If it were, how are seconds and meters reconciled into the same units under the radical?
(e.g. the distance between two events A and B in a 4-dimensional space
^√(∆x^2+∆y^2+∆z^2+∆t^2) where ∆x is in m, ∆y is in m ,∆z is in m and ∆t is in s

Or √(6m^2+1s^2)

My prev post was not displayed correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nykkyo

If it were, how are seconds and meters reconciled into the same units under the radical?
(e.g., the distance between two events A and B in a 4-dimensional space
^√(∆x^2+∆y^2+∆z^2+∆t^2) where ∆x is in m, ∆y is in m ,∆z is in m and ∆t is in s

Or √(6m^2+1s^2)

---

Hi Nykkyo,

It seems like you are attempting to average out all of the changes that can be expressed in three dimensions. I guess it is a bit like a Pythagorean theorem expressed in three dimensions.

Are you saying that time doesn't always behave like the other three spatial dimensions?

I guess Einstein would say that time behaves like the other dimensions in many ways and in other ways it doesn't, e.g, we can't run time backwards.

Tut

I am woking on a 3-D version of gravity (using Newton's universal law). And light, ether michelsom-moreley experiment and the miis-interpretation of its outcome, bending light in a gravitation field (Eddison), and the perturbation of Mercury's orbit (gyroscopic precession): all not using Relativity.

Accordi9ng to math, Pythagorean theorem can be extended to n-dimensions.

Einstein was not always right! TIME is like Libnetz, suggested, "an arbitrary scale upon which events in 3-space can be sequenced." You may think of it like an imaginary dimension (similar to complex variables used in frequency domains).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nykkyo

I am woking on a 3-D version of gravity (using Newton's universal law). And light, ether michelsom-moreley experiment and the miis-interpretation of its outcome, bending light in a gravitation field (Eddison), and the pertubation of Mercury's orbit (gyroscopic precession): all not using Relativity.

---

Good luck! Do you have a demonstration that the speed of light is not an absolute regardless of the observer? Can you explain why it is that atomic clocks in orbit around the earth at 17000 MPH operate slower than those on earth, without using relativity?

Not yet; but I am trying to show that that light bends, as a result of G*m1*m2/r^2, from Hyades cluster (150 LY). The angle subtended from the Earth with an arc length of the radius of the Sun is approx. 1.5 arc sec.
The angle between a line connecting the Earth, Sun, Hyades and a line tengent to the Sun (from Earth) is that subtwnded angle (which doesn't need Ralativity). The kinetic momentum of a photon is h/landa: (Quantum mechanics)so again Relativy is not needed.

Not yet; but I am trying to show that that light bends, as a result of G*m1*m2/r^2, from Hyades cluster (150 LY). The angle subtended from the Earth with an arc length of the radius of the Sun is approx. 1.5 arc sec.
The angle between a line connecting the Earth, Sun, Hyades and a line tengent to the Sun (from Earth) is that subtwnded angle (which doesn't need Ralativity). The kinetic momentum of a photon is h/landa: (Quantum mechanics)so again Relativy is not needed.

Currently I'm trying to measure the speed of light reflected from the Sun, by the Moon, as the Earth orbits the Sun; but I haven't been able to measure the speed within the required tolerance (orbital speed aprox. 67,000 mi/hr)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nykkyo

Not yet; but i am trying to show that that light bends, as a result of G*m1*m2/r^2, from Hyades cluster (150 LY). The angle subtended from the Earth with an arc length of the radius of the Sun is approx. 1.5 arc sec.
The angle between a line connecting the Earth, Sun, Hyades and a line tengent to the Sun (from Earth) is that subtwnded angle (which doesn't need Ralativity). The kinetic momentum of a photon is h/landa: (Quantum mechanics)so agin Relativy is not needed.

---

Hi nykkyo,

I'm not sure how Newton's universal of gravity is going to help you here.

Newton can't accurately predict how light is attracted toward a massive object such as a black hole. I think he did go someway toward this because he considered light to be particles and thus must have mass. If we accept wave theory then there is no bending of light under Newtonian gravity. I would think Newtonian theory cannot explain how a massless photon can be affected by gravity.


Are you going to try and show that Classical mechanics and Quantum mechanics are compatible?

