A New Clue to Explain Existence (More matter than antimatter

Page 2 of 3 [ 37 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

justMax
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 539

20 May 2010, 11:35 pm

Inventor wrote:

The speed of an electromagnetic field is a bit older than relativity theory.

GPS is modern Loran, for the distances involved, neither relitivty or quantum apply. It is just time and distance.

Physics claims the work of others, and has not produced.

It is babble with no proof. It has become a religion.

Uh...

http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/ ... 32969.aspx

Quote:

There are two key elements, one in each theory that come into play to make the GPS work.

In Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity he united space and time into one entity—space-time. Within this new continuum, time slows down as you move faster. Many have probably heard of the twin paradox, where a pair of twins is separated; one stays on Earth and the other travels on a trip to a nearby star at near the speed of light. When the traveling twin returns home he finds his Earth-bound twin much older than he is. The space trekking twin’s biological clock slowed down as the speed of his spaceship approached the speed of light. This characteristic of time has been proven by comparing two atomic clocks: one stationary on the earth while the other was flown around the world aboard a jet plane. The clock that went for the ride was slower than the clock that stayed behind.

Very interesting, you might say, but what does this have to do with my GPS?
The GPS satellites are in orbit above Earth at an altitude of 26,600 km (15,960 miles) and to stay in that orbit they are moving at a speed of 14,000 km/hr (8,424 mph) relative to the surface of our planet. This speed, although not any where near the speed of light (299,793 km/s or 186,282 mile/s) is still faster than any reference spot on the earth is moving, therefore a clock aboard a GPS satellite will run correspondingly slower - about 7200 ns/day (7200x10-9seconds/day) - than a clock on Earth. This is a very small number indeed, but very measurable and that difference needs to be accounted for.

Now for the General Theory of Relativity. In this theory, gravity comes into play and it too affects time. To be brief: a clock in a gravitation field will run slower than a clock in a weaker gravitational field. Again, looking at the GPS satellite orbiting above us, we should immediately realize that the satellite is in a lower gravitational field than we experience on the surface of the earth. Acceleration due to gravity falls off as: 1/(radius)2. It is not zero, as some people might believe it would be in space, but at this altitude is about 4% of the acceleration we feel here on Earth, known as “1-g”, or 9.8m/sec2 (32 ft/sec2)—small, but not zero. This corresponds to an increase in the clock of about 45,900 ns/day; a much bigger affect than that provided by the satellite’s speed.

The changes in time due to these properties of relativity total to an increase of about 38,700 ns/day and will conspire to make your GPS receiver build up errors in location that could cause it to be off on the order of kilometers after several hours—up to 10 km (6 miles) per day! The system is designed to correct for these errors by setting the atomic clocks on board the satellites to run slower than their corresponding reference on Earth before launch, so that once in orbit, and the effects of relativity take hold, the satellite’s clocks speed up and very closely match the reference on Earth. There are also corrections that are made to the satellite’s clocks to adjust for abnormalities in the satellite’s orbit that will cause their speed or altitude to drift over time.

Thanks to the amazing insight of a patent clerk almost a century ago, today you can drive from New York City to Los Angles and trust that your GPS receiver will guide you unerringly to your destination.

You ever seen a GPS device, or do you pretend they don't exist?

Going to pretend GR doesn't explain the precession of mercury as it orbits the sun simply, and accurately, compared to every other explanation ever offered in history?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment

That confirmed the gravitational redshift effect on light to within 10% of GR predictions, later experiments confirmed it to within 0.01% of what GR says.

I suppose the gravitational lensing that produced these arcs, exactly in accordance with GR, is due to uh... dust on the lens of the Hubble?

[img][650:600]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Einstein_Rings.jpg/750px-Einstein_Rings.jpg[/img]

I'm sure all of this can be explained without relying upon GR, or it's ridiculously confirmed accuracy, so I'm dying to know what your alternative explanation is.

