On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 05:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote
on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:48:13 GMT
:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:25:13 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

GR apparetly has a theory about why clocks should change rates when in
different gravity potentials.
I want a relativist to tell me exactly what that theory is.

I am not a relativist.
I have been looking for the relationship and I think it goes something like
this:
dt1/dt2 = sqrt((1-2 M G)/(c^2*r1))/sqrt((1-2 M G)/(c^2*r2))

I can tell you that from another formula, [solve the force from masses
formula for, assuming the masses involved are the mass of the earth g]
the 'g' force at the altitude for a geosync satellites is about 0.023g. The
g force at GPS satellite altitude is about 0.057g.


I don't want the formula for GR redshift...

I want a description IN WORDS.

What reason does GR give for the fact that clock rates appear to physically
increase but don't?

Clocks rates do *not* physically increase. (Assuming such a phrasing
even makes sense.)

The observer A, moving with the clock, notices nothing, even if
both are being accelerated at 10g. (At more than 10g there are
issues regarding human observers. This is assuming of course a
clock that can withstand such accelerations without loss of
accuracy.)

Other observers (O) might notice a discrepancy, but A will not.


(when viewed by either the original observer in the original frame or an
observer who remains with the clock during launch).

A notices nothing. O notices any discrepancies.

[.sigsnip]

So I can zoom of at 0.9c in my space ship with full confidence that I wont feel
any pain as my feet shrink to a fraction of their normal size.

great!

geez, you people are really funny!
How did Einstein get away with this for so long?

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.

"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:25:13 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:

GR apparetly has a theory about why clocks should change rates
when in different gravity potentials.
I want a relativist to tell me exactly what that theory is.

I am not a relativist.
I have been looking for the relationship and I think it goes
something like this:
dt1/dt2 = sqrt((1-2 M G)/(c^2*r1))/sqrt((1-2 M G)/(c^2*r2))

I can tell you that from another formula, [solve the force from
masses formula for, assuming the masses involved are the mass of
the earth g] the 'g' force at the altitude for a geosync
satellites is about 0.023g. The g force at GPS satellite altitude
is about 0.057g.


I don't want the formula for GR redshift...

I want a description IN WORDS.

The description in words?
Einstein described it: Mass distorts 'space-time'.
'space-time' the magic place where Maxwell radiates.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node13.html
The more the mass, the
greater the distortion.

Yes that is how the blue lines on the paper are described.


What reason does GR give for the fact that clock rates appear to
physically increase but don't?

Comparing clocks, from a location with one level of curvature, to a
location with a different amount of curvature, will show you that
the clocks measure 'something' at different rates.

If you have clocks that will interact properly with the blue lines
that should be true.

They are kept next to the blue books in the book store.


If you move with the clock,
That will get foot prints on the paper.
every tool you carry with you will undergo the
same change [or no change, it depends on how you look at it]. You
will be unable to tell that anything has changed [and 'really' it
hasn't changed because you can't tell that anything has changed
unless you look outside your FoR, or someone outside looks in.]
I have doubts. Could we test your theory by walking on polar or
grid paper before buying the special space-time paper?

We have to use rubber sheets.

(when viewed by either the original observer in the original frame
or an observer who remains with the clock during launch).

Every tool the observer who remains with the clock can carry with
him, every tool that only allows him to look within his FoR, will
show that the clock has not changed.

Have you defined how each of these tools interacts with the blue
lines. I think Einstein only defined for light-clocks and measuring
rods.

What do you suggest? Should the definitions be rigid? Must the clocks
be light or can they be heavy?


If he is NOT allowed to look at things outside his FoR, the clock
has not changed.

Can you exerpt that part:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node13.html

I think I already did.
[quote]
In special relativity we are only allowed to use inertial frames to
.....
configuration which will henceforth be termed a standard Lorentz
transformation.
[unquote]

Is this about talking snakes or shrinking rulers.

Did someone snake one over on us there?


E_kin = 1/2 mv2 keeps snakes from talking and
rulers from shrinking.

