Re: Technology fiction versus science fiction (was Trump is on drugs)

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 2:19:58 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 1:54:01 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 1:06 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>> *> they're already here and you refuse to admit this as a possibility*
>>
>>
>> Ah yes, your flying saucer people from Roswell New Mexico that look like 
>> something for a grade B 1950s science-fiction movie.
>>
>
> *You're just illustrating a bias, which has no place in a scientific 
> discussion. You have no idea what they might look like. But if they're 
> here, they could roughly have a form like us, in order to cope with the 
> gravity level. IOW, bipedal. AG *
>

*The Kepler space probe has detected many hundred, maybe thousands of 
exo-planets, and so far only ONE of Earth size exo-planet orbiting close to 
a red dwarf IIUC. So I think we can infer that density of advanced, 
Earth-like, technological aliens are extremely rare. So, IMO, no surprise 
if we're not being visited; or we can already being visited by previously 
being discovered. The point is you have precious little hard data to offer 
your mendacious opinion on possible contact. AG *

>
>> > *they haven't had enough time to visit us*
>>
>>
>> Nonsense, they've had plenty of time.  
>>
>
> *The Earth has been around for about 4.2 billion years, and our 
> technological civilization has only been around for a few hundred years at 
> best. So it takes a really long time for this level of evolution to come 
> into existence. If you extend this to the galaxy as a whole, there might be 
> very few intelligent civilizations and they're likely very far apart. 
> Generally, I agree with Brent on this issue, and that our sampling is so 
> far insignificant. AG*
>
>>
>> John K Clark 
>>
>>
>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a0894f4a-5020-4d15-9253-9e6a573ae213o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 11:11:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/12/2020 9:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > Why is it that in SR a stationary clock appears to advancing at a more 
> > rapid rate than a moving clock, and vice versa -- so the effect is 
> > relative or symmetric, not absolute -- whereas in GR the effect seems 
> > absolute; that is, a ground clock actually advances at a slower rate 
> > compared to an orbiting clock? AG 
>
> It's the same as the twin effect.  The clock on the ground is following 
> a non-geodesic path thru spacetime and so measures less duration, while 
> the orbiting clock is following a geodesic path.  In relativity the 
> minus sign in the metric means that the path that looks longer projected 
> in space is shorter in spacetime. 
>
> Brent 
>

The mistake I made in my original question, was comparing a symmetric 
situation under SR, with an asymmetric situation in GR.  But you're right. 
The GR situation with an orbital clock being compared with a ground clock, 
should be compared with the Twin Paradox in SR. In both cases, there is an 
objective difference in what the clocks measure, and this is attributable 
to the differential path lengths in spacetime. But then Clark introduced 
his flawed contradictory explanation, later embellished by his arrogance 
and failure to use proper English. AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0c13bcec-7ce2-4ec9-a386-17a6ea2001f7o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 6:12:30 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/13/2020 4:54 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 5:16:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/13/2020 3:12 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 4:13:05 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/13/2020 1:34 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:28:21 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
 On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:26:14 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> I will try to give a definitive answer. The Schwarzschild metric is
>
> ds^2 = c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – (1 – 2m/r)dr^2 – r^2(dθ^2 – sin^2θdφ^2)
>
> for m = GM/c^2. For the motion of a satellite in a circular orbit 
> there is no radial motion so dr = 0. We set this on a plane with θ = π/2 
> so 
> dθ = 0 and this reduces this to
>
> ds^2 =c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – r^2dφ^2.
>
> For circular motion dφ/dt = ω and the velocity v = ωr means this is
>
> ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2]dt^2
>
> and so ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – v^2]dt^2 the term Γ = 1/√[c^2(1 – 2m/r) 
> – v^2] is a general Lorentz gamma factor and in flat space with m = 0 
> reduces the form we know. ds is an increment in the proper time on the 
> orbiting satellite and t is a coordinate time, say on the ground of the 
> body.
>

>>> Another erratum. The coordinate time t is for a clock very far removed, 
>>> not on the ground. On the ground that clock ticks away with a factor  Γ = 
>>> 1/√[c^2 – v^2] change. So there is a relative time difference.
>>>
>>>
>>> A clock on the ground is also moving with rotation of the Earth, with 
>>> different speed at different latitudes.  This is taken out of the equations 
>>> by comparing the GPS clock to ideal clocks on a fixed (non-rotating Earth) 
>>> and then after GPS calculates the location on the non-rotating Earth, it 
>>> calculates what point this is on the rotating Earth.  
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> This gets really complicated. I did a lot of post-Newtonian parameter 
>> work on this back in the late 80s. A lot of it was numerical, because on 
>> the ground there are different values of gravity, and these too can cause 
>> drift. Gravitation, thinking of a Newtonian force, is different near a 
>> mountain than on the top of it, and the direction can vary some from the 
>> radius. It also fluctuates with tides! The surging in and out of a lot of 
>> ocean water actually changes the Newtonian gravitation potential and force. 
>>
>>
>> LC
>>
>>
>> And it's further complicated by the Earth being non-spherical.  The 
>> calculations find the lat/long of a WGS84 ellipsoid.  But of course the 
>> real Earth isn't exactly an WGS84 ellipsoid either and there have to be 
>> local corrections in look-up tables.  Off the coast of California where I 
>> used to be involved in developing sea-skimming targets the WGS84 "sea 
>> level" is about 120ft under water.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *Yes, very complicated to get an exact solution. BUT, what I was trying to 
> say, before getting a ton of crap from LC and Clark, the solution depends 
> ONLY on GR since gravity is involved which distorts the spacetime paths and 
> thus the proper times along these paths. Do you agree with this statement? 
> TIA, AG*
>
>
> I wouldn't agree that LC and JKC are providing a ton of crap, but yes it's 
> just path length thru non-flat spacetime.  Looking at in terms of relative 
> speed (which is a symmetric relation) and higher v. lower gravitational 
> potential is making approximations; which is OK but not the way to 
> understand the conceptual basis.
>
> Brent
>

*It's hard to determine who is the greater a'hole; Clark or Lawrence. Clark 
began his explanation by saying SR makes no prediction, but then used that 
prediction in saying SR and GR together give the solution (and Lawrence 
gave his tacit support). Is this what you consider proper English? I say 
it's a ton of $hit. AG *

>
>
>>  
>>
>>>
>>> We can do more with this. The ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2dφ^2]dt^2 can 
> be written as
>
> 1 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2](dt/ds)^2
>
> Now take a variation on this, where obviously δ1 = 0 and
>
> 0 = [c^2δ(1 – 2m/r) – δ(r^2ω^2)](dt/ds)^2 + [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – 
> r^2ω^2]δ(dt/ds)^2.
>
> We think primarily of a variation in the radius and so
>
> 0 = -[ 2mc^2/r^2 – 2rω^2](dt/ds)^2δr + [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2]
> δ(dt/ds)^2,
>
> where for the time I will ignore the last term.  The first term gives
>
> rω^2 = -GM/r,
>
 I mean rω^2 = -GM/r^2
  

> and this is just Newton’s second law with acceleration a = rω^2 with 
> gravity. Also this is Kepler's third law of planetary motion.
>
> Now I will hand wave a bit here. The term δ(dt/ds)^2 = 1 in the 
> Newtonian limit, but we can feed the general Lorentz gamma factor in 
> that. 
> 

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/13/2020 4:54 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 5:16:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 10/13/2020 3:12 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 4:13:05 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:



On 10/13/2020 1:34 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:28:21 PM UTC-5 Lawrence
Crowell wrote:

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:26:14 PM UTC-5
Lawrence Crowell wrote:

I will try to give a definitive answer. The
Schwarzschild metric is

ds^2 = c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – (1 – 2m/r)dr^2 – r^2(dθ^2
– sin^2θdφ^2)

for m = GM/c^2. For the motion of a satellite in a
circular orbit there is no radial motion so dr = 0.
We set this on a plane with θ = π/2 so dθ = 0 and
this reduces this to

ds^2 =c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – r^2dφ^2.

For circular motion dφ/dt = ω and the velocity v =
ωr means this is

ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2]dt^2

and so ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – v^2]dt^2 the term Γ =
1/√[c^2(1 – 2m/r) – v^2] is a general Lorentz gamma
factor and in flat space with m = 0 reduces the form
we know. ds is an increment in the proper time on
the orbiting satellite and t is a coordinate time,
say on the ground of the body.


Another erratum. The coordinate time t is for a clock very
far removed, not on the ground. On the ground that clock
ticks away with a factor  Γ = 1/√[c^2 – v^2] change. So
there is a relative time difference.


A clock on the ground is also moving with rotation of the
Earth, with different speed at different latitudes.  This is
taken out of the equations by comparing the GPS clock to
ideal clocks on a fixed (non-rotating Earth) and then after
GPS calculates the location on the non-rotating Earth, it
calculates what point this is on the rotating Earth.

Brent


This gets really complicated. I did a lot of post-Newtonian
parameter work on this back in the late 80s. A lot of it was
numerical, because on the ground there are different values of
gravity, and these too can cause drift. Gravitation, thinking of
a Newtonian force, is different near a mountain than on the top
of it, and the direction can vary some from the radius. It also
fluctuates with tides! The surging in and out of a lot of ocean
water actually changes the Newtonian gravitation potential and
force.

LC


And it's further complicated by the Earth being non-spherical. 
The calculations find the lat/long of a WGS84 ellipsoid.  But of
course the real Earth isn't exactly an WGS84 ellipsoid either and
there have to be local corrections in look-up tables.  Off the
coast of California where I used to be involved in developing
sea-skimming targets the WGS84 "sea level" is about 120ft under water.

Brent


*Yes, very complicated to get an exact solution. BUT, what I was 
trying to say, before getting a ton of crap from LC and Clark, the 
solution depends ONLY on GR since gravity is involved which distorts 
the spacetime paths and thus the proper times along these paths. Do 
you agree with this statement? TIA, AG*


I wouldn't agree that LC and JKC are providing a ton of crap, but yes 
it's just path length thru non-flat spacetime.  Looking at in terms of 
relative speed (which is a symmetric relation) and higher v. lower 
gravitational potential is making approximations; which is OK but not 
the way to understand the conceptual basis.


Brent






We can do more with this. The ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r)
– r^2dφ^2]dt^2 can be written as

1 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2](dt/ds)^2

Now take a variation on this, where obviously δ1 = 0 and

0 = [c^2δ(1 – 2m/r) – δ(r^2ω^2)](dt/ds)^2 + [c^2(1 –
2m/r) – r^2ω^2]δ(dt/ds)^2.

We think primarily of a variation in the radius and so

0 = -[ 2mc^2/r^2 – 2rω^2](dt/ds)^2δr + [c^2(1 –
2m/r) – r^2ω^2]δ(dt/ds)^2,

where for the time I will ignore the last term.  The
first term gives

rω^2 = -GM/r,

I mean rω^2 = -GM/r^2

and this is just Newton’s second law with
acceleration a = rω^2 with gravity. Also this is
Kepler's third law of planetary motion.

Now I will hand wave a bit here. The term δ(dt/ds)^2
= 1 in the Newtonian limit, but we can feed the
general Lorentz gamma factor in that. This will have
a correction term to this dynamical equation. This
correction is 

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 5:16:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/13/2020 3:12 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 4:13:05 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 10/13/2020 1:34 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:28:21 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:26:14 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
 I will try to give a definitive answer. The Schwarzschild metric is

 ds^2 = c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – (1 – 2m/r)dr^2 – r^2(dθ^2 – sin^2θdφ^2)

 for m = GM/c^2. For the motion of a satellite in a circular orbit there 
 is no radial motion so dr = 0. We set this on a plane with θ = π/2 so dθ = 
 0 and this reduces this to

 ds^2 =c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – r^2dφ^2.

 For circular motion dφ/dt = ω and the velocity v = ωr means this is

 ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2]dt^2

 and so ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – v^2]dt^2 the term Γ = 1/√[c^2(1 – 2m/r) 
 – v^2] is a general Lorentz gamma factor and in flat space with m = 0 
 reduces the form we know. ds is an increment in the proper time on the 
 orbiting satellite and t is a coordinate time, say on the ground of the 
 body.

>>>
>> Another erratum. The coordinate time t is for a clock very far removed, 
>> not on the ground. On the ground that clock ticks away with a factor  Γ = 
>> 1/√[c^2 – v^2] change. So there is a relative time difference.
>>
>>
>> A clock on the ground is also moving with rotation of the Earth, with 
>> different speed at different latitudes.  This is taken out of the equations 
>> by comparing the GPS clock to ideal clocks on a fixed (non-rotating Earth) 
>> and then after GPS calculates the location on the non-rotating Earth, it 
>> calculates what point this is on the rotating Earth.  
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> This gets really complicated. I did a lot of post-Newtonian parameter work 
> on this back in the late 80s. A lot of it was numerical, because on the 
> ground there are different values of gravity, and these too can cause 
> drift. Gravitation, thinking of a Newtonian force, is different near a 
> mountain than on the top of it, and the direction can vary some from the 
> radius. It also fluctuates with tides! The surging in and out of a lot of 
> ocean water actually changes the Newtonian gravitation potential and force. 
>
>
> LC
>
>
> And it's further complicated by the Earth being non-spherical.  The 
> calculations find the lat/long of a WGS84 ellipsoid.  But of course the 
> real Earth isn't exactly an WGS84 ellipsoid either and there have to be 
> local corrections in look-up tables.  Off the coast of California where I 
> used to be involved in developing sea-skimming targets the WGS84 "sea 
> level" is about 120ft under water.
>
> Brent
>

*Yes, very complicated to get an exact solution. BUT, what I was trying to 
say, before getting a ton of crap from LC and Clark, the solution depends 
ONLY on GR since gravity is involved which distorts the spacetime paths and 
thus the proper times along these paths. Do you agree with this statement? 
TIA, AG*

>
>  
>
>>
>> We can do more with this. The ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2dφ^2]dt^2 can be 
 written as

 1 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2](dt/ds)^2

 Now take a variation on this, where obviously δ1 = 0 and

 0 = [c^2δ(1 – 2m/r) – δ(r^2ω^2)](dt/ds)^2 + [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – 
 r^2ω^2]δ(dt/ds)^2.

 We think primarily of a variation in the radius and so

 0 = -[ 2mc^2/r^2 – 2rω^2](dt/ds)^2δr + [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2]
 δ(dt/ds)^2,

 where for the time I will ignore the last term.  The first term gives

 rω^2 = -GM/r,

>>> I mean rω^2 = -GM/r^2
>>>  
>>>
 and this is just Newton’s second law with acceleration a = rω^2 with 
 gravity. Also this is Kepler's third law of planetary motion.

 Now I will hand wave a bit here. The term δ(dt/ds)^2 = 1 in the 
 Newtonian limit, but we can feed the general Lorentz gamma factor in that. 
 This will have a correction term to this dynamical equation. This 
 correction is general relativistic. The algebra gets a bit dense, but it 
 is 
 nothing conceptually difficult. 

 LC

 On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 9:17:37 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 8:06:30 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
> wrote: 
>>
>> I am not sure why you have endless trouble with this. On the Avoid 
>> list you repeatedly brought up this question, and in spite of dozens of 
>> explanations you raise this question over and over. You need to read a 
>> text 
>> on this. The old Taylor and Wheeler book on SR gives some reasoning on 
>> this. Geroch's book on GR is not too hard to read. 
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> Actually, I think your memory is faulty, other than to express your 
> annoyance with my 

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 2:26:14 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> I will try to give a definitive answer. 
>


*So regardless of your subsequent corrections, will you now admit, as I was 
suggesting, that the exact solution can be determined solely by GR, and 
that Clark's introducing SR is confusing and mistaken. Thank you in advance 
for your honesty! AG*
 

> The Schwarzschild metric is
>
> ds^2 = c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – (1 – 2m/r)dr^2 – r^2(dθ^2 – sin^2θdφ^2)
>
> for m = GM/c^2. For the motion of a satellite in a circular orbit there is 
> no radial motion so dr = 0. We set this on a plane with θ = π/2 so dθ = 0 
> and this reduces this to
>
> ds^2 =c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – r^2dφ^2.
>
> For circular motion dφ/dt = ω and the velocity v = ωr means this is
>
> ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2]dt^2
>
> and so ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – v^2]dt^2 the term Γ = 1/√[c^2(1 – 2m/r) – 
> v^2] is a general Lorentz gamma factor and in flat space with m = 0 reduces 
> the form we know. ds is an increment in the proper time on the orbiting 
> satellite and t is a coordinate time, say on the ground of the body.
>
> We can do more with this. The ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2dφ^2]dt^2 can be 
> written as
>
> 1 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2](dt/ds)^2
>
> Now take a variation on this, where obviously δ1 = 0 and
>
> 0 = [c^2δ(1 – 2m/r) – δ(r^2ω^2)](dt/ds)^2 + [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – 
> r^2ω^2]δ(dt/ds)^2.
>
> We think primarily of a variation in the radius and so
>
> 0 = -[ 2mc^2/r^2 – 2rω^2](dt/ds)^2δr + [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2]δ(dt/ds)^2,
>
> where for the time I will ignore the last term.  The first term gives
>
> rω^2 = -GM/r,
>
> and this is just Newton’s second law with acceleration a = rω^2 with 
> gravity. Also this is Kepler's third law of planetary motion.
>
> Now I will hand wave a bit here. The term δ(dt/ds)^2 = 1 in the Newtonian 
> limit, but we can feed the general Lorentz gamma factor in that. This will 
> have a correction term to this dynamical equation. This correction is 
> general relativistic. The algebra gets a bit dense, but it is nothing 
> conceptually difficult. 
>
> LC
>
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 9:17:37 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 8:06:30 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not sure why you have endless trouble with this. On the Avoid list 
>>> you repeatedly brought up this question, and in spite of dozens of 
>>> explanations you raise this question over and over. You need to read a text 
>>> on this. The old Taylor and Wheeler book on SR gives some reasoning on 
>>> this. Geroch's book on GR is not too hard to read.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> Actually, I think your memory is faulty, other than to express your 
>> annoyance with my question. In any event, if gravity and acceleration exist 
>> for a system under consideration, why is SR relevant? Why does Clark claim 
>> that the result of SR must be subtracted for the result of GR to determine 
>> an objective outcome, when the conditions of SR are non-existent?  AG
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:20:44 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 11:11:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/12/2020 9:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > Why is it that in SR a stationary clock appears to advancing at a 
> more 
> > rapid rate than a moving clock, and vice versa -- so the effect is 
> > relative or symmetric, not absolute -- whereas in GR the effect 
> seems 
> > absolute; that is, a ground clock actually advances at a slower rate 
> > compared to an orbiting clock? AG 
>
> It's the same as the twin effect.  The clock on the ground is 
> following 
> a non-geodesic path thru spacetime and so measures less duration, 
> while 
> the orbiting clock is following a geodesic path.  In relativity the 
> minus sign in the metric means that the path that looks longer 
> projected 
> in space is shorter in spacetime. 
>
> Brent 
>

 How does gravity cause the difference between what the theories 
 predict? AG 

>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/43d033ab-7d6a-42fa-8651-a2bc0937ad93o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/13/2020 3:12 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 4:13:05 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:



On 10/13/2020 1:34 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:28:21 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:26:14 PM UTC-5 Lawrence
Crowell wrote:

I will try to give a definitive answer. The Schwarzschild
metric is

ds^2 = c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – (1 – 2m/r)dr^2 – r^2(dθ^2 –
sin^2θdφ^2)

for m = GM/c^2. For the motion of a satellite in a
circular orbit there is no radial motion so dr = 0. We
set this on a plane with θ = π/2 so dθ = 0 and this
reduces this to

ds^2 =c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – r^2dφ^2.

For circular motion dφ/dt = ω and the velocity v = ωr
means this is

ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2]dt^2

and so ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – v^2]dt^2 the term Γ =
1/√[c^2(1 – 2m/r) – v^2] is a general Lorentz gamma
factor and in flat space with m = 0 reduces the form we
know. ds is an increment in the proper time on the
orbiting satellite and t is a coordinate time, say on the
ground of the body.


Another erratum. The coordinate time t is for a clock very far
removed, not on the ground. On the ground that clock ticks away
with a factor  Γ = 1/√[c^2 – v^2] change. So there is a relative
time difference.


A clock on the ground is also moving with rotation of the Earth,
with different speed at different latitudes. This is taken out of
the equations by comparing the GPS clock to ideal clocks on a
fixed (non-rotating Earth) and then after GPS calculates the
location on the non-rotating Earth, it calculates what point this
is on the rotating Earth.

Brent


This gets really complicated. I did a lot of post-Newtonian parameter 
work on this back in the late 80s. A lot of it was numerical, because 
on the ground there are different values of gravity, and these too can 
cause drift. Gravitation, thinking of a Newtonian force, is different 
near a mountain than on the top of it, and the direction can vary some 
from the radius. It also fluctuates with tides! The surging in and out 
of a lot of ocean water actually changes the Newtonian gravitation 
potential and force.


LC


And it's further complicated by the Earth being non-spherical.  The 
calculations find the lat/long of a WGS84 ellipsoid.  But of course the 
real Earth isn't exactly an WGS84 ellipsoid either and there have to be 
local corrections in look-up tables.  Off the coast of California where 
I used to be involved in developing sea-skimming targets the WGS84 "sea 
level" is about 120ft under water.


Brent




We can do more with this. The ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) –
r^2dφ^2]dt^2 can be written as

1 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2](dt/ds)^2

Now take a variation on this, where obviously δ1 = 0 and

0 = [c^2δ(1 – 2m/r) – δ(r^2ω^2)](dt/ds)^2 + [c^2(1 –
2m/r) – r^2ω^2]δ(dt/ds)^2.

We think primarily of a variation in the radius and so

0 = -[ 2mc^2/r^2 – 2rω^2](dt/ds)^2δr + [c^2(1 – 2m/r) –
r^2ω^2]δ(dt/ds)^2,

where for the time I will ignore the last term.  The
first term gives

rω^2 = -GM/r,

I mean rω^2 = -GM/r^2

and this is just Newton’s second law with acceleration a
= rω^2 with gravity. Also this is Kepler's third law of
planetary motion.

Now I will hand wave a bit here. The term δ(dt/ds)^2 = 1
in the Newtonian limit, but we can feed the general
Lorentz gamma factor in that. This will have a correction
term to this dynamical equation. This correction is
general relativistic. The algebra gets a bit dense, but
it is nothing conceptually difficult.

LC


On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 9:17:37 AM UTC-5
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 8:06:30 AM UTC-6,
Lawrence Crowell wrote:

I am not sure why you have endless trouble with
this. On the Avoid list you repeatedly brought up
this question, and in spite of dozens of
explanations you raise this question over and
over. You need to read a text on this. The old
Taylor and Wheeler book on SR gives some
reasoning on this. Geroch's book on GR is not too
hard to read.

LC


Actually, I think your memory is faulty, other than
to express your annoyance with my question. In any
event, if gravity and acceleration exist 

Re: Trumps September 27 COVID-19 superspreader event

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Brent, just to keep it all real, and I do mean real as in evidence related, 
allow me to state 2 things please.
1) There are no Billionaire goodguys for the middle class and the funders of 
both US political parties are Crony Capitalist$. To reinterate, no goodguys 
among the Globalist$. Know commonly as oligarchs.
2) we can only find a small portion of the ruling class that we find aggreable 
to. The rest of the time they running right around us, and it will take 
sustained street action (I am not a legal eagle) to compel the Rich, who bribe 
the politicians) to curtail some their bribery, or it's adverse impact upon the 
middle class.
The billionaires club, Brent, are almost too numerous to mention, who are now 
funding the Biden campaign, and the congressional democrat campaigns. The 
billionaires you listed in your latest epistle, are or course true, and no 
billionaire appears to do things out of the kindness of their hearts. They all, 
assuredly quietly, need something in return. In the case of the dem 
billionaires, Silicon Valley, the Hedge Funders, Entertainment, I suspect it's 
an easy policy on Xi's China as reward. Biden will tax us higher, yes, but 
we'll make cash off the Mainland Chinese. 
For the Republican billionaires, yes, sweetheart defense contracts. The 
advantage with more natonalist leadership is, yes Comrade Xi is really after 
killing the United States, and we have a chance, of rebuilding some of the 
factories (no robots yet as once predicted!) to the US. This, alone, will 
benefit the US middle class. Yes,I am aware of Smoot-Hawley, No, I am not 
content with some autarky.
Greater than the emotional political war that we have entered into, for us 
peasants, the better question is, 'what technologies can we perfect to improve 
the human condition, nationally, and globally?' This, to me, as a serf, is the 
existential question that I pose. 


-Original Message-
From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Oct 12, 2020 8:55 pm
Subject: Re: Trumps September 27 COVID-19 superspreader event

 
 
 On 10/12/2020 5:23 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
  
 
The character of Joe Biden or Kamala is never in question?  The Left must live 
in a hermetically sealed container. Joe has been womanizing politician all his 
career. He is as pure as, both Trump and Bill Clinton. 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-urge-joe-biden-to-address-sexual-assault-allegation-11588276919
  
 Well then Repugs will be fine with him, since they worship the pussy-grabber.
 
 
  Sex, is a thing that is comparatively unimportant for me, in an epoch where 
the USA has a good chance of diving into a civil war. Sex, is not high on my 
Abe Maslow, hierarchy of needs regarding politics.  Secondly, we know from the 
FBI now, that investigation signed by Obama was going on during Trump' s run 
for office and right into 2019. Allow me to educate. 
 
 https://apnews.com/article/b9b3c7ef398d00d5dfee9170d66cefec 
  
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/14/902518714/ex-fbi-lawyer-charged-in-case-linked-to-alleged-abuse-of-surveillance-power
  
 
 The first, and only, fruit of a witch hunt ordered by the President 
specifically to find something wrong with the investigation into his cahoots 
with Russia.  It was change in the wording of an email in support of 
surveillance of Carter Page...who was already dealing with the Russians.  The 
DoJ Inspector General had already investigated the same question and concluded  
there was "no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or 
improper motivation influenced" the opening of the counterintelligence 
investigation.  But Barr and Trump didn't like that result and so created 
another one.
 
 
  
  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53784048 
  Here, from July, is Professor Jonathan Turley, from GW University, declaiming 
the dem media go-along with the conspiracy. 
  None of the above sources I have used are Don friendly, and however, the 
truth will out.   
 
 Jonathan Turley is a flack for executive power.  And the truth to out is that 
the Trump campaign did conspire with the Russians.
 
 
  I wonder if by the 12th of November, we will already be in a shooting war?   
 
 It's not the Dems carrying rifles into the Michigan capitol.
 
 
  Thanks democrats. Not my idea of the 21st century, but my wee voice doesn't 
count. One has to have lots of money to successfully bribe politicians. $$
   
 
 Like Exxon and the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson and Big Pharma and the 
Saudis and Putin.
 
 Brent
 -- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/61657f35-01a0-5d67-b56a-ea45d58a21bd%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because 

Has Dark Matter been discovered?

[John Clark]

In yesterday's Physical Review Letters an article was published that says
Dark Matter *MIGHT* have been discovered in the XENON1T underground
detector deep below the Gran Sasso mountain in Italy. The signal is less
than the five Sigma needed to claim a discovery but it was strong enough to
cause a great deal of excitement, 5 theoretical papers have already been
published to try to explain it. It might turn out to be revolutionary or it
might turn out to be nothing, we'll just have to wait and see.

XENON1T Excess from Anomaly-Free Axionlike Dark Matter and ItsImplications
for Stellar Cooling Anomaly


John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1haeTB9vXx0oDNjR9JnRFOyvsdA2-iMxB6BMRoqZ7-gQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 4:13:05 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

>
>
> On 10/13/2020 1:34 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:28:21 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:26:14 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>>> I will try to give a definitive answer. The Schwarzschild metric is
>>>
>>> ds^2 = c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – (1 – 2m/r)dr^2 – r^2(dθ^2 – sin^2θdφ^2)
>>>
>>> for m = GM/c^2. For the motion of a satellite in a circular orbit there 
>>> is no radial motion so dr = 0. We set this on a plane with θ = π/2 so dθ = 
>>> 0 and this reduces this to
>>>
>>> ds^2 =c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – r^2dφ^2.
>>>
>>> For circular motion dφ/dt = ω and the velocity v = ωr means this is
>>>
>>> ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2]dt^2
>>>
>>> and so ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – v^2]dt^2 the term Γ = 1/√[c^2(1 – 2m/r) – 
>>> v^2] is a general Lorentz gamma factor and in flat space with m = 0 reduces 
>>> the form we know. ds is an increment in the proper time on the orbiting 
>>> satellite and t is a coordinate time, say on the ground of the body.
>>>
>>
> Another erratum. The coordinate time t is for a clock very far removed, 
> not on the ground. On the ground that clock ticks away with a factor  Γ = 
> 1/√[c^2 – v^2] change. So there is a relative time difference.
>
>
> A clock on the ground is also moving with rotation of the Earth, with 
> different speed at different latitudes.  This is taken out of the equations 
> by comparing the GPS clock to ideal clocks on a fixed (non-rotating Earth) 
> and then after GPS calculates the location on the non-rotating Earth, it 
> calculates what point this is on the rotating Earth.  
>
> Brent
>

This gets really complicated. I did a lot of post-Newtonian parameter work 
on this back in the late 80s. A lot of it was numerical, because on the 
ground there are different values of gravity, and these too can cause 
drift. Gravitation, thinking of a Newtonian force, is different near a 
mountain than on the top of it, and the direction can vary some from the 
radius. It also fluctuates with tides! The surging in and out of a lot of 
ocean water actually changes the Newtonian gravitation potential and force. 

LC
 

>
> We can do more with this. The ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2dφ^2]dt^2 can be 
>>> written as
>>>
>>> 1 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2](dt/ds)^2
>>>
>>> Now take a variation on this, where obviously δ1 = 0 and
>>>
>>> 0 = [c^2δ(1 – 2m/r) – δ(r^2ω^2)](dt/ds)^2 + [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – 
>>> r^2ω^2]δ(dt/ds)^2.
>>>
>>> We think primarily of a variation in the radius and so
>>>
>>> 0 = -[ 2mc^2/r^2 – 2rω^2](dt/ds)^2δr + [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2]
>>> δ(dt/ds)^2,
>>>
>>> where for the time I will ignore the last term.  The first term gives
>>>
>>> rω^2 = -GM/r,
>>>
>> I mean rω^2 = -GM/r^2
>>  
>>
>>> and this is just Newton’s second law with acceleration a = rω^2 with 
>>> gravity. Also this is Kepler's third law of planetary motion.
>>>
>>> Now I will hand wave a bit here. The term δ(dt/ds)^2 = 1 in the 
>>> Newtonian limit, but we can feed the general Lorentz gamma factor in that. 
>>> This will have a correction term to this dynamical equation. This 
>>> correction is general relativistic. The algebra gets a bit dense, but it is 
>>> nothing conceptually difficult. 
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 9:17:37 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 8:06:30 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
 wrote: 
>
> I am not sure why you have endless trouble with this. On the Avoid 
> list you repeatedly brought up this question, and in spite of dozens of 
> explanations you raise this question over and over. You need to read a 
> text 
> on this. The old Taylor and Wheeler book on SR gives some reasoning on 
> this. Geroch's book on GR is not too hard to read. 
>
> LC
>

 Actually, I think your memory is faulty, other than to express your 
 annoyance with my question. In any event, if gravity and acceleration 
 exist 
 for a system under consideration, why is SR relevant? Why does Clark claim 
 that the result of SR must be subtracted for the result of GR to determine 
 an objective outcome, when the conditions of SR are non-existent?  AG

>
>
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:20:44 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 11:11:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/12/2020 9:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>> > Why is it that in SR a stationary clock appears to advancing at a 
>>> more 
>>> > rapid rate than a moving clock, and vice versa -- so the effect is 
>>> > relative or symmetric, not absolute -- whereas in GR the effect 
>>> seems 
>>> > absolute; that is, a ground clock actually advances at a slower 
>>> rate 
>>> > compared to an orbiting clock? AG 
>>>
>>> It's the same as 

Re: Trump's new super spreader event

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

On Twitter, John, his supporters were talking about the purported, Gay appeal, 
because of this quote, plus, the playing of the YMCA song. 
https://youtu.be/4swzg3NV9tI
Aw. c'mon man! Watch it. It'll do your heart good.  Second, you are not 
mentioning the super spreading events at the democrat riots, arson, looting, 
violent protests. shootings, etc. If you claim these are not superspreading 
events, then, the science of epidemiology holds true only for Golden Man 
events.because, racism...social justice... In other words, sauce for the 
goose, sauce for the gander. Call it the PPAP, the political physical anthropic 
equvalence principle. Not directly related to your fellow Texan's Participatory 
Antrhropic Principle (J.A. Wheeler). 


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Oct 13, 2020 3:45 am
Subject: Trump's new super spreader event

At Trump's new super spreader event yesterday he started with a golden oldie 
from 2016 about how he was going to make Mexico pay for the wall, but then the 
Covid-19  Patient In Chief then he gave us this new gem:
"I feel so powerful, I'll walk into that audience. I'll walk in there, I'll 
kiss everyone in that audience. I'll kiss the guys and the beautiful women and 
the -- everybody. I'll just give everybody a big, fat kiss."
John K Clark-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3k_o569-EL9Gd92UD5gyodytFCYY%3D6EAkRXXSPOxQvEQ%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/936461200.263859.1602627005447%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Technology fiction versus science fiction (was Trump is on drugs)

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

It seems like, having a very advanced interstellar species studying us, is just 
too good to be true. I will hold. that it a software glitch, or some anaomalous 
thing, like a speck of seagul poo hanging on to a camera 
lens/screen/semiconductor (whatever the mil tech is?). Last, would not The 
Donald have been crowing about 'breaking the elite's science boycott blackout 
about advanced ETI as an October surprise?" Ticket to the 2nd term, get outta 
jail free card, etc?? 


-Original Message-
From: Alan Grayson 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Tue, Oct 13, 2020 10:21 am
Subject: Re: Technology fiction versus science fiction (was Trump is on drugs)



On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:35:03 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:19:58 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 1:54:01 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 1:06 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:


> they're already here and you refuse to admit this as a possibility

Ah yes, your flying saucer people from Roswell New Mexico that look like 
something for a grade B 1950s science-fiction movie.

You're just illustrating a bias, which has no place in a scientific discussion. 
You have no idea what they might look like. But if they're here, they could 
roughly have a form like us, in order to cope with the gravity level. IOW, 
bipedal. AG 

Never fear, Don-the-Con t'Rump has said he wants to give the UFO issue a 
serious look. I am sure from an executive level this will have the same 
scientific expertise he applied to the Covid pandemic.
LC

And the relevance of this comment is what? AG 


 

 

> they haven't had enough time to visit us

Nonsense, they've had plenty of time.  

The Earth has been around for about 4.2 billion years, and our technological 
civilization has only been around for a few hundred years at best. So it takes 
a really long time for this level of evolution to come into existence. If you 
extend this to the galaxy as a whole, there might be very few intelligent 
civilizations and they're likely very far apart. Generally, I agree with Brent 
on this issue, and that our sampling is so far insignificant. AG

 John K Clark 






-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e704a460-1848-4ce8-b1f7-c850fd57f188o%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/581213581.253839.1602625493975%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/13/2020 1:34 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:28:21 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:26:14 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

I will try to give a definitive answer. The Schwarzschild
metric is

ds^2 = c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – (1 – 2m/r)dr^2 – r^2(dθ^2 – sin^2θdφ^2)

for m = GM/c^2. For the motion of a satellite in a circular
orbit there is no radial motion so dr = 0. We set this on a
plane with θ = π/2 so dθ = 0 and this reduces this to

ds^2 =c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – r^2dφ^2.

For circular motion dφ/dt = ω and the velocity v = ωr means
this is

ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2]dt^2

and so ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – v^2]dt^2 the term Γ = 1/√[c^2(1
– 2m/r) – v^2] is a general Lorentz gamma factor and in flat
space with m = 0 reduces the form we know. ds is an increment
in the proper time on the orbiting satellite and t is a
coordinate time, say on the ground of the body.


Another erratum. The coordinate time t is for a clock very far 
removed, not on the ground. On the ground that clock ticks away with a 
factor  Γ = 1/√[c^2 – v^2] change. So there is a relative time difference.


A clock on the ground is also moving with rotation of the Earth, with 
different speed at different latitudes.  This is taken out of the 
equations by comparing the GPS clock to ideal clocks on a fixed 
(non-rotating Earth) and then after GPS calculates the location on the 
non-rotating Earth, it calculates what point this is on the rotating Earth.


Brent


We can do more with this. The ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) –
r^2dφ^2]dt^2 can be written as

1 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2](dt/ds)^2

Now take a variation on this, where obviously δ1 = 0 and

0 = [c^2δ(1 – 2m/r) – δ(r^2ω^2)](dt/ds)^2 + [c^2(1 – 2m/r) –
r^2ω^2]δ(dt/ds)^2.

We think primarily of a variation in the radius and so

0 = -[ 2mc^2/r^2 – 2rω^2](dt/ds)^2δr + [c^2(1 – 2m/r) –
r^2ω^2]δ(dt/ds)^2,

where for the time I will ignore the last term.  The first
term gives

rω^2 = -GM/r,

I mean rω^2 = -GM/r^2

and this is just Newton’s second law with acceleration a =
rω^2 with gravity. Also this is Kepler's third law of
planetary motion.

Now I will hand wave a bit here. The term δ(dt/ds)^2 = 1 in
the Newtonian limit, but we can feed the general Lorentz gamma
factor in that. This will have a correction term to this
dynamical equation. This correction is general relativistic.
The algebra gets a bit dense, but it is nothing conceptually
difficult.

LC


On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 9:17:37 AM UTC-5
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 8:06:30 AM UTC-6, Lawrence
Crowell wrote:

I am not sure why you have endless trouble with this.
On the Avoid list you repeatedly brought up this
question, and in spite of dozens of explanations you
raise this question over and over. You need to read a
text on this. The old Taylor and Wheeler book on SR
gives some reasoning on this. Geroch's book on GR is
not too hard to read.

LC


Actually, I think your memory is faulty, other than to
express your annoyance with my question. In any event, if
gravity and acceleration exist for a system under
consideration, why is SR relevant? Why does Clark claim
that the result of SR must be subtracted for the result of
GR to determine an objective outcome, when the conditions
of SR are non-existent?  AG



On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:20:44 AM UTC-5
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 11:11:33 PM UTC-6,
Brent wrote:



On 10/12/2020 9:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> Why is it that in SR a stationary clock
appears to advancing at a more
> rapid rate than a moving clock, and vice
versa -- so the effect is
> relative or symmetric, not absolute --
whereas in GR the effect seems
> absolute; that is, a ground clock actually
advances at a slower rate
> compared to an orbiting clock? AG

It's the same as the twin effect.  The clock
on the ground is following
a non-geodesic path thru spacetime and so
measures less duration, while
the orbiting 

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:28:21 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:26:14 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>> I will try to give a definitive answer. The Schwarzschild metric is
>>
>> ds^2 = c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – (1 – 2m/r)dr^2 – r^2(dθ^2 – sin^2θdφ^2)
>>
>> for m = GM/c^2. For the motion of a satellite in a circular orbit there 
>> is no radial motion so dr = 0. We set this on a plane with θ = π/2 so dθ = 
>> 0 and this reduces this to
>>
>> ds^2 =c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – r^2dφ^2.
>>
>> For circular motion dφ/dt = ω and the velocity v = ωr means this is
>>
>> ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2]dt^2
>>
>> and so ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – v^2]dt^2 the term Γ = 1/√[c^2(1 – 2m/r) – 
>> v^2] is a general Lorentz gamma factor and in flat space with m = 0 reduces 
>> the form we know. ds is an increment in the proper time on the orbiting 
>> satellite and t is a coordinate time, say on the ground of the body.
>>
>
Another erratum. The coordinate time t is for a clock very far removed, not 
on the ground. On the ground that clock ticks away with a factor  Γ = 
1/√[c^2 – v^2] change. So there is a relative time difference.

> We can do more with this. The ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2dφ^2]dt^2 can be 
>> written as
>>
>> 1 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2](dt/ds)^2
>>
>> Now take a variation on this, where obviously δ1 = 0 and
>>
>> 0 = [c^2δ(1 – 2m/r) – δ(r^2ω^2)](dt/ds)^2 + [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – 
>> r^2ω^2]δ(dt/ds)^2.
>>
>> We think primarily of a variation in the radius and so
>>
>> 0 = -[ 2mc^2/r^2 – 2rω^2](dt/ds)^2δr + [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2]δ(dt/ds)^2
>> ,
>>
>> where for the time I will ignore the last term.  The first term gives
>>
>> rω^2 = -GM/r,
>>
> I mean rω^2 = -GM/r^2
>  
>
>> and this is just Newton’s second law with acceleration a = rω^2 with 
>> gravity. Also this is Kepler's third law of planetary motion.
>>
>> Now I will hand wave a bit here. The term δ(dt/ds)^2 = 1 in the Newtonian 
>> limit, but we can feed the general Lorentz gamma factor in that. This will 
>> have a correction term to this dynamical equation. This correction is 
>> general relativistic. The algebra gets a bit dense, but it is nothing 
>> conceptually difficult. 
>>
>> LC
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 9:17:37 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 8:06:30 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 I am not sure why you have endless trouble with this. On the Avoid list 
 you repeatedly brought up this question, and in spite of dozens of 
 explanations you raise this question over and over. You need to read a 
 text 
 on this. The old Taylor and Wheeler book on SR gives some reasoning on 
 this. Geroch's book on GR is not too hard to read.

 LC

>>>
>>> Actually, I think your memory is faulty, other than to express your 
>>> annoyance with my question. In any event, if gravity and acceleration exist 
>>> for a system under consideration, why is SR relevant? Why does Clark claim 
>>> that the result of SR must be subtracted for the result of GR to determine 
>>> an objective outcome, when the conditions of SR are non-existent?  AG
>>>


 On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:20:44 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 11:11:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/2020 9:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > Why is it that in SR a stationary clock appears to advancing at a 
>> more 
>> > rapid rate than a moving clock, and vice versa -- so the effect is 
>> > relative or symmetric, not absolute -- whereas in GR the effect 
>> seems 
>> > absolute; that is, a ground clock actually advances at a slower 
>> rate 
>> > compared to an orbiting clock? AG 
>>
>> It's the same as the twin effect.  The clock on the ground is 
>> following 
>> a non-geodesic path thru spacetime and so measures less duration, 
>> while 
>> the orbiting clock is following a geodesic path.  In relativity the 
>> minus sign in the metric means that the path that looks longer 
>> projected 
>> in space is shorter in spacetime. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>
> How does gravity cause the difference between what the theories 
> predict? AG 
>


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1964a545-2eb9-471e-8ce8-76543e2b74e5n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:26:14 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> I will try to give a definitive answer. The Schwarzschild metric is
>
> ds^2 = c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – (1 – 2m/r)dr^2 – r^2(dθ^2 – sin^2θdφ^2)
>
> for m = GM/c^2. For the motion of a satellite in a circular orbit there is 
> no radial motion so dr = 0. We set this on a plane with θ = π/2 so dθ = 0 
> and this reduces this to
>
> ds^2 =c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – r^2dφ^2.
>
> For circular motion dφ/dt = ω and the velocity v = ωr means this is
>
> ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2]dt^2
>
> and so ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – v^2]dt^2 the term Γ = 1/√[c^2(1 – 2m/r) – 
> v^2] is a general Lorentz gamma factor and in flat space with m = 0 reduces 
> the form we know. ds is an increment in the proper time on the orbiting 
> satellite and t is a coordinate time, say on the ground of the body.
>
> We can do more with this. The ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2dφ^2]dt^2 can be 
> written as
>
> 1 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2](dt/ds)^2
>
> Now take a variation on this, where obviously δ1 = 0 and
>
> 0 = [c^2δ(1 – 2m/r) – δ(r^2ω^2)](dt/ds)^2 + [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – 
> r^2ω^2]δ(dt/ds)^2.
>
> We think primarily of a variation in the radius and so
>
> 0 = -[ 2mc^2/r^2 – 2rω^2](dt/ds)^2δr + [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2]δ(dt/ds)^2,
>
> where for the time I will ignore the last term.  The first term gives
>
> rω^2 = -GM/r,
>
I mean rω^2 = -GM/r^2
 

> and this is just Newton’s second law with acceleration a = rω^2 with 
> gravity. Also this is Kepler's third law of planetary motion.
>
> Now I will hand wave a bit here. The term δ(dt/ds)^2 = 1 in the Newtonian 
> limit, but we can feed the general Lorentz gamma factor in that. This will 
> have a correction term to this dynamical equation. This correction is 
> general relativistic. The algebra gets a bit dense, but it is nothing 
> conceptually difficult. 
>
> LC
>
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 9:17:37 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 8:06:30 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not sure why you have endless trouble with this. On the Avoid list 
>>> you repeatedly brought up this question, and in spite of dozens of 
>>> explanations you raise this question over and over. You need to read a text 
>>> on this. The old Taylor and Wheeler book on SR gives some reasoning on 
>>> this. Geroch's book on GR is not too hard to read.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> Actually, I think your memory is faulty, other than to express your 
>> annoyance with my question. In any event, if gravity and acceleration exist 
>> for a system under consideration, why is SR relevant? Why does Clark claim 
>> that the result of SR must be subtracted for the result of GR to determine 
>> an objective outcome, when the conditions of SR are non-existent?  AG
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:20:44 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 11:11:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/12/2020 9:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > Why is it that in SR a stationary clock appears to advancing at a 
> more 
> > rapid rate than a moving clock, and vice versa -- so the effect is 
> > relative or symmetric, not absolute -- whereas in GR the effect 
> seems 
> > absolute; that is, a ground clock actually advances at a slower rate 
> > compared to an orbiting clock? AG 
>
> It's the same as the twin effect.  The clock on the ground is 
> following 
> a non-geodesic path thru spacetime and so measures less duration, 
> while 
> the orbiting clock is following a geodesic path.  In relativity the 
> minus sign in the metric means that the path that looks longer 
> projected 
> in space is shorter in spacetime. 
>
> Brent 
>

 How does gravity cause the difference between what the theories 
 predict? AG 

>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c8cb977-09bf-4262-a373-c0a28317c82dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[Lawrence Crowell]

I will try to give a definitive answer. The Schwarzschild metric is

ds^2 = c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – (1 – 2m/r)dr^2 – r^2(dθ^2 – sin^2θdφ^2)

for m = GM/c^2. For the motion of a satellite in a circular orbit there is 
no radial motion so dr = 0. We set this on a plane with θ = π/2 so dθ = 0 
and this reduces this to

ds^2 =c^2(1 – 2m/r)dt^2 – r^2dφ^2.

For circular motion dφ/dt = ω and the velocity v = ωr means this is

ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2]dt^2

and so ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – v^2]dt^2 the term Γ = 1/√[c^2(1 – 2m/r) – 
v^2] is a general Lorentz gamma factor and in flat space with m = 0 reduces 
the form we know. ds is an increment in the proper time on the orbiting 
satellite and t is a coordinate time, say on the ground of the body.

We can do more with this. The ds^2 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2dφ^2]dt^2 can be 
written as

1 = [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2](dt/ds)^2

Now take a variation on this, where obviously δ1 = 0 and

0 = [c^2δ(1 – 2m/r) – δ(r^2ω^2)](dt/ds)^2 + [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – 
r^2ω^2]δ(dt/ds)^2.

We think primarily of a variation in the radius and so

0 = -[ 2mc^2/r^2 – 2rω^2](dt/ds)^2δr + [c^2(1 – 2m/r) – r^2ω^2]δ(dt/ds)^2,

where for the time I will ignore the last term.  The first term gives

rω^2 = -GM/r,

and this is just Newton’s second law with acceleration a = rω^2 with 
gravity. Also this is Kepler's third law of planetary motion.

Now I will hand wave a bit here. The term δ(dt/ds)^2 = 1 in the Newtonian 
limit, but we can feed the general Lorentz gamma factor in that. This will 
have a correction term to this dynamical equation. This correction is 
general relativistic. The algebra gets a bit dense, but it is nothing 
conceptually difficult. 

LC

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 9:17:37 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 8:06:30 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> I am not sure why you have endless trouble with this. On the Avoid list 
>> you repeatedly brought up this question, and in spite of dozens of 
>> explanations you raise this question over and over. You need to read a text 
>> on this. The old Taylor and Wheeler book on SR gives some reasoning on 
>> this. Geroch's book on GR is not too hard to read.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> Actually, I think your memory is faulty, other than to express your 
> annoyance with my question. In any event, if gravity and acceleration exist 
> for a system under consideration, why is SR relevant? Why does Clark claim 
> that the result of SR must be subtracted for the result of GR to determine 
> an objective outcome, when the conditions of SR are non-existent?  AG
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:20:44 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 11:11:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



 On 10/12/2020 9:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
 > Why is it that in SR a stationary clock appears to advancing at a 
 more 
 > rapid rate than a moving clock, and vice versa -- so the effect is 
 > relative or symmetric, not absolute -- whereas in GR the effect seems 
 > absolute; that is, a ground clock actually advances at a slower rate 
 > compared to an orbiting clock? AG 

 It's the same as the twin effect.  The clock on the ground is following 
 a non-geodesic path thru spacetime and so measures less duration, while 
 the orbiting clock is following a geodesic path.  In relativity the 
 minus sign in the metric means that the path that looks longer 
 projected 
 in space is shorter in spacetime. 

 Brent 

>>>
>>> How does gravity cause the difference between what the theories predict? 
>>> AG 
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2cafa0e1-96a2-4743-96e7-8ea4de8cd014n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/13/2020 6:18 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 1:20 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:


/> How does gravity cause the difference between what the theories
predict? AG /


There is no contradiction about what the theories predict because 
Special Relativity can make no prediction at all about what a clock 
will do when it is in a gravitational field or is accelerated in any 
other way; that's why it's called "special", it's only applicable in 
certain special circumstances. But General Relativity can handle 
acceleration and gravity. A GPS Satellite is moving fast compared to a 
clock on the ground so Special Relativity says the clock on the 
satellite will lose 7210 nanoseconds a day,


That's a kind of engineering way of looking at it which works well to 
first order.  But remember "moving fast" is relative and one could 
naviely conclude the ground clock must run slow compared to the satellite.


but the satellite clock is further from the Earth's center so it's in 
a weaker gravitational field, and because of that general relatively 
says the satellite clock will gain 45850 nanoseconds a day relative to 
the clock on the ground.


The more fundamental way to look at it is the spacetime is curved, but 
locally it's Minkowski.  So every clock just measures the proper 
distance along it's world line.  Acceleration only enter indirectly 
since it deviates the path from geodesic which is the extremum.  In 
spacetime the acceleration is just seen as a geometric factor.  In this 
way of looking at it there are not two theories SR and GR, it's just SR 
on a curved background.


Brent

So the two theories together predict the satellite clock will gain 
45850 −7210 = 38,640 nanoseconds a day relative to a clock on the 
ground. If this were not taken into account the GPS system would be in 
error by 6 miles every day and the error would add up, soon the entire 
GPS system would be useless.


John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2dYmrvPPTaRA-%2BaL%3DBdcPAOPbzjiS81yN%3DYuwPsiB46A%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1524a3c2-4aeb-358d-8025-270c107a91cd%40verizon.net.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 1:25:09 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 1:16:54 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 11:44:05 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:12 AM Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> *> Sorry, but I don't see [...]*
>>>
>>>
>>> I've noticed there are a lot of things that you just don't see, and you 
>>> don't seem to be making any effort to improve your understanding even when 
>>> things are carefully explained to you.  You just keep asking the exact same 
>>> questions over and over.
>>>
>>> John K Clark
>>>
>>
>> *Are you clerking for Barrett? AG *
>>
>
> This would be a non-answer in the style of Amy Coney Barrett, or maybe a 
> sycophant of LC. I never, in the past, was able to pose the question with 
> such precision. Why use a theory, SR, which at the start of your discussion 
> you admit doesn't apply? AG
>

*And this isn't the first time I've caught you in serious scientific 
dishonesty. So I find your response inappropriate and disingenuous. I'm 
outta here. AG *

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3f114ab7-9ccc-4e24-b9bd-95bd6ecc8423o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 1:16:54 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 11:44:05 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:12 AM Alan Grayson  
>> wrote:
>>
>> *> Sorry, but I don't see [...]*
>>
>>
>> I've noticed there are a lot of things that you just don't see, and you 
>> don't seem to be making any effort to improve your understanding even when 
>> things are carefully explained to you.  You just keep asking the exact same 
>> questions over and over.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> *Are you clerking for Barrett? AG *
>

This would be a non-answer in the style of Amy Coney Barrett, or maybe a 
sycophant of LC. I never, in the past, was able to pose the question with 
such precision. Why use a theory, SR, which at the start of your discussion 
you admit doesn't apply? AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/90605880-3651-4359-bcd4-4875a60a9a86o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 11:44:05 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:12 AM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> *> Sorry, but I don't see [...]*
>
>
> I've noticed there are a lot of things that you just don't see, and you 
> don't seem to be making any effort to improve your understanding even when 
> things are carefully explained to you.  You just keep asking the exact same 
> questions over and over.
>
> John K Clark
>

*Are you clerking for Barrick? AG *

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/822b886f-3255-4165-abbc-a82d31467283o%40googlegroups.com.

Be very afraid!

[John Clark]

The Holy Roller who wants to be on the US Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett,
today refused to say that Trump could not unilaterally delay the Nov. 3
election. Instead she waffled and said:

*"I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read the briefs and
consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues"*

She graduated at the top of her class in law school and yet she can't
answer such an elementary question without help?!!

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3pVS8_WJb8y4J%3DzC8tDyJQ6DFDCB0Q6YQy3Y3XHiR88A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[John Clark]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:12 AM Alan Grayson 
wrote:

*> Sorry, but I don't see [...]*


I've noticed there are a lot of things that you just don't see, and you
don't seem to be making any effort to improve your understanding even when
things are carefully explained to you.  You just keep asking the exact same
questions over and over.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0CshNNCmyo5i2F4Pf%2BO6EE8sj7aj1uMm3SS1UsmU5u7w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 9:01:55 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 10:39 AM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> *> Note that Clark claims SR is irrelevant to the issue of comparing an 
>> orbiting clock with a stationary clock on the Earth, *
>>
>
> No, Clark did not make that claim. Clark claims that in some more complex 
> situations, such as situations where gravity becomes important, one number 
> alone, the relative speed of the two clocks, is necessary but not 
> sufficient to be able to calculate what the clocks will do. And Clark's 
> "claim" has been verified many many times experimentally, including the 
> time you used your car's GPS to find the nearest Burger King.
>
>  John K Clark
>

*Sorry, but I don't see why you need to use both theories to get the actual 
differential rates of the ground clock vs the orbiting clock. AG *

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/592dbe1c-0dcb-49d3-a762-5b5a0756c6cdo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[John Clark]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 10:39 AM Alan Grayson 
wrote:

*> Note that Clark claims SR is irrelevant to the issue of comparing an
> orbiting clock with a stationary clock on the Earth, *
>

No, Clark did not make that claim. Clark claims that in some more complex
situations, such as situations where gravity becomes important, one number
alone, the relative speed of the two clocks, is necessary but not
sufficient to be able to calculate what the clocks will do. And Clark's
"claim" has been verified many many times experimentally, including the
time you used your car's GPS to find the nearest Burger King.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3%2BCteL-vcOnXGY-25grgCNQ3QjQOAE7smPNAexbUoZug%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 8:17:37 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 8:06:30 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> I am not sure why you have endless trouble with this. On the Avoid list 
>> you repeatedly brought up this question, and in spite of dozens of 
>> explanations you raise this question over and over. You need to read a text 
>> on this. The old Taylor and Wheeler book on SR gives some reasoning on 
>> this. Geroch's book on GR is not too hard to read.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> Actually, I think your memory is faulty, other than to express your 
> annoyance with my question. In any event, if gravity and acceleration exist 
> for a system under consideration, why is SR relevant? Why does Clark claim 
> that the result of SR must be subtracted for the result of GR to determine 
> an objective outcome, when the conditions of SR are non-existent?  AG
>

I don't believe I was able, years ago, to clearly express my issue I am now 
raising. Note that Clark claims SR is irrelevant to the issue of comparing 
an orbiting clock with a stationary clock on the Earth, but he then factors 
SR into the result of GR. So Clark seems to contract himself, although 
maybe you don't agree with his analysis. AG 

>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:20:44 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 11:11:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



 On 10/12/2020 9:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
 > Why is it that in SR a stationary clock appears to advancing at a 
 more 
 > rapid rate than a moving clock, and vice versa -- so the effect is 
 > relative or symmetric, not absolute -- whereas in GR the effect seems 
 > absolute; that is, a ground clock actually advances at a slower rate 
 > compared to an orbiting clock? AG 

 It's the same as the twin effect.  The clock on the ground is following 
 a non-geodesic path thru spacetime and so measures less duration, while 
 the orbiting clock is following a geodesic path.  In relativity the 
 minus sign in the metric means that the path that looks longer 
 projected 
 in space is shorter in spacetime. 

 Brent 

>>>
>>> How does gravity cause the difference between what the theories predict? 
>>> AG 
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/551e1bbe-a212-4f5e-a755-74c7ce0ef923o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Technology fiction versus science fiction (was Trump is on drugs)

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 8:21:02 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:35:03 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:19:58 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 1:54:01 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:

 On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 1:06 AM Alan Grayson  
 wrote:

 *> they're already here and you refuse to admit this as a possibility*


 Ah yes, your flying saucer people from Roswell New Mexico that look 
 like something for a grade B 1950s science-fiction movie.

>>>
>>> *You're just illustrating a bias, which has no place in a scientific 
>>> discussion. You have no idea what they might look like. But if they're 
>>> here, they could roughly have a form like us, in order to cope with the 
>>> gravity level. IOW, bipedal. AG *
>>>
>>
>> Never fear, Don-the-Con t'Rump has said he wants to give the UFO issue a 
>> serious look. I am sure from an executive level this will have the same 
>> scientific expertise he applied to the Covid pandemic.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> And the relevance of this comment is what? AG 
>

I have to suppose, that based on your experience and knowledge, you have a 
good handle on what aliens would look like. Please elaborate, as the 
question is of interest here. AG 

>
>> [image: Trump ufo.jpg]
>>  
>>
>>>
 > *they haven't had enough time to visit us*


 Nonsense, they've had plenty of time.  

>>>
>>> *The Earth has been around for about 4.2 billion years, and our 
>>> technological civilization has only been around for a few hundred years at 
>>> best. So it takes a really long time for this level of evolution to come 
>>> into existence. If you extend this to the galaxy as a whole, there might be 
>>> very few intelligent civilizations and they're likely very far apart. 
>>> Generally, I agree with Brent on this issue, and that our sampling is so 
>>> far insignificant. AG*
>>>

 John K Clark 


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a2a6d0e3-6bf1-453f-9d02-841435ca7d92o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Technology fiction versus science fiction (was Trump is on drugs)

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:35:03 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 3:19:58 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 1:54:01 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 1:06 AM Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> *> they're already here and you refuse to admit this as a possibility*
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah yes, your flying saucer people from Roswell New Mexico that look 
>>> like something for a grade B 1950s science-fiction movie.
>>>
>>
>> *You're just illustrating a bias, which has no place in a scientific 
>> discussion. You have no idea what they might look like. But if they're 
>> here, they could roughly have a form like us, in order to cope with the 
>> gravity level. IOW, bipedal. AG *
>>
>
> Never fear, Don-the-Con t'Rump has said he wants to give the UFO issue a 
> serious look. I am sure from an executive level this will have the same 
> scientific expertise he applied to the Covid pandemic.
>
> LC
>

And the relevance of this comment is what? AG 

>
> [image: Trump ufo.jpg]
>  
>
>>
>>> > *they haven't had enough time to visit us*
>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense, they've had plenty of time.  
>>>
>>
>> *The Earth has been around for about 4.2 billion years, and our 
>> technological civilization has only been around for a few hundred years at 
>> best. So it takes a really long time for this level of evolution to come 
>> into existence. If you extend this to the galaxy as a whole, there might be 
>> very few intelligent civilizations and they're likely very far apart. 
>> Generally, I agree with Brent on this issue, and that our sampling is so 
>> far insignificant. AG*
>>
>>>
>>> John K Clark 
>>>
>>>


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e704a460-1848-4ce8-b1f7-c850fd57f188o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 8:06:30 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> I am not sure why you have endless trouble with this. On the Avoid list 
> you repeatedly brought up this question, and in spite of dozens of 
> explanations you raise this question over and over. You need to read a text 
> on this. The old Taylor and Wheeler book on SR gives some reasoning on 
> this. Geroch's book on GR is not too hard to read.
>
> LC
>

Actually, I think your memory is faulty, other than to express your 
annoyance with my question. In any event, if gravity and acceleration exist 
for a system under consideration, why is SR relevant? Why does Clark claim 
that the result of SR must be subtracted for the result of GR to determine 
an objective outcome, when the conditions of SR are non-existent?  AG

>
>
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:20:44 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 11:11:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/12/2020 9:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>> > Why is it that in SR a stationary clock appears to advancing at a more 
>>> > rapid rate than a moving clock, and vice versa -- so the effect is 
>>> > relative or symmetric, not absolute -- whereas in GR the effect seems 
>>> > absolute; that is, a ground clock actually advances at a slower rate 
>>> > compared to an orbiting clock? AG 
>>>
>>> It's the same as the twin effect.  The clock on the ground is following 
>>> a non-geodesic path thru spacetime and so measures less duration, while 
>>> the orbiting clock is following a geodesic path.  In relativity the 
>>> minus sign in the metric means that the path that looks longer projected 
>>> in space is shorter in spacetime. 
>>>
>>> Brent 
>>>
>>
>> How does gravity cause the difference between what the theories predict? 
>> AG 
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e627cf4e-8781-45cb-8348-caff0460babeo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[Lawrence Crowell]

I am not sure why you have endless trouble with this. On the Avoid list you 
repeatedly brought up this question, and in spite of dozens of explanations 
you raise this question over and over. You need to read a text on this. The 
old Taylor and Wheeler book on SR gives some reasoning on this. Geroch's 
book on GR is not too hard to read.

LC

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:20:44 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 11:11:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/2020 9:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > Why is it that in SR a stationary clock appears to advancing at a more 
>> > rapid rate than a moving clock, and vice versa -- so the effect is 
>> > relative or symmetric, not absolute -- whereas in GR the effect seems 
>> > absolute; that is, a ground clock actually advances at a slower rate 
>> > compared to an orbiting clock? AG 
>>
>> It's the same as the twin effect.  The clock on the ground is following 
>> a non-geodesic path thru spacetime and so measures less duration, while 
>> the orbiting clock is following a geodesic path.  In relativity the 
>> minus sign in the metric means that the path that looks longer projected 
>> in space is shorter in spacetime. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>
> How does gravity cause the difference between what the theories predict? 
> AG 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/22cb3b19-4a7f-45a2-96c6-bd4b415c521en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[John Clark]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 1:20 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*> How does gravity cause the difference between what the theories predict?
> AG *
>

There is no contradiction about what the theories predict because Special
Relativity can make no prediction at all about what a clock will do when it
is in a gravitational field or is accelerated in any other way; that's why
it's called "special", it's only applicable in certain special
circumstances. But General Relativity can handle acceleration and gravity.
A GPS Satellite is moving fast compared to a clock on the ground so Special
Relativity says the clock on the satellite will lose 7210 nanoseconds a
day, but the satellite clock is further from the Earth's center so it's in
a weaker gravitational field, and because of that general relatively says
the satellite clock will gain 45850 nanoseconds a day relative to the clock
on the ground. So the two theories together predict the satellite clock
will gain 45850 −7210 = 38,640 nanoseconds a day relative to a clock on the
ground. If this were not taken into account the GPS system would be in
error by 6 miles every day and the error would add up, soon the entire GPS
system would be useless.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2dYmrvPPTaRA-%2BaL%3DBdcPAOPbzjiS81yN%3DYuwPsiB46A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Trump is on drugs

[Telmo Menezes]

Am Di, 13. Okt 2020, um 00:15, schrieb Lawrence Crowell:
> On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 5:46:45 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/12/2020 2:12 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>> Human minds can ask questions, computers outside of pre-programmed prompts 
>>> do not.
>> 
>> Untrue.  It's quite easy to program a computer to ask questions based on 
>> inputs from the environment.  You cel phone will ask you, "Do you want to 
>> answer this call? It looks like spam."  and it makes that judgement "It 
>> looks like spam." based on the source, content, and past experience.
>> 
> 
> You did not understand what I said. Sure a computer can "ask a question," but 
> it is just an audio-file executed when some "oracle condition" occurs. It is 
> not as if the machine actually is thinking a question.

Clark and Brent already posed all the main objections that I would pose myself, 
so I guess there is no point in piling on...

Instead I will ask you for a clarification, to make sure what your position is: 
do you feel that computers could one day develop what you refer to as "actual 
thinking", or do you think that there is some intrinsic limit to computation, 
and that our mind does something beyond than computation?

To be clear, my position is this: I bet that my mind can be emulated through 
computation (and I would not tell the difference, in other words I would say 
yes to the doctor), but I realize this cannot be proved. I am very suspicious 
of the idea that there is something "special" about us. I think that our 
species has a certain tendency to wanting to believe that.

>  
>> 
>>> A computer can compute tens of thousands of zeros to the Riemann zeta 
>>> function, a human mind seeks a proof of the conjecture. 
>> 
>> There a automatic proof programs too.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
> 
> But, we wrote the program, not the computer
> 
> LC 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> LC
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:03:48 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 6:15 AM Lawrence Crowell 
  wrote:
 
> *> I would say in general with a machine you can see the seems, bolts and 
> rivets while a biological system you don't.*
 
 A trivial difference, one has cartilage the other has bolts and rivets.  
  
> *> You can turn off a machine, but a biological system does not turn back 
> on.*
 
 So an artificial machine can do something that a natural biological 
 machine can not, and that will be far from the only advantage they have. 
  
> *> Biological systems are spontaneous and will act accordingly.*
 
 I don't know what you mean by that. All machines, both natural and 
 artificial, either do things for a reason and thus are deterministic or 
 they do things for no reason and thus are random. Natural or artificial it 
 makes no difference, they're either cuckoo clocks or roulette wheels.  
 
  
> > *A computer with no input just sits there.*
 
 A computer with no inputs can still calculate the digits of PI, and so can 
 a human who can't see, hear, feel, smell, or taste. Although the human 
 would perform the calculation much much slower and be more error-prone.
  
> *> While there are clearly Turning machine or Church-Turing aspects of 
> how brains or neural systems work, there are also huge departures.*
 
 Huge departures? I can't even think of any tiny departures and neither can 
 anybody else, nobody has ever found a problem that a human can solve that 
 a Turing Machine couldn't.  
 
 John K Clark
 
 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2f15a4a6-b2d4-49d6-be45-75636925db8an%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> .
>> 
> 

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/93c5c5ce-6b8f-4b41-9096-91b1cb3002a5n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Re: Technology fiction versus science fiction (was Trump is on drugs)

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 1:54:01 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 1:06 AM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> *> they're already here and you refuse to admit this as a possibility*
>
>
> Ah yes, your flying saucer people from Roswell New Mexico that look like 
> something for a grade B 1950s science-fiction movie.
>

*You're just illustrating a bias, which has no place in a scientific 
discussion. You have no idea what they might look like. But if they're 
here, they could roughly have a form like us, in order to cope with the 
gravity level. IOW, bipedal. AG *

>
> > *they haven't had enough time to visit us*
>
>
> Nonsense, they've had plenty of time.  
>

*The Earth has been around for about 4.2 billion years, and our 
technological civilization has only been around for a few hundred years at 
best. So it takes a really long time for this level of evolution to come 
into existence. If you extend this to the galaxy as a whole, there might be 
very few intelligent civilizations and they're likely very far apart. 
Generally, I agree with Brent on this issue, and that our sampling is so 
far insignificant. AG*

>
> John K Clark 
>
>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a76b10e0-6738-44ac-b8eb-150c2c346496o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Technology fiction versus science fiction (was Trump is on drugs)

[John Clark]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 1:06 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*> they're already here and you refuse to admit this as a possibility*


Ah yes, your flying saucer people from Roswell New Mexico that look like
something for a grade B 1950s science-fiction movie.

> *they haven't had enough time to visit us*


Nonsense, they've had plenty of time.

John K Clark


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2gYSe52h7mEMi-Kn60HuWh2HoLfQeP3m9Xw%3DDve65%2Bhg%40mail.gmail.com.

Trump's new super spreader event

[John Clark]

At Trump's new super spreader event yesterday he started with a golden
oldie from 2016 about how he was going to make Mexico pay for the wall, but
then the Covid-19  Patient In Chief then he gave us this new gem:

*"I feel so powerful, I'll walk into that audience. I'll walk in there,
I'll kiss everyone in that audience. I'll kiss the guys and the beautiful
women and the -- everybody. I'll just give everybody a big, fat kiss."*

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3k_o569-EL9Gd92UD5gyodytFCYY%3D6EAkRXXSPOxQvEQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Critique of Penrose's claim of a universe before the Big Bang

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 11:38:55 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 8:37:29 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> After LC
>
>
> *Do all BB theories contain the reheating postulate? AG*
>

*It's not a hard question, and then we're probably done here. I want to 
know if all BB theories have the reheating postulate? I want to know if 
it's a necessary postulate that solves some outstanding problems, or can it 
be dispensed with. AG *

>
>>
>> On Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 8:57:20 PM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 8:07:33 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 On Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 5:42:53 AM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 4:25:04 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 8:52:58 PM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 5:25:35 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
>>> wrote:



 On Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 5:32:25 PM UTC-5 
 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 1:03:00 PM UTC-6, Lawrence 
> Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, October 9, 2020 at 12:27:00 PM UTC-5 
>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, October 9, 2020 at 3:53:46 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
>>> wrote:

 I read this yesterday. It so far appears there is no data to 
 support information from a prior cosmic cycle. 

 Penrose did ground breaking work on the nature of black holes 
 and I think his crowning achievement in mathematical physics is 
 twistor 
 theory of the mid 70s. His CCC theory is a bit like Hoyle's steady 
 state 
 theory in that it is a sort of intended obstruction to a more 
 successful 
 theory that is gaining support.

 LC

>>>
>>> *Please clarify your last sentence above. What "more successful 
>>> theory" are you referring to; the hot BB with inflation? AG *
>>>
>>
>> Primarily back then it was just BB. Now with inflation a much 
>> wider range of problems have been solved, and it is supported by CMB 
>> data.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> *Has anyone proposed a Cold BB, which seems illogical since one 
> can imagine an expanding universe backward in time; that is, 
> contracting 
> and getting denser and hotter? AG *
>

 As a rule the more a gas is compressed the hotter it gets.

 LC

>>>
>>> Of course. Does that mean a COLD BB has never been proposed because 
>>> it defies our understanding of how a contracting gas behaves? AG 
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> *TY. Then it cools as it expands. But why do some, or is it all BB 
> theories, propose a "reheating" phase? How could it reheat if it is still 
> expanding? What's the need for reheating? AG *
>

 That involves the vacuum physics of inflation. It is analogous to a 
 phase transition and the reheating might be compared to latent heat of 
 fusion.

 LC 

>>>
>>> *Does reheating occur before or after inflation? Is this the case for 
>>> every (hot) BB theory? AG*
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/855606b6-f791-4e58-8019-ebfc75cf601bo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 12:06:44 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/12/2020 10:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 11:11:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/2020 9:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > Why is it that in SR a stationary clock appears to advancing at a more 
>> > rapid rate than a moving clock, and vice versa -- so the effect is 
>> > relative or symmetric, not absolute -- whereas in GR the effect seems 
>> > absolute; that is, a ground clock actually advances at a slower rate 
>> > compared to an orbiting clock? AG 
>>
>> It's the same as the twin effect.  The clock on the ground is following 
>> a non-geodesic path thru spacetime and so measures less duration, while 
>> the orbiting clock is following a geodesic path.  In relativity the 
>> minus sign in the metric means that the path that looks longer projected 
>> in space is shorter in spacetime. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>
> How does gravity cause the difference between what the theories predict? AG
>
>
> It curves the time axis (mainly).  Don't you have a copy of Epstein's 
> "Relativity Visualized"?
>
> Brent
>

I do. And I understand your remark about the Twin Paradox. But I was 
wondering; do the calculated results, that is the differential in clock 
rates, differ between SR and GR? AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cb9ef3c6-15ad-41b3-81d3-4dd530857241o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Trump is on drugs

[John Clark]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 8:15 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Human minds can ask questions, computers outside of pre-programmed
> prompts do not.
>

AlphaZero Can start with no knowledge of Chess, Shogi and Go except for the
basic rules which specify which moves are legal and in less than 24 hours
it can teach itself how to play those games at a superhuman level that no
human can come close to matching.


> > It is not as if the machine actually is thinking a question.
>

It sure looks to me like the question AlphaZero is asking is "How can I
play better Chess, Shogi and Go?" and nobody gives him the answer, but 24
hours later AlphaZero finds the answer himself.

> Sure a computer can "ask a question," but it is just an audio-file


You're whistling past the graveyard, it sure seems to me that AlphaZero is
doing one hell of a lot more than that. Is it really your position that the
human brain possesses some magical mojo that no machine could ever match?

> But, we wrote the program, not the computer
>

Humans wrote the original code for AlphaZero but it had so radically
changed itself that 24 hours later no human being understands how it
operates or why it made the decision it does, and I think it's safe to say
no human being ever will.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv10dLffwBP7prX-ip2v64KwfQ8EGR%3DpWpeqy0cvKhhhPQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Clock rates; SR v GR

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 10/12/2020 10:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 11:11:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 10/12/2020 9:56 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> Why is it that in SR a stationary clock appears to advancing at
a more
> rapid rate than a moving clock, and vice versa -- so the effect is
> relative or symmetric, not absolute -- whereas in GR the effect
seems
> absolute; that is, a ground clock actually advances at a slower
rate
> compared to an orbiting clock? AG

It's the same as the twin effect.  The clock on the ground is
following
a non-geodesic path thru spacetime and so measures less duration,
while
the orbiting clock is following a geodesic path.  In relativity the
minus sign in the metric means that the path that looks longer
projected
in space is shorter in spacetime.

Brent


How does gravity cause the difference between what the theories 
predict? AG


It curves the time axis (mainly).  Don't you have a copy of Epstein's 
"Relativity Visualized"?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cf7d334b-42f5-651a-9ceb-92963d9859cc%40verizon.net.