: === CUT AND PASTE STARTS == > 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) === CUT AND PASTE ENDS === Perhaps you should have refrained from splitting this discussion in to too many subthreads - it apparently can get confusing. >> > 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. I think it is obvious that de Broglie was quite aware of all the aether models ever developed at the time of writing the paper under discussion. But this is interesting, is your aether perhaps 'frictionless superfluid' and are the particles 'frictionless supersolids'? > Doesn't matter, the sub-quantum medium de Broglie is referring to, is > the aether. Physics by statements - why not try mathematics for a change. And please look at the 'hidden variables' and 'non locality' regarding this sub- quantum medium, and come back only when your aether model can cope with these issues. >> > 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. Certainly. Why is it important to mention that obvious fact here? Cheers, Esa(R) -- Dopeler effect, n.: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
From: mpc755 on 24 Mar 2010 09:22 On Mar 24, 7:59 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > 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 are right - I don't _know_ that, we have not yet been able to compare > beard growth rates at different depths in gravity wells with enough > accuracy. But as I said this is the result predicted by GR. > > I asked you before - how do you know it _probably_ not tied to it? How > does your aether pressure model allow you to make that conclusion? > Because time is a concept. The most accurate clock for the astronaut on the space ship is the Earth's orbit of the Sun, not 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. > > Totally agree - I certainly fail at it. I assumed we have dropped this > esoteric time concept that has nothing to do with clocks already - why > bring this _useless_ concept back here? When discussing physics we should > keep using 'time' as a concept that can be measured (by clocks). I > questioned you below (you didn't answer of course) what is this symbol > 't' appearing in all these physical equations standing for? It must be > measurable somehow (this is physics after all) - how to measure it? > 't' represents the rate at which an atomic clock ticks. Not time. 't' represents the rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' based upon the aether pressure in which the clock exists. > >> 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. > > You are right - no accurate measurements yet to be sure, but the point > was that this is nevertheless the result that GR tells us. > > >> 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. > > This is the current definition of the second. Clocks should be calibrated > against this definition - so what? > That is not the current definition of a second. Yes, clocks should be calibrated against the definition which includes 'at sea level'. 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. > > This doesn't make much sense. You quite clearly don't know how an atomic > clock works. Otherwise you wouldn't have written 'the longer it takes for > the caesium atom to transition between the two hyperfine levels' - this > is just pathetic. > > General vague statements 'aether pressure affects the atomic clock > somehow' are just not enough - no matter how many time you repeat them. > Please explain your model, by which mechanism the aether pressure does > affect the operation of atomic clocks - and with such detail that we can > actually calculate the quantitative results. Otherwise your 'theory' is > useless. > When the astronaut on the space ship calculates how much time is passes by using the distant stars and the Earth's orbit of the Sun the astronaut concludes one year has passed. The atomic clock states 360 days have passed. The atomic clock is incorrect. > And I'm still waiting you to explain how increasing hydrostatic pressure > would slow down the movement of the 'paddle hand' in water? > > >> 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. > > This must be your most stupid statement thus far (quite an achievement > actually). Earlier you stated that e.g., record player (a device > combining electromagnetic and mechanical aspects of the universe) > rotation speed would not follow GR prediction, and now you say that this > doesn't break GR - too stupid to be even hilarious. > > > 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. > > It is founded on the what GR predicts. GR is the other most successful > theory in physics thus far. Please note that among other facts to support > the theory we have flown several types of atomic clocks on orbits > (different orbits, different nuclei, different energy transitions) and > all have behaved according to the GR prediction. What you are saying is > that this is just a _coincidence_ and an effect due to an _undefined_ > interaction with aether pressure. The clocks are traveling with respect to the aether. "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement. > I don't believe in that kind of > coincidences before you give me a very good reason to do so. No one will > take you seriously before you can show how to model your aether and how > to actually calculate the associated pressure effects. > > >> - 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) > > -- > Issue: Bears in Yellowstone foraging food from the trashcans. > Q: "Why won't you develop bear proof trashcans?" > A: "Well, there is a considerable overlap between the smartest bears > and the dumbest tourists."
From: mpc755 on 24 Mar 2010 09:28 On Mar 24, 8:20 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 kirjoitti: > > > > > 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? > > Certainly did - check yourself: > > === CUT AND PASTE STARTS == > > > 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) > > === CUT AND PASTE ENDS === > > Perhaps you should have refrained from splitting this discussion in to too > many subthreads - it apparently can get confusing. > > > > >> > 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. > > I think it is obvious that de Broglie was quite aware of all the aether > models ever developed at the time of writing the paper under discussion. > But this is interesting, is your aether perhaps 'frictionless superfluid' > and are the particles 'frictionless supersolids'? > '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." In the analogy the swimmer is any body and the water is the aether. Just as the swimmer displaces the water, whether the swimmer is at rest with respect to the water, or not, a body displaces the aether, whether the body is at rest with respect to the aether, or not. 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium and the inertial motion of particles' http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as the ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results of our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum medium at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial motion." A particle in the super fluid medium displaces the super fluid medium, whether the particle is at rest with respect to the super fluid medium, or not. A particle in the aether displaces the aether, whether the particle is at rest with respect to the aether, or not. The particle could be an individual nucleus. Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by an individual nucleus. When discussing gravity as the pressure associated with the aether displaced by a massive object, what is being discussed is the aether being displaced by each and every nucleus which is the matter which is the object. A C-60 molecule displaces the aether. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule itself occupies a very small region of the wave. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment. The associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. When the aether displacement wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference. The Casimir Effect is caused by gravity. Each and every nucleus which is the matter which is the plate displaces the aether. The aether displaced by one plate extends past the other plate. The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the plates together. 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "These are essentially based on the way in which quantities respectively characterizing the regular v wave and the internal u0 wave of the particle connect with the neighbourhood of the singular region. u0 would have to increase very sharply as one penetrates the singular region." This seems to be very similar to Einstein's concept of: 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places". There is a connectedness between the particle and the neighborhood. There is a connectedness between the matter and the aether. The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement. > > Doesn't matter, the sub-quantum medium de Broglie is referring to, is > > the aether. > > Physics by statements - why not try mathematics for a change. And please > look at the 'hidden variables' and 'non locality' regarding this sub- > quantum medium, and come back only when your aether model can cope with > these issues. > 'Instantaneous action at a distance' is nothing more than conservation of momentum. When a downgraded photon pair are created, in order for the original photons momentum to be conserved, the downgraded photon pair must have opposite angular momentums. Why don't you revisit conservation of momentum and figure out why it doesn't apply to downgraded photon pairs in order for there to be instantaneous action at a distance. > >> > 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. > > Certainly. Why is it important to mention that obvious fact here? > > Cheers, > > Esa(R) > > -- > Dopeler effect, n.: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they > come at you rapidly.
From: Sue... on 24 Mar 2010 09:30
On Mar 24, 7:59 am, Esa Riihonen <e...(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote: [...] ======================= > > > 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 are right - I don't _know_ that, we have not yet been able to compare > beard growth rates at different depths in gravity wells with enough > accuracy. But as I said this is the result predicted by GR. General relativity predicts something about inertial trajectories. AFAIK the rate of biological processes is not related to how fast a mass moves in response to an accelerating force. The appropriate subject is a gun and metre stick. "Relativistic particle dynamics" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node126.html See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory Sue... [...] |