Is that irrespective of perspective?

The snake couple were bured in 'Hiss and Herse' coffins.

Even if he looks, it doesn't change the clock. He does see that the
clock isn't running at the same rate when he compares it to
something outside his FoR.

You can say the clock 'physically changes' if you want, but by every
measure from within its FoR it has not changed, so your statement is
wrong.

You can say:
a general Lorentz transformation preserves the volume of
space-time. Since time is dilated by a factor in a moving frame, the
volume of space-time can only be preserved if the volume of ordinary
3-space is reduced by the same factor.

I may quote you on that, someday in the past.
You may quote anything I say if you see me in four-space.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034

Four eyes let me see in four space. That gives me foresight.


If I quote you, what will I be saying?

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node14.html


But the clock is definitly running at a different rate, when seen
from outside, so YOU figure out what words you want to use to
describe it.

It is clear that in the particle's rest frame. Thus, corresponds
to the time difference between two neighbouring events on the
particle's world-line, as measured by a clock attached to the
particle (hence, the name ``proper time''). According to Eq. (2.78),
the particle's clock appears to run slow, by a factor , in an
inertial frame in which the particle is moving with velocity . This
is the celebrated time dilation effect.

Now return to:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node13.html

There were two ways given how we could define clocks in this
*imaginary* space where Maxwell radiates. Neither were right,
wrong, realistic or unrealistic. We could have used a different
well know set of ruled in *designing* the space and legitimately
call it Hilbert space.

"Neither were right, wrong, realisitic or unrealistic."

Just make sure that your words match with what has been observed and
what is observable.

Neither of you (Bz and Henri) have defined the interaction of your
clocks with either a general Lorentz transformation or a standard
Lorentz transformation so they are neither observables nor some you
can derive rules for.

You say things so well, at times.

You can not observe that the clock 'has changed physically' because
anytime you take it back to where it started from and test it
against any standard you like, you will find it is still running at
the same rate it was running before you moved it.

Clocks in *space-time* (the place where Maxwell radiates) have no
physical existence to change.

If a given situation in electromagnetism is attributed to a
scalar potential ( x,t ) and a vector potential A( x ,t ), the
physically meaningful and unique electric and magnetic fields E( x,t
) and B( x,t ) are determined from the potentials according to
eq(1.1)
Here we are using Gaussian units and considering phenomena in vacuum
or as microscopic fields with localized sources. The expressions
(1.1) are constituted so that they satisfy the homogeneous Maxwell
equations automatically. Since the gradient of a scalar function has
zero http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034


I am still working on understanding that paper, I don't understand what ANY
of that stuff has to do with 'g' as it is not [as far as we know] electric or
magnetic. Is there some particular gauge that gives us the gravity metric,
advanced, retarded or normal?

applause
[takes bow. Has wardrobe malfunction and falls from podium]
Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!

For your next trick, Janet, [sound theme song from the RHPS and lets do the
time warp again]

please critique ...
http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/FallingClocks.html

What does maxwell/einstein say about two orbital clocks in counter rotating
motion in essentially the same orbital [we must assume they miss each other].

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
The Ghost In The Machine wrote in
news
in particular specifies a LHC top proton energy of 7 TeV,
which well exceeds the required energy for lightspeed.
However, last I looked (I'm having trouble finding it now)
the beam frequency was consistent with *photons* traveling
around the ring (within perhaps a few parts per million
or billion), as opposed to protons going many times FTL.

Within 36 ppb of c, if my figures are correct.

We have a syncrotron at lsu, see www.camd.lsu.edu, that runs at about
1.5 GeV, which, if my calculations are correct, should, if c were not
the speed limit, give us electrons traveling at about 76.6 c. But the
electrons are traveling at about 0.99983 c [again, if my calculations
are correct].

