Re: lorenz transformation and spped of light


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu na mensagem
news:1190855096.758907.69030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 26, 6:15 pm, "JM Albuquerque" <jmDO...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

What is "changing a metric" then?

Mass changes the metric in the surrounding spacetime, very similarly
to the way that an electric charge changes the surrounding space by
producing an electric field. The metric at a spacetime location is a
*property* of that location, just like an electric field is a
*property* of that location. One doesn't have to "add stuff" to space
to change either property.

Mass creates gravity and gravity isn't included in the Big Bang theory,
nor the redshift issue includes gravity.

Wherever did you get the idea that gravity isn't included in Big Bang
theory or the "redshift issue"?

Electric field is very, very, very short range - soon die - out, caput.

On the contrary, the electric field has infinite range, the very same
radial dependence as gravity. You may want to compare in an
introductory physics text Coulomb's law and Newton's law of gravity,
with a good dive into the chapter on Guass' law. The QED and general
relativistic forms of those laws do not change that appreciably.

Remind me again why you are mystified that people dismiss you for
being unversed in the basics?

Here we are talking about very, very, very large distances.
And in no way there exists a change on the metric of the
electric field, it's a continuum from the start, up to the moment that
is so small you cannot measure it anymore.

First of all, there is no "metric of the electric field" and that's
not what I said. Secondly, a change in a metric has nothing to do with
its continuity.


There is something magic going around here.

Since "frequency" means "energy" its quite obvious to me
that "3" is a good candidate. But the loss of energy by light is
a
sin
according to the physics religion (no aether to account for the
energy loss, I presume).

There are two good questions to ask about this, at least.
1. Why would photons lose energy and nothing else lose energy
over
the
course of great distance and time?

So I ask you: "What else is there, besides photons, to lose energy
over the course of great distance and time?"
Out there, there is only photons, space and time. Nothing else.
Your "nothing else" is false, because there's "nothing else" there.

Gee, I dunno. Seems like there's an awful lot of fermions out there.
Photons are not fermions.

Fine.
So please conclude your previous thought.

I did. So the question returns to, why would you think that photons
physically dissipate energy over great distances, where fermions do
not?

I don't know what fermions are.

Then there's another area where you need to do some basic reading.
Would you like a pointer to some good reading material?

Why they don't dissipate energy?

Now you're asking why is energy conserved. Energy conservation is an
observed rule. There are a good number of observed rules in nature
that, as far as we know, just are, even if we don't have a good reason
why the rule seems to apply.

If its the same as neutrinos I cannot see the relashionship.

Neutrinos are one kind of fermion. There are a bunch of others. What
gives you the idea that neutrinos dissipate energy? You noted earlier
that our initial measurements suggested that neutrinos are massless,
but then we found out that they do indeed have rest mass. But this in
no way implies energy dissipation, if you think it might.



This one is a hard.
I presume that Energy Conservation is the most strong pillar
in Physics.
If not, why don't we just start talking about free-energy?
Make a change of reference frame and get free-energy.

Because conservation of energy does NOT say that the energy of a
system is the same regardless of reference frame. It's always useful
to learn what the law actually says before trying to invoke it.

Well, from my point of view I can only change frame of reference
if I know exactly what I'm doing when I'm changing that frame
of reference.
And I've done some of those "very hard changes of reference
frame" in order to derive the full equations of the gyroscope
taken in 3 orthognal axis (the 3-rotating principal axis) and
change coordinates to a fixed orthogonal frame of reference,
so that I can have the exact equation of the behaviour of
the gyroscope, when I give him a real torque input and also
a real output torque (torque applied in both precession
axis) and also motion exists in those same precession axis,
proving the gyroscope to be an harmonic oscillator.
I know exactly what are matematicaly and also physically,
those required changes of FoR (and a new potential energy
to undergo precession of the output chosen precession axis),
so that Lagrange's method equals the result given by
Newton's method (torque equals the rate of change of
angular momentum - all the axis at once and all of them
in motion).

Here, on this topic, I can't visualise any kind of change of FoR.

Setting aside all the babble above about gyroscopes, let me help you
visualize a simple change in reference frame. There is a car on a road
with a stop sign on the cross street. There is a truck going in the
opposite direction. There is a frame of reference in which the stop
sign is stationary and the car is going 15 m/s and the truck is going
-21 m/s. There is another frame of reference in which the truck is
stationary, the stop sign is going 21 m/s and the car is going 37 m/s.
Now, in simply interviewing measurers at rest in those two reference
frames, you find that the kinetic energy of the car is dramatically
different, even though there was obviously nothing physical that
happened to the car. Do you find this to a "very hard change in
reference frame"?



Exactly, means exactly (within uncertainties of course).
H = 85 km/s /Mpc
1 Mpc = 3,0857x10^22 m

So, for every 3,0857x10^22 m distance the speed of universe
bodies increase 85 km/s, so that the acceleration will be:
a = du / dt
dt = 3,0857x10^22 m / 300.000.000 m/s = 1,029x10^14 s

Whoa, stop right there. Where did c come in? Why did you suddenly
insert it?

Because its precisely what we are talking about here.
What happens to light during its travel from the source up
to the earth, so that to cause redshift.

You have a distance 1 Mpc = 3,0857x10^22 m in space.
Light travels that distance at speed "c = 300.000 km/s".
So, the time it takes for light to travel that distance will be
the distance divided by light speed = 1,029x10^14 s

Below the acceleration dv/dt is trivial.

OK, I see your train of thought, at least. I'll address this
separately.


a = dv/dt = 85.000 m/s / 1,029^14 s = 8,26x10^-10 m/s^2

Which happens to be the anormal acceleration of Pioneer 11.

If you dare to challenge "2" you are insulted.

Perhaps the insults are based on a perception that you don't
have a
good understanding of "2", which might be warranted given your
brief
description of it above.

To believe that space and time can be fabricated is pure faith.

Not if it accurately predicts observations.

So does tired light.
It's all a matter of semantics.

Not so. Tired light predicts things that are in conflict with
observations. This is what I recommended you research.

Do you know any?

Yes. Are you having trouble researching this? Do you have access to a
library? If you need to do it online, do you know how to enter "tired
light" into scholar.google.com?

The cause of the insults is obviously due to the inability to
address
the problem by those parrots whose faith has been challenged.

Once the priests realise they cannot address the question they
jump to the insult and claim to be scientists against a layman.
They are always asking me "who I am?", "How much have
I study?", and so on. The minimum argument is enough to
discredit and twist everything that was said.- Hide quoted
text -


I get the picture.
I'm done here, thank you.

If you could address the Pioneer subject, don't forget please.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: lorenz transformation and spped of light
    ... producing an electric field. ... energy loss, I presume). ... Make a change of reference frame and get free-energy. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??
    ... specific frame of reference. ... >> No. Einstein took the classical Conservation of Energy is both frames. ... >> had already calculated how the energy of radiation transforms between ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??
    ... specific frame of reference. ... >> No. Einstein took the classical Conservation of Energy is both frames. ... >> had already calculated how the energy of radiation transforms between ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativistic CMB
    ... >> It's worth pointing out, though, that this frame of reference has ... > increasing acquire the energy sufficient to vary the global ... we know that the Universe is expanding. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Relativistic CMB
    ... >> It's worth pointing out, though, that this frame of reference has ... > increasing acquire the energy sufficient to vary the global ... we know that the Universe is expanding. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading