Prev: As pepper sprinkled over rotten, stinking eggs - such are corrupt einsteinians; no balls, no legs
Next: Quantum History
From: valls on 22 Jun 2010 07:43
Let be two material points M and m (one with a great mass M, and the
other with a small mass m<<M). We can consider then M practically the
Centre of Mass (CM) of the 2-point system (for example, M and m can
model Earth and an electron). In the corresponding CM inertial system,
let be r the distance between M and m.
From the 27Sep1905 Einstein’s paper we know that “The mass of a body
is a measure of its energy-content”. In 1905, a body Total Energy E=K
+U, where K is the Kinetic Energy and U the Potential Energy. About
the presence of Potential Energy in 1905 Relativity see the following
link:
http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/0ea5fc8334fa1353?hl=es#
If the body is at rest, K=0, being then U measured by the rest mass.
In the case we are addressing, for the body m we have then U(r)=m_0(r)
c^2, where m_0(r) is the body m rest mass and c the constant vacuum
light speed. We know that the gravitational potential energy increases
when r increases. Its limit maximal value when r tends to infinite is
then m_0m c^2, where m_0m is the corresponding limit maximal value of
the rest mass m_0. We have then

U(r)= m_0(r) c^2=m_0m c^2 – (GM/r)m_0(r)

Here G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, and –(GM/r) is the
gravitational potential owed to M with a supposed arbitrary value 0 at
r infinite. U(r) takes the very definite maximal value m_0m c^2 at r
infinite. With some simple algebraic handling we obtain

m_0(r)=m_0m/(1+GM/rc^2)

We have then derived from 1905 Relativity (1905R) how the rest mass of
a small body changes as a function of its position r in the central
gravitational field of a great mass M body. The arbitrary additive
constant characteristic of potential energy disappears in 1905R,
appearing an absolute zero potential energy point at r=0. If M and m
are the Earth and an electron, m_0m is the ordinary rest mass of a
free electron (its maximal value at r infinite). The frequency emitted
by an atomic clock is proportional to the rest mass of the electron
involved in the change of state. In GR the rest mass is supposed a
constant an intrinsic electron attribute, justifying the change in
frequency with the warp of the space-time provoked by M. The things in
1905R are very much simple.
Taking as the reference the frequency of a clock at r infinite, we
must multiply it by the 1905R factor 1/[1+(GM/rc^2)] to obtain the
frequency at r. The corresponding General Relativity factor is
Sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2). The change of frequency predicted by 1905R almost
coincides with the GR one in all the range of practical r values (GM/
rc^2<<1) in real experiments like the Pound&Rebka one or today GPS
operation. By the way, the 1905R formula applies for all values of r
from 0 to infinite, while the GR one doesn’t apply for r<2GM/c^2 where
the factor takes imaginary values.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Dono. on 22 Jun 2010 09:53
On Jun 22, 4:43 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> Let be two material points M and m (one with a great mass M, and the
> other with a small mass m<<M). We can consider then M practically the
> Centre of Mass (CM) of the 2-point system (for example, M and m can
> model Earth and an electron). In the corresponding CM inertial system,
> let be r the distance between M and m.
> From the 27Sep1905 Einstein’s paper we know that “The mass of a body
> is a measure of its energy-content”. In 1905, a body Total Energy E=K
> +U, where K is the Kinetic Energy and U the Potential Energy. About
> the presence of Potential Energy in 1905 Relativity see the following
> link:http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/t...
> If the body is at rest, K=0, being then U measured by the rest mass.
> In the case we are addressing, for the body m we have then U(r)=m_0(r)
> c^2, where m_0(r) is the body m rest mass and c the constant vacuum
> light speed. We know that the gravitational potential energy increases
> when r increases. Its limit maximal value when r tends to infinite is
> then m_0m c^2, where m_0m is the corresponding limit maximal value of
> the rest mass m_0. We have then
>
> U(r)= m_0(r) c^2=m_0m c^2 – (GM/r)m_0(r)
>
> Here G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, and –(GM/r) is the
> gravitational potential owed to M with a supposed arbitrary value 0 at
> r infinite. U(r) takes the very definite maximal value m_0m c^2 at r
> infinite. With some simple algebraic handling we obtain
>
> m_0(r)=m_0m/(1+GM/rc^2)
>

No, imbecile.
According to your numerology (it isn't physics), you'd have:

m(r)=m_0(1-GM/(rc^2))

The thing is, that There is no such thing as potential energy in SR.
Potential energy is a Newtonian concept.
There is no experimental proof that mass varies according to your
demented expression.


> The frequency emitted
> by an atomic clock is proportional to the rest mass of the electron
> involved in the change of state.

No, it isn't, you idiot. The frequency is constant. What varies is the
way the frequency is perceived by a distant observer. In order to
figure that out you need to know Schwarzschild solutions.




>In GR the rest mass is supposed a
> constant an intrinsic electron attribute, justifying the change in
> frequency with the warp of the space-time provoked by M.

Nothing to do with any "warp", old fart. Buzzwords don't make physics.




..
> Taking as the reference the frequency of a clock at r infinite, we
> must multiply it by the 1905R factor 1/[1+(GM/rc^2)]

No, we don't. Only idiots like you think that. Mainstream physicists
don't.



> The corresponding General Relativity factor is Sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2).

dt/d\tau=1/Sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2) , idiot

> By the way, the 1905R formula applies for all values of r
> from 0 to infinite, while the GR one doesn’t apply for r<2GM/c^2 where
> the factor takes imaginary values.
>
.....because 2GM/(rc^2) is the event horizon, you idiot.

From: valls on 22 Jun 2010 17:34
On 22 jun, 08:53, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 4:43 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Let be two material points M and m (one with a great mass M, and the
> > other with a small mass m<<M). We can consider then M practically the
> > Centre of Mass (CM) of the 2-point system (for example, M and m can
> > model Earth and an electron). In the corresponding CM inertial system,
> > let be r the distance between M and m.
> > From the 27Sep1905 Einstein’s paper we know that “The mass of a body
> > is a measure of its energy-content”. In 1905, a body Total Energy E=K
> > +U, where K is the Kinetic Energy and U the Potential Energy. About
> > the presence of Potential Energy in 1905 Relativity see the following
> > link:http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/t...
> > If the body is at rest, K=0, being then U measured by the rest mass.
> > In the case we are addressing, for the body m we have then U(r)=m_0(r)
> > c^2, where m_0(r) is the body m rest mass and c the constant vacuum
> > light speed. We know that the gravitational potential energy increases
> > when r increases. Its limit maximal value when r tends to infinite is
> > then m_0m c^2, where m_0m is the corresponding limit maximal value of
> > the rest mass m_0. We have then
>
> >  U(r)= m_0(r) c^2=m_0m c^2 – (GM/r)m_0(r)
>
> > Here G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, and –(GM/r) is the
> > gravitational potential owed to M with a supposed arbitrary value 0 at
> > r infinite. U(r) takes the very definite maximal value m_0m c^2 at r
> > infinite. With some simple algebraic handling we obtain
>
> >  m_0(r)=m_0m/(1+GM/rc^2)
>
> No, imbecile.
> According to your numerology (it isn't physics), you'd have:
>
> m(r)=m_0(1-GM/(rc^2))
>
With all respect, I think you have done a wrong algebraic
manipulation. Any way, thanks a lot for your attention revising the
derivation. I will repeat here what I consider the right algebraic
manipulation. From the previous U(r) expression we have

m_0(r) c^2=m_0m c^2 – (GM/r)m_0(r) (1)

Dividing by c^2 in both members of the equality (1)

m_0(r)=m_0m – (GM/rc^2)m_0(r) (2)

Passing to the left the negative term in the right member of the
equality (2)

m_0(r)+(GM/rc^2)m_0(r)=m_0m (3)

Extracting the common factor m_0(r) in the left member of the equality
(3)

m_0(r)(1+ GM/rc^2)=m_0m (4)

And passing the second factor of the first member of the equality (4)
dividing by the second part, we obtain finally

m_0(r)=m_0m/(1+GM/rc^2)


> The thing is, that There is no such thing as potential energy in SR.
> Potential energy is a Newtonian concept.
Of course that Potential Energy is a Newtonian concept. What kind of
mechanics do you think exists in 1905? From the Newtonian view, 1905
Einstein only rejects the absolute ether frame, not the Newtonian
equations (and related concepts) used by him to define his stationary
system. Check the 1905 text. By the way, SR was introduced by 1916
Einstein excluding gravity from its scope. Very different from 1905R,
where we found at the end of paragraph 4 of the 30Jun1905 paper, the
real rotating Earth, being the stationary system a centre of mass
inertial frame (today GPS ECI), and the moving system a clock at the
equator, with a gravitational centripetal accelerated circular path.
> There is no experimental proof that mass varies according to your
> demented expression.
>
Sure? Is it not sufficient to you the Pound&Rebka experiment and all
the continuous successful function of today GPS? Of course, nobody can
make a direct measurement of rest mass for a bound particle inside an
atom (much less inside a nucleus). I have many other arguments to
support rest mass measuring potential energy, related with the
“negative” internal binding energy, mass defect, etc. Let us leave
that for other occasion.





> >  The frequency emitted
> > by an atomic clock is proportional to the rest mass of the electron
> > involved in the change of state.
>
> No, it isn't, you idiot. The frequency is constant. What varies is the
> way the frequency is perceived by a distant observer. In order to
> figure that out you need to know Schwarzschild solutions.
>
Since 1913 Bohr H model, it is know that an atom emitted frequency is
proportional to the electron rest mass. If the frequency changes, this
is a direct confirmation of the rest mass change, at least assuming
right 1905R.
The continuous successful function of today GPS contradicts you. GPS
engineers know very well that the emitted frequency of atomic clocks
changes with the gravitational potential. Taking into account that,
the satellite clocks are adjusted in ground before the launching. And
in the GPS there exists a unique inertial frame, the centre of mass of
all the bodies involved, the ECI, where Newton’s laws hold good,
including gravitational ones. It is then a 1905 Einstein stationary
system, where the derived formula from 1905R obtains a huge
experimental support. We haven’t here any distant observer, the speed
and gravitational potential of every GPS clock are known with a unique
determined value. Your reference to the Schwarzschild solution of GR
equations is totally out of context.
By the way, all centre of mass inertial system can be used only to
describe the movements of the bodies used to determine that centre (a
Newtonian concept). This is why you will never find the Sun’s
trajectory in the ECI.
> >In GR the rest mass is supposed a
> > constant an intrinsic electron attribute, justifying the change in
> > frequency with the warp of the space-time provoked by M.
>
> Nothing to do with any "warp", old fart. Buzzwords don't make physics.
>
> .
>
I am only using a popular word (remember that I don’t master English).
Any way, wrong or not what I say about GR, this has no relation at all
with 1905 Relativity, the topic of this thread.
> > Taking as the reference the frequency of a clock at r infinite, we
> > must multiply it by the 1905R factor 1/[1+(GM/rc^2)]
>
> No, we don't. Only idiots like you think that. Mainstream physicists
> don't.
>
The 1905R factor is a recent development, surely totally unknown yet
by today mainstream physicists. I am only describing you how the new
factor can be used. How can be someone using something before knowing
about it?
> > The corresponding General Relativity factor is Sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2).
>
> dt/d\tau=1/Sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2) , idiot
>
Don’t forget that time and frequency are inverse physical magnitudes.
I use in this thread frequency because it is proportional to the
electron rest mass in any emitting atom. That this rest mass measures
a variable with position potential energy in 1905R, is the new fact we
are addressing.
> > By the way, the 1905R formula applies for all values of r
> > from 0 to infinite, while the GR one doesn’t apply for r<2GM/c^2 where
> > the factor takes imaginary values.
>
> ....because 2GM/(rc^2) is the event horizon, you idiot.
We haven’t event horizon in 1905R, a totally different from GR
prediction. Maybe this could be useful in the future to distinguish
between the two different approaches.
Both factors arrive to the same practical result in real experiments
where (GM/rc^2)<<1.
With that condition Sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2) is approximately equal to 1-(GM/
rc^2, and 1/[1+(GM/rc^2)] is also approximately equal to 1-(GM/rc^2).

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Dono. on 22 Jun 2010 17:51
On Jun 22, 2:34 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> On 22 jun, 08:53, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 22, 4:43 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> > > Let be two material points M and m (one with a great mass M, and the
> > > other with a small mass m<<M). We can consider then M practically the
> > > Centre of Mass (CM) of the 2-point system (for example, M and m can
> > > model Earth and an electron). In the corresponding CM inertial system,
> > > let be r the distance between M and m.
> > > From the 27Sep1905 Einstein’s paper we know that “The mass of a body
> > > is a measure of its energy-content”. In 1905, a body Total Energy E=K
> > > +U, where K is the Kinetic Energy and U the Potential Energy. About
> > > the presence of Potential Energy in 1905 Relativity see the following
> > > link:http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/t...
> > > If the body is at rest, K=0, being then U measured by the rest mass..
> > > In the case we are addressing, for the body m we have then U(r)=m_0(r)
> > > c^2, where m_0(r) is the body m rest mass and c the constant vacuum
> > > light speed. We know that the gravitational potential energy increases
> > > when r increases. Its limit maximal value when r tends to infinite is
> > > then m_0m c^2, where m_0m is the corresponding limit maximal value of
> > > the rest mass m_0. We have then
>
> > >  U(r)= m_0(r) c^2=m_0m c^2 – (GM/r)m_0(r)
>
> > > Here G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, and –(GM/r) is the
> > > gravitational potential owed to M with a supposed arbitrary value 0 at
> > > r infinite. U(r) takes the very definite maximal value m_0m c^2 at r
> > > infinite. With some simple algebraic handling we obtain
>
> > >  m_0(r)=m_0m/(1+GM/rc^2)
>
> > No, imbecile.
> > According to your numerology (it isn't physics), you'd have:
>
> > m(r)=m_0(1-GM/(rc^2))
>
> With all respect, I think you have done a wrong algebraic
> manipulation. Any way, thanks a lot for your attention revising the
> derivation. I will repeat here what I consider the right algebraic
> manipulation. From the previous U(r) expression we have
>
> m_0(r) c^2=m_0m c^2 – (GM/r)m_0(r)       (1)

There is no physical reason for this formula, it is all numerology.
Everything derived from it is pure idiocy.


From: Dono. on 22 Jun 2010 17:53
On Jun 22, 2:34 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> Sure? Is it not sufficient to you the Pound&Rebka experiment and all
> the continuous successful function of today GPS?

Old fart,

Pound-Rebka is about chage in FREQUENCY. Has nothing to do with your
idiotic formula about mass change.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: As pepper sprinkled over rotten, stinking eggs - such are corrupt einsteinians; no balls, no legs
Next: Quantum History