...and what happens to enforce the speed limit? ;-)

You know whacha get when you cross an elephant with a rhino?
'El-if-I-know'

No one knows for sure. But the electrons seem to know they will get fined
if they go too fast. They also seem to gain 'mass' as they approach the
speed of light.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:


So I can zoom of at 0.9c in my space ship with full confidence that I
wont feel any pain as my feet shrink to a fraction of their normal size.

great!

geez, you people are really funny!
How did Einstein get away with this for so long?


Yer head shrinks by the same amount [as see from your former FoR, before
you accelerated to 0.9c] so you don't notice.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"bz" wrote in message 98.139...
"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
The Ghost In The Machine wrote in
news
in particular specifies a LHC top proton energy of 7 TeV,
which well exceeds the required energy for lightspeed.
However, last I looked (I'm having trouble finding it now)
the beam frequency was consistent with *photons* traveling
around the ring (within perhaps a few parts per million
or billion), as opposed to protons going many times FTL.

Within 36 ppb of c, if my figures are correct.

We have a syncrotron at lsu, see www.camd.lsu.edu, that runs at about
1.5 GeV, which, if my calculations are correct, should, if c were not
the speed limit, give us electrons traveling at about 76.6 c. But the
electrons are traveling at about 0.99983 c [again, if my calculations
are correct].

...and what happens to enforce the speed limit? ;-)

You know whacha get when you cross an elephant with a rhino?
'El-if-I-know'

No one knows for sure.

Ghost seems to know.
Did you read his post?

Sue...

But the electrons seem to know they will get fined
if they go too fast. They also seem to gain 'mass' as they approach the
speed of light.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote
on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:12:54 GMT
:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 05:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote
on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:48:13 GMT
:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:25:13 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:

GR apparetly has a theory about why clocks should change rates when in
different gravity potentials.
I want a relativist to tell me exactly what that theory is.

I am not a relativist.
I have been looking for the relationship and I think it goes something like
this:
dt1/dt2 = sqrt((1-2 M G)/(c^2*r1))/sqrt((1-2 M G)/(c^2*r2))

I can tell you that from another formula, [solve the force from masses
formula for, assuming the masses involved are the mass of the earth g]
the 'g' force at the altitude for a geosync satellites is about 0.023g. The
g force at GPS satellite altitude is about 0.057g.


I don't want the formula for GR redshift...

I want a description IN WORDS.

What reason does GR give for the fact that clock rates appear to physically
increase but don't?

Clocks rates do *not* physically increase. (Assuming such a phrasing
even makes sense.)

The observer A, moving with the clock, notices nothing, even if
both are being accelerated at 10g. (At more than 10g there are
issues regarding human observers. This is assuming of course a
clock that can withstand such accelerations without loss of
accuracy.)

Other observers (O) might notice a discrepancy, but A will not.


(when viewed by either the original observer in the original frame or an
observer who remains with the clock during launch).

A notices nothing. O notices any discrepancies.

[.sigsnip]

So I can zoom of at 0.9c in my space ship with full confidence
that I wont feel any pain as my feet shrink to a fraction of
their normal size.

Assuming you're willing to wait for about a month to a year to
accelerate to 0.9 c, yes, you won't feel a thing. (Except for
the acceleration, of course.)

I, however, will notice that you:

[a] are moving very slowly, and
[b] are squished in the direction of travel.


great!

geez, you people are really funny!
How did Einstein get away with this for so long?

You'll have to ask him. Since he's dead, there may be some
slightly practical difficulties in doing so... :-)

[.sigsnip]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In sci.physics.relativity, sue jahn

wrote
on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:45:27 -0400
:

"bz" wrote in message 98.139...
"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
The Ghost In The Machine wrote in
news
in particular specifies a LHC top proton energy of 7 TeV,
which well exceeds the required energy for lightspeed.
However, last I looked (I'm having trouble finding it now)
the beam frequency was consistent with *photons* traveling
around the ring (within perhaps a few parts per million
or billion), as opposed to protons going many times FTL.

Within 36 ppb of c, if my figures are correct.

We have a syncrotron at lsu, see www.camd.lsu.edu, that runs at about
1.5 GeV, which, if my calculations are correct, should, if c were not
the speed limit, give us electrons traveling at about 76.6 c. But the
electrons are traveling at about 0.99983 c [again, if my calculations
are correct].