Tut

Right now I'm treating a photon as a roaming mass. I think that the magnetic field interacts with gravity like mass. As far as blackholes, gravity is such that the EM wave disappears, instead of falling into the mass, because the magnetic field is so weakened by the gravitational pull.

There is something very strange between Relaivity and Quantum mechanics; but I haven't figured it out. Either Relativity or Quantum mechanics is insufficient (not necessarily wrong). I do think that Quantum mechanics can justify anything (you want, because of its statistical nature.

The PHOTON is only massless at rest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nykkyo

There is something very strange between Relaivity and Quantum mechanics; but I haven't figured it out. Either Relativity or Quantum mechanics is insufficient (not necessarily wrong). I do think that Quantum mechanics can justify anything (you want, because of its statistical nature.

---

Hi Nykko,

As you know relativity and classical mechanics are theories describing the large while quantum mechanics deals with the very small. I would agree most theories to date are definitely insufficient, but not necessarily wrong.

Einstein started the ball rolling because you could say his theories defy a common sense understanding of the world. Quantum mechanics insults our common sense understanding even further. You are right, Quantum mechanics can just about justify anything because when it comes to probability anything is possible.

What about string theory and 11 dimensions? I don't think there is anyone who can honestly say they can visualize these ideas. Mathematically it makes sense ( so I am told). I don't think we can picture anything higher than our own 3 dimensional world. String theory doesn't have to show how theory fits with observation.

I guess there is an argument for string theory being a metaphysical construct. In a strange sort of way I guess it beings us back to Leibniz.


Not much help but some general ramblings on my part.



Tut

I don't think you're rambling. I'm thinking about writing a piece on DIMEND\SIONS: though, with regards to STRING theory's multiple dimensions (M-THEORY), it may be logical mathematically; but I don't think there are real dimensions beyon three. Mathemathimatical you can solve one-dimension problems using higher dimensions in MATRIX algebra, but that does not mean a vector is multi-dimensional. Conversion of 2-dimensions to higher dimensions is routine in solving simultaneous linear equations. It is done in computers all the time (e.g. the programming languages J and APL). The classical example of a geodesic, is the sphere. If you are constrained to a great circle, then a straight line is along the surface; but line-of-sight between points A and B on the surface is a chord, (through the sphere). If space is curved, then why does a chargeless particle, like the NUTRINO, follow the chord?

[QUOTE=nykkyo;2832486]Not yet; but I am trying to show that that light bends, as a result of G*m1*m2/r^2,QUOTE]

Ah - so you believe that light has mass. Interesting. Like I said - good luck!

According to Quantum mechanics E=hv and Relativy says E=m*c^2, so m=h/c when v=c. The PHOTON is never at rest; but has kinetic mass.

Clocks in orbit have to create anamolies on EM waves (like sound modulating a radio frequency). Every tick of the clock sends an anomly back and the monitoring on Earth will see the intervals between ticks be longer, so it will appear to be running slower, due to the doppler effect. If the tick interval is measured, in orbit, and a number is sent back, it will correspond to clock at rest. It does not matter what type of clock; it is the ticks that count. The only way of monitoring remote clocks, speeding away, is with EM signals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nykkyo

Every tick of the clock sends an anomly back and the monitoring on Earth will see the intervals between ticks be longer, so it will appear to be running slower, due to the doppler effect.

---

Sorry - this is incorrect.

The Doppler shift would make the clock on a satellite appear to run faster (not slower) if the satellite is approaching, and to run slow if receding. And if the sender is moving parallel to the receiver (like a GPS satellite directly overhead) there is no Doppler shift at all. The amount of the Doppler shift is given by:



where is the velocity of waves in the medium, is the receiver relative to the medium, and is the velocity of the sender relative to the medium (positive if the source is moving away from the receiver). Replace by c (the speeed of light, and set and you get


According to Doppler and classical mechanics if approaches then approaches .

But that does NOT account for the actual change in clock speed. The actual slowing of the clock of the sender relative to the receiver is:



Here if approaches then aproaches . You get a completely different result than Doppler an classical mechanics can account for. Further, it does not matter whether the sender is moving toward the receiver, or away, or paralllel to the receiver. So you see Doppler has nothing to do with it.