 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Newtonian explanation of gravitational time dilation possible?
Hi, When objects are in strong gravity. Time literally slows down (not SR wise but literally) such that in the moon, time is faster because earth gravity make our time slower. According to a famous anti-relativist who wrote an award winning book. The explanation is related to what Mitchell said that when object moves from low gravity to high gravity, there is loss of energy and reduction of frequency and increase of wavelength and this causes redshifting. Time slows down too as a result of this by causing influences on the atoms. This is a newtonian explanation against the pure spacetime concept where time slows down because of the geometry distortion. IIs the newtonian explanation possible? Can it be falsified by empirical data? Danny > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > IIs the newtonian explanation possible? Can it be > falsified by empirical data? Of course! You would slow down too if you were a cesium atom falling through a standards lab trying to shake the whole planet. :-) "Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance" http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v13/p539 << invariance with respect to time translation gives the well known law of conservation of energy>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Applications Sue... > Danny On Jul 17, 2:37 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote in sci.physics: > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Danny There is a textbook formula: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) that both relativists and anti-relativists accept. According to this formula, if the frequency decreases in a gravitational field, then either the wavelength increases and the speed of light remains constant, or the speed of light decreases and the wavelength remains constant. Which alternative is physically more reasonable? Pentcho valev pvalev@yahoo.com > On Jul 17, 2:37 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote in > sci.physics: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I'm talking of the purely temporal aspect. Baird said the GPS doesn't have to use GR because there is also a newtonian explanation for gravitational time dilation. I wonder what's the consensus about this. Anyone can illustrate what it means? D. > > On Jul 17, 2:37 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > sci.physics: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > I wonder what's the consensus about this. Anyone > can illustrate what it means? I am not sure about Baird's claim but in any case gravitational time dilation is consistent with the first alternative (the wavelength increases and the speed of light remains constant) and inconsistent with the second (the speed of light decreases and the wavelength remains constant). That is, if the second alternative is correct, gravitational time dilation simply does not exist. Note that the second alternative is consistent with Newton's emission theory of light. Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com > > On Jul 17, 2:37 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > sci.physics: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > - Show quoted text - What I mean to say is. The GR explanation is intuitive and easy. Spacetime distorts and because measurement creates reality. Time slowing down can be understood. But in a newtonian explanation. What does it mean that an atom slows down. Since measurement doesn't create reality. How can the atom or say chemical reactions of the body simply go in slow motion... is this possible at all... what principles forbid this.... hmm... D. > > On Jul 17, 2:37 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > sci.physics: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > I wonder what's the consensus about this. Anyone > can illustrate what it means? I am not sure about Baird's claim but in any case gravitational time dilation is consistent with the first alternative (the wavelength increases and the speed of light remains constant) and inconsistent with the second (the speed of light decreases and the wavelength remains constant). That is, if the second alternative is correct, gravitational time dilation simply does not exist. Note that the second alternative is consistent with Newton's emission theory of light. Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com > I'm talking of the purely temporal aspect. There is no "pure" temporal aspect, all timing has to include a mass moving in a motion, and being counted doing such Time aspects are not "pure" at all.  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > On Jul 17, 2:37 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote in > sci.physics: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > constant, or the speed of light decreases and the wavelength remains > constant. << Which alternative is physically more reasonable? >> Ask Lev. "On the Interpretation of the Redshift in a Static Gravitational Field" http://arxiv.org/abs/physics?papernum=9907017 Sue... > Pentcho valev > pva...@yahoo.com > On Jul 17, 2:37 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote in > sci.physics: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Pentcho valev > pva...@yahoo.com There may be more alternatives: L = wavelength c = speed of light 1. Both L and c decrease, but L decreases at lower rate. 2. Both L and c increase, but L increases at higher rate. The above cases complete yours, 3. L remains constant and c decreases. 4. c remains constant and L increases. > > On Jul 17, 2:37 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > sci.physics: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > - Show quoted text - What has this got to do with say chemical reactions going in slow motion?? How do you successfully create a pseudo time dilation in classical mechanics??? D. >>> On Jul 17, 2:37 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote in >>> sci.physics: [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > going in slow motion?? How do you successfully > create a pseudo time dilation in classical mechanics??? By learning about clock malfunctions first. and finding out that "time dilatons" are merely action/reaction changes and are still all newtonian based. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > > On Jul 17, 2:37 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > sci.physics: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > 3. L remains constant and c decreases. > 4. c remains constant and L increases. A simultaneous analysis of the Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka experiments would show that (3) is the only reasonable case. That is, the speed of light decreases (varies with the gravitational potential V) in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) while the wavelength remains constant. Equivalently, in the absence of a gravitational field, the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source v in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light. There is neither gravitational nor any other time dilation. Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com > > > On Jul 17, 2:37 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote in > > > sci.physics: [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > Pentcho Valev > pva...@yahoo.com Well, I was just pointing out that there may be more alternatives to the relation (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) I was not arguing which one is more reasonable. OTOH, the Equivalence Principle seems to ensure that equations c'= c(1+V/c^2) and c'= c+v are actually equivalent. Say, that an accelerated frame is indistinguishable from gravity g. Then, we can express acceleration is equivalent to gravity a = g, dv/dt = dV/dr, but, dr = c*dt, which means that any perturbation of gravitational potential propagates at speed c. Thus, dv/dt = dV/c*dt, dv = dV/c. Integrating on both sides, v = V/c. Now, from c'= c+v, we can get the equivalent c' = c + V/c, c' = c(1 + V/c^2). One question arises, is Newton's emission theory of light, expressed by the equation c'= c+v, only an approximation of a more accurate emission theory? IMHO, yes, it is an approximation to first order of v/c. There is a more accurate emission theory other than Newton's. Regards > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > According to a famous anti-relativist who wrote an > award winning book. Baird is neither famous nor award winning. He has no understanding of relativity, but that didn't stop him from publishing a book that nobody cares about. I cannot imagine a more obvious way of saying you are Baird without directly saying it. Regardless - classical mechanics is t' = t. No time dilation. Period. [snip