McCoin Last Thread

[RussDill]

Perhaps because you raised the issue when contraction was being discussed.

Can you please be a bit more specific as to how Terrell rotation applies in the current situation? Do you think that when I mentioned rotation I was referring to Terrell rotation?

 

[RussDill]

While on your high horse

Would you like to explain how I am on a "high horse"? Is this some of friendly banter you are attempting to engage in, or is in an attempt to "knock me down a peg". Its difficult to tell on the Internet.

perhaps you might want to tell others here why charged particles sitting in a gravity well aren't emitting Bremsthraling since according to relativity they are accelerating.

Ok, a few things here. I think you mean "gravity field" and not "gravity well". Second, I'm pretty sure you are indicating a situation where the charged field is mounted on a stable body and is thus resisting the force of gravity (eg, a charged something mounted on a stand that is sitting on a planet).

A few problems. How are you setting a charged particle on the Earth? If you set it on the ground, its not going to just sit there. Perhaps you want to put it into a vertical particle accelerator that accelerates the particle at 9.8m/s^2 to counteract the force of gravity, yes?

Unfortunately, I'm not all that familiar with Bremsstrahlung radiation. Maybe you can help me out. My understand is that accelerating a charged particle (by use of em fields) causes the particle to emit photons. My understanding of Bremsstranhlung radiation is that you start to see it with the acceleration of electrons with energies in the neighborhood of 50keV. I don't think you'll get nearly those energies with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2.

Can you devise an experiment that would show a lack of braking radiation where theory predicts that braking radiation would occur?

 

[RussDill]

I've stated more than once that my concept has not been formalized mathematically. I guess you missed that too.

I'm confused too. Are you attempting to show that SR and GR are somehow invalid or attempting to explain your concept. If you are attempting to show that SR and/or GR are invalid, a non-formalized concept doesn't really help. Anyone can generate their own non-formalized concept that says anything.

Are you attempting to explain your non-formalized concept to us separately from SR and GR? If you are, then laying out the definitions for the terms you use would be quite helpful. Thanks.

 

[MacM]

Nice video about the space/time foam. It is a good summary of the space/time geometry that I already know about and is taught in undergraduate physics students.

He does not state that space/time geometry is energy. He talks about a theory where universes emerge from space/time foam. This may or may not be correct.

The facts remain is that the defintion of space is that it is a geometry. A geometry does not have energy.
The things contained in the geometry do have energy because the definition of energy is that it is a property of objects measuring their ability to do work (not geometry).

The hypothetical universes created from space/time foam are objects and do have energy. But this energy is zero which is a problem for your "compacted space" idea. Everything has zero mass! Don't worry though you can still use the idea if you add negative mass to it (n.b. this is not antimatter). Then you have to explain where this negative mass is in teh universe.

Funny how you compute. "Boiling", "Powerful", "10^144 Universes in each planck bubble!!!! "

Regardless of your attempt to obscure the truth here that is NOT zero energy. It is incredable energy in each planck volume of space - Sorry you stuck your foot in your mouth this time. Back off.

 

[MacM]

Been too busy the last 40 years?

Mac, this is degenerating into a "look at me" thread. You jump all over the place with your ideas. You use terms in an unconventional manner, but you don't explain what they mean to you. You act like it's a real theory that has made real predictions verified by experiment, but you won't show your work.

Pick one thing, who cares what it is, just pick one thing. Explain it well. Back it up with evidence. Accomplish something. Because right now you've done little to convince anyone you have anything valid to offer.

Unconventional ideas require unconventional terms. This is not about me it is about getting people to stop looking inward and to look around and think.

 

[MacM]

Can you please be a bit more specific as to how Terrell rotation applies in the current situation? Do you think that when I mentioned rotation I was referring to Terrell rotation?

Absolutely sine it supposedly replaces the old contraction view..

 

[RussDill]

Absolutely sine it supposedly replaces the old contraction view..

No, my comment had nothing to do with Terrell rotation. Additionally, Terrell rotation does not replace "the old contraction view".

 

[MacM]

I'm pretty sure you are indicating a situation where the charged field is mounted on a stable body and is thus resisting the force of gravity (eg, a charged something mounted on a stand that is sitting on a planet).

A few problems. How are you setting a charged particle on the Earth? If you set it on the ground, its not going to just sit there. Perhaps you want to put it into a vertical particle accelerator that accelerates the particle at 9.8m/s^2 to counteract the force of gravity, yes?

Keep in mind the earth isn't the only gravitating body in the universe. So your 9.8m/s^2 is not at issue also if you believe in GR then you don't need an accelerator an object on the surface is accelerating due to EEP.

Unfortunately, I'm not all that familiar with Bremsstrahlung radiation. Maybe you can help me out. My understand is that accelerating a charged particle (by use of em fields) causes the particle to emit photons. My understanding of Bremsstranhlung radiation is that you start to see it with the acceleration of electrons with energies in the neighborhood of 50keV. I don't think you'll get nearly those energies with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2.

Good of you to admit you don't know something

Can you devise an experiment that would show a lack of braking radiation where theory predicts that braking radiation would occur?

Have you found ANY evidence of Bremsstranhlung on any gravitating surface in the universe?

 

[Reality Check]

While on your high horse perhaps you might want to tell others here why charged particles sitting in a gravity well aren't emitting Bremsthraling since according to relativity they are accelerating.

After a little research (thank you Google), I think that the consensus is that stationary charged particles in a gravitational field do emit Bremsstrahlung radiation. For example see this thread on Physics Forums - Radiation's equivalence principle. The power of the radiation is tiny and the wavelength is of the order of light years. Thus detecting it on Earth would be like detecting the Hawking radiation from a stellar back hole - not possible.

 

[MacM]

I'm confused too. Are you attempting to show that SR and GR are somehow invalid or attempting to explain your concept. If you are attempting to show that SR and/or GR are invalid, a non-formalized concept doesn't really help. Anyone can generate their own non-formalized concept that says anything.

Are you attempting to explain your non-formalized concept to us separately from SR and GR? If you are, then laying out the definitions for the terms you use would be quite helpful. Thanks.

Not show SR and GR ARE flawed but are LIKELY flawed and how and why.

1 - Anything physical must be physical in every frame.

2 - Under #1 above that means any clock with a dilated tick rate due to having gone under an acceleration (frame switching) IS ticking slower than a resting clock.

3 - That physical condition must be retained when switching frame views. That is velocity is a computed value of the ratio of change in physical distance per change in measured time or v - ds/dt.

4 - Given t1 = 1, t2 = 0.5t1 and ds=1 then:

v1 = ds/t1 = 1 / 1 = 1

v2 = ds / t2 = 1 / 0.5 = 2

5 - When comparative tick rates are properly retained can trip time be correct is if ds remains unchanged and observer 2 computes a different relative velocity.

 

[MacM]

Additionally, Terrell rotation does not replace "the old contraction view".

Please go back to school. It mat not replace it but that was it's proposed intent.

 

[RussDill]

Keep in mind the earth isn't the only gravitating body in the universe. So your 9.8m/s^2 is not at issue also if you believe in GR then you don't need an accelerator an object on the surface is accelerating due to EEP.

What is EEP? And yes, the earth is not the only gravitational body in the universe. But its the most massive gravitation body that we can currently perform experiments on. Are you actually claiming that you have some high ground because no one has experimented with charged particles on the "surface" of a black hole?

Good of you to admit you don't know something

BTW, if you please, as I've mentioned before. It is very difficult to tell the difference on the Internet between good natured banter and put-downs, negative quips, and/or insults. Please refrain unless you are willing to make the nature of your comments more clear.

Have you found ANY evidence of Bremsstranhlung on any gravitating surface in the universe?

That isn't how physics works. Have you found any evidence of anyone with 49 letters in their name (including 12 z's) dying from asphyxia? HA! you don't? then anyone with 49 letters in their name (including 12 z's) cannot suffocate.

Unless you have a specific experiment that you can suggest with specific expected results, you are just shouting gibberish.

Have you bothered to define the list of terms yet? no.
Have you carried out the experiment with a light source and two pieces of paper yet? no.

 

[MacM]

After a little research (thank you Google), I think that the consensus is that stationary charged particles in a gravitational field do emit Bremsstrahlung radiation. For example see this thread on Physics Forums - Radiation's equivalence principle. The power of the radiation is tiny and the wavelength is of the order of light years. Thus detecting it on Earth would be like detecting the Hawking radiation from a stellar back hole - not possible.

Oh, I see it must be the concensus since otherwise GR would be falsified but you have absolutely NO evidence to support the consensus. TYPICAL.

 

[RussDill]

Please go back to school.

Again with the insulting insinuations.

It mat not replace it but that was it's proposed intent.

Can you provide any evidence to show that the proposed intention of Terrell rotation was to replace the effect of Lorentz contraction in SR? Terrell rotation describes an optical effect that results from lorentz contraction and transit time of photons.

 

[MacM]

What is EEP?

Google it.

BTW, if you please, as I've mentioned before. It is very difficult to tell the difference on the Internet between good natured banter and put-downs, negative quips, and/or insults. Please refrain unless you are willing to make the nature of your comments more clear.

Ditto.

Unless you have a specific experiment that you can suggest with specific expected results, you are just shouting gibberish.

Unless you have specific evidence to support your claims you are merely spouting rhetoric and dogma.

 

[MacM]

Again with the insulting insinuations.



Can you provide any evidence to show that the proposed intention of Terrell rotation was to replace the effect of Lorentz contraction in SR? Terrell rotation describes an optical effect that results from lorentz contraction and transit time of photons.

********************WiKi Extract ***********************

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

For images of passing objects, the apparent contraction of distances between points on the object's transverse surface could then be interpreted as being due to an apparent change in viewing angle, and the image of the object could be interpreted as appearing instead to be rotated.

A previously-popular description of special relativity's predictions, in which an observer sees a passing object to be contracted (for instance, from a sphere to a flattened ellipsoid), was wrong.

*******************************************************

 

[RussDill]

Not show SR and GR ARE flawed but are LIKELY flawed and how and why.

Ok, SR and GR pro-port to predict physical phenomenon. I will expect to see how experimental data does not match predictions.

1 - Anything physical must be physical in every frame.

Ok. I don't see how this relates to SR or GR. Also, this doesn't mention experimental data or internal contractions of either theory, but I'm following along.

2 - Under #1 above that means any clock with a dilated tick rate due to having gone under an acceleration (frame switching)

Acceleration and frame switching are not the same thing.

IS ticking slower than a resting clock.

This isn't what SR (or GR) says. Its like saying that F=ma indicates that things accelerate. Sure under the F=ma equivalence, things accelerate, but the context under which they accelerate is the entire basis of the relation.

3 - That physical condition must be retained when switching frame views.

Again, that isn't quite what SR says. It just indicates a set of coordinate system translations to be performed when switching inertial reference frames when dealing with coordinates in euclidean space with a separate time dimension. SR with Mankowski space doesn't need them.

That is velocity is a computed value of the ratio of change in physical distance per change in measured time or v - ds/dt.

No, that isn't how velocity is computed. That is how average velocity is computed. Additionally, you are using a term I'm not familiar with "physical distance". How does "physical distance" differ from "distance".

4 - Given t1 = 1, t2 = 0.5t1 and ds=1 then:

v1 = ds/t1 = 1 / 1 = 1

v2 = ds / t2 = 1 / 0.5 = 2

You haven't given any context. Are you making a calculation from some inertial frame of reference while something passes by at some velocity (crossing distance 1 in 1 time period)? So v1 indicates the velocity of that body in the first inertial frame of reference. Are you trying to compute in the second equation the velocity that the probe measures itself crossing the markers that are 1 distance unit apart in the first inertial reference frame? If so, your math is wrong. You translated the time coordinate, but not the space coordinate. Its a rotation, you are trading time "distances" for space "distances". Here, let me fix it for you

v2 = ds2 / t2 = 0.5 / 0.5 = 1

5 - When comparative tick rates are properly retained can trip time be correct is if ds remains unchanged and observer 2 computes a different relative velocity.

Why? Additionally, this idea of different observers calculating different relative velocities gives rise to the necessity of a preferred inertial reference frame. One in which any other reference frame moving relative to that preferred reference frame will calculate a higher velocity than the vice versa. This would be extremely easy to prove experimentally as the laws of physics would seem to differ when moving at different velocities relative to the preferred reference frame. Can you provide us with such as experiment that will turn physics on its head? Oh, wait, I forgot, you are attempting to show how SR or GR are internally inconsistent or disagree with some current experimental data. How are you showing this again?

 

[RussDill]

Google it.

It was assumed in the discussion that you were referring to the equivalence of gravity and acceleration under GR. If you are using uncommon abbreviations, you need to first use the full phrase. Go google EEP yourself, Einstein doesn't appear within the first 60 hits. Where it first appears is left as an exercise to the reader.

Unless you have specific evidence to support your claims you are merely spouting rhetoric and dogma.

My claims that SR and GR are backed by all known experimental data? Here's a good start with SR, since that is what you seem to be concentrating on:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

There is also plenty of experimental evidence for GR if you want to get into that.

So you are coming to me and saying that SR and GR are wrong. Rather than presenting me with experimental data contradicting it, you demand that I provide you with experimental data for which you have (a) designed no experiment and (b) is likely impractical to carry out.

There are far easier ways of showing the Einstein Equivalence principle. You might look at experiments listed on the wikipedia page.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Unconventional ideas require unconventional terms.

Then make up new terms and define them. Quit using terms that are already defined. Suppose I said to you, "The toaster eats bacon and sneezes." Does that make any sense? Of course not.

Now suppose I say, "The wuzzit gooms trimec and wiffles." That doesn't make sense either. Until I do this:

wuzzit - heating device using coils heated by electricity
goom - to convert organic tissue into electricity
trimec - a mixture of pork bellies and mucus
wiffle - to radiate heat

Now it makes sense, doesn't it?

This is not about me it is about getting people to stop looking inward and to look around and think.

Got it. Everyone else is wrong and you are right.

 

[RussDill]

********************WiKi Extract ***********************

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

For images of passing objects, the apparent contraction of distances between points on the object's transverse surface could then be interpreted as being due to an apparent change in viewing angle, and the image of the object could be interpreted as appearing instead to be rotated.

Note that it says "images of passing objects".

A previously-popular description of special relativity's predictions, in which an observer sees a passing object to be contracted (for instance, from a sphere to a flattened ellipsoid) was wrong.

Or more accurately:

Terrell's paper pointed out that some existing discussions of special relativity were flawed and "explained" effects that the theory did not actually predict - while his paper did not change the actual mathematical structure of special relativity in any way, it did correct a popular misconception regarding the theory's predictions.

And so that invalidates SR how? People who read about the lorentz contraction assumed without thinking about the problem of how images would actually appear made incorrect assumptions. As soon as someone actually sat down and did the math, the incorrect assumptions were dispelled.