|
|
| Author |
Message |
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:02 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
On 25 Jun 2006 04:02:24 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 22 Jun 2006 21:26:23 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
If the high clock sends more ticks 'per earth orbit' than it did on the ground
then it has obviously physically changed.
Not obvious at all. In fact, quite obvious that something else entirely
is going on.
...and what might that be exactly?
....put up or shut up, Draper.
Sure. The orbiting clock has traveled through a path on a region of
spacetime with less curvature than the spacetime than the path that the
ground-based clock sits on. As a result, the length of the interval
between the two spacetime events that mark a single orbit is larger for
the orbiting clock than it is for the ground-based clock.
That's not an explanation Draper. That's just a 4D graphical restatement of
what you previously claimed. It is a load of meaningless drivel....big words
that would only impress small minds...
I see. So your position is, "If I can't understand it, it's not an
explanation."
The words are not that big, and if you'd read a little about it you'd
see how straightforward it is.
|
It's pretty obvious that I'm the one who understands it. You just repeat what
you've been taught, parrot fashion.
Stating your claim in a different way doesn't prove anything.
| Quote: | What else did you want to know?
I want to know what evidence you have that TIME FLOW (if you can define it) is
affected by gravity forces.
It isn't.
|
Well what the f*** is the 'something else' that you claim is happening?
Don't you even know what you are talking about?
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:42 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 25 Jun 2006 04:02:24 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 22 Jun 2006 21:26:23 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
If the high clock sends more ticks 'per earth orbit' than it did on the ground
then it has obviously physically changed.
Not obvious at all. In fact, quite obvious that something else entirely
is going on.
...and what might that be exactly?
....put up or shut up, Draper.
Sure. The orbiting clock has traveled through a path on a region of
spacetime with less curvature than the spacetime than the path that the
ground-based clock sits on. As a result, the length of the interval
between the two spacetime events that mark a single orbit is larger for
the orbiting clock than it is for the ground-based clock.
That's not an explanation Draper. That's just a 4D graphical restatement of
what you previously claimed. It is a load of meaningless drivel....big words
that would only impress small minds...
I see. So your position is, "If I can't understand it, it's not an
explanation."
The words are not that big, and if you'd read a little about it you'd
see how straightforward it is.
It's pretty obvious that I'm the one who understands it. You just repeat what
you've been taught, parrot fashion.
|
You have admitted you neither understand nor wish to understand
relativity. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
| Quote: | Stating your claim in a different way doesn't prove anything.
|
Uhh...thats all you do!
| Quote: |
What else did you want to know?
I want to know what evidence you have that TIME FLOW (if you can define it) is
affected by gravity forces.
It isn't.
Well what the f*** is the 'something else' that you claim is happening?
|
Hmm. Relativity?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:32 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
On 25 Jun 2006 16:42:36 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Henri Wilson wrote:
Geesey, don't waste your time. I don't read your nonsense. |
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bilge
science forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 2816
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:36 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr:
| Quote: | Here is an interesting view (FrediFizzx in PHOTON MASS -- A FACT.
MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT) :
"Any mass is in the medium and a photon is just a "concentrated"
energy-momentum flow thru the medium. In this kind of picture it is
easy to see that photons are massless and why there can be a quantum
object with no mass. Even "bare" fermions in our scenario are thought
to be massless much like in the Standard Model. They obtain their
masses from interaction with the quantum vacuum."
|
That ``view'' is the obvious analogy to condensed matter found in
most every textbook that explains symmetry breaking in the standard
model. Like all analogies, it's just an analogy. Taken literally as
a model it fails for a number of reasons, not the least of which is
that it doesn't actually acheive the purpose for which it is created.
How are you going to explain the forces between the constituents of
the condensed matter - another condensed matter theory so that it's
turtles all the way down? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:50 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 25 Jun 2006 16:42:36 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Geesey, don't waste your time. I don't read your nonsense.
|
It doesn't matter if you do or not, because your opinions are of no
consequence to anybody but yourself.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:52 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 25 Jun 2006 16:42:36 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Geesey, don't waste your time. I don't read your nonsense.
|
It doesn't matter if you do or not, because your opinions are of no
consequence to anybody but yourself.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:18 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 25 Jun 2006 04:02:24 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 22 Jun 2006 21:26:23 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
If the high clock sends more ticks 'per earth orbit' than it did on the ground
then it has obviously physically changed.
