| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Ken S. Tucker" |
| Date: |
08 Apr 2006 05:14:35 AM |
| Object: |
Emerging UFT (kst) |
Guys, I'm posting this in SPR...
((should I quit ???))
Using light rays as the basis of measurement,
permit the Maxwell orthogonal relation using
e, b and c applied to the propagation of light
to be related by the vector product,
e x b = c
where "e" is a unit electic field, "b" is a unit
magnetic field and "c" is the velocity of light
in a vacuum.
When a light ray propagates in relation to matter
the velocity of light is retarded. I'll denoted the
retarded velocity of light by "C", and that is a
deflected direction and is reduced in speed.
( See Weinberg "Grav & Cosmo" Eq.(9.2.5)
and also understand this is the basis of Sharpiro's
experimental results).
Therefore
e x b = c
holds only if NO matter is present, and the spacetime
is orthogonal.
Using the scalar product (e.b) more generally as a
"dyadic" description,
eb = e x b + e.b =c
applies in the presences of matter, where
e x b = C , e.b =2m/r
and C = c (1-2m/r),
(In accord with (9.2.5) above)
as confirned experimentally by Shapiro and light
deflection measurements.
To unify the field, the EM term "e.b" is equivalent to
the gravitational potential "2m/r".
IMO, Mr. Yablon has done a great effort to
consolidate that unified field theory in a way
that demostates his detailed work.
I'm certain that a more organized pattern will
emerge once a fuller understanding is realized,
and enhanced ability to explain evolves.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Emerging UFT (kst) |
08 Apr 2006 06:24:44 AM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1144491275.655825.219030@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| Guys, I'm posting this in SPR...
| ((should I quit ???))
Up to you, you know the territory.
|
| Using light rays as the basis of measurement,
Light rays are not the basis of measurement.
Try rulers and frequency of radiation.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html
The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a
time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."
Note that the effect of this definition is to fix the speed of light in
vacuum at exactly 299 792 458 ms^-1.
This is a gross error initiated by the phuckwit Einstein, a denial of
relative motion
("It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the
present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do
not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the
reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable
phenomenon here depends only on the RELATIVE MOTION of the conductor and the
magnet" --Einstein.)
and a reintroduction of a universal frame of reference,
aka Newton's absolute space.
You should quit.
Androcles.
| permit the Maxwell orthogonal relation using
| e, b and c applied to the propagation of light
| to be related by the vector product,
|
| e x b = c
|
| where "e" is a unit electic field, "b" is a unit
| magnetic field and "c" is the velocity of light
| in a vacuum.
|
| When a light ray propagates in relation to matter
| the velocity of light is retarded. I'll denoted the
| retarded velocity of light by "C", and that is a
| deflected direction and is reduced in speed.
| ( See Weinberg "Grav & Cosmo" Eq.(9.2.5)
| and also understand this is the basis of Sharpiro's
| experimental results).
|
| Therefore
|
| e x b = c
|
| holds only if NO matter is present, and the spacetime
| is orthogonal.
|
| Using the scalar product (e.b) more generally as a
| "dyadic" description,
|
| eb = e x b + e.b =c
|
| applies in the presences of matter, where
|
| e x b = C , e.b =2m/r
|
| and C = c (1-2m/r),
|
| (In accord with (9.2.5) above)
| as confirned experimentally by Shapiro and light
| deflection measurements.
|
| To unify the field, the EM term "e.b" is equivalent to
| the gravitational potential "2m/r".
|
| IMO, Mr. Yablon has done a great effort to
| consolidate that unified field theory in a way
| that demostates his detailed work.
|
| I'm certain that a more organized pattern will
| emerge once a fuller understanding is realized,
| and enhanced ability to explain evolves.
| Regards
| Ken S. Tucker
|
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Emerging UFT (kst) |
08 Apr 2006 08:18:03 PM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Guys, I'm posting this in SPR...
((should I quit ???))
Using light rays as the basis of measurement,
permit the Maxwell orthogonal relation using
e, b and c applied to the propagation of light
to be related by the vector product,
e x b = c
where "e" is a unit electic field, "b" is a unit
magnetic field and "c" is the velocity of light
in a vacuum.
When a light ray propagates in relation to matter
the velocity of light is retarded. I'll denoted the
retarded velocity of light by "C", and that is a
deflected direction and is reduced in speed.
( See Weinberg "Grav & Cosmo" Eq.(9.2.5)
and also understand this is the basis of Sharpiro's
experimental results).
Therefore
e x b = c
holds only if NO matter is present, and the spacetime
is orthogonal.
Using the scalar product (e.b) more generally as a
"dyadic" description,
eb = e x b + e.b =c
applies in the presences of matter, where
e x b = C , e.b =2m/r
and C = c (1-2m/r),
(In accord with (9.2.5) above)
as confirned experimentally by Shapiro and light
deflection measurements.
To unify the field, the EM term "e.b" is equivalent to
the gravitational potential "2m/r".
IMO, Mr. Yablon has done a great effort to
consolidate that unified field theory in a way
that demostates his detailed work.
I'm certain that a more organized pattern will
emerge once a fuller understanding is realized,
and enhanced ability to explain evolves.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
FURTHERMORE...
The GR classical solution involving both mass "m" and EM fields
"Fuv" as presented by Bergmann in (13.34) produce the metric
to be a function, guv = guv(m,Fuv). It apparently relies on the
self energization of a singular fundamental charge, for which there
is no experimental evidence, moreover there is evidence to the
contrary, by confining the "size" of an electron for example to a
very small region finds it's charge produces a mass much greater
than the electrons.
We see then a difficulty in applying a classical GR solution to EM.
In place of finding fault with GR itself, we'll question our
assumptions.
Instead the bare function guv=guv(Fuv) is considered.
The evidence for that assumption is the experimental finding from
the deflection of light that E.B =/=0 when light waves propagate in
g-fields, differing from the classical Maxwell ExB =>c and E.B=0
computed in an orthogonal geometry. Inspite of the fact that we
may regard the light to be in a vacuum we find by observation,
the speed (Shapiro's measurements) and direction (deflection) are
altered, indicating the E.B =/=0, and the spacetime field is
nonorthogonal.
Examining the E.B I'll reference to the invariant expression
J= F_uv F*^uv/2 (Pauli 46a)
detailed in Pauli's "Theory of Relativity", Eq.(46a), corresponding
to E.B in spacetime.
The J=E.B is inseparable from the variation of the *velocity* of light,
(as the E.B term is evidence of light wave propagation in a
nonorthogonal
spacetime characterized by evidence of regional matter, (g-field)),
in other words, it's the same statement, and in turn the metric "guv"
is inseparable from the variation of the velocity light, since the guv
map the light path geodesics, hence we consider, based on evidence,
the function,
guv = guv(J) == guv(Fuv). ((== means equivalent)).
This provides the observational evidence to consider the
developement of Field Equations based *solely* on "J" ,
and it's EM definitions within GR theory constraints.
Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
