Re: Eotvos.

Dear em:

"em" <nootlanoo@dodiggerdo> wrote in message
news:4382b924$0$12929$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "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.

It will if its orbit is non-circular. As Mercury's orbit is
non-circular.

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

Frame dragging is a *prediction* of 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.

You might have to do that, if you are enamoured of an expanding
aether.

>>>>> 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?

Read what I said:
>>>> Curvature is a separate thing. Curvature is a
>>>> change in the radial and temporal directions.
>>>> Frame dragging is in the "angular" and
>>>> 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?

Neither.

> 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.

Hence "frame dragging". Consider the forces at work to bring
about "tidal locking", which is a different beast, but...

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

Been shown to be the case for other "gyroscopes". Gravity Probe
B just hasn't weighed in yet.

....
>> 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.

I disagree with this last. Spacetime is the product of the
mass/energy in the Universe. Space without either time or
mass/energy is a mathematical fiction.

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

You've got me there. Are you imagining that said expansion is in
any way related to Hubble expansion? Be careful how you answer,
as Hubble expansion has taken on a range of values, while c, G
and so on have been monotonic over the last 12 billion years.

> 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.

The meter, and therefore space, are defined by c and time. Space
doesn't exist, or as you said it, cannot be differentiated,
without time.

....
>>> 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.

Except that the properties of aether are not separate from the
matter/energy in the Unvierse, OK.

> 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.

Where "propagation" is necessary, OK. Understand that this is
*my* opinion, and not indicative of anyone that actually teaches
or does physics for a living.

>>>>> 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.

Do it with a stream of photons then. Just as an Einstein cross
is not just a handful of photons. We say the "path is bent", or
the "path must be bent" by gravity, because we are observing
non-locally.

> 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.

Please try and separate "curvature" and "frame dragging" somehow.
They are not the same.

If you like fluid models, curvature is akin to a meniscus, and
frame dragging is akin to what happens if you spin a basketball
in water.

>>>>> Relative to the sun, or a star, the path takes a
>>>>> bend. Is that not a local event?
....
>> 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.

I don't see expanding *anything* drawing light towards a mass
center. Maybe it is just me.

>>>>> 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.

Experiments don't verify. They may fail to disprove, and that is
all. It is inherent to the scientific method.

> Which to date has not been forthcoming. So the
> WEP and the EEP stand uncontested and valid.

*Always* contested. And still 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.

*All* that which is accelerated experiences weight. Note that
were the ground to stop supporting you, you would continue along
an elliptical path, with the Earth's surface as your apogee. You
are being accelerated into an abnormally slow circular orbit.

>>> 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?

Quarter or half wave effects. Gravitation making it out of a BH,
even though the speed of gravity is c. Any exchange of virtual
particles. Continuous models (such as the ones I listed) rely on
the illusion of spacetime (or even aether) that is a statistical
artifact of the underlying quantum world.

>>>>> 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.

I think you are being kind. I think that they cast their stones
and marked no flesh, so ceased casting. UA stopped answering.

>>>>> 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. (-:

My wishes are of no consequence. Best of luck.

David A. Smith


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Eotvos.
    ... > No difference between this and a gyroscope. ... My point was a gyroscope in obit will not change the orientation ... >>> Curvature is a separate thing. ... geodesic purely derived from the expansion of the underlying aether? ...
    (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)
Loading