rest] > > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > [snip rest] He's not Eric Baird, he's the Australian troll. He changed his tactics , he's no longer posting dyslexic sh.t, he's just posting pure,unadulterated sh.t :-) Eric, I asked you for help in getting a paper, did you get my email? > > > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > tactics , he's no longer posting dyslexic sh.t, he's just posting > pure,unadulterated sh.t :-) Which what now? I can't keep track of all this sh.t, I have more important things to keep in my head. > Eric, I asked you for help in getting a paper, did you get my email? Yes, and I have the paper. I just need to scan it in. > Is the newtonian explanation possible? This depends on what you mean. If one simply computes lightwave energy loss from mgh and equates it to a change in hf, one obtains essentially the same result as GR for weak fields (expressed differently, as GR has no Planck constant). This, of course, goes beyond Newtonian physics, as E=hf is a quantum equation. BUT: Newtonian physics cannot explain the time dilation of SR due to relative speed. This implies that the Newtonian "explanation" is either: A) inconsistent with the equivalence principle (EP) or B) self inconsistent This can be seen by considering a clock on a centrifuge -- the EP plus gravitational redshift clearly imply it will tick slower than a clock at rest and located adjacent to its path [#]. Analyzed in the inertial frame of the centrifuge center, taking an appropriate limit implies that speed alone must induce time dilation of the clock, and Newtonian mechanics is inconsistent with that. The EP applied to a clock on a centrifuge was an important step for Einstein on the road to GR. He recognized that the time dilation of SR implies gravitational redshift. [#] This is, of course, an implementation of the twin scenario. > Can it be > falsified by empirical data? Assuming you use a self-consistent model, then any test of the equivalence principle will falsify such an "explanation". > According to a famous anti-relativist who wrote an > award winning book. If you mean Baird, you GREATLY overstate the case. His book is chock full of errors and evidence that he simply does not understand modern physics. Tom Roberts > > Is the newtonian explanation possible? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > BUT: Newtonian physics cannot explain the time dilation of SR due to > relative speed. This implies that the Newtonian "explanation" is either: This thread is all about time dilation of physical objects in a strong gravity. I wonder if newtonian physics can explain the time dilation in GR due to gravity. For example. Chemical reactions slow down near neutron star. In relativity, this concept is not impossible because measurement creates reality or specifically. Length and time are relative concept. They have no meaning apart from the relation of the object to the observer. In newtonian mechanics. The above doesn't hold. And so I wonder how one can view or what it means for chemical reactions to slow down or half life to change considering that it can influence quantum probability which is not possible in QM. > A) inconsistent with the equivalence principle (EP) > or [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Tom Roberts Baird is a great reality check for continued patronge of spacetime. If newtonian explanation is impossible looking from all angles. Then Spacetime reigns supreme and the stunt of relativity can only occur if the universe is some kind of simulation where math dominates and create and uncreate reality. Danny > If newtonian explanation is impossible looking from all angles. It is -- Newtonian mechanics is SOUNDLY refuted. > Then Spacetime reigns supreme and the stunt of relativity can > only occur if the universe is some kind of simulation where math > dominates and create and uncreate reality. Not true. You implicitly assume Nature chose Euclidean geometry. That assumption appears to be wrong, and Nature seems to have selected locally Minkowski geometry. This is not at all "math dominates", it is just DIFFERENT from what you implicitly assume. Tom Roberts >> If newtonian explanation is impossible looking from all angles. > > It is -- Newtonian mechanics is SOUNDLY refuted. So which one of Newtons laws have been violated then? SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> Newtonian mechanics is SOUNDLY refuted. > > So which one of Newtons laws have been violated then? It's not a question of violating individual laws, it's a question of whether or not the theory makes valid predictions consistent with experimental measurements. For elementary particle experiments it doesn't -- not even close. SR and the corresponding relativistic mechanics and theories do make accurate predictions for them, and for all experiments within the domain of Newtonian mechanics. Tom Roberts >>> Newtonian mechanics is SOUNDLY refuted. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > experimental measurements. For elementary particle experiments it > doesn't -- not even close. You should look at it again then, because if it truly doesn't It has violated one of Newtons laws. > SR and the corresponding relativistic > mechanics and theories do make accurate predictions for them, and for > all experiments within the domain of Newtonian mechanics. Then show me the part Newton is wrong and what law has been broken "because " newton is wrong. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>> Newtonian mechanics is SOUNDLY refuted. >>> So which one of Newtons laws have been violated then? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You should look at it again then, because if it truly doesn't > It has violated one of Newtons laws. Newton's "laws" are really just equations of the theory known as Newtonian mechanics. They were called "laws" because they are quite general, and in the old days people thought they were universal -- they aren't. >> SR and the corresponding relativistic >> mechanics and theories do make accurate predictions for them, and for >> all experiments within the domain of Newtonian mechanics. > > Then show me the part Newton is wrong and what law has been > broken "because " newton is wrong. As I said, this is not important. Science is the process of testing THEORIES (not testing "laws"). Basically the problem is that an individual "law" cannot be applied in isolation, one must use additional aspects of the entire theory to make any predictions of experimental results. The THEORY of Newtonian mechanics makes wildly inaccurate predictions for many modern experiments. The corresponding relativistic theories do MUCH better, over a MUCH larger domain. For instance, one important and essential component of Newtonian mechanics not expressed as a "law" is the notion of inertial frame. In many cases it is this aspect which is the underlying reason that the theory makes poor predictions. Another such component is Galilean relativity.... Tom Roberts >>>>> Newtonian mechanics is SOUNDLY refuted. >>>> So which one of Newtons laws have been violated then? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > general, and in the old days people thought they were universal -- > they aren't. And again, you pull the old, It does but I can't prove which one it violated. >>> SR and the corresponding relativistic >>> mechanics and theories do make accurate predictions for them, and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > As I said, this is not important. Bullshit, It is very important. Again, you say it happens but now says it is not important because you really don't have the physical proof nor even know what law it supposedly violates. > For instance, one important and essential component of Newtonian > mechanics not expressed as a "law" is the notion of inertial frame. In > many cases it is this aspect which is the underlying reason that the > theory makes poor predictions. Another such component is Galilean > relativity.... Wrong, It only does not match Newtons inertial frame because Einstein relativity made up it's own inertial frames that make curves without true physical cause being accounted for. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > Newton's "laws" are really just equations of the theory known as > Newtonian mechanics. They were called "laws" because they are quite > general, and in the old days people thought they were universal -- they > aren't. The laws are universal whenever you have discovered something that does not fit that law. Then, you have to modify that law to allow the anomalous observation. If not, you must abandon that law. <shrug> One example is the principle of relativity. It says: “The laws of physics must be the same everywhere and every when, and any experimental outcome cannot be determined by the speed of something else that has nothing to do with this experiment.” If the absolute frame of reference were to be discovered, then the principle of relativity must be wrong. However, it can still be modified into a more general principle (than the principle of relativity) that states simply: “The laws of physics must be the same everywhere and every when.” > Science is the process of testing > THEORIES (not testing "laws"). Out of Lucent for only a few years, you are now getting very philosophical. It must be the very liberal academic environment that allows you to be so. <shrug> > Basically the problem is that an > individual "law" cannot be applied in isolation, one must use additional > aspects of the entire theory to make any predictions of experimental > results. Hmmm... More philosophical claims. <shrug> > The THEORY of Newtonian mechanics makes wildly inaccurate > predictions for many modern experiments. It is not fair for you to do that. Whenever you (plural) are trying to convict Newtonian physics, you apply very stringent error bars to the outcome of these experiments. On the other hand, you seem to relax the same error bars when you are promoting the nonsense of SR and GR. <shrug> > The corresponding relativistic > theories do MUCH better, over a MUCH larger domain. Not really. SR manifests the twin’s paradox, and there has been no experiment that supports the outcome of the twin’s paradox. Thank God that it is so, or else we will be in big trouble. Therefore, applying your own standard of judgment on SR, SR must be invalid. > For instance, one important and essential component of Newtonian > mechanics not expressed as a "law" is the notion of inertial frame. There is no special frame of reference under the principle of relativity in which Newtonian mechanics fall under. <shrug> > In > many cases it is this aspect which is the underlying reason that the > theory makes poor predictions. Let’s see. The Newtonian mechanics allows: ** Space probes out to nearly 1 light year away ** Gravitational sling shot ** Solar and lunar eclipses And more... And you call that poor predictions? > Another such component is Galilean > relativity.... What is the Galilean relativity? Do you mean the Galilean transform? If so, DITTO. <shrug> Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transform satisfy the principle of relativity. <shrug> > >> Newtonian mechanics is SOUNDLY refuted. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > mechanics and theories do make accurate predictions for them, and for > all experiments within the domain of Newtonian mechanics. The key to understanding special relativity is Einstein's relativity principle, which states that: All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments. In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Is that what the Hafele and Keating Experiment demonstrates? Is that how the Hafele and Keating Experiment is presented on the usenet relativity FAQ to which you are a contributor? Sue... > Tom Roberts > > If newtonian explanation is impossible looking from all angles. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Tom Roberts Who are you to tell us how Nature must be or behave? The nature of your textbooks is not the real Nature. So, stop preaching that stuff as the revealed TRUTH. More than one century of relativity sermons isn't more than enough? In physics there are a lot of alternative models for every set of phenomena, so choose the best for your needs, and leave the rest feel free to choose their best. BTW, Newton gravity led man to the Moon, not GR. GR was invented after Newton gravity, not before. Had Einstein been born before Newton, what kind of GR would he have invented? :-) The genius of Newton is that after his death, even the most incompetent guy (me included :-)) can propose a better theory of gravitation, even Einstein was able to. Once you know the approximated truth (Newton's gravity), the arrow has been thrown. The genius of Newton is that he gave us a clue with his theory of gravitation, a trend to follow. What trend/clue is Einstein offering us with his GR, but a blind alley (called black hole)? Regards >>> If newtonian explanation is impossible looking from all angles. >> It is -- Newtonian mechanics is SOUNDLY refuted. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Who are you to tell us how Nature must be or behave? Read what I wrote. I do no such thing. I merely report the results of literally zillions of observations. > The nature of your textbooks is not the real Nature. Sure. > So, stop preaching that stuff as the revealed TRUTH. You need to READ WHAT I WROTE. I do no such thing. <shrug> Tom Roberts | > If newtonian explanation is impossible looking from all angles. | | It is -- Newtonian mechanics is SOUNDLY refuted. Roberts is an UNSOUND fuckhead. > > If newtonian explanation is impossible looking from all angles. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Tom Roberts Even if it's Euclidean geometry or Minkowski geometry. It's still math. What is beneath the math. If we know this. We may be able to decompose the math and turn off spacetime... that is.. making it cease to exist. Is there any proof the Minkowski geometry that rule the universe is solid? It may just be a software output. How can you falsify this concept? I think the local implementation of spacetime override can be turned into a weapon. We are now 100 years past Einstein. American needs a new weapon rather than hanging to old medieval nukes. This is the fastest way to revert Iran back to stone age or others who oppose America. We have to implement foreign policy at will and we need more than nukes. Danny Honest Roberts how could you place so many idiocies in such a short text: > > Is the newtonian explanation possible? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > or > B) self inconsistent Incredible. Honest Roberts if you cannot explain why the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length, does it mean you are self inconsistent? > This can be seen by considering a clock on a centrifuge -- the EP plus > gravitational redshift clearly imply it will tick slower than a clock at > rest and located adjacent to its path [#]. Whoever told you that, Honest Roberts? Divine Albert in chapter 23 in his "Relativity"? > Analyzed in the inertial > frame of the centrifuge center, taking an appropriate limit implies that > speed alone must induce time dilation of the clock, and Newtonian > mechanics is inconsistent with that. How could it be consistent with such an idiocy Honest Roberts? > The EP applied to a clock on a centrifuge was an important > step for Einstein on the road to GR. He recognized that the > time dilation of SR implies gravitational redshift. Honest Roberts what are you talking about? Do you have a toothache? > [#] This is, of course, an implementation of the twin scenario. Twin scenario with or without accleration, Honest Roberts? > > Can it be > > falsified by empirical data? > > Assuming you use a self-consistent model, then any test of the > equivalence principle will falsify such an "explanation". And the only self-consistent model is....let me guess....yes, Divine Albert's Divine Theory! Einstein zombie world sings and goes into convulsions on hearing this: "YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ "DIVINE EINSTEIN" http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/EinsteinPics/Einsteine.jpg http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-7/images/devine_einstein.mp3 Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com > > Is the newtonian explanation possible? > > This depends on what you mean. If one simply computes lightwave energy > loss from mgh and equates it to a change in hf, one obtains essentially > the same result as GR for weak fields (expressed differently, as GR has > no Planck constant). Are you not aware that energy is conserved under Newtonian physics? Thus, mgh does not mean energy loss. Michell’s explanation of gravitational red shift comes out of the emission theory of light where light particles have no speed limit. That was before electromagnetism. With light being wavelike, there is no crisp and definitive explanation to the gravitational red shift. The explanation of gravitational red shift under the concept of GR is also very poor. <shrug> > This, of course, goes beyond Newtonian physics, as E=hf is > a quantum equation. There is no quantization in this equation. Thus, I disagree that (E = h f) is a quantum equation. In fact, it should part of the extension to electromagnetism. <shrug> > BUT: Newtonian physics cannot explain the time dilation of SR due to > relative speed. This implies that the Newtonian "explanation" is either: > > A) inconsistent with the equivalence principle (EP) > or > B) self inconsistent The Galilean transform does explain the null results of the MMX under the emission theory of light. However, under electromagnetism, it fails to do so. That is why Voigt was motivated to modify the Galilean transform to explain the null results of the MMX with light as a manifestation of electromagnetism. Now with the Voigt transform able to explain the null results of the MMX, it fails at reconciliation with the principle of relativity. Lorentz transform was proposed as a modification to the Voigt transform to satisfy the null results of the MMX and the principle of relativity. It just turned out that the Lorentz transform predicts the phenomenon of time dilation where both the Galilean and the Voigt transforms don’t. So, this is not an issue of the principle of equivalence. It merely takes a lot of faith to accept any of these transforms and reject the other two. However, right of the bat, I can easily tell you the Lorentz transform is absurd. It cannot possibly a mathematical model to describe the real world because it manifests the twin’s paradox through the combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity as first analyzed by Poincare as relative simultaneity. The Galilean transform still has the hope of being valid in general only after a proper modification to electromagnetism. The Voigt transform actually works, but it does not obey the principle of relativity nor manifests time dilation. > This can be seen by considering a clock on a centrifuge -- the EP plus > gravitational redshift clearly imply it will tick slower than a clock at > rest and located adjacent to its path [#]. Unfortunately for y’all, time dilation under the Lorentz transform manifests a blue shift not a red shift. This can very simply be found in the very mathematics of the transform. Thus, your argument to justify gravitational red shift has fallen apart already. <shrug> > Analyzed in the inertial > frame of the centrifuge center, taking an appropriate limit implies that > speed alone must induce time dilation of the clock, and Newtonian > mechanics is inconsistent with that. It does not matter how much you criticize Newtonian mechanics. Both SR and GR do manifest other problems. <shrug> > The EP applied to a clock on a centrifuge was an important > step for Einstein on the road to GR. Ahahaha... This is not true. Einstein rediscovered the principle of equivalence only after finally understood the Newtonian law of gravity. Little did he know (or a plagiarist) that Galileo had discovered the same principle more than 300 years prior. It was through the principle of equivalence that allowed Newtonian to derive the law of gravity. Newton did so by observing how an apple would behave under the influence of gravity. This is a good discovery. Einstein, on the other hand, tried to imagine how he himself would behave under the influence of gravity. If you ask me, that is a very stupid way of doing any scientific investigation. As you have correctly identified, the only outcome to that is an eventual tragic end as Einstein’s eventual interception with the ground according to Newtonian mechanics. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did not stop there. He being very shallow in mathematical skills enlisted Grossmann’s help to do these fancy coordinate transformations, but that was basically a waste of time. <shrug> > He recognized that the > time dilation of SR implies gravitational redshift. Einstein’s thinking has no time dilation or SR in mind: ** Speed away manifests red shift. [TRUE] ** Gravity is speeding away. [FALSE] ** Thus, gravity also manifests red shift. In truth, the Lorentz transform manifests time dilation and blue shift due to the gamma factor. If gravity manifests time dilation, then logically you have to say actually GR predicts a gravitational blue shift. Is this type of thinking way too scientific-methodologically oriented for the believers of SR and GR to follow? > > > Is the newtonian explanation possible? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > h f) is a quantum equation. In fact, it should part of the extension > to electromagnetism. <shrug> Not every object in quantum mechanics is discrete, arrogant idiot. [snip remaining arrogant stupidity, unread] > Not every object in quantum mechanics is discrete, arrogant idiot. So, the opening line from a multi-year super-senior is still an insult like many instances before. <shrug> In the meantime, you still have to address what I have brought up. On Jul 17, 7:19 am, Tom Roberts wrote: > Danny Milano wrote: > > Is the newtonian explanation possible? > > This depends on what you mean. If one simply computes lightwave energy > loss from mgh and equates it to a change in hf, one obtains essentially > the same result as GR for weak fields (expressed differently, as GR has > no Planck constant). Are you not aware that energy is conserved under Newtonian physics? Thus, mgh does not mean energy loss. Michell’s explanation of gravitational red shift comes out of the emission theory of light where light particles have no speed limit. That was before electromagnetism. With light being wavelike, there is no crisp and definitive explanation to the gravitational red shift. The explanation of gravitational red shift under the concept of GR is also very poor. <shrug> > This, of course, goes beyond Newtonian physics, as E=hf is > a quantum equation. There is no quantization in this equation. Thus, I disagree that (E = h f) is a quantum equation. In fact, it should part of the extension to electromagnetism. <shrug> > BUT: Newtonian physics cannot explain the time dilation of SR due to > relative speed. This implies that the Newtonian "explanation" is either: > > A) inconsistent with the equivalence principle (EP) > or > B) self inconsistent The Galilean transform does explain the null results of the MMX under the emission theory of light. However, under electromagnetism, it fails to do so. That is why Voigt was motivated to modify the Galilean transform to explain the null results of the MMX with light as a manifestation of electromagnetism. Now with the Voigt transform able to explain the null results of the MMX, it fails at reconciliation with the principle of relativity. Lorentz transform was proposed as a modification to the Voigt transform to satisfy the null results of the MMX and the principle of relativity. It just turned out that the Lorentz transform predicts the phenomenon of time dilation where both the Galilean and the Voigt transforms don’t. So, this is not an issue of the principle of equivalence. It merely takes a lot of faith to accept any of these transforms and reject the other two. However, right of the bat, I can easily tell you the Lorentz transform is absurd. It cannot possibly a mathematical model to describe the real world because it manifests the twin’s paradox through the combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity as first analyzed by Poincare as relative simultaneity. The Galilean transform still has the hope of being valid in general only after a proper modification to electromagnetism. The Voigt transform actually works, but it does not obey the principle of relativity nor manifests time dilation. > This can be seen by considering a clock on a centrifuge -- the EP plus > gravitational redshift clearly imply it will tick slower than a clock at > rest and located adjacent to its path [#]. Unfortunately for y’all, time dilation under the Lorentz transform manifests a blue shift not a red shift. This can very simply be found in the very mathematics of the transform. Thus, your argument to justify gravitational red shift has fallen apart already. <shrug> > Analyzed in the inertial > frame of the centrifuge center, taking an appropriate limit implies that > speed alone must induce time dilation of the clock, and Newtonian > mechanics is inconsistent with that. It does not matter how much you criticize Newtonian mechanics. Both SR and GR do manifest other problems. <shrug> > The EP applied to a clock on a centrifuge was an important > step for Einstein on the road to GR. Ahahaha... This is not true. Einstein rediscovered the principle of equivalence only after finally understood the Newtonian law of gravity. Little did he know (or a plagiarist) that Galileo had discovered the same principle more than 300 years prior. It was through the principle of equivalence that allowed Newtonian to derive the law of gravity. Newton did so by observing how an apple would behave under the influence of gravity. This is a good discovery. Einstein, on the other hand, tried to imagine how he himself would behave under the influence of gravity. If you ask me, that is a very stupid way of doing any scientific investigation. As you have correctly identified, the only outcome to that is an eventual tragic end as Einstein’s eventual interception with the ground according to Newtonian mechanics. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did not stop there. He being very shallow in mathematical skills enlisted Grossmann’s help to do these fancy coordinate transformations, but that was basically a waste of time. <shrug> > He recognized that the > time dilation of SR implies gravitational redshift. Einstein’s thinking has no time dilation or SR in mind: ** Speed away manifests red shift. [TRUE] ** Gravity is speeding away. [FALSE] ** Thus, gravity also manifests red shift. In truth, the Lorentz transform manifests time dilation and blue shift due to the gamma factor. If gravity manifests time dilation, then logically you have to say actually GR predicts a gravitational blue shift. Is this type of thinking way too scientific-methodologically oriented for the believers of SR and GR to follow? > > Not every object in quantum mechanics is discrete, arrogant idiot. > > So, the opening line from a multi-year super-senior is still an insult > like many instances before. <shrug> Pretty bold for someone who hides under a pseudonym. > In the meantime, you still have to address what I have brought up. I don't have to do anything, anonymous coward. [snip] > Pretty bold for someone who hides under a pseudonym. > > I don't have to do anything, anonymous coward. You sound very pissed off because I have pushed the right button in which Professor Roberts had no choice but to put his tail between his legs and run away. Well, as a loser, I wonder what other ungentlemanly acts can you possibly come up with? In the meantime, you still have yet to address what I have brought up. On Jul 17, 7:19 am, Tom Roberts wrote: > Danny Milano wrote: > > Is the newtonian explanation possible? > This depends on what you mean. If one simply computes lightwave energy > loss from mgh and equates it to a change in hf, one obtains essentially > the same result as GR for weak fields (expressed differently, as GR has > no Planck constant). Are you not aware that energy is conserved under Newtonian physics? Thus, mgh does not mean energy loss. Michell’s explanation of gravitational red shift comes out of the emission theory of light where light particles have no speed limit. That was before electromagnetism. With light being wavelike, there is no crisp and definitive explanation to the gravitational red shift. The explanation of gravitational red shift under the concept of GR is also very poor. <shrug> > This, of course, goes beyond Newtonian physics, as E=hf is > a quantum equation. There is no quantization in this equation. Thus, I disagree that (E = h f) is a quantum equation. In fact, it should part of the extension to electromagnetism. <shrug> > BUT: Newtonian physics cannot explain the time dilation of SR due to > relative speed. This implies that the Newtonian "explanation" is either: > A) inconsistent with the equivalence principle (EP) > or > B) self inconsistent The Galilean transform does explain the null results of the MMX under the emission theory of light. However, under electromagnetism, it fails to do so. That is why Voigt was motivated to modify the Galilean transform to explain the null results of the MMX with light as a manifestation of electromagnetism. Now with the Voigt transform able to explain the null results of the MMX, it fails at reconciliation with the principle of relativity. Lorentz transform was proposed as a modification to the Voigt transform to satisfy the null results of the MMX and the principle of relativity. It just turned out that the Lorentz transform predicts the phenomenon of time dilation where both the Galilean and the Voigt transforms don’t. So, this is not an issue of the principle of equivalence. It merely takes a lot of faith to accept any of these transforms and reject the other two. However, right of the bat, I can easily tell you the Lorentz transform is absurd. It cannot possibly a mathematical model to describe the real world because it manifests the twin’s paradox through the combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity as first analyzed by Poincare as relative simultaneity. The Galilean transform still has the hope of being valid in general only after a proper modification to electromagnetism. The Voigt transform actually works, but it does not obey the principle of relativity nor manifests time dilation. > This can be seen by considering a clock on a centrifuge -- the EP plus > gravitational redshift clearly imply it will tick slower than a clock at > rest and located adjacent to its path [#]. Unfortunately for y’all, time dilation under the Lorentz transform manifests a blue shift not a red shift. This can very simply be found in the very mathematics of the transform. Thus, your argument to justify gravitational red shift has fallen apart already. <shrug> > Analyzed in the inertial > frame of the centrifuge center, taking an appropriate limit implies that > speed alone must induce time dilation of the clock, and Newtonian > mechanics is inconsistent with that. It does not matter how much you criticize Newtonian mechanics. Both SR and GR do manifest other problems. <shrug> > The EP applied to a clock on a centrifuge was an important > step for Einstein on the road to GR. Ahahaha... This is not true. Einstein rediscovered the principle of equivalence only after finally understood the Newtonian law of gravity. Little did he know (or a plagiarist) that Galileo had discovered the same principle more than 300 years prior. It was through the principle of equivalence that allowed Newtonian to derive the law of gravity. Newton did so by observing how an apple would behave under the influence of gravity. This is a good discovery. Einstein, on the other hand, tried to imagine how he himself would behave under the influence of gravity. If you ask me, that is a very stupid way of doing any scientific investigation. As you have correctly identified, the only outcome to that is an eventual tragic end as Einstein’s eventual interception with the ground according to Newtonian mechanics. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did not stop there. He being very shallow in mathematical skills enlisted Grossmann’s help to do these fancy coordinate transformations, but that was basically a waste of time. <shrug> > He recognized that the > time dilation of SR implies gravitational redshift. Einstein’s thinking has no time dilation or SR in mind: ** Speed away manifests red shift. [TRUE] ** Gravity is speeding away. [FALSE] ** Thus, gravity also manifests red shift. In truth, the Lorentz transform manifests time dilation and blue shift due to the gamma factor. If gravity manifests time dilation, then logically you have to say actually GR predicts a gravitational blue shift. Is this type of thinking way too scientific-methodologically oriented for the believers of SR and GR to follow? > > Pretty bold for someone who hides under a pseudonym. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In the meantime, you still have yet to address what I have brought > up. What's the point? You've simply added more ignorant rambling about quantum mechanics to the usual assortment of stupidities you utter regarding relativity. If you were capable of learning, you wouldn't be here. [snip repeated stupidities] > What's the point? You've simply added more ignorant rambling about > quantum mechanics to the usual assortment of stupidities you utter > regarding relativity. You have no answer to the issues I have brought up. You are merely trolling and stalling time for the more-expert to bail you out. <shrug> > If you were capable of learning, you wouldn't be here. You are so full of sh*t. < shrug> In the meantime, you still have yet to address what I have brought up. On Jul 17, 7:19 am, Tom Roberts wrote: > Danny Milano wrote: > > Is the newtonian explanation possible? > This depends on what you mean. If one simply computes lightwave energy > loss from mgh and equates it to a change in hf, one obtains essentially > the same result as GR for weak fields (expressed differently, as GR has > no Planck constant). Are you not aware that energy is conserved under Newtonian physics? Thus, mgh does not mean energy loss. Michell’s explanation of gravitational red shift comes out of the emission theory of light where light particles have no speed limit. That was before electromagnetism. With light being wavelike, there is no crisp and definitive explanation to the gravitational red shift. The explanation of gravitational red shift under the concept of GR is also very poor. <shrug> > This, of course, goes beyond Newtonian physics, as E=hf is > a quantum equation. There is no quantization in this equation. Thus, I disagree that (E = h f) is a quantum equation. In fact, it should part of the extension to electromagnetism. <shrug> > BUT: Newtonian physics cannot explain the time dilation of SR due to > relative speed. This implies that the Newtonian "explanation" is either: > A) inconsistent with the equivalence principle (EP) > or > B) self inconsistent The Galilean transform does explain the null results of the MMX under the emission theory of light. However, under electromagnetism, it fails to do so. That is why Voigt was motivated to modify the Galilean transform to explain the null results of the MMX with light as a manifestation of electromagnetism. Now with the Voigt transform able to explain the null results of the MMX, it fails at reconciliation with the principle of relativity. Lorentz transform was proposed as a modification to the Voigt transform to satisfy the null results of the MMX and the principle of relativity. It just turned out that the Lorentz transform predicts the phenomenon of time dilation where both the Galilean and the Voigt transforms don’t. So, this is not an issue of the principle of equivalence. It merely takes a lot of faith to accept any of these transforms and reject the other two. However, right of the bat, I can easily tell you the Lorentz transform is absurd. It cannot possibly a mathematical model to describe the real world because it manifests the twin’s paradox through the combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity as first analyzed by Poincare as relative simultaneity. The Galilean transform still has the hope of being valid in general only after a proper modification to electromagnetism. The Voigt transform actually works, but it does not obey the principle of relativity nor manifests time dilation. > This can be seen by considering a clock on a centrifuge -- the EP plus > gravitational redshift clearly imply it will tick slower than a clock at > rest and located adjacent to its path [#]. Unfortunately for y’all, time dilation under the Lorentz transform manifests a blue shift not a red shift. This can very simply be found in the very mathematics of the transform. Thus, your argument to justify gravitational red shift has fallen apart already. <shrug> > Analyzed in the inertial > frame of the centrifuge center, taking an appropriate limit implies that > speed alone must induce time dilation of the clock, and Newtonian > mechanics is inconsistent with that. It does not matter how much you criticize Newtonian mechanics. Both SR and GR do manifest other problems. <shrug> > The EP applied to a clock on a centrifuge was an important > step for Einstein on the road to GR. Ahahaha... This is not true. Einstein rediscovered the principle of equivalence only after finally understood the Newtonian law of gravity. Little did he know (or a plagiarist) that Galileo had discovered the same principle more than 300 years prior. It was through the principle of equivalence that allowed Newtonian to derive the law of gravity. Newton did so by observing how an apple would behave under the influence of gravity. This is a good discovery. Einstein, on the other hand, tried to imagine how he himself would behave under the influence of gravity. If you ask me, that is a very stupid way of doing any scientific investigation. As you have correctly identified, the only outcome to that is an eventual tragic end as Einstein’s eventual interception with the ground according to Newtonian mechanics. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did not stop there. He being very shallow in mathematical skills enlisted Grossmann’s help to do these fancy coordinate transformations, but that was basically a waste of time. <shrug> > He recognized that the > time dilation of SR implies gravitational redshift. Einstein’s thinking has no time dilation or SR in mind: ** Speed away manifests red shift. [TRUE] ** Gravity is speeding away. [FALSE] ** Thus, gravity also manifests red shift. In truth, the Lorentz transform manifests time dilation and blue shift due to the gamma factor. If gravity manifests time dilation, then logically you have to say actually GR predicts a gravitational blue shift. Is this type of thinking way too scientific-methodologically oriented for the believers of SR and GR to follow? > > What's the point? You've simply added more ignorant rambling about > > quantum mechanics to the usual assortment of stupidities you utter [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > trolling and stalling time for the more-expert to bail you out. > <shrug> Nice attempt at goading, but it won't work. > > If you were capable of learning, you wouldn't be here. > > You are so full of sh*t. < shrug> > > In the meantime, you still have yet to address what I have brought > up. ...and I won't, because it serves no purpose than to feed your ego. [snip repeated stupidities] > > You have no answer to the issues I have brought up. You are merely > > trolling and stalling time for the more-expert to bail you out. > > <shrug> > > Nice attempt at goading, but it won't work. What attempt is that? You have read my post and fell sick because of lack of counter-arguments. Now, what other tricks do you have to brush these issues under the rug? > ...and I won't, because it serves no purpose than to feed your ego. A scientific discussion does not involve any ego. If you are wrong, you’d better find a graceful retreat as Professor Carlip had pointed out. In this particular case, you don’t have to worry about how I am looking for that graceful retreat. It is the academics who have to do so. <shrug> All I have seen is some multi-year super-senior voluntarily to stalls and tries to brush these issues under the rug while the academic power house just sit back with their tails between their legs pretending nothing has happened. <shrug> What did they offer you to be the henchman of dis-progress in scientific methods? A bullsh*t degree in 10 years? How does it feel to sell out your soul to the Devil? In the meantime, you still have yet to address what I have brought up. On Jul 17, 7:19 am, Tom Roberts wrote: > Danny Milano wrote: > > Is the newtonian explanation possible? > This depends on what you mean. If one simply computes lightwave energy > loss from mgh and equates it to a change in hf, one obtains essentially > the same result as GR for weak fields (expressed differently, as GR has > no Planck constant). Are you not aware that energy is conserved under Newtonian physics? Thus, mgh does not mean energy loss. Michell’s explanation of gravitational red shift comes out of the emission theory of light where light particles have no speed limit. That was before electromagnetism. With light being wavelike, there is no crisp and definitive explanation to the gravitational red shift. The explanation of gravitational red shift under the concept of GR is also very poor. <shrug> > This, of course, goes beyond Newtonian physics, as E=hf is > a quantum equation. There is no quantization in this equation. Thus, I disagree that (E = h f) is a quantum equation. In fact, it should part of the extension to electromagnetism. <shrug> > BUT: Newtonian physics cannot explain the time dilation of SR due to > relative speed. This implies that the Newtonian "explanation" is either: > A) inconsistent with the equivalence principle (EP) > or > B) self inconsistent The Galilean transform does explain the null results of the MMX under the emission theory of light. However, under electromagnetism, it fails to do so. That is why Voigt was motivated to modify the Galilean transform to explain the null results of the MMX with light as a manifestation of electromagnetism. Now with the Voigt transform able to explain the null results of the MMX, it fails at reconciliation with the principle of relativity. Lorentz transform was proposed as a modification to the Voigt transform to satisfy the null results of the MMX and the principle of relativity. It just turned out that the Lorentz transform predicts the phenomenon of time dilation where both the Galilean and the Voigt transforms don’t. So, this is not an issue of the principle of equivalence. It merely takes a lot of faith to accept any of these transforms and reject the other two. However, right of the bat, I can easily tell you the Lorentz transform is absurd. It cannot possibly a mathematical model to describe the real world because it manifests the twin’s paradox through the combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity as first analyzed by Poincare as relative simultaneity. The Galilean transform still has the hope of being valid in general only after a proper modification to electromagnetism. The Voigt transform actually works, but it does not obey the principle of relativity nor manifests time dilation. > This can be seen by considering a clock on a centrifuge -- the EP plus > gravitational redshift clearly imply it will tick slower than a clock at > rest and located adjacent to its path [#]. Unfortunately for y’all, time dilation under the Lorentz transform manifests a blue shift not a red shift. This can very simply be found in the very mathematics of the transform. Thus, your argument to justify gravitational red shift has fallen apart already. <shrug> > Analyzed in the inertial > frame of the centrifuge center, taking an appropriate limit implies that > speed alone must induce time dilation of the clock, and Newtonian > mechanics is inconsistent with that. It does not matter how much you criticize Newtonian mechanics. Both SR and GR do manifest other problems. <shrug> > The EP applied to a clock on a centrifuge was an important > step for Einstein on the road to GR. Ahahaha... This is not true. Einstein rediscovered the principle of equivalence only after finally understood the Newtonian law of gravity. Little did he know (or a plagiarist) that Galileo had discovered the same principle more than 300 years prior. It was through the principle of equivalence that allowed Newtonian to derive the law of gravity. Newton did so by observing how an apple would behave under the influence of gravity. This is a good discovery. Einstein, on the other hand, tried to imagine how he himself would behave under the influence of gravity. If you ask me, that is a very stupid way of doing any scientific investigation. As you have correctly identified, the only outcome to that is an eventual tragic end as Einstein’s eventual interception with the ground according to Newtonian mechanics. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did not stop there. He being very shallow in mathematical skills enlisted Grossmann’s help to do these fancy coordinate transformations, but that was basically a waste of time. <shrug> > He recognized that the > time dilation of SR implies gravitational redshift. Einstein’s thinking has no time dilation or SR in mind: ** Speed away manifests red shift. [TRUE] ** Gravity is speeding away. [FALSE] ** Thus, gravity also manifests red shift. In truth, the Lorentz transform manifests time dilation and blue shift due to the gamma factor. If gravity manifests time dilation, then logically you have to say actually GR predicts a gravitational blue shift. Is this type of thinking way too scientific-methodologically oriented for the believers of SR and GR to follow? > > > You have no answer to the issues I have brought up. You are merely > > > trolling and stalling time for the more-expert to bail you out. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lack of counter-arguments. Now, what other tricks do you have to > brush these issues under the rug? The only thing I've felt while reading your posts is a vague sense of boredom, and hunger. I should go cook something. Eggs on toast? > > ...and I won't, because it serves no purpose than to feed your ego. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > while the academic power house just sit back with their tails between > their legs pretending nothing has happened. <shrug> It is nobody's fault but your own that you cannot realize your own limitations. You delude yourself into believing you understand the material even though you cannot even derive the surface area of a sphere without resorting to insults and proof by assertion. > What did they offer you to be the henchman of dis-progress in > scientific methods? A bullsh*t degree in 10 years? How does it feel > to sell out your soul to the Devil? When did progress in physics stop, in your estimation? I've been offered and promised exactly nothing. A degree is not a promise of employment, satisfaction, or a good life. An education is what you make of it - and I'm making something interesting of it right now. > In the meantime, you still have yet to address what I have brought > up. I hadn't noticed. [...] > > > > You have no answer to the issues I have brought up. You are merely > > > > trolling and stalling time for the more-expert to bail you out. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Eggs on toast? Good idea. Take one of the springs out of the toaster and figure out how it can know that a clock is moving away from it at a significant fraction of the speed of light. "Torsion Pendulum" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node139.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke's_law Sue... << insert insult here to indicate you can't do it >> [...] [snip irrelevant sh.t] Stop posting every link you find on google, k? > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > IIs the newtonian explanation possible? Can it be > falsified by empirical data? When under higher gravitational forces, it is action/re-actions that slow down, not time, If you wish to work with science, You use single standard for "time" so you will know if action/reactions slowed down at all and how much they have slowed down. (otherwise) you would not be able to even tell if action/reaction slowed and you would be using multiple standards for time instead of using the singel standard scientific method for timing. You want the science of physics that uses the science of measurement, Or the theories of physics that uses mutliple standards and lost the scientific parts completely? SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > When objects are in strong gravity. Time literally slows down > (not SR wise but literally) such that in the moon, time is > faster because earth gravity make our time slower. One can calculate this effect (confirmed by satellite clocks). See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > low gravity to high gravity, there is loss of energy and > reduction of frequency and increase of wavelength Conform to observation. > and this causes redshifting. Time slows down too as > a result of this by causing influences on the atoms. > This is a newtonian explanation against the pure > spacetime concept where time slows down because > of the geometry distortion. The general conclusion is that "time" slows down, but what is really observed in reality is that "atomic clocks" slow down. An experimental observation that is interpreted as actual time slowing down. > IIs the newtonian explanation possible? Can it be > falsified by empirical data? Definitely. One day, this will be verified. The explanation is linked to the manner with wich atomic clocks (cesium, hydrogen, etc) measure time. There are tens of links on the net talking about it, but none that I scanned explains the real operation. I didn't have the patience to scan them all. However, I can refer you to very clean source that you can go check in just about any library, if you don't have the book yourself. It is in one of the most popular and respected undergrad textbooks around. "PHYSICS", by Halliday and Resnick. In the 1967 edition, you will find a complete description of how cesium atomic clocks work on pages 7 to 11, with a clean schematic on page 9. It is obvious that most physicists believe that it means that times runs faster with altitude, but you can draw your own conclusions. Hydrogen and some other materials besides cesium are also used in other types of atomic clocks, but they all operate on the same principle. The principle is that cesium atoms can be forced to consistantly emit a photon of a very specific frequency as an electron of its escort moves from one specific orbital to one closer to the nucleus. The frequency of photons emitted by quantum jumps from a specific orbital to a lower specific orbital can increase for only one possible reason in a Newtonian interpretation, and it is that the nucleus attraction would increase with increasing altitude, which implies that its mass would increase or decrease with decreasing altitude implying that the nuclear mass has decreased. We know that nucleons are made up of physically scatterable and charged up and down quarks that are in rapid relativistic motion, a motion that determine their physical diameter. Since they are charged, they obviously interact more strongly with the charged components (quarks up and down and electrons) of other atoms in the vicinity than with those located further away. As an atomic clock is taken from altitude to a lower altitude, the cesium atoms nuclei get closer to the huge mass of the earth and their quarks up and down are drawn outwards more strongly from all sides, enlarging the translation diameter of the quarks in nucleons, making the nucleons less massive, which in turn loosens the electronic escort orbitals. This will of course cause the hyperfine jump chosen for time measurement to also loosen and release photons of longer wavelength, which is what is observed, and commented on by your author. The opposite of course will occur when an atomic clock is taken from the ground to altitude. A tightening of the local orbits of the captive up and down quarks that make up the nucleons will cause an increase in their relativistic inertia, thus their effective mass. Since these clocks are constantly monitored to recalibrate by comparing the current chosen frequency of photons emitted by a microwave oscillator to energize ceasium atoms, what is seen as a measure of time dilation is the increase in frequency that the oscillator must emit for the resulting beam of ceasium atom to continue hitting the target as altitude increases. Very simple and totally Newtonian explanation. One point of interest is that this apparent time "dilation" may exist only for such atomic clocks. Now how could this be verified experimentally Simply by doing the altitude tests with properly monitored mechanical clocks. One other experiment that I also have suggested is to verify whether or not elements become more massive with altitude. Very easy to carry out. André Michaud >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > slow down. An experimental observation that is > interpreted as actual time slowing down. And very sadly determined that way, since the only way to match such "math" is to use a multiple standard for "time and distance". Science would find out "what physically made the clock change rate" And when such is done, science will take it's next leap into the future. I such is not done, science is still basically stuck in 1905. :) The simple statement that can not be disputed is The clock malfunctioned in it's proper operation in the same newtonian faults that a pendulum clock has the same problem and always has since the invention of the human built clock. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On 17 juil, 13:11, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > srp2...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Hi, [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > I such is not done, science is still basically stuck in 1905. > :) I am optimistic. I explain the whole procedure and much more in a book thousands of copies of which have already been disseminated to I don't know how many hundreds of institutions all over the planet, right into physics depts. It is only a matter of time for eventual discussion and action in the community. Once something has been understood by someone, there is no way that he will un-understand it. > The simple statement that can not be disputed is > The clock malfunctioned in it's proper operation > in the same newtonian faults that a pendulum clock > has the same problem and always has since the invention > of the human built clock. > :) The one problem here, is that no proper altitude test was ever carried with mechanical clocks (very unscientifically deemed useless) for comparison and confirmation of time dilation by a second unrelated method. The day these tests are carried out, we will finally have the answer and at long last move away from 1905. André Michaud > On 17 juil, 13:11, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > disseminated to I don't know how many hundreds of institutions > all over the planet, right into physics depts. That is good, and hopefully the "teachers" will undertstand them and use them correctly. If not, teachers are not "permanant" anyways and new teachers will more than likely be some of the students that did learn the facts about such instead of only the "hype" associated with relativity. > It is only a matter of time for eventual discussion and > action in the community. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The day these tests are carried out, we will finally have > the answer and at long last move away from 1905. True. I bet it has never been done because the typicle group of relativists are affraid of such "real" scientific experiments occuring. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> The one problem here, is that no proper altitude test was >> ever carried with mechanical clocks (very unscientifically [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of relativists are affraid of such "real" scientific experiments > occuring. You are both free to pursue the matter. Get yourselves some mechanical clocks, climb some mountains and plumb some valleys, collect some data. Before you set out, though, it might be worth investigating the magnitude of the effect you're looking to measure, and compare it with the accuracy of available mechanical clocks. >>> The one problem here, is that no proper altitude test was >>> ever carried with mechanical clocks (very unscientifically [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the magnitude of the effect you're looking to measure, and > compare it with the accuracy of available mechanical clocks. Greg, Do you think a pendulum clock will not show a different time rate on top of the mountain compared to at the bottom? >>>> The one problem here, is that no proper altitude test was >>>> ever carried with mechanical clocks (very unscientifically [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Do you think a pendulum clock will not show a different > time rate on top of the mountain compared to at the bottom? As I said, you'll want to look into the accuracy of the available clocks versus the magnitide of the effect you are hoping to measure. You will also want to account for local mass distributions (mountains are massive), air pressure, temperature and humidity changes and so on, in short, anything that you know can have an impact on clock rates to make sure that the effect you want to measure is larger than these interferences. A pendulum clock, by its nature, incorporates the local acceleration due to gravity in determining its period. So you'll have to factor this out, too, if you're looking for dilation effects. I will state that in theory, yes, *any* clock will show a different rate compared to another at a different gravitational potential (regardless of its type). >>>>> The one problem here, is that no proper altitude test was >>>>> ever carried with mechanical clocks (very unscientifically [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > determining its period. So you'll have to factor this > out, too, if you're looking for dilation effects. You want me to factor gravity out? But Gravity effects is what changes the dang clock. So that would be silly if we wanted to find out how much gravity changed it by. LOL you are truly lost. The whole thing is to see if gravity difference changes the rate. All the otheh things are easy to "remove" > I will state that in theory, yes, *any* clock will show > a different rate compared to another at a different > gravitational potential (regardless of its type). Ok, And what is the cause of such? The g-force change alone will be the only thing left since that is the only thing not being removed. >>>>>> The one problem here, is that no proper altitude test was >>>>>> ever carried with mechanical clocks (very unscientifically [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > You want me to factor gravity out? Of course. You chose a clock whose functioning directly incorporates gravity in its workings. The mathematical expression for the period of the pendulum contains the local acceleration due to gravity. The expected period of the pendulum for a given position on or near the Earth will include this information. Time dilation effects are an *additionl* factor. Alternatively, you could measure the local acceleration due to gravity and set the length of your pendulum accordingly to produce the desired period. I doubt, though, that you will be able to accomplish this setting with sufficient accuracy to uncover the GR dilation effect; it's a matter of mechanical precision. Any time dilation effect will not be apparent until you compare the clock period or readings with another clock in a different potential. > But Gravity effects is what changes the dang clock. > So that would be silly if we wanted to find out how much > gravity changed it by. Then don't use a gravitation based clock. Use a torsion spring and flywheel (you can position it horizontally to avoid gravitational potential changes). Or use an electronic clock. Or a radioactive decay clock. There are many choices. > LOL > you are truly lost. > The whole thing is to see if gravity difference changes the rate. > All the otheh things are easy to "remove" I'm lost? You chose the type of clock. You might as well choose a water clock for underwater use. >> I will state that in theory, yes, *any* clock will show >> a different rate compared to another at a different [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The g-force change alone will be the only thing left > since that is the only thing not being removed. Not g-force. Gravitational potential. A clock in frefall, thus feeling no gravitational forces across it, still is subject to the same dilation effect. To the best of our knowledge (and as usual you won't like it) it is due to the geometry of spacetime as shaped by mass and energy (I told you you wouldn't like it). >>>>>>> The one problem here, is that no proper altitude test was >>>>>>> ever carried with mechanical clocks (very unscientifically [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Of course. You chose a clock whose functioning > directly incorporates gravity in its workings. Just like the most accurate atomic fountain clock actually does. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>>>>>> The one |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message