Re: Eotvos.

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:o_Qgf.14131$xu.2794@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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.

We are talking about a satellite orbiting the earth. Precession is usually
related to the gyroscopes reaction to an applied force in regards the angle
of its axis.

So you could be right, the precession is due to the curvature of space.

>> First of all the precession seems to be gradual
>> and it seems accountable in GR.
>
> Frame dragging is a *prediction* of GR.

Then that implies space is a metric. That in itself is a big step as it will
lay to rest many affine theories.

>> 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.

Yes, I should do. As surely a rotating disc should be able to reveal whether
it is undergoing acceleration or whether it is sitting at rest in a
gravitational field.

>>>>>> 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.

Then you are not making sense.

>> 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...

I do not even think it is related to what we are talking about.

>> 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.

"Put a spinning gyroscope into orbit around the Earth, with the spin axis
pointed toward some distant star as a fixed reference point. Free from
external forces, the gyroscope's axis should continue pointing at the
star--forever."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/051117_space_time.html

>>> 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.

Take away the component of time and all said motion ceases.

Space would exist without time as much as you still posses weight after you
have stepped off the scales.

The curvature needs time because the curvature is not absolutely inherent in
the space itself and therefore needs the component of time to describe it.

This is what would be the case were the aether expanding.

> Space without either time or mass/energy is a mathematical fiction.

Relative to a photon time stops. That is not 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.

Yes, all our rulers would have to be expanding as the very metric of space
itself would be expanding.

What is unusual, if a particle was to maintain a constant rate of
acceleration equal to the gravitational acceleration of the earth, it would
take one year to reach light speed.

So if the aether were to be expanding, it would have to be doing so in a
fashion akin to a Mandelbrot set. Where the ruler which measure c is also
expanding then infinite progression is possible.

>> 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.

What is time if it is not but motion? So the relative motion of two objects
in space is what gives us time. I do not think time is an actual thing unto
itself, like space and matter.

>>>> 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.

Sorry. I can warm myself to the heart glow that timespace could be used as a
stepping stone towards the aether, but I am thinking more along the lines
that all physical manifestation is derived by a dynamics of wave interaction
and wave function within the aether. Where the aether interacts with itself
in such manner to give rise to the relative solidity of matter. Its stubborn
resistance to being accelerated, the propagation of all energies and all the
said forces now supposedly acting between our said manifestations of matter
are derived by a dynamic of the aether.

>> 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.

Don't worry, I will not quote you or drag you into any foray. (-;

We derive our understanding from order we see as being fit.

>>>>>> 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.

Sorry, you lost me there. The wave's passage was an unbroken sequential
local event. It took time to propagate across that region of space. How do
you mean 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.

I know.

> 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.

I understand some metric and aether models more or less see matter as
displacing the medium in which it resides. Where it is expected to be found
wrapping around a massive object and dragging behind like a basket ball spun
in water.

The model of the aether I envisage is more akin to an image generated upon
your
monitor. Where the image is generated by pixils and the motion can be
derived from that which is fixed.

To accomodate an object I do not think there is any displacement of aether.
Where an object is generated by the aether as a region of wave interaction.

Hence you can see where I am coming from in regards curvature and dragging.

>>>>>> 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.

It is not just you. The uniform expansion in the aether will only explain
weight and local attractions terra firma in accordance with the WEP/EEP.

By itself it does not explain why or how this could cause a photon to
deflect towards the centre of mass of a massive object relative to the
distant stars.

One final piece is still yet to be put on the table.

>>>>>> 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.

They do when they produce evidence that support a given hypothesis. (-;
>
>> Which to date has not been forthcoming. So the
>> WEP and the EEP stand uncontested and valid.
>
> *Always* contested. And still valid.

LOL... endlessly so. These days if you want to contest the EEP you have to
wait in a queue. (-:

>> 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.

I really don't get you.

If I were to step over a deep well I would accelerate radially towards the
centre of mass.

>>>> 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.

Well for starters I don't consider GR, SR and Maxwell statistical.

Secondly I do not consider BH, virtual particles nor the statistical
background of the quantum world as valid actualities.

Finally, I think we are yet to resolve the continuity/discontinuity of the
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.

Physics has a coastline utterly strewn with the wreckages of great men,
towering giants and fools alike.

I think most people have learn by now to just draw a line in the sand, state
their position then sit back and wait.

The knives get pulled out after the paper has been placed on the table.

We are past two or is it three release dates?

Now we are being told foul deed is afoot? So are we to tacitly assume no
announcement is likely to be forth coming?

This would be bordering towards comedy were it not that any paper, for what
it is worth, revealing a null result would stand as yet more validation.

>>>>>> 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.

You're right. I don't think Santa would be just carrying a paradigm shift
around in his bag, little alone his elves being capable of constructing one.

Cheers.

em



.