Not obvious at all. In fact, quite obvious that something else entirely
is going on.
...and what might that be exactly?
....put up or shut up, Draper.
Sure. The orbiting clock has traveled through a path on a region of
spacetime with less curvature than the spacetime than the path that the
ground-based clock sits on. As a result, the length of the interval
between the two spacetime events that mark a single orbit is larger for
the orbiting clock than it is for the ground-based clock.
That's not an explanation Draper. That's just a 4D graphical restatement of
what you previously claimed. It is a load of meaningless drivel....big words
that would only impress small minds...
I see. So your position is, "If I can't understand it, it's not an
explanation."
The words are not that big, and if you'd read a little about it you'd
see how straightforward it is.
It's pretty obvious that I'm the one who understands it. You just repeat what
you've been taught, parrot fashion.
|
Not so. I repeat it, because that is the explanation.
| Quote: | Stating your claim in a different way doesn't prove anything.
What else did you want to know?
I want to know what evidence you have that TIME FLOW (if you can define it) is
affected by gravity forces.
It isn't.
Well what the f*** is the 'something else' that you claim is happening?
|
I told you. Read above.
If you don't understand what I wrote, then I'd be happy to point you to
a few elementary references that explain it with many more words, most
of which are short words.
| Quote: |
Don't you even know what you are talking about?
|
I think so, in this case. It's pretty plain you don't know what I'm
talking about. Would you like a reading reference, or are you afraid
that would pollute your "scientific mind"?
As for me, I have faith that my mind is sturdy enough that it will
resist pollution just by reading something. You don't seem to share
that faith about your own mind.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:33 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrne9v0hq.12d.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
| Quote: | mluttgens@wanadoo.fr:
Here is an interesting view (FrediFizzx in PHOTON MASS -- A FACT.
MASSLESS PARTICLES -- NOT FACT) :
"Any mass is in the medium and a photon is just a "concentrated"
energy-momentum flow thru the medium. In this kind of picture it is
easy to see that photons are massless and why there can be a quantum
object with no mass. Even "bare" fermions in our scenario are
thought
to be massless much like in the Standard Model. They obtain their
masses from interaction with the quantum vacuum."
That ``view'' is the obvious analogy to condensed matter found in
most every textbook that explains symmetry breaking in the standard
model. Like all analogies, it's just an analogy. Taken literally as
a model it fails for a number of reasons, not the least of which is
that it doesn't actually acheive the purpose for which it is created.
How are you going to explain the forces between the constituents of
the condensed matter - another condensed matter theory so that it's
turtles all the way down?
|
You will never understand a medium type theory at all. In our
relativistic medium picture, the quantum objects have direct contact
with each other. Virtual fermionic pairs have direct contact with real
fermions. In the Feynman diagrams, just change all gauge bosons to a
series of fermionic pairs. There is no need for turtles all the way
down.
Volovik says it very well in his comprehensive book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" first paragraph of the Conclusion,
"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century
[and last part of the 20th]. The electromagnetic and gravitational
fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong
interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the
quantum vacuum."
Now that that is discounted, can anyone provide any other reason it
fails? It is purely an interpretational issue as to whether or not the
detection of a photon can be considered as detection of our relativistic
medium. Free quarks are simply leptons.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:04 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Dear FrediFizzx:
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4gbfvrF1lusqpU1@individual.net...
....
| Quote: | Now that that is discounted, can anyone provide any
other reason it fails? It is purely an interpretational
issue as to whether or not the detection of a photon
can be considered as detection of our relativistic
medium. Free quarks are simply leptons.
|
Gravity makes it out of a black hole.
Quarter wave and half wave effects are (nigh to) instantaneous.
Self-interference occurs with any finite geometry *now*.
At the quantum level, there is NO continuum, vacuum or otherwise.
Any continuum is created by the gestalt, and is NOT fundamental.
I understand that you wish to worship at the alter of Volovik,
but in time perhaps you'll outgrow this. In the meantime, can
you sheath your "snide"?
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:38 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:Tm0og.864$RD.485@fed1read08...
| Quote: | Dear FrediFizzx:
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4gbfvrF1lusqpU1@individual.net...
...
Now that that is discounted, can anyone provide any
other reason it fails? It is purely an interpretational
issue as to whether or not the detection of a photon
can be considered as detection of our relativistic
medium. Free quarks are simply leptons.
Gravity makes it out of a black hole.
|
Looks like we have someone else that is lazy like mother nature.  So
what? Why would that make our relativistic medium fail.
| Quote: | Quarter wave and half wave effects are (nigh to) instantaneous.
|
So what? Ditto.
| Quote: | Self-interference occurs with any finite geometry *now*.
|
So what? Ditto.
| Quote: | At the quantum level, there is NO continuum, vacuum or otherwise.
Any continuum is created by the gestalt, and is NOT fundamental.
|
Says you; so what? What the heck do you think Quantum Vacuum Charge
means?
| Quote: | I understand that you wish to worship at the alter of Volovik,
but in time perhaps you'll outgrow this. In the meantime, can
you sheath your "snide"?
|
We are already way past Volovik so I really don't think there is
anything to outgrow. And if you don't like it, then don't reply.
It takes a whole different way o' thinkin' for a relativistic medium
picture like ours. Bilge will never "get it". You probably won't
either.
We are the "exotic explainers" of the HyperCP 214 MeV X particle. LOL!
See page 20 of the presentation by C. Dukes of the HyperCP collaboration
in the following document.
http://moriond.in2p3.fr/EW/2006/Transparencies/C.Dukes.pdf
Of couse our explanation is really not any more exotic than the
super-super-supersymmetry sgoldstino explanation. Sheesh!
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:53 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Dear FrediFizzx:
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4gbn9hF1ko40nU1@individual.net...
| Quote: | "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com
wrote in
message news:Tm0og.864$RD.485@fed1read08...
....
So what?
....
So what?
....
So what?
....
Says you; so what?
I understand that you wish to worship at
the alter of Volovik, but in time perhaps
you'll outgrow this. In the meantime, can
you sheath your "snide"?
We are already way past Volovik so I
really don't think there is anything to
outgrow. And if you don't like it, then
don't reply.
|
Goodbye.
<plonk>
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:37 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:XY1og.940$RD.9@fed1read08...
| Quote: | Dear FrediFizzx:
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4gbn9hF1ko40nU1@individual.net...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com
wrote in
message news:Tm0og.864$RD.485@fed1read08...
...
So what?
...
So what?
...
So what?
...
Says you; so what?
|
I didn't think you would be up to explaining exactly how our scenario
fails. It is way past your capabilities. Much too rich for you. If
you really want to "get up to speed" try to comprehend these,
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602607
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0506021
Note what Moffat says in the last paragraph of the conclusion of the
last link. He is basically talking about our Quantum Vacuum Charge
scenario. Except we already have it broken down to more details.
Granted there are plenty more details we need to figure out and present.
| Quote: | I understand that you wish to worship at
the alter of Volovik, but in time perhaps
you'll outgrow this. In the meantime, can
you sheath your "snide"?
We are already way past Volovik so I
really don't think there is anything to
outgrow. And if you don't like it, then
don't reply.
Goodbye.
plonk
|
Your loss; not mine. Quantum Vacuum Charge rules, baby!
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:30 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
| Quote: | Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <1151069215.451483.287750@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Short form
Photon has gained gravitational potential energy
e = hf
If e has increased, f must also increase as h is constant
therefore blue shift.
Congratulation! There is no other sensible explanation!
Marcel Luttgens
Um gravitational shift (red/blue) of photons ... whats the issue?
That Marcel likes to say "gravitational potential energy of
a photon" is -GMm/r, where m = hf/c^2.
