| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Ytefasrt" |
| Date: |
16 Feb 2004 09:32:12 AM |
| Object: |
The Matter of Dark Matter |
The Matter of "Dark Matter"
There have been many postings about the mysterious "Dark Matter" which is
alleged to constitute 90 to 95% of the mass(energy) content of the Universe.
The presence of this "Dark Matter" is indicated by the observed gravitational
behavior of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. A large effort is apparently
underway to detect this "Dark Matter" and to determine its nature. In all of
the discussions there seems to be little attention to the 3 - 3.5 degree K
background radiation known for decades to be present. If one examined the
energy represented by this radiation, he finds that it is 10 to 20 times the
energy represented by the mass of conventional matter. Obviously, however,
there is no need to pay attention to this radiation because, as everyone knows,
electromagnetic radiation does not possess inertial or gravitational mass.
Since everyone "knows" that electromagnetic radiation does not possess
inertial or gravitational mass, it behooves us to examine the validity of that
belief. It has long been known that electromagnetic radiation transports
momentum as witnessed by the pressure of Solar
radiation which causes comets to have "tails". In addition, mainstream
physicists have discussed the feasibility of using "light sails" for the
propulsion of long distance space ships. Mainstream physics tells us that the
momentum transported by a photon is identical to the momentum which would be
transported by a material particle of the same total energy (rest mass plus
kinetic energy). - I know that the rest mass of a material particle traveling
at the velocity of light must be zero. But lets not quibble, divide that zero
by the zero represented by the Lorentz Transformation for mass and the inertial
mass of the material particle can have any value between the limits of +/-
zero. Since momentum is equal to the product of inertial mass and velocity, and
the momentum of a photon is given by its energy divided by the velocity of
light, then dividing the equation which provides the momentum of a photon by C
shows that the photon behaves as if its inertial mass were equal to its energy
divided by the square of the velocity of light. Maybe photons do not possess
inertial mass in spite of observation, but as far as the writer is concerned,
if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, he is
willing to accept that it is a duck. The inertial mass of photons meet this
test and if the current state of physical knowledge teaches otherwise it is
time for physicists to rethink the subject.
Since photons act as if they possess inertial mass traveling at the
velocity of light, the background radiation of space must exert a pressure
which acting to cause the Universe to attempt to expand. Let us examine whether
those same photons possess a gravitational mass. This is best done by
considering an ideal thought experiment along the lines of those used by Dr.
Einstein.
Consider a cold gravitational massive planet in intergalactic space (to
eliminate spurious disturbances). Attached to opposite sides of this planet are
columns each of which support an ideal retro reflector having 100% efficiency.
A beam of photons is sent from one of the retroreflectors, is bent by the
planet's gravitational field as required by General Relativity, and strikes the
retroreflector on the other side of the planet. Because these are ideal
retroreflectors, the photons are constrained to continuously travel bask and
forth past the planets surface. It is a simple calculation (not involving
relativity) to show that as a result of the gravitational "refraction" of the
photon's path the process will cause a net force to be exerted on the
retroreflectors in a direction which is "down" at the point where the photons
pass the surface. If we are to accept that the "Laws of Conservation of Energy
and Momentum" are valid, then there must be an upward pull on the planet equal
to the downward push on the retroreflectors. If these two forces are not equal,
the entire system could be used as a "space tug" in violation of Newton's
Second Law and/or a source of limitless energy in violation of the First Law of
Thermodynamics. The thought experiment is diagrammed in
http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/cf83.gif. Its validity does not depend
upon relativistic considerations. This thought experiment shows that, if light
is observed to be "refracted" by a gravitational field, that "refraction" must
result not from the 'curvature" of space but from a gravitational force. The
magnitude of that force must result from the photons having a "gravitational
mass" equal to twice their inertial mass. For a more detained discussion see
paragraphs 8.8 and 8.9 of http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/hoax.htm.
When one combines the effects of the gravitational and inertial "masses"
the photons which are observed to propagate through our Universe one finds that
the inertial mass tends to act as a gas to expand the Universe while the
gravitational mass acts like any other gravitational mass and acts to contract
the Universe. The size of the Universe at any one time is determined primarily
by the balance between these two effects. Once the "big bang" state had been
reached, the pressure of photons acted to produce the observed expansion which
will go on forever. All of these conclusions are derived and discussed at
http://www.members.aol,com/einsteinhoax/site.htm .
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm .
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a
regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as
they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please
do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at
the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
For a response send E-Mail to
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: . The photon's frame of reference . |
17 Feb 2004 06:36:21 AM |
|
|
Hi Ytefasrt,
You falsely claimed that physicists think,
" electromagnetic radiation does not possess
inertial or gravitational mass " ,
In the laboratory's frame of reference,
photon's have a very exact inertia,
which is a function of the photon's frequency.
And they are also observed to both cause,
and be effected by, gravitational forces.
Much less is known abut what's happening in
the photon's frame of reference ...
So notional randomness abounds . . .
e.g. Not much is known about
the " vacuum energy density " .
Cosmic rays, i.e. ultra-high energy nuclei,
are currently our only way to learn more about
what might be happening in in a tiny particle's
( very mysterious ) frame of reference.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: . The photon's frame of reference . |
17 Feb 2004 02:01:04 PM |
|
|
Jeff Relf <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message news:<kjgzmuk8jdno.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf>...
Hi Ytefasrt,
You falsely claimed that physicists think,
" electromagnetic radiation does not possess
inertial or gravitational mass " ,
In the laboratory's frame of reference,
photon's have a very exact inertia,
Learn the difference between possesive and plural.
which is a function of the photon's frequency.
And they are also observed to both cause,
and be effected by, gravitational forces.
Much less is known abut what's happening in
the photon's frame of reference ...
Photons do not have a valid frame of reference.
So notional randomness abounds . . .
e.g. Not much is known about
the " vacuum energy density " .
Cosmic rays, i.e. ultra-high energy nuclei,
are currently our only way to learn more about
what might be happening in in a tiny particle's
( very mysterious ) frame of reference.
Never heard of a particle accelerator?
Besides, there is absolutely nothing mysterious about any frames of reference.
Do you enjoy publicly displaying your gross ignorance?
Paul Cardinale
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: . The photon's frame of reference . |
17 Feb 2004 04:43:32 PM |
|
|
(Paul Cardinale) wrote in message news:<64050551.0402171201.7ed96b1c@posting.google.com>...
Jeff Relf <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message news:<kjgzmuk8jdno.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf>...
Hi Ytefasrt,
You falsely claimed that physicists think,
" electromagnetic radiation does not possess
inertial or gravitational mass " ,
In the laboratory's frame of reference,
photon's have a very exact inertia,
Learn the difference between possesive and plural.
which is a function of the photon's frequency.
And they are also observed to both cause,
and be effected by, gravitational forces.
Much less is known abut what's happening in
the photon's frame of reference ...
Photons do not have a valid frame of reference.
So notional randomness abounds . . .
e.g. Not much is known about
the " vacuum energy density " .
Cosmic rays, i.e. ultra-high energy nuclei,
are currently our only way to learn more about
what might be happening in in a tiny particle's
( very mysterious ) frame of reference.
Never heard of a particle accelerator?
Besides, there is absolutely nothing mysterious about any frames of reference.
Do you enjoy publicly displaying your gross ignorance?
Paul Cardinale
Yeah, he must. As Dr. Phil would say, you can't do the same thing
every time by accident. ;-)
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: . Cool it Mark . |
17 Feb 2004 09:55:32 PM |
|
|
Hi Mark Martin,
You project your faults onto me by saying that I,
" enjoy publicly displaying gross ignorance " ,
Why don't you cool it Mark ?
I selectively read posts,
and on very rare occasions I have even been known to
tell people to *****.
But I almost never insult people.
The exception is
the few times I have paused to mention the obvious:
Sam Wormley and Uncle Al are
trigger-happy self-loathing trolls.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: . Cool it Mark . |
18 Feb 2004 01:38:51 AM |
|
|
Jeff Relf <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message news:<1i3b8ihn3trgu.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf>...
Hi Mark Martin,
You project your faults onto me by saying that I,
" enjoy publicly displaying gross ignorance " ,
I never deny my shortcomings. You, on the other hand, dismiss all
comments pertaining to yourself as mere "projection", and therefore
without merit. How convenient for you. But you alone are the author of
what you write. If you write nonsense, then you'll be called on it.
This is, after all, a public forum. Paul did just fine.
-Mark Martin
P.S.: You're the one who's so contented & fulfilled. What should it
matter to you what anyone is saying about you? Yet here you are, going
on the defensive once again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: . Another reason to dismiss you. |
18 Feb 2004 02:16:42 AM |
|
|
Hi Mark Martin, You said,
" Paul did just fine " ,
Paul was a mile off,
no laboratory can examine light years worth
of vacuum energy !
That you agree with him is
just another reason to dismiss you.
From news:1nyhf7j9duo5t$.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf
We have no way to study how such high energy
nuclei react with the " Vacuum energy density " ,
of space ... So ordinary laboratory physics fails us.
Shock waves from supernova are thought to create
heavy nuclei with super high energies,
i.e. Cosmic rays.
From http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0322022.htm
" The speed of these cosmic rays is very close to
the speed of light. They are
the fastest particles yet detected.
Each has more than the energy of a bullet,
10 ^ 20 electron volts. " ,
....
" The problem is that
at the speeds these particles are traveling,
they should be bumping into
the cosmic background radiation. " ,
....
" The faster the relative motion
( the greater the difference between
the speeds of two objects ) ,
the more inaccurately you are able to determine
the conditions of the particle " ,
....
" Because space-time fluctuations prevent us from
identifying the correct frame of reference
with respect to which the nucleus is at rest,
we donąt know what energy the microwave photons assume
in that ' correct ' frame of reference. " ,
....
" If those highest energy cosmic rays
aren't really doing what we think they are doing,
their collisions with microwave photons
won't release enough energy to create pions.
Instead, photons from the cosmic background radiation
would bounce off of the cosmic ray nuclei like
ping pong balls bouncing off a battleship --
and the nuclei keep coasting along. " ,
....
" it appears that we can no longer use ordinary,
everyday physics that you can verify in your lab
to understand them. " .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Creative Music Synth [220]" |
|
| Title: Re: . Another reason to dismiss you. |
18 Feb 2004 02:29:33 PM |
|
|
I am the best MIDI output
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: . Another reason to dismiss you. |
18 Feb 2004 10:00:24 AM |
|
|
Jeff Relf <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message news:<zegdzjbqn5m9.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf>...
Hi Mark Martin, You said,
" Paul did just fine " ,
Paul was a mile off,
no laboratory can examine light years worth
of vacuum energy !
That you agree with him is
just another reason to dismiss you.
There have been heavy ion accelerators in operation for some years
now. We're not utterly in pitch black here.
And besides, we have a laboratory for studying cosmic paeticles,
the rain of particles themselves. That we detect and measure them
means that we can study them. A spaceborn detector with high magnetic
field has already been tested on orbit, and has been scheduled to
eventually be made a permanent instrument on the ISS.
" Because space-time fluctuations prevent us from
identifying the correct frame of reference
with respect to which the nucleus is at rest,
we donąt know what energy the microwave photons assume
in that ' correct ' frame of reference. " ,
The author of this paragraph needs to clarify. What is meant by
"correct" frame of reference? If one subscribes to special relativity,
then there is no correct frame of reference. The particle's frame is,
after all, at rest with respect to any other frame which has zero
relative velocity. Does the author refer to the mechanical source of
the particle's high energy? It's not at all clear. This statement
needs to be reworded.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Increased randomness. |
18 Feb 2004 11:09:45 PM |
|
|
Hi Mark Martin,
Re: My quote from from
http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0322022.htm
( By Phillip Gentry of the Center for
Space Plasma and Aeronomy Research at the
University of Alabama in Huntsvill, UAH )
" Because space-time fluctuations prevent us from
identifying the correct frame of reference
with respect to which the nucleus is at rest,
we don't know what energy the microwave photons assume
in that ' correct ' frame of reference. " ,
You asked,
" Does the author refer to
the mechanical source of the particle's high energy ? " ,
No, not at all,
the source of the cosmic rays are Not the issue.
Isotropic cosmic rays are a heavy nuclei
from the shock waves of supernova outside the Milky Way.
And they're moving very near the speed of light.
From a laboratory here on earth,
due to the ray's dilated Planck time and
contracted Planck length, the issues are
the increased ( notional ) randomness of:
_ The ray's mass-energy.
_ The CMBR's mass-energy.
_ The false-vacuum's mass-energy.
Richard Lieu, an associate physics professor at UAH, said,
" The energy of a moving particle, its frequency,
is measured in cycles per second.
And Planck time controls the accuracy of our clocks.
Our clocks can't be more accurate than Planck time. " ,
Gentry explained,
" From the cosmic ray's frame of reference,
the laboratory clock's Planck time --
the limit of its accuracy -- would get longer.
From the cosmic ray's frame of reference,
the laboratory clock becomes less accurate. " ,
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: . Cool it Mark . |
18 Feb 2004 11:54:00 AM |
|
|
Jeff Relf wrote:
[snip]
Hey Relf, puke elsewhere.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: . Al's fabulous posts . |
18 Feb 2004 09:44:03 PM |
|
|
Hi Uncle Al, Re: Nothing, You suggested,
" Hey Relf, puke elsewhere " ,
I can't Al, I'm drawn here by your fabulous posts.
I've noticed that you don't insult people
on the rare occasions that
you actually have something worthwhile to say.
That's a classic case of projecting
your own sense of self-loathing onto others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: . Al's fabulous posts . |
19 Feb 2004 10:07:52 AM |
|
|
Jeff Relf <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message news:<181rtp14n5kym.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf>...
Hi Uncle Al, Re: Nothing, You suggested,
" Hey Relf, puke elsewhere " ,
I can't Al, I'm drawn here by your fabulous posts.
I've noticed that you don't insult people
on the rare occasions that
you actually have something worthwhile to say.
That's a classic case of projecting
your own sense of self-loathing onto others.
Arhur Frayn: (to Zed)
"You see our death wish was devious and deep. As Zardoz, Zed, I was
able to choose your forefathers. It was careful genetic breeding that
produced this mutant, this slave who could free his masters. Ha, ha.
Don't you remember the man in the library, Zed? It was *I* who led you
to the 'Wizard of Oz' book. Ha, ha, ha, ha! It was *I* who gave you
access to the stone. It was *I*! I bred you. I led you."
Zed:
"And I have looked into the face of the force that put the idea in
your mind. You are bred, and led, yourself."
He who smelt it delt it. Thou dost project projection.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: . Light years of vacuum energy . |
17 Feb 2004 09:39:53 PM |
|
|
Hi Paul Cardinale, Re: My comment,
" Cosmic rays, i.e. ultra-high energy nuclei,
are currently our only way to learn more about
what might be happening in in a tiny particle's
( very mysterious ) frame of reference. " ,
You publicly displayed your ignorance when you replied,
" Never heard of a particle accelerator ? "
It takes light years of " Vacuum energy " to
to learn about a cosmic ray's frame of reference ...
You can't do that in a laboratory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: . Light years of vacuum energy . |
18 Feb 2004 03:01:12 AM |
|
|
Jeff Relf <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message news:<1o9tujha0ynbb.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf>...
Hi Paul Cardinale, Re: My comment,
" Cosmic rays, i.e. ultra-high energy nuclei,
are currently our only way to learn more about
what might be happening in in a tiny particle's
( very mysterious ) frame of reference. " ,
You publicly displayed your ignorance when you replied,
" Never heard of a particle accelerator ? "
It takes light years of " Vacuum energy " to
to learn about a cosmic ray's frame of reference ...
You can't do that in a laboratory.
Let's suppose there's a very high energy massive particle, a
proton, heading our way. So what's going on in its "mysterious" frame
of reference? To find out, we need only consult a low energy proton
right here on Earth. Assuming special relativity, if we were to go out
and rendesvous with that speeding renegade proton, as our relative
velocities approach zero, then that proton's relative kinetic energy
also approaches zero. It then becomes identical to the proton back on
Earth. This is what Paul said to you. There's nothing mysterious about
reference frames. What's mysterious is how cosmic particles get pumped
with so much kinetic energy out in the wild.
Now, if you've some meaningful theory as to how nature accomplishes
this feat, then please feel free to chime in. But the world's largest
accelerators do routinely pump particles with energies comparable to
those of a large fraction of the cosmic radiation. Thus, we can study
in the laboratory the properties of a significant portion of the
particles in the background flux.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Relf" |
|
| Title: Re: . Light years of vacuum energy . |
18 Feb 2004 03:28:21 AM |
|
|
Hi Mark Martin, You mentioned,
" What's mysterious is how cosmic particles get pumped
with so much kinetic energy out in the wild " ,
Cosmic rays are
heavy nuclei traveling very near the speed of light.
Supernova shock waves are thought to create the
cosmic rays that are isotropically hitting us
from outside the Milky way.
As I told you an hour ago ( thank you Google ) ...
We have no way to study how such high energy
nuclei react with light years of " Vacuum energy " ,
of space ... So ordinary laboratory physics fails us.
From http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0322022.htm
( Also in news:1nyhf7j9duo5t$.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf )
" The speed of these cosmic rays is very close to
the speed of light. They are
the fastest particles yet detected.
Each has more than the energy of a bullet,
10 ^ 20 electron volts. " ,
....
" The problem is that
at the speeds these particles are traveling,
they should be bumping into
the cosmic background radiation. " ,
....
" The faster the relative motion
( the greater the difference between
the speeds of two objects ) ,
the more inaccurately you are able to determine
the conditions of the particle " ,
....
" Because space-time fluctuations prevent us from
identifying the correct frame of reference
with respect to which the nucleus is at rest,
we donąt know what energy the microwave photons assume
in that ' correct ' frame of reference. " ,
....
" If those highest energy cosmic rays
aren't really doing what we think they are doing,
their collisions with microwave photons
won't release enough energy to create pions.
Instead, photons from the cosmic background radiation
would bounce off of the cosmic ray nuclei like
ping pong balls bouncing off a battleship --
and the nuclei keep coasting along. " ,
....
" it appears that we can no longer use ordinary,
everyday physics that you can verify in your lab
to understand them. " .
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Matter of Dark Matter |
17 Feb 2004 08:13:33 AM |
|
|
Ytefasrt wrote:
The Matter of "Dark Matter"
Dark Matter Background
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DM
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101matter.html
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher1
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The Matter of Dark Matter |
16 Feb 2004 02:20:04 PM |
|
|
Ytefasrt wrote:
The Matter of "Dark Matter"
[snip ignorant crap]
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete0.jpg
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete1.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete2.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete4.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete5.jpg
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]
Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied.
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
falling light
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
Twin Paradox
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.
The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.
NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/Paper6.pdf
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/LPHrel.html
Longitudinal and transverse mass
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ***** - even
when you *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
