Simple question about speed of force.

On May 29, 1:43*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

* *Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
* *and reference frames

* *Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos
* *Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

The*results indicate that after standard instruction students at all
* *academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of
* *simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference
* *frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct
* *a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity
* *and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.

* *See:http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109

You are all fine with the lingo that developed a century ago but you
will all run terrified once the original toxic strain of empiricism is
brought up and what specifically Newton was actually attempting to
do.It helps that people have an interest in the Ra/Dec reference
system which works of the convenience of the calendar system so let's
begin pulling this thing apart using your own language and what is a
fairly standard approach to these so-called 'inertial frames' in
tandem with timekeeping averages -

"In Newton's time the fixed stars were invoked as a reference frame,
supposedly at rest relative to absolute space. In reference frames
that were either at rest with respect to the fixed stars or in uniform
translation relative to these stars, Newton's laws of motion were
supposed to hold. In contrast, in frames accelerating with respect to
the fixed stars, an important case being frames rotating relative to
the fixed stars, the laws of motion did not hold in their simplest
form, but had to be supplemented by the addition of fictitious forces,
for example, the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force. Two
interesting experiments were devised by Newton to demonstrate how
these forces could be discovered, thereby revealing to an observer
that they were not in an inertial frame: the example of the tension in
the cord linking two spheres rotating about their center of gravity,
and the example of the curvature of the surface of water in a rotating
bucket."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia...e_of_reference

There is so much to discuss in that short paragraph that the greatest
difficulty is knowing where to begin however none of it meshes with
what Newton wrote and even considered ,his approach is entirely
geometrical and relies heavily on the predictive convenience of the
equatorial coordinate system which uses the groupings of 365/366
rotations in determining positions of celestial objects and predicting
celestial events such as lunar and solar eclipses rather than the true
system which comprises 365 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit.In
short,all celestial motions are free of the baggage of motions at a
terrestrial level hence the contrived idea of 'rotation to absolute
space' as either a small object or a planet.

In Newton's mind,absolute and relative space and motion use a common
denominator which relies on stellar circumpolar motion and while
comments were made on this observation a few centuries before by
Archbishop Cusa in respect to the arguments for the Earth's
motions,this approach was abandoned by Copernicus in referencing the
orbital motion of the Earth to the other planets and daily rotation to
the central Sun in coming up with the discovery of the dual motions of
the Earth.The toxic strain of empiricism which Newton introduced and
one where the 'fixed stars' are certainly a major component tries to
rework the stellar circumpolar framework back into observations which
he took for relative space and motion leaving absolute space and
motion to serve as both modeling and predictions and while it is all
very tangled,a few clear conceptions of the ideological framework can
presented even if I don't consider them important for myself or my own
approach.

The following statement of Newton which sows together the equatorial
coordinate system ,his ballistic agenda,Kepler's conclusions on
planetary dynamics and geometry and most of what contemporaries base
everything that followed is quite a mouthful -

"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their
mean
distances from the sun.
This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun." Newton

I am really surprised that empiricists themselves do not inquire as to
the bricks and mortar of their own system even if they are hostile or
do not feel they have to make the effort,for his part,it is not that
Newton takes liberties with the astronomy of planetary dynamics and a
gross misuse of the Ra/Dec system but rather the complete distortion
and manipulation of the works of other men to bludgeon out a
conclusion which doesn't even sound great in principle for once you
treat planetary orbits like billiard balls and make no distinction
between planets and celestial satellites,huge areas of study freeze
up.

It helps to supply graphics and to sum up Newton's approach but more
importantly to gain familiarity with the work of Kepler as he worked
out the details using Mars and the background constellations -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ke...retrograde.jpg

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils leading
the individual planets into their respective orbits,quite bare and
very nearly circular. In the period of time shown in the diagram, Mars
traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the 'garlands' you
see looped towards the center,with one extra, making nine times, while
at the same time the Earth repeats its circle sixteen times "
Kepler refering to diagram

Implicit in Kepler's method is the motion of Mars against the
background stars free and clear of any reference to daily rotation and
right ascension,considering there were no clocks and telescopes in
his era,the geocentric framework didn't budget for stellar circumpolar
motion whereas today,following Newton's lead,the reference system for
all observed motions using the motion of the celestial sphere and the
relative motions of objects in that framework to create models and
what have you.In short,the major distinction between Newton's approach
and that of the antecedent astronomer's is that of homocentricity or
what amounts to the same thing,to create an axis of rotation from the
observer's standpoint and then try to pass it off as the Earth's
planetary dynamics,something which looks like this -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

The no center/no circumference ideologies of big bang and black hole
are a direct result of inflicting the Ra/Dec geometries into
observations,mathematicians might not care but everyone else should as
it represents a logical conclusion which Cusa in the 16th century
noted as a nightmare -

"And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
center. Thereupon you will see--through the intellect..that the world
and its motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For [the Universe]
will appear as a wheel in a wheel anda sphere in a sphere-- having its
center and circumference nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa

It may be impossible to convince readers that the original framework
for the introduction of a toxic strain of empiricism is by far more
interesting than the outriggers that grew out of it,including
relativity yet most are simply content to play around with arguments
that will go nowhere and are designed to keep people in their jobs
without fear of objection.Only those who genuinely love science,not
the characters that make up the discipline,but the intense
satisfaction involved in working through details that spur people on
and although the rest of the world may care about celebrity and
priority,the achievements in these topics is almost hidden from the
sight of the casual or the drones which attach themselves to
astronomical things.

On 5/29/11 8:51 AM, oriel36 wrote:
original toxic strain of empiricism

Gerald, concludes that observables are toxic? Oh my!

On May 29, 5:46*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/29/11 8:51 AM, oriel36 wrote:

original toxic strain of empiricism

* *Gerald, concludes that observables are toxic? Oh my!

The language of astronomy is geometry,the currency is intellectual
integrity and I have yet to see either exercised to any extent within
the forums.There is no requirement to go through Newton's attempt to
coral the major astronomical insights and apply distortions to them in
order to lunge at a conclusion and I have only done it for those who
can do better and even the empiricist who saw his own approach
destroyed 3 centuries ago by exceeding the limitations of that
approach.

The 'speed of force' indeed !.

On 5/29/11 11:52 AM, oriel36 wrote:
The 'speed of force' indeed !.

Background Force Carriers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson

To the best of our current knowledge, speed of light, constrains
the interactions.

On May 29, 8:49*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/29/11 11:52 AM, oriel36 wrote:

The 'speed of force' indeed !.

* *Background Force Carriers
* * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier
* * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson

* *To the best of our current knowledge, speed of light, constrains
* *the interactions.

Your current knowledge and those of your empirical colleagues doesn't
even extend to a round and rotating Earth,you just happen to be vocal
about it as opposed to the unresponsive tact taken by others,a tact
which implies the same dull condition to which this area of science
has descended.

Most of you don't get it, even when faced with a catastrophic failure
at a level most people would find astonishing,the 'inertial frames'
which Newton used is a contrived convenience based on the wrong
correspondence between rotational and orbital periods,in your case,you
are fully convinced the Earth turns 366 1/4 times per orbital circuit
hence any detailed issue such as the Equation Of Light is far beyond
your understanding.In fact,the Equation of Time has yet to be
explained properly and without that technical correspondence,you don't
stand a chance of working with Ole Roemer's conclusion based on the
positional displacement of Io.In short,the whole thing has to be
revisited.

I wouldn't mind it if Newton's distortions weren't interesting as an
exercise in intellectual forensics yet I don't consider it an
intellectual achievement at all whereas you fuss and fret over Isaac
and his work so that I have more of a problem with people not doing
better than they are presently than any real contention with Newton or
those who followed him.Want to know what those absolute/relative
definitions actually mean then either work them out yourselves using
the geometric language of astronomy or simply ask but what has existed
up to now is not even close to the original attempt Newton made to
homogenize celestial objects and objects at an experimental level
using the Ra/Dec system as a 'predictive' bridge.

On 5/29/11 2:25 PM, oriel36 wrote:
On May 29, 8:49 pm, Sam wrote:
On 5/29/11 11:52 AM, oriel36 wrote:

The 'speed of force' indeed !.

Background Force Carriers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson

To the best of our current knowledge, speed of light, constrains
the interactions.

Your current knowledge and those of your empirical colleagues doesn't
even extend to a round and rotating Earth,you just happen to be vocal
about it as opposed to the unresponsive tact taken by others,a tact
which implies the same dull condition to which this area of science
has descended.

Most of you don't get it, even when faced with a catastrophic failure
at a level most people would find astonishing,the 'inertial frames'
which Newton used is a contrived convenience based on the wrong
correspondence between rotational and orbital periods,in your case,you
are fully convinced the Earth turns 366 1/4 times per orbital circuit
hence any detailed issue such as the Equation Of Light is far beyond
your understanding.In fact,the Equation of Time has yet to be
explained properly and without that technical correspondence,you don't
stand a chance of working with Ole Roemer's conclusion based on the
positional displacement of Io.In short,the whole thing has to be
revisited.

I wouldn't mind it if Newton's distortions weren't interesting as an
exercise in intellectual forensics yet I don't consider it an
intellectual achievement at all whereas you fuss and fret over Isaac
and his work so that I have more of a problem with people not doing
better than they are presently than any real contention with Newton or
those who followed him.Want to know what those absolute/relative
definitions actually mean then either work them out yourselves using
the geometric language of astronomy or simply ask but what has existed
up to now is not even close to the original attempt Newton made to
homogenize celestial objects and objects at an experimental level
using the Ra/Dec system as a 'predictive' bridge.


And your rant has what to do with the speed of the interactions?

On May 29, 7:51*am, oriel36 wrote:
In
short,all celestial motions are free of the baggage of motions at a
terrestrial level hence the contrived idea of 'rotation to *absolute
space' as either a small object or a planet.

In a word, no.

The amount by which pendulum clocks are slower at the equator matches
with the Earth's rotation being 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds,
rather than 24 hours.

Centrifugal force with respect to the fixed stars balances gravity,
hence the planets remain in their orbits - and so does the Moon.

John Savard

On May 29, 9:46*am, Sam Wormley wrote:

* *Gerald, concludes that observables are toxic? Oh my!

Well, measuring one observable spoils attempts to measure other
observables at the same time - they force the system being observed
into an eigenstate of the particular observable being measured.

Couldn't that be considered a kind of toxicity? At least, it seems
poisonous to cats...

John Savard

On Jun 1, 6:17*am, "Androcles"
wrote:

Slower than what, Savard?

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

On May 29, 11:48*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/29/11 2:25 PM, oriel36 wrote:









On May 29, 8:49 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 5/29/11 11:52 AM, oriel36 wrote:

The 'speed of force' indeed !.

* * Background Force Carriers
* * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier
* * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson

* * To the best of our current knowledge, speed of light, constrains
* * the interactions.

Your current knowledge and those of your empirical colleagues doesn't
even extend to a round and rotating Earth,you just happen to be vocal
about it as opposed to the unresponsive tact taken by others,a tact
which implies the same dull condition to which this area of science
has descended.

Most of you don't get it, even when faced with a catastrophic failure
at a level most people would find astonishing,the 'inertial frames'
which Newton used is a contrived convenience based on the wrong
correspondence between rotational and orbital periods,in your case,you
are fully convinced the Earth turns 366 1/4 times per orbital circuit
hence any detailed issue such as the Equation Of Light is far beyond
your understanding.In fact,the Equation of Time has yet to be
explained properly and without that technical correspondence,you don't
stand a chance of working with Ole Roemer's conclusion based on the
positional displacement of Io.In short,the whole thing has to be
revisited.

I wouldn't mind it if Newton's distortions weren't interesting as an
exercise in intellectual forensics yet I don't consider it an
intellectual achievement at all whereas you fuss and fret over Isaac
and his work so that I have more of a problem with people not doing
better than they are presently than any real contention with Newton or
those who followed him.Want to know what those absolute/relative
definitions actually mean then either work them out yourselves using
the geometric language of astronomy or simply ask but what has existed
up to now is not even close to the original attempt Newton made to
homogenize celestial objects and objects at an experimental level
using the Ra/Dec system as a 'predictive' bridge.

* *And your rant has what to do with the speed of the interactions?

Suit yourselves,my business has been to restore intellectual
integrity as opposed to trying to convince people that the temperature
legend at any given location shows a huge temperature differential due
to the daily rotation of the Earth with 1461 rotations in tandem with
the same number of rises and falls in temperature for a 4 year orbital
period.If there are readers good enough to separate daily and orbital
motions and untangle it from the awful attempt to make these motions
fit into right ascension,they can understand how the separate orbital
motion drifts through Mar 1st in non-leap years until a Feb 29th
rotation intervenes to bring the correspondence of daily and orbital
motions nearly back in sync where the correspondence is 365 1/4
rotations per circuit.

I see you all detest each other and what Isaac did and Albert didn't
do but ultimately none of you can interpret the dynamic behind the
temperature legend and it ain't going to happen if you believe that
there are 366 1/4 rotations in an orbital circuit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/100?

What can be said of all the other empiricists who believe what you do
and can't reason your way back to the intellectual integrity which
references the number of daily rotations to an orbital circuit.I'm
sure you think it is trivia but it is not,the basic correspondence
between daily and orbital cycles must be understood in context of Feb
29th as both a 24 hour rotation causing the temperature rise and fall
and the 1461 st rotation completing almost 4 orbital circuits.

An astronomer worthy of the name,even the photographers,wouldn't need
this explained more than once hence the dismal situation where nobody
affirms a fact that almost is a litmus test for basic intelligence.