On Jan 23, 2006, at 5:12 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Just a couple brief comments.
Horace Heffner wrote:
On Jan 22, 2006, at 5:05 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Acceleration doesn't affect clocks. That's been verified
(can't cite references, sorry). A clock in a centrifuge
slows only as a result of the speed at which it's traveling,
not as a result of the centripetal force.
[HH]
This can not be consistent with relativity,
[SAL]
But it is. It's built into GR from the get-go.
[HH]
I thought Einstein's equivalence principle was built into
relativity.
The equivalence principle is built in. So is the principle of
relativity, and, as a consequence of the assumption that you can
change to any arbitrary coordinate system without affecting the
results, the lack of any local effect due to acceleration is built
in, too.
[snip enormous amounts, after reading -- thanks for the additional
explanation of the retardation comments]
The rate at which a clock is observed to tick does not depend on
whether the clock is _currently_ undergoing acceleration. That
has been both predicted and observed to be true, to the limits
of the experiments which have been done.
Then you have conclusively proved GR is based upon a false
assumption.
No, I haven't, because, as stated elsewhere, clocks in GR are
apparently affected by gravitational _potential_ but not by the
local intensity of the gravitational _field_.
From a QM point of view this is utter nonsense. Field potential is
merely a calculation device.
When you accelerate, in SR, you find that distant clocks are
apparently affected by _your_ acceleration. _THAT_ is equivalent
to the GR clocks being affected by the gravitational potential.
The effects are identical.
In the case of observing the mass in a centrifuge I have no
acceleration.
You cannot separate the observations from the observer, and the
concept of observable properties of external things being affected
by changes within yourself (such as your acceleration) is a
consequence of that.
Yes, you can - by looking for cumulative changes to closed systems.
Retardation explains what you see as you watch the other party, right?
Not when they finally are side by side, and that is the main issue.
In relativity, the E field and the G "field" produce totally
different kinds of "forces".
If true, then I think this aspect of relativity is utterly a
misrepresentation of reality.
Let's see if I can dredge this out of my memory....
The E field contains a heat-like component (heat is a force, too --
a candle increases the momentum of an object placed above it, so dP/
dt is nonzero in that case). Gravity is not a heat-like force, and
I'm failing completely to recall just what difference that makes in
this case.
More mundanely, charge is conserved;
I don't think so. Conservation of charge is an assumption, and
ultimately not a useful one. Certainly the appearance of charge can
change due to retardation effects on virtual photons. Interestingly,
gravity has no effect on virtual photons, yet affects photons. It
remains to be shown, but I think it is obviously true that the
relations are mutual, messengers (gravitons, virtual photons) do not
interact. Gravitons interact with photons and vice versa. Virtual
photons interact with graviphotons. Photons and graviphotons should
thus also interact. This opens a wide range of research
possibilities. Since the ZPF is made of virtual photons, and thus
there exists an analogous graviton zero point field, interfacing with
these fields for momentum exchange, as well as information exchange,
can be useful.
The assumptions of relativity, if they are valid and consistent, must
also apply to Coulomb charge, and the interactions of Coulomb and
gravitational charge (mass). Relating the two forces merely requires
including the factor i, the square root of minus one, in the mass
units. This is laid out in:
<http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GR-and-QM.pdf> It is the interaction
of the two forces that is then really complex.
you drop a charged rock down the hole, at the bottom of the hole it
still has the same charge as it had at the top of the hole.
In order to maintain field isomorphism the hole you are talking about
here must be a Coulomb hole, not a gravitational hole.
If you turn it into a beam of light you need to figure out what to
do with the charge -- you can't just throw it away. Gravitational
mass is apparently _not_ conserved, not the same way; in
particular, when you drop the rock down the hole, it gains
gravitational mass.
And thus more muddled thinking (not yours) that prevents bringing
together the quantum and relativistic views.
Oh well I'm just babbling at this point I should drop this line of
reasoning until and unless I look it up again...
Here's another cute example: A spherical chamber cut out of a
uniformly dense planet which was _offset_ from the center would
have a _uniform_ (but non-zero) G-field inside it.
It should have a g field due to the sphere having the radius from
the hole to the center.
If you work it out, it's a completely uniform field. Very strange.
(Easiest way to analyze it is to pretend the chamber is a separate
sphere of "negative mass" and just sum its "negative" field with
the field of an intact planet.)
I think any object held in that chamber would experience a
gravitational red shift proportional to the g at its location,
not to the gravitational potential.
I don't know if I understand you. Light should be redshifted as it
crosses the chamber, in proportion to the intensity of the field in
the chamber, right?
Since the amount of red shift is a function of g, the change in red
shift is a function of the change in g as movement occurs.
If that's what you're saying, I agree.
I'm not sure we even agree on the g field in the bubble being
uniform. As you move across the bubble you become "outside" a larger
and larger sphere of material.
Note again that since the field strength is the gradient of the
potential, that's equivalent to saying the degree of redshift
varies with the potential.
I'm not sure we are using the same terminology. I'm looking at red
shift as the difference between how a photon, or the energy of an
atomically emitted photon, is observed in a zero gravity situation vs
in the presence of a gravitational field.
If what you were saying were true then objects in the center of
the universe (assuming here a big bang) should all be massively
red shifted, instead of vice versa.
Only if there's a gravitational field filling the universe,
pointing to the center. That's the only way you'll get a lower
gravitional potential at the center of the universe.
And if there is such a field, then there must be a redshift
associated with it, too.
No matter how you cut it, clock rate is a function of
gravitational field. If the effects of the gravitational
field differ from the effects of acceleration (this difference
at any point) then Einstein's fundamental assumption for GR is
violated and GR disappears in a flash! 8^)
I also have to question the validity of the tangential straight
rod approach you use. I could be missing something, but it
doesn't seem to account for how we would see the clock advance
as it passes behind the earth in the opposite direction.
You can't synchronize all the clocks on a rotating disk.
I didn't mention synchronization.
You can't synchronize all the clocks on the Equator. If you
try, you find there is a "date line" where two adjacent clocks
are out of sync. It's crossing the "date line" which causes the
hiccup.
Here again you are talking about how things appear in motion. I
just want to figure out in an intuitive way what accounts for
differences when clocks are brought back together.
Hmmm ... Consider again the laser-ring gyro. What causes the
fringe shift when you rotate it?
A change in distance travelled.
Signal velocity relative to the rim of the disk can be measured and
is constant.
If there is no velocity effect which does this, then what
remains except acceleration? Retardation is out of the picture.
Now that I can see some real data it would be good to look at the
effects of gravimagnetism, because these should modify the
expected values. It is probably going to take an FEA program to
do this right, and I just do not have the time right now.
What I *can* see from the airplane data is it can not be fully
analysed using only the earth's gravimagnetic field. It requires
quantifying the solar and/or galactic gravimagnetic field.
But would such effects not be swamped by the local influence of the
Earth?
More to come on that.
Horace Heffner
