The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Profile of Ęthelwulf
  3. Show Posts
  4. Messages
  • Profile Info
    • Summary
    • Show Stats
    • Show Posts
      • Messages
      • Topics
      • Attachments
      • Thanked Posts
      • Posts Thanked By User
    • Show User Topics
      • User Created
      • User Participated In

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

  • Messages
  • Topics
  • Attachments
  • Thanked Posts
  • Posts Thanked By User

Messages - Ęthelwulf

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
1
New Theories / Re: On the concept of relativistic mass
« on: 06/05/2012 17:37:30 »
Quote from: Ęthelwulf on 06/05/2012 17:35:23
Well, how much math should there be? Just as you have it, no more and no less?

Interested in why you were defending it, I looked at the work again. I don't know what happened the other day, but when I looked at the work it seemed a lot less. Perhaps equations had not downloaded or something. Either way, I've seen them now and I agree, there are enough equations.

2
New Theories / Re: On the concept of relativistic mass
« on: 06/05/2012 17:35:23 »
Well, how much math should there be? Just as you have it, no more and no less?


3
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can Gravity Change Light?
« on: 06/05/2012 17:33:17 »
Quote from: Pmb on 06/05/2012 16:56:07
Quote from: Ęthelwulf on 06/05/2012 10:24:58
The slowing down of time is actually quite technical for a black hole --- (inside a black hole, time does not stop... in fact, time becomes what is called, spacelike).
Actually the slowing down of time is actually quite simple for a black holes. Arguably, the most simple metric for a spacetime is that of a uniform gravitational field which is

ds^2 = (1 + gz/c^2)^2 dt^2 - dx^2  - dy^2  - dz^2

By the way, in what coordinate system/units did you state the Schwarzschild metric in? In my page I used MKS units (at least I think that they're called that). But you seem to be using two different systems of units.

Note - In my page http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_red_shift.htm I made a mistake. In Eq. (5) I missed putting a square in the last sin. It reads r^2 sin theta d^2 phi. It should read r^2 sin^2 theta d^2 phi

Quote from: Ęthelwulf on 06/05/2012 10:24:58
I don't expect you to understand the equation, but this describes black holes.
I doubt that anybody here, including the moderators, find it very polite when you state that your expectations is low. In fact there is no valid reason to assume the worst.

Last week I myself had to adjust my posting paterns as given by the moderators. It wouldn't be very fun for you to have to go through the same thing and risk getting placed on vacation again. Sometimes we just have to take a step back and readjust out thinking and attitude.

We had discussed this kind of thing in the thread On the concept of relativistic mass
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=44036.0

Quote from: Ęthelwulf on 06/05/2012 10:24:58
The c0c09719ccc78915ee8c7fe511c56662.gif you see cropping up is in fact the Horizon.
Correct.
Quote from: Ęthelwulf on 06/05/2012 10:24:58
The coefficient of 1124d01b9bb445ab5e883aa8b408acf7.gif approaches zero, ...
That is a misleading statement. 1124d01b9bb445ab5e883aa8b408acf7.gif is not a coefficient, or if it is then your explanation was a bit poor in explaining yourself. In that part of this thead the topic was the gravitational field changing the speed of light. For no obviois reason you changed the subject to gravitational redschift, for no obvious reading and in not a very good way.

Quote from: Ęthelwulf on 06/05/2012 10:24:58
a8b9496befe5fda9408c53e0acd40d6b.gif really has to do with why clocks run slower.
That expression is not the most obvious or the clearest way to explain gravitational redshift. The dt - > doesn't mean what you seem to think that it means. dt -> 0 only means that the coordinate time interval dt is approaching zero. This doesn't help your argument. The slowing of time is meant by Eq. (3) in my treatment of gravitational redshift/slowing down of time. See Eq. (3) & (4)
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_red_shift.htm

Quote from: Ęthelwulf on 06/05/2012 10:24:58
The observer moving towards the black hole will never observe a difference in their clocks, , ...
That is not true. In fact if one ship wishes to observe the clock on another shift slow down then what you just showed is how it's done.

Whew!!

I can assure you, what I told you is pretty standard. Leonard Susskind also makes note in the same fashion as I did that this has to do with the slowing down of clocks. I'll find it for you since you are skeptical.

4
New Theories / Re: Are Space and Time of space-time Conserved?
« on: 06/05/2012 13:44:53 »
The Wheeler de-Witt equation is the quantized form of the EFE-equations. That the global time description vanishes is often taken to mean that a global time cannot be found. The absence of a global time however may imply a singularity of spacetime http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Minguzzi_timecontest.pdf .  But essentially, the WDW-equations describes time for a universe, and if its time derivative vanishes like it does, we may imply that we live in a timesless universe - but I have explained this loads of times here.


