The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
New Theories / Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Last post by alancalverd on Today at 14:10:58 »
Quote
How can the observer not be at both elevations?
For the same reason that you cannot be in two places at the same time.

If there is a gravitational potential difference between two clocks, any observer will see that the clock at the higher potential is running faster than the one at the lower potential. But if he tries to measure the frequency of either clock by standing next to it and comparing it with his own clock, he will not observe any difference.

Of course it is a real effect. It has been measured many times and is exactly as Einstein predicted without reference to the nature of the clock.

Quote
If the gravity field is shifting energy for all these different scenarios equally, then the observation of energy change will be the same for all, no matter which type of measuring device is being used.

How can it? In the case of a rubidium clock, we are looking at the hyperfine splitting of an electron (same mass as the electrons in the cesium atom) in the field of the rubidium nucleus (half the mass of the cesium nucleus). In the case of the Essen ring, you are looking at the elastic constant of a quartz crystal. Nothing to do with New Age energy fields or any other mumbo jumbo. None of these mechanisms is gravity-dependent. If the mass of the primary source was important, the effect would be different.   

I commend http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relati/gratim.html   to you. They show the equations for redshift and time dilatation and refer very succinctly to  experiments that prove them identical and independent of the mass of the source.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
Late postscript. Suppose we have a laser on the ground, and a cube reflector on the moon. Send pulses of light at exactly 1s intervals from the earth. They are reflected back to the source. At what intervals are they received back on earth?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
22
Quote from: jerrygg38
    The question concerns the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass. Gravitational mass produces weight in a gravitational field.
Weight corresponds to passive gravitational mass and passive gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass.

Quote from: jerrygg38
Inertial mass is a combination of gravitational mass and momentum.
That's meaningless.

Quote from: jerrygg38
Gravitational mass is due to spherical energy patterns.
Also meaningless. There is no such thing as "spherical energy patterns". In fact there's no such thing as energy patterns whatsoever. This forum is not a place for your own personal theories of gravity. That's what the New Theories forum is for. This thread is about relativistic mass and weight. It's far from being a complex question. Weight depends on speed - Period!

Please stop taking this thread off topic with all that nonsense.
Sorry to upset you but the question has been studied by several universities funded by the government and written up in the classified libraries. Unfortunately since it involved radar studies the reports were kept under lock and key. I just point out that the information that are taught to students are limited for national security reasons. It has been over 50 years since I studied the reports and even today people are stuck with limited knowledge of the radar studies. Yet for those who try to make radar undetectable it may be better for the world not to know any of the details in the studies. And I was only concerned with the Doppler masses.
23
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How long is one second?
« Last post by PhysBang on Today at 13:59:02 »

But in reality relativistic mass is just a replacement explanation for more speed and force of impact.  The length contraction is just a visual thing involving light and time dilation is poorly worded when the effect of time dilation is simply a change in rate of entropy gain and loss and not really a change of real time.
You have an amazing grasp of reality for someone who continually demonstrates the inability to produce correct statements on the contents of actual scientific theory.
24


The Doppler effect I understand of sound, why do we compare this effect of light to sound ?

Couldn't the Doppler shift of sound and the redshift of light be two different things?

  Light is similar to radar waves which exhibit Doppler effects. A radar source moving toward us will have a higher frequency and a radar source moving away from us will have a lower frequency.
  The red shift of the far stars can be viewed from two perpectives. As the universe expands everything expands. the clocks and rulers expand. thus there is a common mode redshift. Yet white light will still appear white. The expansion also has a Doppler shift due to the fact that the distance to the far stars has changed with respect to the expanding universe. Thus it looks like a simple Doppler problem.
   To make matters worse space time is non-linear so the best we can do is work out linear approximations to space and time. Einstein's work tends to be a best fit approximation to space and time from a mathematical perspective.

Light can not work the same as sound and the doppler, where is the opposing force coming from to slow down the light to ''red''?



25


The Doppler effect I understand of sound, why do we compare this effect of light to sound ?

Couldn't the Doppler shift of sound and the redshift of light be two different things?

