[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 21, Issue 9

Mon Dec 17 22:21:58 CET 2018

Hi Tufail,

   Okay, no problem. - Doug

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:47 PM Tufail Abbas <tufail.abbas at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Doug,
>
> I think you are mentioning about discussion related to Pound Rebecca
> Experiment, and with reference to that experiment , it is the clock at
> altitude which has shifted, not the EM wave in transit.
>
> Yes, I agree that experimental confirmation is necessary, if we want to
> ammend Einstein's Theory of time.
>
> I am of also of the view that:
>
> 1) theory about black hole  is mostly fiction.
> 2) An absolute time interval  (i.e. universal clock) does exist within
> each mass particle, which synchronizes all processes of the universe.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tufail Abbas
>
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2018, 20:41 Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hi Tufail,
>>
>>     Just what to address what you are saying about "gravitic curvature" -
>> back on Dec. 4th most of us agreed that gravitational time dilation doesn't
>> exist outside of the time dilation of moved clocks, i.e. that this can be
>> demonstrated experimentally from the GPS system that EM waves do not change
>> their frequency when traversing a gravitational gradient. So the
>> implication is that "gravitic curvature" in time as theorized by Einstein
>> doesn't exist either - this idea should be decisively disproved by the GPS
>> data for the same reason, in fact it should be FATAL to Einstein's theory
>> of time. Are you not seeing it that way?
>>
>> Doug
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 5:26 AM Tufail Abbas <tufail.abbas at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have noted that James has raised attention to a very important aspect
>>> of gravity,
>>> Quote:  "Gravitic curvature happens in TWO dimensions only" and then he
>>> raise objection,
>>> Quote: " but -that- image has never been drawn or pictured"
>>>
>>> I agree that a correct appreciation of meaning of dimensions in
>>> equations of physics is very important.
>>>
>>> As per definition, number of dimensions of a system, is the number of
>>> independent coordinates points that must be used to describe the system. In
>>> that sense, in response to Tom's query,  if 8 *intervals* represents
>>> position along one dimension and 300000,000 *interval* represents
>>> position on another dimension then (8, 300000000) is the complete
>>> 2-Dimensionsal description of that system.
>>>
>>> However in physical systems, the important question is what does a *unit
>>> interval* along each of the dimensions represents:
>>>
>>> a) Is the unit interval representation of some physically existing
>>> object?.
>>> b)Or that *unit interval  *is representative of change in quantities of
>>> physically existing object?
>>> c) Or the *unit interval* just  represent a position on mathematical
>>> number line without any relationship with physically existing objects? If
>>> this is the case then dimension is just an abstraction, and not a physical
>>> dimension.
>>>
>>> Physically existing object is the object that occupies volume within a
>>> finite boundary
>>>
>>> So if we say that time is a *true physical dimension*, then it must
>>> occupy a volume. And if time does not occupy any volume then it may qualify
>>> as *mathematical dimension*, but not as a *physical dimension*.
>>>
>>> We should find out, what does mathematical equations of 4-D and above,
>>>  represent in our 3-D realm. For example: Distance along curvilinear length
>>> of helix of 3rd order in 3-D is similar to expression for linear distance
>>> in 4-D coordinate system.  (
>>> https://bigquestionsofuniverse.quora.com/Helix-of-Multiple-Order)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 20:52, carmam at tiscali.co.uk <carmam at tiscali.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> James, nobody else has asked, so I will. You mention "exponents as
>>>> dimensions", yet an exponent (in maths) is quite simply shorthand for the
>>>> number of zeros following a number, eg 3e8 is quite simply 300,000,000 , or
>>>> the speed of light (rounded). Why is 3e8 a dimension when 300,000,000 is
>>>> not?
>>>>
>>>> Tom Hollings
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----Original Message----
>>>> From: integrity at prodigy.net
>>>> Date: 09/12/2018 20:17
>>>> To: <physics at tuks.nl>
>>>> Subj: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 21, Issue 9
>>>>
>>>> Carl,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your gentle (and funny) chidings, and the interesting
>>>> LaGrange points 'congregation' events description that are relevant.
>>>>
>>>> "Complex numbers" I don't see as a problem, since complex components,
>>>> as I remember, are treated as another orthogonal 'dimension' when graphed.
>>>>   I don't see any inconsistency or undefined dimension relations [or
>>>> complex factors to be treated as 'non-dimensional'].
>>>>
>>>> Re gravity and the LaGrange points .. I totally agree with you.
>>>> Absolutely related.   Mathematics and physics models - eg - all the
>>>> conventional imagery of spacetime relativity as deformed elastic dimpled
>>>> sheets (gravity 'wells' around masses) are misleading, stupid and absurd,
>>>> according to the clean math equations as given by Newton -&- Einstein.  It
>>>> was the only way to try and graphically show curvature of light paths
>>>> through the 'distorted' spacetime of masses.  But think about it
>>>> carefully.  A gravity-well dimple is a distortion in the z-dimension, out
>>>> of the x,y plane.   I would be delighted if -anyone- can point to any
>>>> gravity formula factors that go out of the x,y plane. (!)   None do.
>>>> Gravitic curvature happens in TWO dimensions only .. but -that- image has
>>>> never been drawn or pictured.
>>>>
>>>> Where I am going with those remarks, is that the same holds true for
>>>> LaGrange points.  They exist in 2 dimensions not 3.  Now how can we
>>>> identify such curvatures or fixed-loci .. using simpler relations
>>>> concepts?   A modified understanding of 'dimensions' is what I propose.
>>>>
>>>> How? Why?   Well for starters, It began to occur to me when I was watch
>>>> some Tokomak runs in 1965 at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab.  It was my
>>>> first exposure to the equipment involve with the experimentation.  Very
>>>> large, very impressive .. all the energy and -massive- quantities of
>>>> electron volts required to magnetically bottle, control, and contain ...
>>>> for the -briefest- amount of time .. what simple few electrons do EASILY
>>>> with comparatively -little- amount of electron volts.  Strange.  Very
>>>> strange.  The universe accomplishes atoms formation (plasma confinement)
>>>> naturally and easily ... everywhere ... versus the energy and conditions
>>>> bring to bear to try and accomplish the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> The difference was glaring to me and it dawned on me that maybe some
>>>> other important factor is involved .. which the universe embodies and uses,
>>>> and which human intellect hadn't yet recognized as important, or present.
>>>> Knowing that particle-pairs have a mathematical correspondence; knowing
>>>> that atoms and waves exist in 3d~4d 'spaces' (by certain simple models) ..
>>>> I posed myself a conjecture:  Maybe something else is involved that
>>>> -balances- nuclear plasmas with the electron(s) forms and collectives?
>>>> Something 'dimensional' .. whatever that might be (it was a starting
>>>> question insight for me back then, not a developed model).  So I started
>>>> exploring the masses ratio of proton to electron (simplest atom case) ..
>>>> approx 1836:1.      After a few days, I found something interesting and
>>>> close .. with a possible association to phasespace [where phasespace is
>>>> appreciated as 3 momentum and 3 loci values  ; aka SIX dimensions (if a
>>>> person is to be mathematically consistent in definition
>>>> applications)].      1836 is interestingly close to 6(pi)^5 ; "six times pi
>>>> to the fifth".
>>>>
>>>> Now, I had already started exploring the notion of exponent location
>>>> values being representative of the continuum numberline .. that I mentioned
>>>> in a previous post.   For example, under my hypothesis, the sample
>>>> equations,  f(x) =  15 + 3x + (pi)x^2 + 109x^3 + x^4 ,  is unconventionally
>>>> understood as an equation in 4 dimensions.  ['15' being a non-dimensional
>>>> scalar value].
>>>>
>>>> To apply my hypothesis of "everything in math is (really) dimensional",
>>>> the function is amendedly correctedly written:
>>>>
>>>> f(x) =  15x^0 + 3x^1 + (pi)x^2 + 109x^3 + x^4.       There are FIVE
>>>> dimensional factors written, x^0, being the necessary foundational
>>>> dimension involved.      Using that contention, 6(pi)^5, is a value in SIX
>>>> dimensions .. which fits with phasespace interpretation.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't calculated other atoms Nuclear::electron cloud ratios, but
>>>> the hydrogen atom proton::electron ratio suggests that something
>>>> -dimensional- is necessarily "balanced", that holds atoms together.
>>>> Naturally and easily via the dimensional architecture of the universe, of
>>>> phasespacetime.
>>>>
>>>> Back to gravity .. as 2 dimensional phenomena.    I don't understand
>>>> anyone's complaints to the Einstein proposition that gravity is similar to
>>>> acceleration events.    The accuracy is right there in his fundamental
>>>> simplified equation "E=mc^2".  The problem is that neither Einstein, nor
>>>> anyone after him, had the courage to explore the -meaning- of:  exponents
>>>> as dimensions.  :-)
>>>>
>>>> Acceleration is (time x time).  t x t.   aka  t^2.    Right from the
>>>> get go, Einstein had written that gravity is the resultant felt force of
>>>> TWO -time dimensions- ... interacting:  c^2.     Apparently it has been
>>>> difficult enough to grasp the notion that 'time' is a dimension, to take
>>>> that next extra step that time could be architected as more than 'one'.
>>>> [not just forward time and reverse time; but real orthogonal separate
>>>> values].
>>>>
>>>> Yes, yes, yes.  I am conflating several relations here.  mass~energy
>>>> equivalence as a relation of two time dimensions squared ; with a gravity
>>>> field being the result of two time dimensions squared.   They are related
>>>> .. which is why masses deform phasespacetime, and, phasespacetime
>>>> co-affects masses.
>>>>
>>>> Now back to the misleading image of spacetime as an elastic deformed
>>>> domain, in a third z-orthogonal direction.  The gravity field is more like
>>>> a cross section of a magnetic field around a bar magnet:    Field lines are
>>>> closer in certain locations and spread apart in others.  In other words:
>>>> intensity densities are the correct image.   Which, can accurately be
>>>> interpreted as density gradients.   Differential action potentials - across
>>>> domains.      The great thing is that those GRADIENTS ... at next higher
>>>> teirs of complexity and matter~energy forms (volumetric measures and
>>>> densities in contained defined spaces ... which exhibit changes over time
>>>> that the industrial revolution scientists understood as
>>>> pressure/temperature/volume .. and then identified work potential and work
>>>> accomplished .. aka actions enactable .. as the mysterious labels factor
>>>> 'entropy') ... that, in my refreshed coordination of all those existential
>>>> parameters ... "entropy" is a fundamental phenomena of changes over~across
>>>> fields densities.  Thermodynamics is only one higher-order example of
>>>> "entropy".   Unfortunately, our uber-engineering oriented society and
>>>> scientists are fixed on thermodynamics as the only quality of entropy.
>>>> Instead of dissecting the underlying relations ...  it tries to impose
>>>> thermodynamics where it doesn't belong.  Gradients of all different sorts
>>>> and states are 'entropy'.
>>>>
>>>> Distribution differences.    (same thing)   relocation changes  (same
>>>> thing).  WHICH ...  :-)  ... is why Shannon and Weaver and von Neumann were
>>>> accurate to ascribe entropy as a factor quality in 'Information Theory'.
>>>>
>>>> And, to 'pile on' with another interpretation that no one talks about
>>>> or identifies:   CALCULUS ... based on the ability to recognize
>>>> partitioning cuts (that reduce in size, and concurrently, quantity wise
>>>> move towards infinity) .. what else is the capacity of a signal recognition
>>>> system???? ... except the ability to be fine-tuned enough to -recognize- a
>>>> signal!     Calculus was really the FIRST EXPLICIT "information theory"
>>>> even though that label was never used.  Shannon's calculus based
>>>> statistical based "information theory" is the SECOND information theory ..
>>>> an IMPLICIT one that deals with recognition, and interpretation and noise.
>>>> For Leibnitz and Newton, 'noise' and non-data were not resident in defining
>>>> the essential math relations in partitioning and infinities.
>>>>
>>>> Okay.  I'm sure I just inundated everyone with information overload.
>>>> Ready over here ... to get any challenges, or questions.    :-).
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>> Dec 9, 2018
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Physics mailing list
>>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Physics mailing list
>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Physics mailing list
>> Physics at tuks.nl
>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181217/c0a2ae78/attachment.html>