Re: what is the relation between force and energy?

From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/22/04 

Date: 22 Oct 2004 12:43:54 -0700

srp@microtec.net (Andr? Michaud) wrote in message news:<562f286c.0410211713.f28b76@posting.google.com>...
> lvlus@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote in message news:<cc2dde17.0410201640.18468e17@posting.google.com>...
> > srp@microtec.net (Andr? Michaud) wrote in message news:<562f286c.0410190842.251564d4@posting.google.com>...
> > > lvlus@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote in message news:<cc2dde17.0410190241.1d5f1f61@posting.google.com>...
> > > > srp@microtec.net (Andr? Michaud) wrote in message news:<562f286c.0410181539.26530500@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > lvlus@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote in message news:<cc2dde17.0410180745.19624e21@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > srp@microtec.net (Andr? Michaud) wrote in message news:<562f286c.0410150414.65f5aa57@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > greenfield_7@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.0410141648.9ea9ab@posting.google.com>...
> SNIP
> > > >

> > Ok, then, you are saying that an _interpretation_ is what makes them
> > appear to run faster?
>
> They do run faster (more cycles per second), but the length of the
> second does not really change.
>
> The interpretation is that SR and GR defender _say_ that they have
> the same number of cycles per second, but that the second is shorter
> in altitude, to account for the real change in frequency.
>
> I'll try to show with arbitrary values.
>
SNIP
>
> This is metaphorical, but it carries the general idea of
> what I understand is the situation.
>
> For SR and GR defenders, the observed change means that
> time is dilating (contracting).

I am not sure it can be described as a contraction of time because we
perceive time to be a "passing" of it and not something which can
contract or expand. What happens is that time flows for particular
objects/systems inversely proportional to their states of motion,
either faster or slower than previously, or as compared to other
objects/systems.

> For me, the observed change means
> that the energy in atoms is increasing (which causes increase in
> frequency) due to tightening of the orbits (shortening of the
> distances between electrons and nucleons, which increases energy).
>

Einstein provided for energy increases in a mass by raising its
temperature. Would not that also occur here even though it may be the
increased distance which precipitates the increase of energy? And if
so, do you see any way that may conflict with your theory? That is
important to me because in my model, temperature is a basic factor in
order for us to be able to see objects. Virtual particles (VPs) are
invisible to us because our eyes are receptive only to objects having
temperature. Having no temperature, VPs have no motion of their own,
ordinarily, until and unless something imparts motion to them, at
which point they acquire temperature and the property of time, and
from which point they become visible to us.

 
> > The conclusion to the experiment of clocks in flight was that gravity
> > caused them to go slower than those on land.
>
> It took me a long time to figure out whether experiments showed that
> the clocks were running faster or slower in altitude, because most
> references are not very explicit. Logic always told me that they
> should run faster, and the Halliday and Resnick account definitely
> points in that direction.
>
> What finally confirmed this was an account of the Häfele and Keating
> experiment in 1972 when they carried many cesium clocks around the
> world in airplaines at 10 km altitude and then compared their
> readings with those of clocks that had remained on the ground.
> "Gravitation and Spacetime", by Ohanian and Ruffini, second edition,
> page 183, specifically says :
>
> "The clocks carried to high altitude (about 10 km) by the aircraft
> were found to have gained of the order of 100 nanoseconds when
> brought back to a laboratory clock that stayed on the ground."
>
> So, the conclusion is that gravity caused them to go faster in
> altitude than on the ground.
>

Yes, of course. Sorry. I had to go back and find the details to see
why I said that. I see that I meant to elaborate on that to say that
the net effect is that time passes slower for the clocks in flight. I
claim distraction and the fact that I did not re-read what I was about
to post.

In the experiment of the flying clocks, it is my understanding that
when the planes moved with the Earth's direction of rotation, they
were slower by a few nanoseconds than when they traveled against the
Earth's rotation (West), when they were well over 200 nanoseconds
faster than the ground clocks. The net effect is that for clocks in
flight, time passes faster than it does for the ground clocks.

 
> > I contend that it was gravity (i.e., the lessening of it higher up)
> > that caused them to increase their motion and thus the faster their
> > motion the slower their time rates.
>
> If we assume time dilation, I think it can be seen like that, yes.
>
> > That explains why time dilation by gravitation does not need to
> > involve time, although in my opinion it does, because gravitation
> > affects an objects state of motion, and changes in that affects time
> > rates.
>
> Again, I think yes, if we assume time dilation.
>
> > > In other words, the reference frequency is not physically invariant
> > > contary to orthodox physicists beliefs. It varies with the dilation
> > > of nucleons and accompanying electronic escort orbits as a function
> > > of intensity of local electrostatic equilibrium level.
> > >
> >
You refer to the atoms of objects/systems, right? They increase in
energy with more distance from a gravitational source, correct? I see
where that may account for the pioneer ships anomalies. Those
anomalies may not be related to time dilation, as you claim that they
are not, and you may be right in that.

> > But if the reference frequency changes, isn't that time dilation?
>
> See above, they have to assume that the atom frequency does not
> change for interpreting that time contracts, which is line with
> their belief that nucleon effective rest mass is invariant.
>
> > > > Time dilation, however, has to do with observed phenomena,
> > >
> > > Yes. Nucleon dilation also fully accounts for the same phenomena.
> > >
> > > > but your idea shows that no such observations can be made in an
> > > > experiment where no electronic clock asjustments are employed.
> > >
> > > Yes, there is one. The supporting "experiment" is the observed behavior
> > > of spacecrafts on opposed hyperbolic trajectories away from the Sun.
> > >

This is the point where I am having trouble properly understanding
your theory. Why and how do others claim the anomalies are time
dilations, if indeed they do claim that?

> > I understood that the lack of gravitational fields provides for the
> > greatest density of the atomic nucleus.
>
> Absolutely fascinating! You are the first (outside a very closed local
> circle) to understand what I explain in this regard.
>

Maybe you're just getting better at it....:>)

> > > > Further, time dilation occurs in SR's Twin Paradox experiment which uses
> > > > no clocks and discounts any effects of gravitation.
> > >
SNIP
> > > > >
> > > > > Further more, they have been able to come up with no other
> > > > > rational explanation than time dilation to explain this
> > > > > "atomic clock specific" phenomenon, given their non-causalist
> > > > > philosophy.
> > > > >
> > > >
I am not aware of their claims. I know that they are at a lack to
explain it, but they are trying to figure it out.

SNIP
> > > > >
> >
> > That law seems to say, wrt your model, that nucleons are always in
> > motion due to the motions of their gluons.
>
> Well, more that the quarks in nucleons are always in motion inside
> nucleons even though the nucleons might be stationary with respect
> to each other in a nucleus, which is a conclusion that has also
> been reached by orthodoxy lately.

Yes, I see that.

>
> As for gluons, they are part of the QCD theory, that attempts to
> mathematically describe the Copenhagen view of the nucleons innards.
>
> It may surprise you, but with simple electrostatic Coulomb law,
> within my model, it is possible to account for the total mass
> of proton or neutron, within a volume of 1.252776701E15 m for
> proton and 1.274149031E-15 m for neutron, which is directly on
> par with the effective radius of the proton mentionned in
> Halliday and Resnick (1967 edition) of 1.2E-15 m (page 4).
>
> This is something that the equations of QCD have apparently never
> been able to do.
>
> No need for gluons nor any other virtual particles to do the job.
>

That should surprise a lot of others and not just me. Have there been
any challenges to your calculations?

 
> > The lack of gravitational effects increases their motions, and that
> > in turn increases their energies, which increases the nucleon densities.
> > If that is not right, please correct it.
>
> That is the rationalisation that QCD defenders bring to justify the
> action of the virtual particles that they bring into the picture.
>

Ok, but I referred to your nucleons specifically and not to virtual
particles. Do you agree that gravitation decreases the state of
motion of discrete objects/systems compared to others located where
gravitation is less? Is it correct to say that the farther away from a
gravitational field, the faster will be the state of motion of
discrete objects/sytems?

> > I don't see the connection from there to "no time dilation", though,
> > as it seems you are saying time is not involved.
>
> Well, I mean that time need not be involved. It depends on whether
> you use time based physics or distance based physics to look at the
> problem.
>
> Force is induced as a function of distance, not of time.
>
> For example, the force at the Bohr orbit (in the Bohr model, which
> presently measures an isolated hydrogen atom (not involved in a
> molecular structure)) is precisely 8.238721759E-8 Newton, it doesn't
> matter what length of time passes, as long as the distance between
> the electron and the nucleus (opposite electrostatic charges) doesn't
> change, the Coulomb force applied at the bohr radius will remain
> unchanged.
>
> The force here is in Newtons per meter at the distance considered.
> If you want to know from the force the energy induced at the Bohr
> radius, you have to multiply that force by the distance considered
> (the bohr radius), which is 5.291772083E-11 meter (much shorter
> than the Newton's reference meter).
>
> So,
>
> E = 8.238721759E-8 * 5.291772083E-11 = 4.35974378E-18 Joules
>
> This energy is permanently present at the Bohr radius and does not
> depend on elapsed time, and the only possibly way for that energy
> to change is for the distance between the Bohr orbit and the nucleus
> to change.
>
> Now, if you want to introduce time, you associate that energy
> to Planck's constant, which is based on time.
>
> Frequency = E / h = 4.35974378E-18 / 6.62606876E-34 = 6.579683916E15 Hz.
>
> If you want the force on a time basis, you only need to multiply
> that frequency (the number of times that the electron circles the
> nucleus per second in the Bohr atom) by Planck's constant (the
> energy induced on a time basis per cycle), and divide by the radius.
>
> F = (frequency * h /radius)
>
> F = 6.579683916E15 X 6.62606876E-34 / 5.291772083E-11
>
> = 8.2387210805E-8
>
> Which gives you back the force previously calculated with
> the distance based Coulomb equation.
>
> What SR and GR advocates say with regards to cesium atoms, is that
> the frequency does not change even though the energy of the atom
> increases in atoms with altitude which is nonsense.
>

Yes, I agree.

> They do that by tweeking the second so that planck's constant induces
> more energy per cycle, while arbitrarily keeping the frequency
> constant even though the electronic orbits have gotten closer to
> the nucleus and have become more energetic which again, is pure
> nonsense.

Again, agreed.

>
> > But yet you say that distance from gravitational fields changes
> > energies which changes frequencies, and that involves time.
>
> See above. It involves time only if you use time-based values
> otherwise and fundamentally, increase in energy can be due only
> to diminishing the distance between charged particles (Coulomb law).
>
>
I will say more about the validity of time-based values next, as this
seems to be the major obstacle between our ideas at this time. I am
out of time now, but I will continue in my next post the remainder of
this post.
TomGee 102204

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Odd derivation of the GR gravitational shift formula
    ... of energy. ... of mass of the planet, ... be an infinite distance away from the planet, ... spend more time in a greater gravitation before it could escape. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Odd derivation of the GR gravitational shift formula
    ... for escape velocity is to use conservation ... of energy. ... be an infinite distance away from the planet, ... SR cannot describe gravitation, persistent idiot. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Revised Hypothesis
    ... Neither matter nor energy conceptualizes. ... of this universe through motion and distance. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Revised Hypothesis
    ... Neither matter nor energy conceptualizes. ... > of this universe through motion and distance. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Work - impulse
    ... of "work" does not come to me as easily as one for impulse. ... that it is impossible that any change of state of motion could occur ... without some expenditure of energy. ... of distance between charged particles, ...
    (sci.physics)