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


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.

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'. The more the mass, the
greater the distortion.

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 move with the clock, 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.]


(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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.


--
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 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]

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

"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.

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?



(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.

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

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.
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.


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 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

Sue...





--
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...
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 assign
coordinates to events. There are many different types of inertial frames.
However, it is convenient to adhere to those with standard coordinates.
That is, spatial coordinates which are right-handed rectilinear Cartesians
based on a standard unit of length and time-scales based on a standard unit
of time. We shall continue to assume that we are employing standard
coordinates. However, from now on we shall make no assumptions, unless
specifically stated, about the relative configuration of the two sets of
spatial axes and the origins of time when dealing with two inertial frames.
Thus, the most general transformation between two inertial frames consists
of a Lorentz transformation in the standard configuration plus a
translation (this includes a translation in time) and a rotation of the
coordinate axes. The resulting transformation is called a general Lorentz
transformation, as opposed to a Lorentz transformation in the standard
configuration which will henceforth be termed a standard Lorentz
transformation.
[unquote]

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.

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

Sue...

applause



--
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...
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 assign
coordinates to events. There are many different types of inertial frames.
However, it is convenient to adhere to those with standard coordinates.
That is, spatial coordinates which are right-handed rectilinear Cartesians
based on a standard unit of length and time-scales based on a standard unit
of time. We shall continue to assume that we are employing standard
coordinates. However, from now on we shall make no assumptions, unless
specifically stated, about the relative configuration of the two sets of
spatial axes and the origins of time when dealing with two inertial frames.
Thus, the most general transformation between two inertial frames consists
of a Lorentz transformation in the standard configuration plus a
translation (this includes a translation in time) and a rotation of the
coordinate axes. The resulting transformation is called a general Lorentz
transformation, as opposed to a Lorentz transformation in the standard
configuration which will henceforth be termed a standard Lorentz
transformation.
[unquote]

Is this about talking snakes or shrinking rulers.
E_kin = 1/2 mv2 keeps snakes from talking and
rulers from shrinking.




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


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

Sue...

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

Sue...




--
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, sue jahn

wrote
on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 08:51:14 -0400
:


[crunch]

Is this about talking snakes or shrinking rulers.
E_kin = 1/2 mv2 keeps snakes from talking and
rulers from shrinking.

It also doesn't match certain observations and specifications
in particle accelerators.

http://lhc-collimation.web.cern.ch/l..._coll_spec.pdf

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.

[crunch]

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

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

wrote
on Sun, 31 Jul 2005 08:51:14 -0400
:


[crunch]

Is this about talking snakes or shrinking rulers.
E_kin = 1/2 mv2 keeps snakes from talking and
rulers from shrinking.

It also doesn't match certain observations and specifications
in particle accelerators.

http://lhc-collimation.web.cern.ch/l..._coll_spec.pdf

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.

[crunch]

Yes...
After we convince Bz that uncoupled clocks are not
affected by relative motion we can re-introduce him
to the an appropriate use of relativistic equations...
and that *is* an appropriate use. For the moment,
approximations to conservation and causality are
an improvement. LOL

Thanks

Sue...

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

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].



--
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...
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? ;-)

Sue...




--
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