  Light is similar to radar waves which exhibit Doppler effects. A radar source moving toward us will have a higher frequency and a radar source moving away from us will have a lower frequency.
  The red shift of the far stars can be viewed from two perpectives. As the universe expands everything expands. the clocks and rulers expand. thus there is a common mode redshift. Yet white light will still appear white. The expansion also has a Doppler shift due to the fact that the distance to the far stars has changed with respect to the expanding universe. Thus it looks like a simple Doppler problem.
   To make matters worse space time is non-linear so the best we can do is work out linear approximations to space and time. Einstein's work tends to be a best fit approximation to space and time from a mathematical perspective. 
26
Quote from: Thebox
What? you have  said in previous post you have now realised space is not expanding and the evidence is of objects.
Wrong!!! I did not say that. I said that cosmological redshift implies that space is expanding. That was an incorrect assertion. It's evidence of spatial expansion, it doesn't imply it. Please read more carefully next time.

No Pete, you said -

''I've done some more thinking on this issue and came to a different understanding that I had before. Before I was wrong. I erroneously thought that by "expanding universe" that cosmologists were speaking of expanding space and that cosmological redshift was evidence of that.''


There is no evidence of space itself expanding , the evidence of red shift is of Galaxies.

Pete please talk to me about something, I have a problem with red shift showing ''expansion'', we know that when light slows down it can change frequency, so when we observe red shift that must be light slowing down, now if something is travelling away from something, it is impossible for the ''leader'' to slow down the ''trailer'', the light should not red shift if something is moving away it should remain ''gin-clear'' a maxed out speed?

What permitivity causes the red shift?
27
Quote from: Thebox
What? you have  said in previous post you have now realised space is not expanding and the evidence is of objects.
Wrong!!! I did not say that. I said that cosmological redshift implies that space is expanding. That was an incorrect assertion. It's evidence of spatial expansion, it doesn't imply it. Please read more carefully next time.
28
Quote from: jerrygg38
    The question concerns the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass. Gravitational mass produces weight in a gravitational field.
Weight corresponds to passive gravitational mass and passive gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass.

Quote from: jerrygg38
Inertial mass is a combination of gravitational mass and momentum.
That's meaningless.

Quote from: jerrygg38
Gravitational mass is due to spherical energy patterns.
Also meaningless. There is no such thing as "spherical energy patterns". In fact there's no such thing as energy patterns whatsoever. This forum is not a place for your own personal theories of gravity. That's what the New Theories forum is for. This thread is about relativistic mass and weight. It's far from being a complex question. Weight depends on speed - Period!

Please stop taking this thread off topic with all that nonsense.
29
Quote from: puppypower
Kinetic energy; 1/2MV2, cannot reach or exceed 1/2MC2, since rest mass cannot move at the speed of light.
What is the "M" that you used in that expression? Is it relativistic mass or proper mass? In either case that's not the expression for kinetic energy. Kinetic energy, K, is given by (letting m = proper mass aka rest mass)

K = (γ - 1)mc2

Quote from: puppypower
If we tried to induce a mass to approach the speed of light, we would need to add infinite energy, yet kinetic energy is only able to reach the low finite limit of 1/2MC2.
That's not true at all. Kinetic energy can have any value whatsoever. I.e. it can get as large as one would like. The value of K is the work done on the particle and you can do as much work as you'd like on a particle.

Quote from: puppypower
Relativistic mass accounts for the energy difference; E=MrC2, so energy conservation applies.
That expression is wrong. The energy associated with relativistic mass, M, is the energy E = Mc2. It's equal to the sum of the particles kinetic energy and rest energy, i.e. E = Mc2 = K + E0 = K + mc2
30
Quote from: Thebox
Yes Pete that is correct like I have said many times before , there is no evidence of space expanding, the evidence is of the distance between Galaxies is increasing.
I know what you said but you keep ignoring or forgetting what I said. Its  probably because you may not know what the term evidence means. Evidence of a theory is any information that is consistent with that theory. If space was expanding then Galaxies would be moving apart and we'd see each galaxy redshifted, the amount of redshift being determined by the distance that galaxy is from us. The further away the galaxy the greater the redshift. And that's exactly what we see. That means that cosmological redshift is evidence of expanding space.

Your problem has always been your lack of understanding of the scientific method and the philosophy of science. One of the most important points that a scientist learns when they study the philosophy of science is that proof is not part of the scientific method. That's because evidence of a hypothesis or theory can in theoretically be explained in more than one way. That's why cosmological redshift is said to be evidence that space is expanding and its not considered proof that space is expanding.

So before you make anymore of your false claims that there's no evidence that space is expanding, first learn what evidence is.

What? you have  said in previous post you have now realised space is not expanding and the evidence is of objects. 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums