"Tom Roberts" escreveu na mensagem
...
El Enrrabadore-mor wrote:
"Tom Roberts" escreveu na mensagem
t...
For circular motion, |v(t)| is constant:
\tau = sqrt(1-|v|^2/c2) (T2 - T1)

I just didn't realise that you've simplified that much the problem.

Look at the subject of this thread. "simplifying" to circular motion is
what is being discussed.


Such simplification makes your solution ridiculous, that's all.

It's not "ridiculous", it is what this thread is about. I gave a general
equation (in response to an inquiry), and then applied it to the subject
of this thread. shrug


If you find the thread subject (the original inquiry) ridiculous,
I must say it is not, since it is just a limit case of a very
real and possible situation.
We have about 7 planets that have almost perfect circular orbits
around the Sun. All of which have different speeds and different
gravitational fields. One can build 7 atomic clocks and place
one per each planet during, say, 10 Years.
After 10 Years running at different rates, clocks can be
brought back to Earth and its elapsed time compared.
If time has to differ, relativity must be able to predict those
differences. That's what the inquiry is all about.

If you find the above example not feasible and real enough,
and have a better one.
Draw a straight line from the center of the Sun passing
by the center of the Earth. such line will cross the Earth
surface in two points, one closer to the Sun and another
the Earth diameter long. Such two points will have a
differential speed of around 3,000 km/h due to daily
Earth rotation, plus a square term additional velocity
due to the radius increase relative to the Sun.
Also you can consider the GPS satellites that revolve,
if I remember correctly, around a 24,000 km radius.
For GPS satellites the speed difference is much larger.

According to Your "relativity circular motion" theory
one should measure daily, or in a matter of hours,
changes in the clock rates. Actually, the accuracy of
GPS system must show deviations along the day and
in a matter of hours too. But they don't, because as
I remember nobody accounted for the radius distance
change relative to the Sun during Earth circular orbit.


[...]
To compare, or to say, that circular motion is the same
thing as linear motion, sounds ridiculous to me.

What is ridiculous is your "sound bite" approach to physics.

Nowhere does anybody claim "circular motion is the same thing as linear
motion". But when the formula in question depends only on |v|, and when
one considers a constant |v| (which can apply to either linear or circular
motion), then THE FORMULA gives THE SAME ANSWER for the two types of
motion. This does not in any way imply the motions themselves are "the
same".

This is not limited to just linear and circular motion
-- ANY motion with constant |v| obtains the same answer
from this formula.

Sounds fair enough, but things are not that simple.
For starters, there are no massless particles.
The equivalence principles simply removes the mass from
the theory. Therefore, forces like centrifugal force, centripetal
acceleration and gyroscopic momentum (Iw) have been
conveniently removed.

And what about the length?
There's one thing I'm sure about circular motion. You cannot
have time dilatation and length contraction at the same time
for circular motion.
You cannot say that a circle doesn't measure 6,28... radians
anymore. You cannot say that for a speed equal to the speed
of light the perimeter of the circle is zero.
And so on...


I'm about to say that, relative to the XXI Century, relativity
theory is in its Stone Age. ...and people stoned with it.

Obviously you do not understand it, so your opinion is irrelevant.

This is not a matter if I understand or not (and I don't understand).
This is a matter of describing the real world and a manner that
must be in agreement with experiment/observation.
Clearly that your description doesn't fit reality.
Nevertheless, everybody is free to dream and it is said that
dreams are very important for life. Dream on.


Tom Roberts

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
In the quoted article Pauli writes,
"the transverse Doppler effect and the time dilation
produced by gravitation appear as two different modes
of expressing the same fact".
What do you think he means by that?

That these are equal for the frequency shift measured at the center of
the circle for light emitted from an object in circular motion:
a) apply the Doppler formula of SR.
b) compute the acceleration of the object, convert that to
an equivalent gravitational potential, and compute the
corresponding redshift.

This is a very basic exercise given in every GR course. If you don't
understand this, then you need to STUDY the basics.


Tom Roberts

On May 10, 11:06 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
In the quoted article Pauli writes,
"the transverse Doppler effect and the time dilation
produced by gravitation appear as two different modes
of expressing the same fact".
What do you think he means by that?

That these are equal for the frequency shift measured at the center of
the circle for light emitted from an object in circular motion:
a) apply the Doppler formula of SR.
b) compute the acceleration of the object, convert that to
an equivalent gravitational potential, and compute the
corresponding redshift.

This is a very basic exercise given in every GR course. If you don't
understand this, then you need to STUDY the basics.
Tom Roberts

Very good Tom! Now that I have provided you
with these simple facts and formulae, you
can now proceed to explain them to El.

Incidentally my ref is, Pauli's "Theory of
Relativity", pg 150, "53. Simple deductions
from the principle of equivalence", have
you ever read that book?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message

"Greg Neill" escreveu na mensagem
m...
"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message



When |v(t)| is constant, it doesn't matter if it's
circular motion or linear motion, you always got Lorentz equation.

Indeed. What a pleasing result! Wouldn't it be more
strange if, despite the obvious analogs between the
mathematical physics of linear and circular motion
(v ~ w, T ~ F, L ~ momentum, etc., and the functional forms
of rotational and linear energy), that relativity would
predict different forms for the time dilation effect?

Since time dilatation is something that is very hard for
me to accept, I will say that maybe.

Imagine that the original inquiry about the circular motion
is a 100 seconds-light radius motion around Saturn.
People here on Earth will see that circular motion from an
external point of view of the circle.
It will be like looking to a spinning wheel and compare
clock rates from the point of view of a fixed external
observer. The symmetry of the problem simply cancels
out any possible time dilatation.
Therefore, we have the same circular motion problem and
two different inertial observer (one at the center of the circle,
the other an external observer) that disagree on time dilatation.
Which one is right?

Both. The Saturn-based observer sees the "ship" moving
at a constant velocity in a circular orbit, and measures
a constant time dilation a la Lorentz.

The external observer, say he's in the plane of the
cirular motion and at a fixed location with respect to
its center, will also ascribe the same time dilation
to the ship if he's careful to take into account the
effect of light travel time on the measurements.


To compare, or to say, that circular motion is the same
thing as linear motion, sounds ridiculous to me.

They are clearly not the same thing, as rotational and
linear momenta are separately conserved. Yet the
mathematical form for dealing with them run along parallel
lines.


I'm about to say that, relative to the XXI Century, relativity
theory is in its Stone Age. ...and people stoned with it.

Uh oh.

Indeed.

My point, that you didn't comment so far, is that effects have
consequences.
Relative to the original inquiry of this thread, you didn't comment
on the main issue. Both observers send electromagnetic signals
to each other. The distance between observers doesn't change
and light speed is isotropic and constant.
Why the moving observer see all signals send by the central
observer and the observer and the central observer can't ever
receive any signal from the moving observer (at the limit)?
Do you see the consequences of a wrong analysis?

First, "never" is a long time. Since the speed of light is
not attainable by material things time dilation cannot be
infinite. The moving observer will see all of the central
observer's signals in a short, finite time (according to
his clock). The central observer will be waiting a long
time for the moving observer to get around to sending even
the first signal. If he waits long enough, he'll see the
signals; again, time dilation cannot be infinite for material
things.

The right analysis is that time dilatation is a consequence
of the speed of light and the DISTANCE travelled by light.
That is, time dilatation only is required for observations made
at distance, by means of light, like Einstein said.
Not the actual bull**** that follows because physicists only
have a stone hammer to work with.

There is no medium or mediator that can transfer a signal
of any kind (including energy) at a speed greater than
light. If you think there is, name it and demonstrate it.

Elvis, I think you're being unfair.
....
The right analysis is that time dilatation is a consequence
of the speed of light and the DISTANCE travelled by light.
That is, time dilatation only is required for observations made
at distance, by means of light, like Einstein said.
Not the actual bull**** that follows because physicists only
have a stone hammer to work with.

Our discussion has evolved to the transition
from SR to GR, in the weak field limit, that
was fairly much agreed upon in the early 20th
century, that have empirical support.
Most of the fella's have given more than an
adequate airing of your misunderstandings, in
fact I'm surprised you haven't been flamed to
a crisp, so why throw insults?
Ken
BTW, before lecturing us, learn to ****ing
spell "dilation", that's the 2nd ****ing
time I've told you that!

On May 9, 8:50 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Darwin123" escreveu na ...

On May 9, 8:03 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Darwin123" escreveu na
...

Do you agree with the above picture?
At this point, I do not have a clear image of your apparatus. I
also don't fully understand the deviation from theory that you claim
to be seeing.

I've the deviation from theory in a 42+20 pages long so far, but
can be made much shorter once I finish the story.
Well, run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. Have you tried
to publish this work in refereed literature?
I know it is long, but the secret to refereed literature is to
chop it up and submit your theory a piece at a time. If you have
caught actual inconsistencies in the theory, it wouldn't take a long
article to point out the fundamental error. Then you develop it one
lemma at a time. If it is thrown out of one journal, and given no good
reason to doubt your work, rewrite it for another journal.
Some referees will throw it out of hand. However, you can point
out irrational statements to the editor. Sometimes they over rule the
stuffy physicist. The real danger is you may get detailed criticism
from someone who knows what he is talking about. Someone may actually
catch you at a mistake. Such reviewers have caught me several times.
It isn't pretty.

"Darwin123" escreveu na mensagem
...
On May 9, 8:50 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Darwin123" escreveu na
...

On May 9, 8:03 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Darwin123" escreveu na
...

Do you agree with the above picture?
At this point, I do not have a clear image of your apparatus. I
also don't fully understand the deviation from theory that you claim
to be seeing.

I've the deviation from theory in a 42+20 pages long so far, but
can be made much shorter once I finish the story.
Well, run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. Have you tried
to publish this work in refereed literature?
I know it is long, but the secret to refereed literature is to
chop it up and submit your theory a piece at a time. If you have
caught actual inconsistencies in the theory, it wouldn't take a long
article to point out the fundamental error. Then you develop it one
lemma at a time. If it is thrown out of one journal, and given no good
reason to doubt your work, rewrite it for another journal.
Some referees will throw it out of hand. However, you can point
out irrational statements to the editor. Sometimes they over rule the
stuffy physicist. The real danger is you may get detailed criticism
from someone who knows what he is talking about. Someone may actually
catch you at a mistake. Such reviewers have caught me several times.
It isn't pretty.

Many thanks for your advises and everything else.
To publish the work done (if I can make it conclusive enough)
in refereed literature is nothing that could make me happy.
Most certainly I'll put it in a web page or Wikipedia, I haven't
still make up my mind. Actually, by the time, I'm taking some
rest because get tired of gyro math/physics.

What I really want is to produce electricity, starting at a
minimum of 1MW per machine. Pretty easy.
Most certainly I'm going to show it all on the Web,
looking for Physicists and Investors.
My experience so far showed me that high qualified
people I've been talking (including the father of
wave energy) couldn't understand enough to be
sure about the physics of the gyroscope, even if
they start saying otherwise (as usual).

People need to see the equations.
So far, I've made errors every time I've submitted
the best I have. Some pretty stupid. No one ever
pointed errors (which mean they were lost from the
beginning).

I've promised David Morin, from Harvard, I will
send him the work done. I'm only 4 month late, but
that's because I still haven't got the full picture.
David Morin is good, very good. He got it on the
book, but didn't finish, or else this is a dead end.
(didn't read David Morin on Relativity, which is
half of the book). He did one mistake. He solved
the quadratic equation and claims there are two
precession speeds, the low-precession and the
fast-precession. One cannot solve it, or else if you
solve the result don't agree with experiment
by miles distance (actually infinite). I've done
the numerical simulation and he is wrong. I've
seen this very recently only. I've say it and my
fish went away (one cannot be honest).

The error, or what's missing to understand, amounts to
less then 1% of the energy conservation and the gearbox
behaviour I need.
The really hard part is to have the picture of a gyroscope
actuated by a mass-spring in resonance + waves force
+ external mass inertia around precession axis (the cause
of the spring behaviour, because stores energy half of
the cycle and gives it back the second half).
Therefore, gyroscope is only a part of the full story,
but for sure the most difficult.

I'm on vacations, now.
I'm recharging batteries in sci.physics for the real fit.

El Enrrabadore-mor wrote:
"Tom Roberts" escreveu na mensagem
...
Look at the subject of this thread. "simplifying" to circular motion is
what is being discussed.

Such simplification makes your solution ridiculous, that's all.
It's not "ridiculous", it is what this thread is about. I gave a general
equation (in response to an inquiry), and then applied it to the subject
of this thread. shrug

If you find the thread subject (the original inquiry) ridiculous,

YOU are the one who claimed it was "ridiculous", not I. If this is the
level of your accuracy of reading and remembering what YOU wrote, then
discussing anything with you is hopeless....


I must say it is not, since it is just a limit case of a very
real and possible situation.

Yes. THAT'S WHAT I SAID!


[... further nonsense unrelated to the subject]


Tom Roberts

"Ken S. Tucker" escreveu na mensagem
...
Elvis, I think you're being unfair.
...
The right analysis is that time dilatation is a consequence
of the speed of light and the DISTANCE travelled by light.
That is, time dilatation only is required for observations made
at distance, by means of light, like Einstein said.
Not the actual bull**** that follows because physicists only
have a stone hammer to work with.

Hi, Steve Wonder.

Our discussion has evolved to the transition
from SR to GR, in the weak field limit, that
was fairly much agreed upon in the early 20th
century, that have empirical support.

If the discussion has evolved to GR I didn't notice.
Where is it?

Wait, you're confused about the equivalence
principle and you confuse gravity with centrifugal
force?
I've a secret for you, gravity and centrifugal force
are not equivalent in nature. Gravity follows an
inverse SQUARED radius function. Centrifugal
follows an inverse LINEAR radius. Only for
stable orbits, where a body can be considered
to be in free-fall (no forces), one can make
such approximation.


Most of the fella's have given more than an
adequate airing of your misunderstandings, in
fact I'm surprised you haven't been flamed to
a crisp, so why throw insults?
Ken
BTW, before lecturing us, learn to ****ing
spell "dilation", that's the 2nd ****ing
time I've told you that!

"Dilatation" follows natural from my native language,
and I can't well myself. Besides that the spell checker
is happy with that word, so... (thanks).

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message


Wait, you're confused about the equivalence
principle and you confuse gravity with centrifugal
force?
I've a secret for you, gravity and centrifugal force
are not equivalent in nature. Gravity follows an
inverse SQUARED radius function. Centrifugal
follows an inverse LINEAR radius.

No! The inverse square relationship for gravity
is the consequence of a particular geometry of
the source mass. The field from a point source
or spherically symmetric source diverges. For
spherically symmetric sources the resulting field
varies as the inverse square.

Consider instead an infinite sheet of mass. In
such a case the field lines are parallel and the
potential drops linearly with distance. Or
consider the hypothetical hole bored through a
hypothetically uniform density planet (go pole
to pole to avoid coriolis complications). Thus,
as Einstein said, acceleration (centrifugal
included) is equivalent to a *uniform*
gravitational field.

Only for
stable orbits, where a body can be considered
to be in free-fall (no forces), one can make
such approximation.

Any force that results in a uniform acceleration
will be equivalent to a uniform gravitational field.
A time varying force would be equivalent to a time
varying gravitational field, which we don't find a
lot of in our day to day experience, but we can
certainly concoct hypothetical situations where it
can happen.