Re: what is the relation between force and energy?
From: Andr? Michaud (srp_at_microtec.net)
Date: 10/23/04
- Next message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Equivalence my ass! Re: Well, Hobba? Re: A. Newtonian Invariance vs SR-cult fraud and corruption (Rev B)"
- Previous message: Quantum Mirror: "Re: The end of Bohr's complementarity principle?"
- In reply to: TomGee: "Re: what is the relation between force and energy?"
- Next in thread: TomGee: "Re: what is the relation between force and energy?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Oct 2004 05:43:07 -0700
lvlus@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote in message news:<cc2dde17.0410221143.5b99ea43@posting.google.com>...
> 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>...
>
> > > 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.
Absolutely correct. This is why I tend to think of the "flow of
time" and not just of "time". But SR defender really think that
time contracts.
But there is a builtin confusion with our using the unit second
to express the passing of time, because the second is a unit of
"duration" of processes and not a unit of passing of time. To
express passing, with the current definition, we would have to
say that time is passing at a rate (or speed) of 1 second per
second. But with SR, in the s/s definition of passing, the latter
is not a constant unit and neither is the first
With respect to time flow, in my example with t and delta_t,
they say that the clocks in altitude were going at t - delta_t
seconds per t - delta_t second, while to make sense, they should
have been saying that the clocks were going at t - delta_t second
per t second, the latter remaining constant. This would have
made sense and allowed to see that the frequency change was the
reason of the discrepancy.
See my post to Jim where I explain what I concluded was the
only moment that really exists the "present moment", which is
the only moment that we are aware of and that inexorably moves
from past to future.
Measurement of elapsed time based on the second is a man made
thing. The flow of time, which is the progression of the "present
moment" from past to future at an apparent constant rate is not.
It is fundamental reality.
> 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.
This is what SR is based on. But here again, this is something
that no one has been able to verify. Supposed time slowing down
with velocity can become measurable only when you get into
relativistic velocities, that we are totally unable to reach
with real clocks involved. Here again, people have to go on faith.
We are still in the domain of the unverifyable.
> > 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.
Yes, increase in effective mass, SR. Absolute agreement. Increased
energy of any kind in non elementary systems increases effective mass.
> Would not that also occur here even though it may be the increased
> distance which precipitates the increase of energy?
Absolutely. But I was talking of course specifically of raising the
clocks in altitude, which does not involve increase in their temperature.
> And if so, do you see any way that may conflict with your theory?
Not on account of raising temperature, which is a separate question
and which is not in conflict at all.
> That is important to me because in my model, temperature is a basic
> factor in order for us to be able to see objects.
In mine also.
> 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.
I wish it would be that simple. The reason we can see objects is that
that they are made of atoms, and that the outer layer electrons of these
atoms become energized by incoming light, which causes them to jump to a
metastable layer farther away from the nucleus. Being unstable on that
farther away layer, the electron will soon jump back to its more stable
lower level as it releases a photon, that photon, if in the visible
frequency range, will allow us to then see the object.
There is no way possible for individual particles to become visible simply
by starting to move, except for real photons whose wavelength/frequency
is in the visible range. No other sorts of particles can excite the
cells in our retina.
> > > 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.
Yes, that's what is deemed to happen.
> > > 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?
Yes.
> They increase in energy with more distance from a gravitational source,
> correct?
Yes. Increase in energy and also in effective mass on account of
increased angular momentum of quarks in nucleons.
> I see where that may account for the pioneer ships anomalies.
How interesting! You are the first to seriously consider my
explanation in this regard on the ngs.
> 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.
Both crafts have been sent on escape trajectories (hyperbolic) from
the solar system in opposite directions.
See the first paper on the subject:
Theoretical Motivation for Gravitation Experiments on Ultra-Low Energy
Antiprotons and Antihydrogen
http://xxx.lanl.gov/list/hep-ph/9412#hep-ph/9412234
And their second paper:
Indication, from Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses Data, of an
Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range Acceleration
http://xxx.lanl.gov/list/gr-qc/9808#gr-qc/9808081
> Why and how do others claim the anomalies are time dilations, if indeed
> they do claim that?
All sorts of hypotheses have been aired, from the suggestions in
the previous papers, and quite a few more in papers that cite them.
some of course will talk of anomalies in time dilation since GR is
the running explanatory theory.
Citations for hep-ph/9412234
http://arXiv.org/cits/hep-ph/9412234?host=lanl.arXiv.org
Citations for gr-qc/9808081
http://arXiv.org/cits/gr-qc/9808081?host=lanl.arXiv.org
> > > 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....:>)
Thanks, maybe. It may also hold to the fact that you are asking
precise questions on points that you find not clear enough, so I
can then directly address the areas that have remained too vague
or appear disconnected.
It may simply be that you are a good questioner :-]
> > > > > 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.
My perception is that they take time dilation for granted and are
satisfied with it.
> 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?
Very few
There was a question, something like
"Where have you taken these equations?"
To which I did not answer. No physics content.
Another remark was something like
"Aren't you tired of posting crap"
Or something like that.
To which I did not answer either. No physics content.
Oh and there was this other great among the great. He started
asking me where I got my quark mass data, which was strange
since all real physicists know these figures. I refered him
to the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, a standard
ref in the community. And when he saw no cracks and no other
way to trap me, he started raving about other vagues mass values
that he could not provide references for, and that I was
unable to understand anything.
I suggested that he stick to elementary arrhytmetics in
the future if such simple equations caused him to keel
over into irrational delirium.
That is the complete list of orthodox chalenges to my equations.
The only interesting and constructive interaction was from another
poster who is also looking for the truth. His pseudo on the ngs is
FreddiFizzx. Do you know him?
> > > 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?
Yes. That is my conclusion.
> 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?
If you are talking about the quarks inside nucleons, then yes, and the
more intense their angular momentum, thus their measurable effective mass.
Which also causes the captive electrons of these atoms to become more
energetic. Maximum density can be reached only by matter located
in small quantities far in space, far from any large concentrations
of matter.
My conclusion is that density cannot be at its maximum where concentrations
of matter occur. Most fundamental constants, which have evidently been
established in relation to the density of matter as it can be measured
at the surface of the Earth, are inevitably approximate, and only their
values determined in deep space, far from any sizable mass, could truly
pretend to be universal.
Their values at the surface of the Earth must be adjusted by taking into
account the expansion of the triads caused by the position of the surface
of the Earth relative to the local balance of the masses that constitute
it.
For example, the depth within the gravitational field of the Earth, of
the atoms emitting the frequency that is used to determine the length of
the second as a universal unit of time, must be specified.
> > > 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.
We definitely seem to have a "time" problem then :-]
André Michaud
- Next message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Equivalence my ass! Re: Well, Hobba? Re: A. Newtonian Invariance vs SR-cult fraud and corruption (Rev B)"
- Previous message: Quantum Mirror: "Re: The end of Bohr's complementarity principle?"
- In reply to: TomGee: "Re: what is the relation between force and energy?"
- Next in thread: TomGee: "Re: what is the relation between force and energy?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