AnotherOne
Velociraptor

Joined: 1 Jul 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 454

21 May 2010, 12:29 am

holy moly, it's full of stars and it is Beautiful ! !! !!

Moog
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,671
Location: Untied Kingdom

21 May 2010, 6:30 pm

If this universe were made of anti-matter instead of matter, I suppose I'd have to wear a different sort of trousers.

_________________
Not currently a moderator

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 May 2010, 8:54 pm

Inventor wrote:

GPS is not Loran. It has to take into account two effects: the relativistic time dilation due to the tangential velocity of the sattilites and the gravitational redshift. Clocks run a little faster in high orbit because the earth's gravitational field is weak there. Without these corrections GPS does not work at all.

Classical electrodynamics not only did not explain gravitational lensing and gravitational redshit, it can not even account for the stability of atoms. According to classical electrodynamics, the electrons of an atom will collapse upon the nucleus in about 10^-11 seconds. This does not happen. Classical physics failed for subatomic effects and for gravitational effects big time.

ruveyn

ruveyn

Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

21 May 2010, 9:18 pm

As you point out, Time is not a constant. Flying in a jet, in orbit, clocks record different time.

The Mars missions, that crashed, and the deep space probes, also ran into Gravity/Time, at no where near the speed of light.

Time differs with Gravity, not speed.

So the speed of light, and E=MC2, are both surface of the Earth measures, not universal constants.

The twins experiment could be done at slow speed, by sending one out of the gravity well.

The results would be the same.

All of this, "God does not play dice" "We saw the toe of God" Soon we will look up under his robe, sounds religious, and is likely to cause the Wrath of God.

It is fairly simple math, the distance to orbit is not relitivity, it is 15,960 miles, and the time differance is caused by the lesser gravity, which is a much larger number than the motion. 7200 ns to 45,900 ns. Together we have 53,100 ns, that could all be gravity, but some was claimed to make relitivity work.

So the Speed of Light, 186,282 mile/s only exists on the surface of Earth, at it's current location.

The inverse square of gravity shows what happens to Time, out of the gravity well.

So all of this figuring that includes time, is Earth bound.

You can reset your clock, or reset your math.

The main change is the travel to another star. Velocity will remain constant, but elapsed time will drop off to nothing at the gravity null point between the stars. Years of Earth measured distance in minutes.

We will chart our course through the Universe via null gravity, null time, paths.

justMax
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 539

22 May 2010, 4:35 am

Inventor wrote:

As you point out, Time is not a constant. Flying in a jet, in orbit, clocks record different time.

Time is a direction, clocks record motion along that direction. It isn't just a mechanical thing though, you can bounce light between mirrors, or accelerate short-lived particles, and observe the reduction of their motion through time.

Hell, think about this thought experiment: with no air, but assuming protection from the cold of space, you WILL die within 3 to 4 minutes generally.

If I was sitting in a non-accelerating reference frame, and you flew by at a large fraction of the speed of light, I would observe you gasping and suffocating for years, if not decades. In your frame, you would observe 3 to 4 minutes before you died.

Quote:

The Mars missions, that crashed, and the deep space probes, also ran into Gravity/Time, at no where near the speed of light.

Time differs with Gravity, not speed.

So the speed of light, and E=MC2, are both surface of the Earth measures, not universal constants.

The twins experiment could be done at slow speed, by sending one out of the gravity well.

Acceleration is the same as Gravity, this is a proven equivalence, and the point where one twin turns around to come back is an acceleration, distinguishing their reference frame.

Quote:

The results would be the same.

All of this, "God does not play dice" "We saw the toe of God" Soon we will look up under his robe, sounds religious, and is likely to cause the Wrath of God.

I don't say that stuff, and Einstein was only speaking of a metaphorical concept of a deity.

Quote:

It is fairly simple math, the distance to orbit is not relitivity, it is 15,960 miles, and the time differance is caused by the lesser gravity, which is a much larger number than the motion. 7200 ns to 45,900 ns. Together we have 53,100 ns, that could all be gravity, but some was claimed to make relitivity work.

No, it is -7200 ns from the orbital velocity, +45,900 ns from the reduced gravity, giving 38,700 ns/day.

Quote:

So the Speed of Light, 186,282 mile/s only exists on the surface of Earth, at it's current location.

What? We bounce lasers off the moon, we calculate the time it takes for light from distant supernova to arrive, or even the light from the sun... the speed of light holds everywhere, where did you get this awful disinformation?

Quote:

The inverse square of gravity shows what happens to Time, out of the gravity well.

So all of this figuring that includes time, is Earth bound.

You can reset your clock, or reset your math.

The main change is the travel to another star. Velocity will remain constant, but elapsed time will drop off to nothing at the gravity null point between the stars. Years of Earth measured distance in minutes.

We will chart our course through the Universe via null gravity, null time, paths.

Uh, this is pseudoscientific gobbledegook at best, the observed rate of time increases as you move away from a gravity well, I think you may want to stick to working with machines, or perhaps try to reconcile the differences between your incorrect impression of physics, and the reality of what it is.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 May 2010, 10:54 am

Inventor wrote:

One of the crashes was due to mixing up English and Metric units. Screw ups happen at all speed and time scales.

The assumption of uniformity of physical law has lead to working results both near the surface and far out into space.

ruveyn

Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

27 May 2010, 1:28 am

ruveyn wrote:

Inventor wrote:

We have never been far out in space, Time has been claimed here to be, and to be slower, and faster, not much of a Constant.

It has nothing to do with the distance to the Moon, or with the work of Fritz Zwicky,

It is only an assumption of uniformity of physical law, so any math seems to work.

If I passed Max at near the speed of light he would not notice, just as we see light coming, but not going.

So starting with the speed of light I see an Earth Centric view, and will wait for the results of the same experiments run on Mars.

A geosyncronous orbit is not moving, it holds the same position compared to the surface of the Earth. Both are stationary, the differance is Gravity, and Time.

Now Max wants to increase time moving out of the gravity well, yet decrease it in reduced gravity, and still call it a Constant.

In our frame we will never reach 1% of the speed of light. So no excuses about that are needed.

All we know is the Speed of Light on Earth. Our measure of Time is on Earth. Einstein worked on Earth, and would have been the first to notice when the results of Time being altered by Gravity came in.

"Unthinking respect for authorities is the greatest enemy of truth." A. Einstein

Where the speed of light is constant, time is local. The Per Second part only applies on Earth.

I call it the Theory of the Grand Fallacy, something that everyone knows, becoming a basic factor, here Time being a constant, which has been shown to not be true.

It was Hisenburg who said, "We do not model the universe, we model the human mind viewing the universe."

So what is being claimed is equal to claiming that all gravity in the universe is equal to the gravity on the surface of the earth.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 May 2010, 4:11 am

Inventor wrote:

So what is being claimed is equal to claiming that all gravity in the universe is equal to the gravity on the surface of the earth.

That is nonsense. What is being claimed is that gravitation is governed or properly described by the Einstein field equations.

The ultimate justification of science is the quality and quantity of gadgets that science enables us to make.

ruveyn

Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

31 May 2010, 1:09 pm

I am fully in favor of gadgets.

I build machines that work, those come before the science that says why they work.

The Wright brothers had no knowledge of Areodynamics, it had not been invented, and all of science said what they were trying was impossible.

Science, what is properly described, is overthrown at the Patent Office.

Death_of_Pathos
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

31 May 2010, 5:09 pm

Inventor wrote:

By the lucky foot of the Easter Bunny, what does it matter?

Physics has produced Zilch, a bunch of stories that can not be proven.

Our technology, coal, gas, electric, is the same as it was a hundred years ago.

How much are we paying for this "Search for God" ?

We are here because we are, it is today, always, deal with it!

Of all the centuries to point to and say "Ha! Science is futile!" you choose the 20th? And in the STEM forum, no less!

Anyways for people who are interested in what this (possible) discovery means check this out. I found it a concise explanation behind the implications of whats actually been observed.

What I grokked was that this newly observed asymmetry was expected, but only anticipated to be about 4% as strong as the results would seem to indicate. It very likely does not explain why we have more matter than antimatter in the universe as a whole.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 May 2010, 6:33 pm

Death_of_Pathos wrote:

Inventor wrote:

Give up you GPS device. It is based on an "unproven" theory. Also do not use electricity generated from a fission plant. And do not use any thing based on transistors which were invented back in 1947 at Bell Telephone Labs.

ruveyn

Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

01 Jun 2010, 11:06 pm

Death_of_Pathos wrote:

Inventor wrote:

More time problems, I thought this was the 21st?

Science is useful, it is just not always right, and exists as string of discarded ideas.

We have one Universe of matter, no antimatter, and some people making wild claims about long ago and far away. This stuff comes up every funding cycle.

Jules Verne thought up the atomic powered sub. He had electric lights, so I will use what exists in reality, and doubt the stories from the "we know everything" crowd.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Jun 2010, 7:16 am

Inventor wrote:

More time problems, I thought this was the 21st?

Science is useful, it is just not always right, and exists as string of discarded ideas.

That is the beauty of strength of natural science. It is promotes self cleaning and correction. Bad ideas do not stay around for long once the facts indicate that they are bad ideas. In this regard it is the very antithesis of religion of some philosophy. In religion and philosophy the same old bad ideas that were there at the beginning are still there thousands of years later.

Since science is attached to the world by observable fact it is capable of being very useful and it promotes our material well being and health.

ruveyn

Death_of_Pathos
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

02 Jun 2010, 2:21 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Inventor wrote:

More time problems, I thought this was the 21st?

Science is useful, it is just not always right, and exists as string of discarded ideas.

Since the high road is already being traveled, indulge me in this:

< sarcasm >
My bad, you referred to the last 100 years and our "stagnated" technology during that time, while stating physics had produced zilch. I erroneously referred to this same time period as the 20th century, when in fact you only reference the time period between 1910 and 2010, encompassing a mere 90% of that century.

I sincerely apologize, and can only attempt to justify my error by my recent immersion in the study of fuzzy HSMs, where a 90% observed membership is significant.
< /sarcasm >

Am I the only person whose noticed that the mods here are tolerant to a fault? I realize this is a website for people with something a bit odd in their brain (and I say this being diagnosed myself), so a fair bit of eccentricity is to be expected, but the mods really need to acquaint themselves with trolling elsewhere to learn how to spot it here. Far, far from the first time this has come up.

PS: Go nuts.

Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

02 Jun 2010, 9:26 pm

The Big Bang produced many things, most did not last, and the real question of what started something from nothing is still unanswered. Post Bang, Newton works to explain how gravity forms stars, and some ten billion years later they explode and spew matter of a higher order about.

Newton also covers how that formed planets, and a lot of space junk.

As soon as the elements needed were cooled enough, there is DNA. Some five billion years ago.

After a period of development, five billion years, we start to ask how this came to be.

Some reasonable people came up with the Scientific Method, and it has worked well to publish experiments that could be checked by others.

Questioning the meaning of the results shown has been the greatest means of advance.

What we have at any given time is what we use, until new facts lead to more questions.

The new facts in this case are time slows in a jet, a geostationary orbit, and our Mars probes and deep space probes also showed slow clocks. Nothing was moving fast enough for light speed to be a factor, the facts point to Time slowing under reduced gravity.

Einstein claimed time as a universal constant. Any math will work when you are wrong.

Page 2 of 3 [ 37 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

A New Clue to Explain Existence (More matter than antimatter Post Reply New Topic

A New Clue to Explain Existence (More matter than antimatter