The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
General Science / Re: What is centrifugal force?
« Last post by alancalverd on 24/08/2016 17:38:36 »
Why don't we feel the rotation of the Earth?

We do.

Quote
Because of a planet's rotation around its own axis, the [net] gravitational acceleration is less at the equator than at the poles. In the 17th century, following the invention of the pendulum clock, French scientists found that clocks sent to French Guiana, on the northern coast of South America, ran slower than their exact counterparts in Paris.
22
If a “four vector” of acceleration represents the “field interaction” between a static object and the continuum, then vector combination rules govern the interaction.

If combination rules and tensor definitions are suitable, then the EFE may be simply obtained.

If component definitions are suitable, then the Schwarzschild metric may be simply derived. These simplified derivations are available for review online.

Does this imply that a field may be represented as a four vector?
23
New Theories / Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Last post by alancalverd on 24/08/2016 17:28:15 »
I am saying that Vikki Ramsay time dilation is already being calculated within current physics as an acceleration of gravity.
but g is zero in deep space between masses and increases smoothly as you approach a mass, with no change in time dilation other than that calculated by GR and SR.

Quote
As to the mossbauers being alone in deep space, I'm not up on particle physics, or the process by which atoms and molecular structures form and decay, but I suspect that 2 mossbauers alone in deep space would no longer be mossbauers.
and there you would be wrong. Gravity or lack thereof has no effect on nucleon decay except as predicted by GR and SR (cosmic ray muon decay is very interesting in that respect)

Quote
But... Light of any frequencies wavelength will have become proportionally really, really long, and I am saying that this is because the time period of a second in deep space relative to a standard second is really, really long, and light in my model is not subject to gravity potential energy, or kinetic energy and therefore is ***only*** subject to Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation.
If by "really really long" you don't mean infinite, then what value would you give it? Remembering that E = hc/lambda (can't do Greek on this forum anymore!) you will need a very large value for intergalactic c (which doesn't seem to accord with experiment) or somewhere for the energy to go, so that it can all be restored the instant the photon reaches a detector.

Whilst not decrying your inventiveness, the soon-to-be-famous VRGTT model so far seems to have added a lot of complication without explaining anything. But it's early days. It took 2000 years and a couple of human sacrifices to prove that Aristotle was a liar!
24
Hello again Evan;
Here is an update to the references you requested (attachment)
Regards
Richard
25
New Theories / Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Last post by timey on 24/08/2016 17:04:59 »
Nothing there for it to happened to: That is simply not true.  Mass is situated in these spaces and Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation affects what mass does in these spaces.

The fact that mass experiences time differently to how the spaces between masses experience time doesn't negate these masses from being affected by Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation, and I am saying that Vikki Ramsay time dilation is already being calculated within current physics as an acceleration of gravity.

As to the mossbauers being alone in deep space, I'm not up on particle physics, or the process by which atoms and molecular structures form and decay, but I suspect that 2 mossbauers alone in deep space would no longer be mossbauers.

But... Light of any frequencies wavelength will have become proportionally really, really long, and I am saying that this is because the time period of a second in deep space relative to a standard second is really, really long, and light in my model is not subject to gravity potential energy, or kinetic energy and therefore is ***only*** subject to Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation.
26
New Theories / Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Last post by PhysBang on 24/08/2016 15:30:25 »
With Newtonian time it can be treated mathematically as a dimension, but it is only with SR that it became a physical length of anything.
That is mathematically impossible.

Quote
Quote
There is nothing holy about reference frames in which an object is at rest; these reference frames are no more "real" than frames on which they are moving. They are merely arbitrary choices made for the purposes of assigning coordinates.

Indeed - you don't need to tell me that.
It is odd for you to say that, since your entire complaint against SR is that it doesn't have a holy reference frame.

Quote
Quote
With LET, there is a "real" reference frame that has absolutely no effect on the world that we can detect.

It has an effect in that it enables things to function rationally rather than by magic. That is a big effect.
Your "rationally" is not the "rationally" of physics or mathematics. I will stick with the latter two.

Quote
I'm not mischaracterising it at all - when I say that in SR the true length of something is the length you measure for it when you are co-moving with it, that is the case.
No, that is a mischaracterization. If one is to measure the length of an object, then one needs to specify the frame of reference in which one is measuring it. No reference frame, no length. There is no "true length" independent of reference frame. You would like this to be the case (and you make some other conceptual errors), so you choose LET.

Quote
It's called reason. If a clock is running faster than another clock, it cannot also be running slower than it.
And SR holds this to be true. But the rate of a cyclic physical system depends on the system of coordinates. You want a holy clock rate, so you choose to reject SR.


Quote
It is magic when it involves toleration of a contradiction. If you have a mechanism for something which involves clock A ticking faster than clock B while clock B is ticking faster than clock A, you are irrational and have entered into the realm of magic.
And SR has none of these things. Only your desire for holy truth makes you want to create a contradiction where there is none.

Quote
In which case, what you're seeing from any frame is not telling you the truth about how the ticking rates of clocks can be compared.
On the contrary: because of the theory of relativity, if I know the information from one well-formed frame, I have the information for every well-formed frame (and some that are not well-formed).

Quote
Quote
Yes, surely the fault lies with the hundreds of physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers who have worked with the theory for over a century.

It does indeed - they are a self-selected bunch of magical thinkers who tolerate contradictions.
Sure they are. Keep that for your epitaph.

There is a long history of physics cranks who want to show the world. They don't produce much, but they spill a lot of ink.
27
New Theories / Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation
« Last post by alancalverd on 24/08/2016 15:17:06 »
Nothing can happen in the space between masses because there is by definition nothing there for it to happen to. The concept of time is meaningless in the absence of change.

Now let's have a small mossbauer source and a small receptor, some distance apart in deep space. "Small" so that neither has a significant gravitational field, and they arfe a long way from any other object. Describe what happens to the photon as the distance between source and receptor varies.
28
General Science / Re: What is centrifugal force?
« Last post by hamdani yusuf on 24/08/2016 15:09:04 »
We don't feel earth rotation because it is too slow for our senses.
29
Simply, What about this Rock?
30
General Science / Re: What is centrifugal force?
« Last post by jerrygg38 on 24/08/2016 14:23:39 »
To all:
  It seems to me at the moment that centrifugal force is similar to the force that occurs when you try to rotate a gyroscope slightly perpendicular to its axis. It is beginning to seem to me that it is not a fancy space time force but a simple internal force that originates within the object itself. Any other ideas from the world of science?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums