[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 2, Issue 4

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2016-11-04 17:01 GMT+01:00, cj at mb-soft.com <cj at mb-soft.com>:
> NO SR effects occur in that expewriment.

Not exactly, the moon has also some velocity around the Earth, which
gives some (small) part for the time dilation too.

> We separately must
> calculate his downward centripetal force (the ACCELERATION he constantly
> experiences) to determine his Equivalency Principle.

Sounds confused. What matters for time dilation is the potential
itself, not the acceleration, which is the derivative of the
potential.

2016-11-04 18:10 GMT+01:00, cj at mb-soft.com <cj at mb-soft.com>:
> Do you accept that Lorentz got his stuff right?  And that the Equivalency
> Principle is correct?

Lorentz got his stuff right.  The Einstein Equivalence Principle holds
in my ether theory too, exactly (a proven fact), the Strong
Equivalence Principle (which holds in GR) not.  But in an atomic ether
theory the Equivalence Principle will be violated.

> For the record:  The TRAVELER NEVER detects any curved space.  Only an
> OBSERVER, such as my volunteer standing at the North Pole, would see any
> "curved space" but even that effect is really tiny.

False. What is named in GR "curved space" is what we see on the Earth
in form of tidal forces.  If the gravitational field is strong enough,
and changes a lot in a small region (say, near a black hole of Solar
mass or so) these tidal forces can be so strong that you cannot
survive them.

> Your points are well taken that much of modern "science" is speculations by
> metaphysicists.

In fact, modern science has strong anti-metaphysical prejudices.  To
name the result "speculations by metaphysicists" makes no sense.   The
anti-metaphysical prejudice is an error - because there are no
physical theories without metaphysical elements, and the
anti-metaphysical prejudice prevents a scientific discussion of these
elements, so that we are left with uncriticized and therefore bad
metaphysical elements introduced by the founding fathers of the
theories of modern physics.

But these bad metaphysical elements do not change nor the mathematics
of the equations, nor the formulas how these mathematics have to be
connected with observable things (like clock measurements), nor the
measurements themselves.  They prevent some progress (say,
quantization of gravity), but this does not invalidate the theories
themselves.

> "Too lazy to search"???
>
> Even to calculate the Equivalency Principle???

No, to show you that what you think about "what all Physicists believe
to be true" is wrong.

Some nitpicking: principles are principles, and nothing one can calculate.

> But without wishing to put any effort, you claim to be an expert???

I have never claimed so, in fact, if I see how the word "expert" is
used in the media I consider this as namecalling.

About my qualifications: I have a normal education in modern physics
and mathematics. I have a normal number of publications in
peer-reviewed journals, in particular I have my ether theories
published.  I would guess the number of ether theoreticians who have
published their theories is not too big.

> Wow.  You consider Wikipedia to be of adequate quality???  I find that
> really sad.

Wikipedia is adequate as a description of the popular prejudices.  So,
I indeed think that "what all Physicists believe to be true" will be
described in Wikipedia too.

> The value is GREATER THAN ONE,
> meaning it is an OPPOSITE effect from the (less than one Time Dilation
> effect of SR)

Yes, and I know this without computation. Moving clocks go slower, and
clocks in a strong gravitational field go slower.

> Wow.  You think that GR has ANYTHING to do with gravity???  What University
> educated you?  How could you believe that?

Moscow university.  GR is the standard theory of gravity. Feel free to
learn it, the standard textbook for GR is btw from Misner, Thorne,
Wheeler and for some unknown reasons named "Gravitation".

> "Acceleration can be handled with SR too, no necessity for GR".  You believe
> that???

I know this.  Here is the formula to compute the clock time for a
clock moving at a trajectory with velocity \((v_x(t), v_y(t),
v_z(t))\):

\[ \tau = \int \sqrt{c^2 - v_x^2(t)- v_y^2(t)- v_z^2(t)} dt/c \]

The velocity can depend arbitrarily on t, as long as you can take the
square root in this formula, which requires |v|<c, so, the clock can
be accelerated.  Of course, real clocks will fail if the acceleration
becomes too big, but this is a problem of the particular clock, not of
the formula for proper time, which is a pure SR formula.  Once no
gravity is involved, no GR is necessary and this formula is fine.

> Do you just make upp your own rules?  Lorentz and Fitzgerald made clear that
> the time effect of SR is EXCLUSIVELY due to LINEAR VELOVITY.

Yes, and that's why acceleration does not give in SR any effects. You
have to integrate over the time dilation defined by the actual
velocity.

> Your hero is obviously Ron Hatch.

Not at all.