...and what happens to enforce the speed limit? ;-)

You know whacha get when you cross an elephant with a rhino?
'El-if-I-know'

No one knows for sure.

Ghost seems to know.
Did you read his post?

I have half a clue. However, that doesn't mean I know
*why* everything conforms to SR/GR and not to Newtonian
mechanics. I may never know why. :-)

In any event, it's the wrong question anyway; the theory
must fit the observations, not the other way around.
One of the observations is that synchrotrons, tokamaks,
and other such devices can't seem to get particles going
past lightspeed, even when one pours energy into them far
in excess of what the Newtonian limit requires.

For example, m_p = the mass of a proton = 1.672 621 71(29) * 10^-27 kg,
according to

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mp .

1/2 * m_p * c^2 = 7.51638712 * 10^-11 J = 469.13602 MeV.

That's all the energy one needs to accelerate a proton to lightspeed --
in theory. (Newtonian theory, anyway.)


[rest snipped]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message ...
In sci.physics.relativity, sue jahn

wrote
on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:45:27 -0400
:

"bz" wrote in message 98.139...
"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
The Ghost In The Machine wrote in
news
in particular specifies a LHC top proton energy of 7 TeV,
which well exceeds the required energy for lightspeed.
However, last I looked (I'm having trouble finding it now)
the beam frequency was consistent with *photons* traveling
around the ring (within perhaps a few parts per million
or billion), as opposed to protons going many times FTL.

Within 36 ppb of c, if my figures are correct.

We have a syncrotron at lsu, see www.camd.lsu.edu, that runs at about
1.5 GeV, which, if my calculations are correct, should, if c were not
the speed limit, give us electrons traveling at about 76.6 c. But the
electrons are traveling at about 0.99983 c [again, if my calculations
are correct].

...and what happens to enforce the speed limit? ;-)

You know whacha get when you cross an elephant with a rhino?
'El-if-I-know'

No one knows for sure.

Ghost seems to know.
Did you read his post?

I have half a clue. However, that doesn't mean I know
*why* everything conforms to SR/GR and not to Newtonian
mechanics. I may never know why. :-)

In any event, it's the wrong question anyway; the theory
must fit the observations, not the other way around.
This is what is observed.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/...ynchrotron.gif
From:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/sc...ration_el.html

and
Bz: "Absent relativist mass, the electrons would be going about 77 c."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...72c6600?hl=en&

so ... E_kin = 1/2 mv^2 is closer than Bz's interpretation.
Just at the moment Bz has a vertical shaft running at multiple
speeds to keep twins metabolism in compliance and he can
show you Coulomb forces in the acceleratior that will move
our sun at least into Venus's orbit. So

E_kin = 1/2 mv^2 is plenty close enough... ;-)

Sue...


One of the observations ...is that synchrotrons, tokamaks,
and other such devices can't seem to get particles going
past lightspeed, even when one pours energy into them far
in excess of what the Newtonian limit requires.

For example, m_p = the mass of a proton = 1.672 621 71(29) * 10^-27 kg,
according to

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mp .

1/2 * m_p * c^2 = 7.51638712 * 10^-11 J = 469.13602 MeV.

That's all the energy one needs to accelerate a proton to lightspeed --
in theory. (Newtonian theory, anyway.)


[rest snipped]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139... snip
.....
...http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034....
I am still working on understanding that paper, I don't understand what
ANY of that stuff has to do with 'g' as it is not [as far as we know]
electric or magnetic. Is there some particular gauge that gives us the
gravity metric, advanced, retarded or normal?



