Re: what is the relation between force and energy?

From: Jim Greenfield (greenfield_7_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/16/04 

Date: 15 Oct 2004 18:25:50 -0700

lvlus@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote in message news:<cc2dde17.0410142313.719840e7@posting.google.com>...
> greenfield_7@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.0410141648.9ea9ab@posting.google.com>...
> > srp@microtec.net (Andr? Michaud) wrote in message news:<562f286c.0410140647.7271bedc@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > Another possibility (see my answer to Tom), if I am correctly assessing
> > > the mass problem, would be that its real trajectory is exactly what it
> > > has been plotted to be, and that it is not "anomalous" in the least.
> > > Just that the wrong rest mass has been used to do the calculations.
> > >
> > > André Michaud
> >
> > Tom's reply read, but unfortunately you guys are out of my league
> > nuclear physics wise.
> >
> > Just regarding mass, time dilation, and GR:
> > Gravity at the earth's centre differs greatly from that at the
> > surface. Therefore clocks should run (according to GR) at different
> > rates.
>
>
> I don't know about GR, but SR says the same about time dilation.

I tried to follow on another thread, how an apparent contradiction due
to GR was countered by a reverse in SR, which "proved" them both to be
in agreement, but it was far from convincing. (about time dilation)
>
>
> > So how come both the core and the atmosphere complete an orbit
> > of the sun in exactly the same time (whatever that may be). The
> > observation that the core isn't on the other side of the sun by now,
> > is enough to make me bin GR right there!
>
>
> Good question. Remember that time flows for _discrete objects or
> systems_ dependent upon their states of motion.

But motion relative to what, is going to be the issue.

 We can say that the
> Earth and its atmosphere are a system for which time flows at x rate.
> Obviously, anything on its surface which is stationary wrt the Earth's
> surface has the same time rate as the its surface. But at anytime
> that something on the surface moves wrt the surface, it is moving
> faster than the Earth is moving because its motion is _in addition_ to
> that of the Earth's motion.

OK. So my car clock would have a different time rate than the road
clock.
However, if the car is going east or west, will determine the cars
velocity ref the earth's orbit (to the sun). At night (I think), I am
moving faster ref the earth orbit (spin tangent) and orbital direction
add. After midnight, I begin to slow (in bed) ref earth orbit. If SR
were correct, then a slight fluctuation should occur in my bedside
clock rate.
>
> Gravitation varies dependent upon distance from the source, so for
> objects located at any distance from higher or lower than the surface
> of the Earth, their time rates will vary.
>
> These two effects can only be explained with the notion that time is a
> property of discrete matter/objects/systems and it passes dependent
> upon their states of motion.

As above; wrt?

  But if one effect occurs due to motion
> and the other due to distance from a gravitational force, how can we
> say time rates vary dependent upon motion when an object is stationary
> at some distance from a gravitational source, such as a satellite in
> an orbit at constant velocity wrt the Earth?

The satellite is in a wobbly orbit around the sun (as is the earth due
to the moon). I suspect it would be very difficult to arrange the
satellites speed through space (the aether :-) )to match that of the
earth.
(elliptical orbit ignored)
>
> We can say that not because gravitation directly affects an object's
> time rate, but because it affects directly the state of motion of an
> object and as the object's state of motion changes, that affects its
> time rate. Therefore, there is no conflict in the two experiments as
> I have explained the effects.

I was just about to counter that until I fall down a well, gravity
doesn't alter my motion, when I realised it DOES stop me flying off
the earth at a tangent.
> TomGee
> 101504

Seeya
JimG
c'=c+v

Relevant Pages

  • Newtons Principia: Definitions: I - IV
    ... The motion of the whole is the sum of the motions of all the parts; ... Of this sort is gravity, by which bodies tend to the centre of the ... earth, but would go off from it in a right line, and that with an ... accelerates all falling bodies, whether heavy or light, great or ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Newtons Principia: Definitions: I - IV
    ... The motion of the whole is the sum of the motions of all the parts; ... Of this sort is gravity, by which bodies tend to the centre of the ... earth, but would go off from it in a right line, and that with an ... accelerates all falling bodies, whether heavy or light, great or ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: if gravity were a field
    ... Or do you think that mass and gravity do not belong ... of Earth? ... >Falling space and spacetime do not belong to same theory. ... freefall must be inertial motion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: if gravity were a field
    ... Or do you think that mass and gravity do not belong ... Falling space and spacetime do not belong to same theory. ... > and that point is near the surface of the Earth. ... freefall must be inertial motion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Take the time rate out of the Equivalence Principle.
    ... >> Timeless acceleration Eric. ... That's for a change of motion in space. ... But in gravity there is only an equivalence to acceleration - ... no time rate necesary. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading