#1
|
|||
|
|||
Eotvos, not Newton
I happened to run across a news story which said that scientists had found, from
studies of a distant pulsar, that the gravitational constant was the same for that pulsar as it is on Earth. This puzzled me, as the article gave no details, other than a reference to the "relativistic Shapiro delay", as to how this result was obtained. It was unclear to me what independent, and reasonably precise, information on the masses of the components of a pulsar system - the pulsar was in a 68-day orbit around a white dwarf - an astronomer could obtain, in addition to the data from their gravitational behavior. However, I was able to locate the original paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410488 and it turned out that what the studies of the pulsar had found evidence for was something that it was much more plausible that they could achieve. What they found was that gravitational self-energy adds mass, by the E=mc^2 relationship, to bodies in the same manner as any other energy. This is known as the "Strong Equivalence Principle", and accounts for the non-linearity of General Relativity. John Savard |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Eotvos, not Newton
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 01:49:08 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote this crap: I happened to run across a news story which said that scientists had found, from studies of a distant pulsar, that the gravitational constant was the same for that pulsar as it is on Earth. This puzzled me, as the article gave no details, other than a reference to the "relativistic Shapiro delay", as to how this result was obtained. It was unclear to me what independent, and reasonably precise, information on the masses of the components of a pulsar system - the pulsar was in a 68-day orbit around a white dwarf - an astronomer could obtain, in addition to the data from their gravitational behavior. However, I was able to locate the original paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410488 and it turned out that what the studies of the pulsar had found evidence for was something that it was much more plausible that they could achieve. What they found was that gravitational self-energy adds mass, by the E=mc^2 relationship, to bodies in the same manner as any other energy. This is known as the "Strong Equivalence Principle", and accounts for the non-linearity of General Relativity. John Savard I'll have to read that paper carefully. I think the Dark Matter is hogwash and I've suspected that additional gravitational mass hasn't been found yet. I believe the gravitational constant is really a variable. All numbers are really variables. This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Eotvos, not Newton
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 06:09:16 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote: I'll have to read that paper carefully. I think the Dark Matter is hogwash and I've suspected that additional gravitational mass hasn't been found yet. I believe the gravitational constant is really a variable. All numbers are really variables. Your "belief" is just a kind of non-theistic religion. Science considers evidence. Rational people base their beliefs (particularly in regards to the laws of nature) on evidence, and the relative strengths of different lines of evidence. You seem to be basing yours on some sort of abstract philosophical view. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Eotvos, not Newton
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 08:32:13 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 06:09:16 -0400, Lord Vath wrote: I'll have to read that paper carefully. I think the Dark Matter is hogwash and I've suspected that additional gravitational mass hasn't been found yet. I believe the gravitational constant is really a variable. All numbers are really variables. Your "belief" is just a kind of non-theistic religion. Science considers evidence. Rational people base their beliefs (particularly in regards to the laws of nature) on evidence, and the relative strengths of different lines of evidence. You seem to be basing yours on some sort of abstract philosophical view. No, it's true. Of course you're and idiot and can't understand these things. Here's a simple test you can do at home. Take two identical glasses, (or coffee cups if you prefer.) And fill one of them to the top. Then see if you can pour 1/2 of the liquid into the other. It turns out you can't make them equal. Maybe one is greater than the other or maybe you've spilled some. It never comes out equal. Therefore 1/2 is not equal to 1/2. Even if you pour the entire contents into the other glass, some is still left in the original glass. Therefore 1 does not equal 1. I hope this is not too hard for your simple mind. It's a simple scientific experiment. The philosophical question is, "Is the glass half full, or half empty." This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Eotvos, not Newton
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 10:43:55 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote: Here's a simple test you can do at home. Take two identical glasses, (or coffee cups if you prefer.) And fill one of them to the top. Then see if you can pour 1/2 of the liquid into the other. It turns out you can't make them equal. Maybe one is greater than the other or maybe you've spilled some. It never comes out equal. Therefore 1/2 is not equal to 1/2. Even if you pour the entire contents into the other glass, some is still left in the original glass. Therefore 1 does not equal 1. I hope this is not too hard for your simple mind. It's a simple scientific experiment. The philosophical question is, "Is the glass half full, or half empty." It's not an experiment that teaches us anything. Conceptually, I can make a device that transfers material between the glasses one atom at a time. Such a device (which is an engineering challenge, but which certainly violates no physical laws) can create two glasses which have exactly the same volume of water. You are confusing measurement error and poor experiment design with something fundamental about numbers. Do the same experiment with marbles and you'll understand nature better. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Eotvos, not Newton
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 09:03:16 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 10:43:55 -0400, Lord Vath wrote: Here's a simple test you can do at home. Take two identical glasses, (or coffee cups if you prefer.) And fill one of them to the top. Then see if you can pour 1/2 of the liquid into the other. It turns out you can't make them equal. Maybe one is greater than the other or maybe you've spilled some. It never comes out equal. Therefore 1/2 is not equal to 1/2. Even if you pour the entire contents into the other glass, some is still left in the original glass. Therefore 1 does not equal 1. I hope this is not too hard for your simple mind. It's a simple scientific experiment. The philosophical question is, "Is the glass half full, or half empty." It's not an experiment that teaches us anything. Certainly not you. You're a cementhead. Conceptually, I can make a device that transfers material between the glasses one atom at a time. That's bull****. I'll bet you ten bucks you can't. Such a device (which is an engineering challenge, but which certainly violates no physical laws) can create two glasses which have exactly the same volume of water. Not a chance. Yer grasping at straws. You are confusing measurement error and poor experiment design with something fundamental about numbers. I'm not the one who's confused. But you have a point. All measurement is relative. Do the same experiment with marbles and you'll understand nature better. OK. I'll take a marble and crack it in half. I'll get the same results. But are you talking about taking a bag of marbles and counting out half of them? Not all the marbles are the same. Some will have different weights and colors. You're still the fool here. This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Eotvos, not Newton
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 11:48:01 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote: Conceptually, I can make a device that transfers material between the glasses one atom at a time. That's bull****. I'll bet you ten bucks you can't. Conceptually, I already did. You lose. Such a device (which is an engineering challenge, but which certainly violates no physical laws) can create two glasses which have exactly the same volume of water. Not a chance. Yer grasping at straws. Experiments like this are done all the time in labs. Traps are populated with a fixed count of atoms. You are confusing measurement error and poor experiment design with something fundamental about numbers. I'm not the one who's confused. But you have a point. All measurement is relative. That's not my point. And not all measurement is relative. If you're measuring volume, that's absolute. There are a finite, countable number of atoms (or marbles) in the container, and that number is relative to nothing. Do the same experiment with marbles and you'll understand nature better. OK. I'll take a marble and crack it in half. I'll get the same results. In nature, there's no evidence that anything can be broken down indefinitely. Time, space, energy... all have a smallest unit. At that point, you're just counting, and count is absolute. But are you talking about taking a bag of marbles and counting out half of them? Not all the marbles are the same. Some will have different weights and colors. You're still the fool here. You don't understand the experiment. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Eotvos, not Newton
On Saturday, 8 August 2015 17:03:16 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Do the same experiment with marbles and you'll understand nature better. Please, Sir! Vath hasn't two marbles to rub together, Sir! ;ø] |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Eotvos, not Newton
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 5:03:38 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
In nature, there's no evidence that anything can be broken down indefinitely. Time, space, energy... all have a smallest unit. At that point, you're just counting, and count is absolute. Any airhead can make an assertion without backing it up or are unthinking about it and you are not the first to assert this nonsense of upper and lower limits within human understanding. The non-periodic string of digits that make up the Pi proportion are case in point where the sequence is neither ordered nor random hence a lower geometric limit like the Planck length is mere mathematician's fancy. I dealt with this a long time ago as a kind of lightweight exercise that empiricists find 'profound' or something like that. From 2002 one of the relativity guys made a quick exit like so many others who suddenly discovered the Usenet wasn't an extension of their lectures nor do reputations count, at least not tangling with me. (John Baez) wrote in message ... In article , Oriel36 wrote something like: For those who prize logic, this Planck length is the funniest thing; seeing that this thread covers a wide range of groups it is worthwhile posting a simple geometric refutation. Draw a circumference around a Planck length, the circumference being of course 3.141 times greater than the length, if you can determine a circumference you can also determine a radius which is half the original length and from this discrete length you begin again constructing a circumference around this half Planck length. What you get geometrically is a form of the Zeno paradox and you guys take the Planck length seriously! Actually this sort of argument goes back to the "Mutakallimun", Jewish and Islamic philosopher/theologians of the 10th and 11th centuries AD. Many of these were very fond of atomism, taking it beyond Democritus to argue that *everything* was made of discrete units - even space and time. Others brought forth certain paradoxes to disprove this. Paradoxes,and relativity relies heavily on paradoxes,cannot by their nature prove or disprove anything,that is why they are called paradoxes.Relativity cannot be disproved for it relies on valid relative motions but as Newton stated- "but relative motions, in one and the same body, are innumerable, according to the various relations it bears to external bodies, and like other relations, are altogether destitute of any real effect, any otherwise than they may partake of that one only true motion" In particular, some pointed out that if the universe was made of a cubic lattice with sides 1 unit long, the diagonal of a square on this lattice would be about 1.414 units long, so that in some sense the smaller distance .414 must "exist". However, the believers in a minimal distance replied that the sense in which this distance "existed" was purely hypothetical, i.e., imaginable but not actually realized by a physical object. The argument you use above is an insult to intelligence and cannot be commented on for weak intellectual reasons except that in defining a circumference from a diameter it is possible to then distinguish a radius which is half the original lenght (diameter) and thereby discerning an new circumference.My argument is precise and without knowing or caring whether it is new or not,the fact that physics determines a geometric cutoff point such as the Planck lenght only exposes your lack of wisdom on these matters and I will certainly not chase a poor intellect around no matter how highly regarded.The point is that I am correct and you are not with a few here with the good sense to know it. For more details see the chapter on atomism he Harry Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam, Harvard University Press, 1976. or this book, which unfortunately I have not been able to obtain: Alnoor Dhanani, The Physical Theory of Kalam: Atoms, Space, and Void in Basrian Mu'tazili Cosmology, E. J. Brill, 1994. For more details on the diameter/circumference relationship on the Planck lenght use common sense or Newton. "It may also be objected, that if the ultimate ratios of evanescent quantities are given, their ultimate magnitudes will be also given: and so all quantities will consist of indivisibles, which is contrary to what Euclid has demonstrated concerning incommensurables, in the 10th Book of his Elements. But this objection is founded on a false supposition. For those ultimate ratios with which quantities vanish are not truly the ratios of ultimate quantities, but limits towards which the ratios of quantities decreasing without limit do always converge; and to which they approach nearer than by any given difference, but never go beyond, nor in effect attain to, till the quantities are diminished in infinitum. This thing will appear more evident in quantities infinitely great. If two quantities, those difference is given, be augmented in the ultimate ratio of these quantities will be given, to wit, the ratio of equality; but it does not from thence follow, that the ultimate or greatest quantities themselves, whose ratio that is, will be given. Therefore if in what follows, for the sake of being more easily understood, I should happen to mention quantities as least, or evanescent, or ultimate, you are not to suppose that quantities of any determinate magnitude are meant, but such as are conceived to be always diminished without end." [Principia] |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Eotvos, not Newton
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 09:08:56 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote: On Saturday, 8 August 2015 17:03:16 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote: Do the same experiment with marbles and you'll understand nature better. Please, Sir! Vath hasn't two marbles to rub together, Sir! ;ø] Oh, he's short quite a few, but there are at least two rattling around in there. Something's making the noise. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EINSTEIN OR NEWTON ? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | November 23rd 14 11:21 AM |
Let Newton Be! | Double-A | Misc | 0 | December 26th 06 10:51 AM |
NEWTON WAS WRONG | ACE | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 8th 06 09:14 PM |
First XMM-Newton images of impact/XMM-Newton detects water on Tempel1 (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 5th 05 01:52 AM |
Newton | Michael Barlow | Amateur Astronomy | 13 | March 15th 04 01:55 AM |