20. A. K. T. Assis, "Deriving gravitation from electromagnetism,"
Canadian Journal of Physics, Vol. 70, pp. 330-340 (1992). Abstract:
We present a generalized Weber force law for electromagnetism
including terms of fourth and higher orders in v/c. We show that these
extra terms yield an attractive force between two neutral dipoles in
which the negative charges oscillate around the positions of
equilibrium. This attractive force can be interpreted as the usual
Newtonian gravitational force as it is of the correct order of
magnitude, is along the line joining the dipoles, follows Newton's
action and reaction law, and falls off as the inverse square of the
distance.

http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/wpapers.htm


But gravity is isotropic [AFAWK] and all of my attempts to build isotropic
dipoles have flopped. [They keep falling over.]

That would seem to leave a bit of a black hole in their theory.

Webber almost makes more sense with his 'electrostatic attaction slightly
greater than electrostatic repulsion'. But anti matter shoots holes in
that.

applause
[takes bow. Has wardrobe malfunction and falls from podium]
Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!

For your next trick, Janet, [sound theme song from the RHPS and lets do
the time warp again]

please critique ...
http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/FallingClocks.html

The clock mechanism is not specified so that it can relate to any
physical phenomena.. So I conclude it is actualy the article which
falls. )

I did think their building clocks with the 'specific gravity' of air was
interesting. I think they are sending up a trial balloon to see who is in
caloots.

What does maxwell/einstein say about two orbital clocks in counter
rotating motion in essentially the same orbital [we must assume they
miss each other].

Probably nothing. Maxwell/Einstein is about the forces between relative
moving particles so why should it talk about clocks?

BBBut, I thought AE went to a lot of trouble to talk about clocks....






--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics.relativity, sue jahn

wrote
on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:45:27 -0400
:

"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
"sue jahn" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
The Ghost In The Machine
wrote in news
in particular specifies a LHC top proton energy of 7 TeV,
which well exceeds the required energy for lightspeed.
However, last I looked (I'm having trouble finding it now)
the beam frequency was consistent with *photons* traveling
around the ring (within perhaps a few parts per million
or billion), as opposed to protons going many times FTL.

Within 36 ppb of c, if my figures are correct.

We have a syncrotron at lsu, see www.camd.lsu.edu, that runs at
about 1.5 GeV, which, if my calculations are correct, should, if
c were not the speed limit, give us electrons traveling at about
76.6 c. But the electrons are traveling at about 0.99983 c
[again, if my calculations are correct].

...and what happens to enforce the speed limit? ;-)

You know whacha get when you cross an elephant with a rhino?
'El-if-I-know'

No one knows for sure.

Ghost seems to know.
Did you read his post?

I have half a clue. However, that doesn't mean I know
*why* everything conforms to SR/GR and not to Newtonian
mechanics. I may never know why. :-)

In any event, it's the wrong question anyway; the theory
must fit the observations, not the other way around.
This is what is observed.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/...ynchrotron.gif

Only in the portions of the syncrotron where the beam is being bent.

In the linear accelerator sections, the beam is gaining energy.


From:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/sc...ration_el.html

and
Bz: "Absent relativist mass, the electrons would be going about 77 c."

1.5 GeV electrons should be going 76.6 c in a purely Newtonian universe.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...msg/9fe549e357
2c6600?hl=en&

so ... E_kin = 1/2 mv^2 is closer than Bz's interpretation.
Just at the moment Bz has a vertical shaft running at multiple

The shafts are YOUR addition the the experiment. I was perfectly happy
sending the clock times back and forth in morse code at 30 wpm.

speeds to keep twins metabolism in compliance and he can
show you Coulomb forces in the acceleratior that will move
our sun at least into Venus's orbit. So

E_kin = 1/2 mv^2 is plenty close enough... ;-)

Sue...


One of the observations ...is that synchrotrons, tokamaks,
and other such devices can't seem to get particles going
past lightspeed, even when one pours energy into them far
in excess of what the Newtonian limit requires.

For example, m_p = the mass of a proton = 1.672 621 71(29) * 10^-27 kg,
according to

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mp .

1/2 * m_p * c^2 = 7.51638712 * 10^-11 J = 469.13602 MeV.

That's all the energy one needs to accelerate a proton to lightspeed --
in theory. (Newtonian theory, anyway.)


[rest snipped]






--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap