Re: Eotvos.


"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:bJtgf.10400$xu.6339@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dear em:
>
> "em" <nootlanoo@dodiggerdo> wrote in message
> news:438182af$0$14295$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> "A gyroscope in
>> obit will not change the orientation of its axis to prove
>> that space is curved. It will remain fixed at what ever it is
>> pointed at."
>
> Point Mercury's orbit (the major elliptical axis) at some distant
> constellation. Wait a hundred years. It is pointing elsewhere.
> No difference between this and a gyroscope.

My point was a gyroscope in obit will not change the orientation
of its axis as a direct result of space being curved.

First of all the presession seems to be gradual and it seems accountable in
GR.

Otherwise I have not considered how an expanding aether could effect a
gyroscopes precession. Maybe if I did take the time to study gyroscopes I
might learn something to lend support.

>>>> If space was curved then a gyroscope does not
>>>> seem to lend this notion any support by following
>>>> a curvature
>>>
>>> Curvature is a separate thing. Curvature is a change
>>> in the radial and temporal directions. Frame
>>> dragging is in the "angular" and temporal direction.
>>
>> No... the curvature doesn't effect the radial, it is more
>> a tangential curvature.
>
> Do your own research, if you don't believe me. But what you have
> said is wrong.

It changes its temporal direction? What do you mean by that? Are you saying
it goes backwards in time or did you mean to say it changes its temporal
velocity, ie it slows down or speeds up?

Any acceleration is along the radial emanating from the centre of mass. Any
motion other than towards the centre of mass would be a force acting
nonparallel to that usually associated with gravitational vectors.

The gyroscope does not change its orientation due to the said curvature of
space. It may change its position but not its orientation.

>>>>>> So the question begging to be answered is what is
>>>>>> actually bending?
>>>>>
>>>>> The belief that a path at a given altitude is separate
>>>>> from the mass's state of motion that is creating the
>>>>> altitude.
>>>>
>>>> That only avoided my question. Is space curved or not?
>>>
>>> If you ask "spaceTIME" it is consistent with being so
>>
>> So, if the is no curvature without time, that means
>> therefore space, by itself does not actually have any
>> bend. So rather it is the component of time that gives
>> rise to the so called curvature of spaceTIME.
>
> Time defines space (via c). Space does not exist without time.
> To describe the entirety of "curvature" you must use
> "spacetime"... not just space. There is ALSO curvature of space.
> Time would be incapable or altering the vector of a passing
> photon via "gravitational lensing".

IMO, time gives us motion. If time were to stand still, all said motion
would cease to exist.

Theoretically space could exist without time but in reality it cannot be
separated.

We are examining the curvature of space. Does it really curve or is the
geodesic purely derived from the expansion of the underlying aether?

Time does not cause the curvature per se so much as it provides the sequence
from one time frame to the next thereby providing the motion so the geodesic
can reveal itself.


>> That is what we would expect to see if space were
>> expanding.
>
> Strictly clock effects in different gravity wells...
>
>>>>>> And as far as the frame dragging is concerned I
>>>>>> will wait until all side have had their chance to speak.
>>>>>> I will be patient.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, but those results are in. Frame dragging appears
>>>>> to be fact.
>>>>
>>>> Oh... so space has a substance, therefore there exists
>>>> Aether.
>>>
>>> I have a different tack on that. Diffraction responds to
>>> all geometries, regardless of how far apart the slits or
>>> edges are. It just affects how big the laboratory needs
>>> to be to detect it. Therefore nothing is entirely local.
>>> Therefore everything is to some extent everywhere.
>>> Therefore all matter/energy *is* spacetime, *is* aether.
>>
>> Well we are half way there. So you do accept there is
>> an Aether?
>
> Not really. The aether is simply the effects of distant
> matter/energy, in my opinion. But observations cannot rule out a
> Lorentz aether. The butcher's thumb (mass/energy) is an integral part of
> the scale (any Lorentz aether).

Well if you want to start saying matter/energy *is* space-time then what you
are ascribing is absolutely aetherteric. Where all the manifestation of
energy/matter itself and all the forces we see active in nature are actually
derived from and propagated by the aether.

>>>> How do you figure 'locally' in this case?
>>>
>>> In a freefalling frame, barely on either side of the
>>> photon as it passes.
>>
>> Well a photon still experiences a very real
>> deflection relative to the surrounding star field.
>
> A deflection indistinguishable/undetectable at each point along
> its path. That is local. Some Joe standing a billion light
> years away and seeing an Einstein cross is *not* local.

Well that is not a very bright statement considering we cannot even view a
photon in its passage fom one point to another here in the lab without
disturbing it and causing it to collapse.

Satellites do not collapse when you look at them and you can plot their
course as they go.

Here we can see their curvature is a local occurrence.

>>>> Relative to the sun, or a star, the path takes a
>>>> bend. Is that not a local event?
>>>
>>> No. If you are looking at a "system" large enough
>>> to contain the entire source of mass, it is not local
>>> and not a frame.
>>
>> Then the photon does not then experience a straight
>> line locally as the deflection in its path is locally
>> instigated.
>
> No, the photon's "path" is the definition of straight. Given no
> intervening lenses or mirrors.

That is what I am saying. Even though I accept gravity as a metric, space
does not have any physical curvature to speak of.

The aether is expanding giving rise to the geodesic.

>>>> No. I was referring to the WEP and the EEP, etc.
>>>
>>> Your argument was "if we continue to hear about it,
>>> it must have a grain of truth". We continue to hear
>>> about Newton... how science went to hell after he
>>> died. Even have one guy convinced that Newton
>>> was wrong and calculus is what has blinded
>>> science ever since. To continue to hear something,
>>> usually means that someone has issues in getting
>>> beyond something. Truth is a still, small voice.
>>
>> No, not at all. It will remain intact until someone
>> can produce an experimental verification.
>
> Not "verification". It will stay in place until someone can
> experimentally refute it.

..... experimental verification stating otherwise.

Which to date has not been forthcoming. So the WEP and the EEP stand
uncontested and valid. The implication of the EEP being valid means there is
no experimental evidence refuting the statement weight is the product of
acceleration. And this can only mean the ground is undergoing acceleration
in the upward direction.

>> It is not hear say that retains
>> the WEP and the EEP. It is rather, every
>> experiment done to date confirms its validity and
>> none to date, short of Uncle Al's has
>> demonstrated otherwise.
>
> Except for any sort of experiment where quantum effects outweigh any
> statistical model (such as GR, SR, Maxwell, etc.)

Such as?

>>>> That is why Al's experiment really would have
>>>> been of remarkable significance if he had
>>>> succeeded
>>>
>>> It hasn't failed yet.
>>
>> It's not looking good. Al would be booking an
>> international lecture tour by now if he found
>> otherwise.
>
> How would we know? He isn't crowing, and his "troupe" of bashers aren't
> saying anything...

They've probably written it off as a no show and bearing no grudge have all
moved on.

That's acceptable civil behaviour.

>>>> Oh... I would like to be there. A resolution to one
>>>> of the greatest question of physics?
>>>>
>>>> Well, I suppose, everyone to their own.
>>>
>>> Hope you get your wish.
>>
>> Paradigm shift. Sure, that would be cool.
>>
>>> Christmas is coming.
>>
>> You've still got plenty of time yet to do your
>> shopping?
>
> Time yes. Money no.

Paradigm shifts don't cost anything, so maybe you should join me asking
Santa for one. (-:


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Eotvos.
    ... >>> obit will not change the orientation of its axis to ... > aether could effect a gyroscopes precession. ... >>> is more a tangential curvature. ... *All* that which is accelerated experiences weight. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Eotvos.
    ... >>> is a precession in a circular orbit due to frame dragging. ... > In a circular orbit there is no precession due to curvature. ... As the day the aether is officially ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Eotvos.
    ... Not due to curvature, since Gravity Probe B's orbit was ... Without time, there is no motion, no change. ... > This is what would be the case were the aether ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Eotvos.
    ... Research those that published cold fusion, regardless of their ... >>> will precess in its obit of the earth just as the earth ... >> Curvature is a separate thing. ... >>> Aether. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Eotvos.
    ... > I am relating the lack of precession in a circular orbit ... Curvature had nothing to do with it. ... > Frame dragging is quite separate to the curvature of space. ... is what alters the "pointing axis" of a gyroscope. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)