5
Just Chat! / Re: SHARE YOUR WRITING!
« on: 06/05/2012 12:50:28 »
I have written only half of it so far Karen. I appreciate your patience, I have just been quite busy the last week.

6
New Theories / Re: On the concept of relativistic mass
« on: 06/05/2012 12:49:10 »
Quote from: MikeS on 06/05/2012 12:42:25
I would not say speculative as they are based on sound principles.

Many theories that rely heavily on the Math content are and have been speculative.

Sure, but a theory (unless it really requires it) normally should require some math. If you are willing to make rather bold assertions about something, you really should require the math - otherwise its mostly buzzwords being thrown about.

7
New Theories / Re: Do photons experience time?
« on: 06/05/2012 12:47:53 »
Quote from: MikeS on 06/05/2012 12:36:04
Quote from: Ęthelwulf on 06/05/2012 09:42:51
Quote from: MikeS on 30/04/2012 07:06:52
I have put this in new theories, otherwise I might be banned but it's not so much meant as a new theory as a different interpretation. Unfortunately I have noticed that subjects in this section are far more likely to be ignored or not taken seriously.


I believe I would be correct to say that mainstream would maintain that a photon does not experience time.  Time for it does not exist.

There is I believe another explanation that looks the same.
A photon travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.

It could be argued that anything traveling faster than c would travel backward in time.  Therefore anything traveling at c is traveling backward in time at the rate that time is flowing forward.

The same logic explains why gravity may propagate faster than c.  It propagates backwards in time.

Perhaps this can be extended to say that everything without mass travels backward in time at or faster than c.

I believe this leaves the laws of physics intact?

No, photons can never experience Mike. You know this.

You're really reaching new levels of psuedoscience. The part where you have it could be used to explain how mass travels backwards in time at rates faster than c is a peach.

No, I don't know it.

That's a stong accusation.  I have provided the logic behind what I have postulated.  Perhaps you could provide evidence as to why I am wrong.

That's not exactly what I said.  What I said was.
"A photon has no mass.
As the photon travels backward in time so its mass is cancelled by time flowing forward at the same rate.  Its mass only becomes apparent at the point and time of impact as it is destroyed."

This idea does account for how a seemingly mass-less particle can impart energy or momentum upon contact.
" more specifically inertial mass, can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to the change of its speed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

Therefore, to define mass you need time.    A photon may simply not experience time as is generally believed but that does not explain how it can impart energy or momentum upon obliteration.

If you think about it which is the most unlikely, 1) that a photon does not experience time, or 2) a photon does experience time as it travels backward in time but it appears to not experience time as it travels backward in time at the same rate that time flows forward.  A photon may not seem to experience time but it does produce causality which relies upon time.  In a sense time is based upon the speed of light or vice versa.  Is it really impossible for a photon to travel backwards in time.  A mass-less 'particle' is allowed by GR to travel faster than c so long as it does not travel slower than c.

Perhaps you could provide some evidence as to why I am wrong other than it's peachy?


Strange you would call that an accusation. See, I would have believed that you have read enough sci-pop books to tell you that a photon does not have a frame of reference and that time dilation is infinitely stretched for one of these things? You claim however that you are unaware of this? Most people who don't even read much relativity know of this...

''"A photon has no mass.
As the photon travels backward in time so its mass is cancelled by time flowing forward at the same rate.  Its mass only becomes apparent at the point and time of impact as it is destroyed."


You know, recently you asked me about a model concerning the outdated theory that antiparticles where moving back in time. I take it that this is now your new fixated topic, systems moving back in time?

A photon does not have a mass, this is correct, but the psuedovector of a photon is stretched into infinity, provided by the subtle but correct equation

4f2fca09dd3e2590dfbbeb5ed94333bc.gif.

Because time is stretched in this way, a photon actually takes no time to move anywhere... in fact a more accurate thing is to say, a photon's birth is the same as it's death. A photon moves nowhere in space because not a second passes for it.

This is why your theory/speculations is wrong.

''This idea does account for how a seemingly mass-less particle can impart energy or momentum upon contact.
" more specifically inertial mass, can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to the change of its speed.''


Which by default is incorrect as well because you assumption a photos experiences time (worse yet you want to see it move back in time) is faulty.

The reason why a photon imparts momentum on objects is simply because

d0584c6eeae83f5fd487abf47eeabc6d.gif

It doesn't get simpler than that.

''Therefore, to define mass you need time.''

No you don't. In fact, it is the other way around. To define time, you require mass. Mass is not dependant on time and time is not a function of mass.

'' A photon may simply not experience time as is generally believed ''

A moment ago you said you did not know that a photon does not experience time. I said you knew this and then you accused me of strongly accusing you of things you did not know. Yet that part seems to indicate you did know this.

'' Perhaps you could provide some evidence as to why I am wrong other than it's peachy?''

The above should be enough to show you, you are wrong.

8
New Theories / Re: Are Space and Time of space-time Conserved?
« on: 06/05/2012 11:41:10 »
By the way mike, when I was banned you answered to a thread concerning the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus. I said it was the reason for our sense of time which you disgreed and said it only answered for circadian rythms. You where only partially right. I was more right in the sense that it does explain our short-range sense of time. There is a long-range sense as well, called the Ultradian is our sense of time-keeping in the long sense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultradian

and read this - it is mentioned here as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_perception

If you can refresh my memory which thread it was in, I will answer you directly there as well.

9
New Theories / Re: Are Space and Time of space-time Conserved?
« on: 06/05/2012 11:31:28 »
Yes, it is invariant locally. But then time is local.

The absence of finding a global time in GR however makes your question redundant, if you were meaning it in a global sense. You can't speak about a conservation if the object doesn't exist on a global case.

Recently I conjectured you can't speak about a conserved quantity of energy for the global case of a universe because there is a vanishing global time due to the WDW-equation. This arguement is different however because we do not argue that energy is absent. Only the necessary tools capable of describing such a symmetry in the theory.

10
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can Gravity Change Light?
« on: 06/05/2012 11:28:39 »
Quote from: Ęthelwulf on 06/05/2012 11:26:13
I can see that your link does not tackle the same approach as I have made... but I can assure you my approach is the reason why clocks run slower.

The differences here of great important is the proper time and the real time. Real time is measured by the observer watching the system fall towards the horizon, whilst the proper time is the time experienced by the observer about to fall past the event horizon, whose frame of reference has time tick away normally.

11
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can Gravity Change Light?
« on: 06/05/2012 11:26:13 »
I can see that your link does not tackle the same approach as I have made... but I can assure you my approach is the reason why clocks run slower.

12
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can Gravity Change Light?
« on: 06/05/2012 11:22:40 »
Quote from: Pmb on 06/05/2012 11:09:50
Quote from: Ęthelwulf on 06/05/2012 10:24:58
The Schwarzschild metric describes a black hole, in fact, it can describe any spherical body of gravitational mass. The equation is

04922de92295755c321f28efae40bf15.gif

I don't expect you to understand the equation, but this describes black holes.
What is the purpose of your post? Everything asked by posters I covered above. They asked bout the speed of light slowing down and speeding up. Your post describes gravitational redshift.  By the way, who is you?

For the details of gravitational redschift in a Schwarzschild Spacetme please see

See http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_red_shift.htm

Scroll down to where it say Schwarzschild Metric. These equations correctly describes why time slows down near a black hole. The value of dt doesn't have to approach zero or any other value in order to demonstrate. This page also shows that as a beam of light moves through a Schwarzschild Spacetime the energ of the beam is conserved. That is one thing that doesn't change.

I'll assume you missed the arguement concerning how time is slowed down. This stuff answers why the observed will appear to be frozen when they approach the horizon. Indeed, that is the question I qouted.

And what do you mean, who am I?


13
New Theories / Re: Could spacetime have expanded because of the Uncertainty Principle?
« on: 06/05/2012 10:44:50 »
Quote from: Dharmansh on 29/04/2012 09:58:56
Quote from: Ęthelwulf on 26/04/2012 20:31:06
Quote from: Dharmansh on 25/04/2012 19:08:00

if two of these Dwarfs did spiral towards each other at fast speeds, they might.
Y cant mercury be attracted to sun because of sun's gravity???

All planets in our solar system is attracted by the suns gravitational force. In fact, all objects atleast theoretically speaking are influenced by every gravitational body in the universe.
i m telling dat y can't some planets go inside the sun..see Pluto is revolving around the sun due to sun's gravity pluto is very far... so y is mercury revolving??? y it is not sucked by the sun?
[/quote]

They don't fall into the sun directly because they are bound to follow geodesics around the sun - these are curvilinear paths.

14
New Theories / Re: Could spacetime have expanded because of the Uncertainty Principle?
« on: 06/05/2012 10:42:35 »
Here you go. This is her toy-model for an emergent spacetime model.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.5075v3.pdf

My Induced Time theory is like a sister theory to her model, based on separate principles for its arguements.

15
New Theories / Re: Could spacetime have expanded because of the Uncertainty Principle?
« on: 06/05/2012 10:38:43 »
Quote from: yor_on on 01/05/2012 17:26:06
"Since Markoupoulou's work is suggesting that particles exist on Hilbert Spaces in some kind of special sub-structure before the emergence of geometry"

Can you expand on how she mean there Wulf, and give us some good links..

Yes... I will find a good paper... her original one would be the best example. I'll get it in a minute.

16
Just Chat! / Re: The rules of this site
« on: 06/05/2012 10:37:07 »
Thank you Cliff.

My greatest frustration is that I think Geezer has formed some kind of personal dislike and that he abused his moderatorship just to get me banned... but what looks like the most part, the fun of it.

It should not be right to lull someone into a false sense of security thinking that the judgment has been passed on something then to just ban someone later for the same offense.
 

17
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can Gravity Change Light?
« on: 06/05/2012 10:24:58 »
Quote from: ...lets split up... on 06/05/2012 09:29:16
To Pmb

So you saying if i were near the black hole the light would appear to travel at the usual speed of "c" because of time being relative to space, but if i were observing from a distance it would appear to travel slower?
The slowing down of time is actually quite technical for a black hole --- (inside a black hole, time does not stop... in fact, time becomes what is called, spacelike).

The Schwarzschild metric describes a black hole, in fact, it can describe any spherical body of gravitational mass. The equation is

04922de92295755c321f28efae40bf15.gif

I don't expect you to understand the equation, but this describes black holes. The c0c09719ccc78915ee8c7fe511c56662.gif you see cropping up is in fact the Horizon. The coefficient of 1124d01b9bb445ab5e883aa8b408acf7.gif approaches zero, a8b9496befe5fda9408c53e0acd40d6b.gif really has to do with why clocks run slower.

The observer moving towards the black hole will never observe a difference in their clocks, but if someone was sending signals back to an observer safely away from the black hole, there clocks would appear to run slower. The person approaching the horizon it will seem to always take forever to get there.

18
New Theories / Re: Are Space and Time of space-time Conserved?
« on: 06/05/2012 09:50:33 »
Quote from: MikeS on 05/05/2012 09:32:34
E=mc2

Mass and energy are conserved.
The more energy you have the less mass you have.  The more mass you have the less energy you have.

The speed of light c has two components DISTANCE which is the SPACE dimension of space-time and TIME the TIME dimension of space-time.  The faster you travel in space the less you travel in time.  The faster you travel in time the less you travel in space.

That appears to me to be a conservation law but with time itself being conserved.  Space and time are conserved quantities but are interchangeable.  This is the same as mass in the form of matter and energy being conserved but interchangeable.

This leads to two questions.

1)   Is space-time conserved?

2)   If space-time is conserved how can space expand without time contracting?

We often say something is conserved over time, not that time itself is conserved. That would not be enlightening since time is a universal invariant. It's always there anyway, unchanging.

19
New Theories / Re: On the concept of relativistic mass
« on: 06/05/2012 09:46:58 »
Quote from: MikeS on 05/05/2012 06:47:19
The way I see it is Math is a language, the best there is for science.


Maybe so, but recently your threads have been largely speculative without any math content.

20
New Theories / Re: On the concept of relativistic mass
« on: 06/05/2012 09:44:05 »
Quote from: Pmb on 02/05/2012 19:11:19
The subject of this thread is On the concept of relativistic mass which is located at http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0687. I am the author of this article.

The purpose of this thread is to determine the usefulnes of posting this article, or something similar, when I a new thead is started in the physics forum with the same or similar subject. To date the article as seemed worthless, perhaps for the following reasons;

1) The posters in those threads do not have a level of understanding of the physics involved which is required in understanding the article.
2) The posters in those threads do not have a level of understanding of the mathematical physics which is needed to understand the article.
3) The posters do not find the article to be of any worth.
4) Something else which I haven't been unable to determine as of yet.

It seems only natural that if someone doesn't understand the material required to understand the article then they might feel inadequate in responding to the content of the article. Many-a-time I myself have felt inadequate, and for that reasona ashamed to responding to it. Perhaps to the level I am not up to in order to understanding the material.

It'd be nice to have a better understanding of these scenarios so that the next time the topic, or something similar, I/we cold have a better way to help the poster asking the question.

There are two problems that exist in posting the article (1) I write another article but leave the math out or (2) I write another article leaving the math in but downplay the physics.

Any thoughts as to a resolution of this problem?

Worthless...? No. Uninteresting? Perhaps.

There is not enough math in there either. I'd think about more math in a future presentation. Just some friendly criticism.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.127 seconds with 65 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.