Re: GR ?
- From: "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:49:38 +0100
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1122563985.066028.9370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
|
| Significant Zero wrote:
| > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:1122492616.964923.279750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > |
| > |
| > | Significant Zero wrote:
| > | > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:1122326795.582385.28630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | Significant Zero wrote:
| > | > | > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:1122315025.227243.257180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Significant Zero wrote:
| > | > | > | > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > | >
news:1122273688.678256.104230@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > snip
| > | > | > | > | Why not just tell people "action" is invariant, or
| > | > | > | > | is typing your forte. Planck's "h",
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | h= N*ergs*secs = N*ergs'*secs' .
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | Let's try to explain why action is invariant.
| > | > | > | > | Ken
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > That a broad one Ken but is not action defined as a product
of
| > time
| > | > and
| > | > | > | > distance ?
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | No
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > Tom seems to be saying the time and distance are invariant
| > except
| > | > when
| > | > | > he
| > | > | > | > needs them to be variant to support some view like the
Twins.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Sig 0,
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | 1) Action is WORK x TIME, please look that up,
| > | > | > | it's vital in physics to understand that!
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Yes I understood that was the common definition I was just
trying to
| > | > ease an
| > | > | > improvement in {:-)
| > | > | > i.e defining work\energy as an intrinsic difference between
| > spaces.(dont
| > | > ask
| > | > | > {:-)
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | 2) See that Planck's h= N x ERGS x SECONDS
| > | > | > | and is invariant, (same in all CS's) look that up.
| > | > | > | (N~6.625x10^-27 is a scalar that varies with better
| > | > | > | measuring every decade or so).
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Yes I have erg = 100 * 10E-9 joule and h = 6.62606876 *10E-34
joules
| > a
| > | > sec
| > | > | > and a joule being equal to a Newton meter with a Newton being
equal
| > to
| > | > meter
| > | > | > kilogram sec -2 which I'm not convinced is an invariant
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | 3) If dx/dt =c in one CS then in all CS's dx'/dt' =c ,
| > | > | > | that's why "c" is the same in all CS's, as you've
| > | > | > | heard.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Sure I agree that c is a valid local constant but if dx/dt is a
| > | > | > proportionally environmental dependant variant then this can
also
| > | > explains
| > | > | > why c can be constant and also a environmental dependant
variant.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Sig 0, understand those 3 points above and that's
| > | > | > | 90% of relativity.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I think I understand but don't necessarily agree on the
invariance
| > of
| > | > some
| > | > | > aspects.
| > | > |
| > | > | Good for Sig 0...
| > | > |
| > | > | No need to agree with the 3 points, just understand
| > | > | the enemy you are attacking.
| > | > |
| > | > | Pick one and attack...if it's a reasonable aggression,
| > | > | people will think on it.
| > | > Hello Ken
| > | > I think attack is a rather stong word how about a fierce nuzzel {:-)
as
| > that
| > | > is all I feel able to do at the moment (central heating to fix, 8mm
| > | > microbore I installed 30 yrs ago).
| > | >
| > | > GR curvature implies variance in space-time (in my view anyway) and
this
| > | > variance could be seen as a potential gradient with mass being the
| > positive
| > | > indicator of the gradient and relative absence of mass the negative
| > | > indicator as perhaps shown by Assis.
| > | >
| > | > I would be very interested if you have some way of confirming your
| > statement
| > | > of the invariance of h
| > |
| > | Use the the FORCE young Sig0...
| >
| > Just in case you have a different definition of invariance to me I
looked it
| > up and this is how it reads from
| > http://en.wilkipedia.org/wilki/invariant_(physics)
| >
| > In physics, invariants are usually quantities conserved (unchanged) by
the
| > symmetries of the physical system. (See Noether's theorem.)
| >
| > The correspondence between symmetries and conserved quantities is
apparent
| > through conservation laws. Much work has been done, especially in
quantum
| > physics, to relate every conserved quantity to some symmetry. One such
| > quantity that still defies all such attempts is mass. Some examples of
| > invariance include:
| >
| > Is this a fair definition from your pov ? For example I would agree that
the
| > SOL was local measured constant but relatively a variable under some
| > environmental changes and methodologies unless adjusted for by the
| > application of a transform on the raw observed results, or unless it
| > complies with the postulate that time and length compliantly adjust
| > themselves to environmental changes so as to locally produce the value
c.
| >
| > It goes on to say the following but I find these debatable.
| >
| > Acceleration is invariant under the Galilean transformations.
| > The speed of light invariant under the Lorentz transformations of
special
| > relativity.
| > time invariance makes energy a conserved quantity, hence an invariant.
| > translational invariance implies that momentum is conserved.
| > rotational invariance implies that angular momentum is conserved.
| >
| > Notes by me:- time invariance and translational invariance had no link
| >
| > As mass, time and length are not confirmed as invariant how can h which
is a
| > derivative of these factors be confirmed or claimed as invariant ?
|
| The FORCE is strong within young Sig0.
|
| Wikipedia, is usually a good guide, but there are
| no standards. What you've quoted looks written
| by someone knowledgeable, so I agree.
Fine the next question is then what are the symmetries of the physical
system. I have looked up symmetries and Noether and its not clear that
anybody is sure of the symmetries of the physical system are, except as
assertions of geometric or mathematical theories, which tends to make them
self consistent by axiom as per the earth is flat axiom?
I hope you don't think I am being unnecessarily picky but I suspect in this
area is were many of the misconceptions IMHO arise. For example I am
prepared to except c as measured locally and applied as a constant as a
product of two cosmic variants and perhaps even h as a constant as measured
local and applied as a product of three locally measured cosmic variants but
as to their cosmic invariance I have yet to be convinced. I did note in my
trawl of the net to reply to you that the isotropic nature of the physical
reality from our pov was not assured.
|
| I accept the invariance of the fundamental charge "e",
| Edward Purcell (a famous smart electrician) says so,
| and I've found many reasons to agree.
|
| Let's examine the relativistic dimensionality of
| FORCE "F" using Coulomb, it's straightforward
| and enlightning, here's the dimensionality,
|
| F = Mass*Acceleration = e^2/radius^2
|
| radius = c*time = ct = t , since c=1.
|
| Energy = Mass*c^2 , E=M.
|
| Acceleration = r/t^2 = 1/t.
|
| Use some algebra and find
|
| e^2 = E*t == ergs*seconds = h.
|
| In relativity "E" and "t" separately are NOT
| invariant but the product E*t is.
E is the product of both Mass that is perhaps not invariant (see above) and
t which is not invariant so how do you prove that the product E*t is
invariant.
Mass * c^2 * t = h
rationalise and expand c , l =1 : t =1 c =1 ?
Mass * (l/1)^2 * t = h ?
|
| Hold two clocks, throw one away very fast,
| to a speed v/c = 8/10, and the gamma "g"
| is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 10/6.
|
| Knowing h is invariant use,
I don't know this yet I'm waiting to be convinced by experimental evidence.
|
| h = Et = E't' = action
|
| The thrown clock K' has kinetic energy E'
| and a relative rate t' so
|
| E' = E * 10/6 (Clock K' is heavier)
|
| t' = t * 6/10 (Clock K' is slower)
|
| The mystery is how Einstein knew action was
| invariant in 1905.
Mathematically {:-) as you have just shown. The product of two mutually
compliant variables maybe locally invariant.
|
| Regards
| Ken S. Tucker
|
Best wishes and on your building project (mine is still unfinished{:-)
--
Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two
unbound field effects
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Maybe updates. (1-(1/(1/3))^2)/(1 + (1/(1/3))^2) = - 0.08 = FTL ? -p<+p or
(m*-v)<(m*+v) or (m*-c^2)<(m*+c^2) =g?
.
- Prev by Date: Re: All Tied Up & Strung Along: Hollywood String Theory Movie!!! Looking For Extras!!! Great Summer Work For Physicists!! No Knowledge of Physics Needed!!
- Next by Date: Re: A way to measure OWLS...and verify the constancy of the one way speed of light
- Previous by thread: Re: GR ?
- Next by thread: Re: GR ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