I'm not very knowledgeable about GR, but I don't believe
that's correct since it would imply that photons experience
a gravitational force equal to GMm/r^2, and that photon mass
experiments directly contradict that.
|
You are probably referring to a hypothetical photon rest mass.
One has to consider that photons move at c, and that their
energy corresponds to hf = mc^2, hence their mass is given by hf/c^2.
Otoh, the gravitational potential at a distance d from the
center of an object of mass M is gd = -GM/d^2. At the surface
of the object of radius R, one has gR = -GM/R^2.
A photon of mass m moving from d to R will gain a potential energy
Ep = m * gm * (d-R), where gm is the geometrical mean of gd and gR,
i.e. gm = GM/(d*R).
Thus, Ep = hf/c^2 * GM/(d*R) * (d-R)
= hf * GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d)
After having travelled the distance d-R the total energy of the photon
will be hf1 = hf + Ep
= hf + hf * GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d)
= hf * (1 + GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d))
Hence, f1/f = 1 + GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d), and the corresponding shift
is f1/f - 1 = GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d)
This last formula is identical to the GR formula for the gravitational
effect, for instance on a GPS satellite.
In such case, M is the Earth's mass Me, R is the Earth radius Re
and d is the distance of the satellite from the center of the Earth
The observed frequency shift of the satellite clock will be
GMe/c^2 * (1/Re - 1/d). By multiplying the shift by a sidereal day,
one gets about 45.6 microseconds.
Marcel Luttgens
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:40 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
On 29 Jun 2006 03:30:01 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
| Quote: |
Randy Poe wrote:
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <1151069215.451483.287750@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Short form
Photon has gained gravitational potential energy
e = hf
If e has increased, f must also increase as h is constant
therefore blue shift.
Congratulation! There is no other sensible explanation!
Marcel Luttgens
Um gravitational shift (red/blue) of photons ... whats the issue?
That Marcel likes to say "gravitational potential energy of
a photon" is -GMm/r, where m = hf/c^2.
I'm not very knowledgeable about GR, but I don't believe
that's correct since it would imply that photons experience
a gravitational force equal to GMm/r^2, and that photon mass
experiments directly contradict that.
You are probably referring to a hypothetical photon rest mass.
One has to consider that photons move at c, and that their
energy corresponds to hf = mc^2, hence their mass is given by hf/c^2.
Otoh, the gravitational potential at a distance d from the
center of an object of mass M is gd = -GM/d^2. At the surface
of the object of radius R, one has gR = -GM/R^2.
A photon of mass m moving from d to R will gain a potential energy
Ep = m * gm * (d-R), where gm is the geometrical mean of gd and gR,
i.e. gm = GM/(d*R).
Thus, Ep = hf/c^2 * GM/(d*R) * (d-R)
= hf * GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d)
After having travelled the distance d-R the total energy of the photon
will be hf1 = hf + Ep
= hf + hf * GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d)
= hf * (1 + GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d))
Hence, f1/f = 1 + GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d), and the corresponding shift
is f1/f - 1 = GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d)
This last formula is identical to the GR formula for the gravitational
effect, for instance on a GPS satellite.
In such case, M is the Earth's mass Me, R is the Earth radius Re
and d is the distance of the satellite from the center of the Earth
The observed frequency shift of the satellite clock will be
GMe/c^2 * (1/Re - 1/d). By multiplying the shift by a sidereal day,
one gets about 45.6 microseconds.
|
I've been pointing this out for a year but they cannot understand let alone
accept it.
The interesting thing is that GPS works largely on phase relationships between
signals, which means that the Newtonian correction is just as effective as the
GR one.
Of course, their claim that the clocks actually speed up by exactly the GR
prediction has never been accurately verified and would be purely coincidental
if approximately true.
| Quote: | Marcel Luttgens
- Randy
|
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:02 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 29 Jun 2006 03:30:01 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <1151069215.451483.287750@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Short form
Photon has gained gravitational potential energy
e = hf
If e has increased, f must also increase as h is constant
therefore blue shift.
Congratulation! There is no other sensible explanation!
Marcel Luttgens
Um gravitational shift (red/blue) of photons ... whats the issue?
That Marcel likes to say "gravitational potential energy of
a photon" is -GMm/r, where m = hf/c^2.
I'm not very knowledgeable about GR, but I don't believe
that's correct since it would imply that photons experience
a gravitational force equal to GMm/r^2, and that photon mass
experiments directly contradict that.
You are probably referring to a hypothetical photon rest mass.
One has to consider that photons move at c, and that their
energy corresponds to hf = mc^2, hence their mass is given by hf/c^2.
Otoh, the gravitational potential at a distance d from the
center of an object of mass M is gd = -GM/d^2. At the surface
of the object of radius R, one has gR = -GM/R^2.
A photon of mass m moving from d to R will gain a potential energy
Ep = m * gm * (d-R), where gm is the geometrical mean of gd and gR,
i.e. gm = GM/(d*R).
Thus, Ep = hf/c^2 * GM/(d*R) * (d-R)
= hf * GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d)
After having travelled the distance d-R the total energy of the photon
will be hf1 = hf + Ep
= hf + hf * GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d)
= hf * (1 + GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d))
Hence, f1/f = 1 + GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d), and the corresponding shift
is f1/f - 1 = GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d)
This last formula is identical to the GR formula for the gravitational
effect, for instance on a GPS satellite.
In such case, M is the Earth's mass Me, R is the Earth radius Re
and d is the distance of the satellite from the center of the Earth
The observed frequency shift of the satellite clock will be
GMe/c^2 * (1/Re - 1/d). By multiplying the shift by a sidereal day,
one gets about 45.6 microseconds.
I've been pointing this out for a year but they cannot understand let alone
accept it.
The interesting thing is that GPS works largely on phase relationships between
signals, which means that the Newtonian correction is just as effective as the
GR one.
Of course, their claim that the clocks actually speed up by exactly the GR
prediction has never been accurately verified and would be purely coincidental
if approximately true.
|
Formulae very easily obtained from the "mass" and potential energy
of photons are identical to corresponding GR formulae.
Some GRists claim that the energy and frequency of photons do not
change with height, but that clocks run faster when they are situated
higher in the gravitational potential.
Other GRists claim that satellite clocks "are measuring the
duration of an orbit to be longer, than the clocks on the ground
measure the duration of an orbit to be." (for instance, Paul B.
Andersen).
Tom Roberts is more eclectic. According to him (see
http://groups.google.fr/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/1ac904c7cf440d3d/bcc966485405a82b?lnk=st&q=GR+frequency+shift+formula&rnum=1&hl=en#bcc966485405a82b
Fri, Apr 14 2006), there are three possible GR explanations:
1) Clocks run the faster the higher they are located in the potential,
whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon do not
change with height. The light thus appears to be redshifted relative
to the frequency of the clock.
2) Photons lose energy when they overcome the gravitational attraction
of a massive body or gain energy when they are "attracted" by
a massive body, and the clock position in the gravitational well
plays no role.
3) Both the clock rates vary and the energy/frequency of the light
vary.]
He adds that "GR itself is independent of coordinate choice, but
clock rate, energy, and frequency are not. These interpretations are
based on different choices of coordinates, that's all."
As for me, "flying" clocks are *observed* from the ground to advance
more than ground clocks.
Only experiments where clocks are brought back to Earth can support
the view that the flying clocks ticked faster than the ground clocks.
Till now, this has been done only once, it was the H&K experiment,
but "An analysis of the real data shows that no credence can be
given to the conclusions of Hafele and Keating.", see
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm .
In other experiments cited by GRists, the clocks crashed in the
ocean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_rocket_experiment).
Clocks were compared on the plane and on the ground by EM signals
( http://www.exo.net/~pauld/physics/relativity/relativitytimefly.htm ).
In other words, they were simply *observed* to tick faster.
Gravity Probe B
(http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/faqs/faqs.html#publish )
whose results are expected in April 2007, is attempting to test
Einstein's theory of General Relativity. If it is found wrong, the
potential energy explanation will be indirectly supported.
Marcel Luttgens
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:34 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Problem Mortgage | Credit Report | Hummer Dealer | Car Loan | Credit Cards
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Relativity
