Paradoxes and Dilemmas

Larry Burford
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 10 months ago #4614 by Larry Burford

Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[makis]
Larry, within the context of a formal language that can describe univeral operations, you failed, simple because NO ONE can actually fix anything in the universe.

Try some other way, but avoid the word "fix". As you may understand, two "fixes" cannot make an "un-fix". You must "unfix" both, as they are naturally are. Unless, there is a glue some place...

If you can explain again the whole thing without the "fixes", I may be able to understand it.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

???
OK, see if this helps...

Step One - attach a coordinate origin to the Sun
The Sun is not bolted to the coordintate origin; rather, the origin is bolted to the Sun. As the Sun continues to move in whatever directions and with whatever accelerations it actually has (see note below), this coordinate system moves with it. We do this to make analysis of the Earth's motions relative to the Sun easier (because we no longer need to explicitly subtract the Sun's movements from the Earth's movements).

Step two - attach a coordinate origin to the Earth
Having done this (the first of several steps), we must now unbolt the origin of our coordinate system from the Sun and bolt it to the Earth. Now another analysis is performed, which determines the movement of the Sun relative to the Earth.

I think this might be what you are calling "magic", but of course it isn't.

NOTE - other masses can and do move the Sun. But they also move the Earth, and in general they are so far from both Earth and Sun that these additional motions are the same and cancel out. Jupiter is about the only significant mass that gets close enough (~4 AU at closest approach to Earth) to violate this conditon. But even so it causes only very minor deviations. (This does not seem to be playing a role in your disagreement.) In particular, Jupiter will accelerate the Earth slightly more than it accelerates the Sun when Jupiter is near closest approach to Earth.

Step Three - combine the partial results
The final step is to combine the results of the previous steps to get the whole answer, which is a predictive description of the moving Earth and the moving Sun relative to each other (or to their center-of-mass). This combination of results from the first two steps shows that the Sun makes a small orbit and the Earth makes a large orbit around their mutual center-of-mass; that each orbit takes one year; and that a line drawn between the centers-of-mass of each will always pass through their combined center-of-mass.

(continued ...)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Larry Burford
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 10 months ago #4485 by Larry Burford

Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford

(... continued)

And now for something really different - on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being "not very good" and 10 being "very good"), would you please rate yourself on your ability to communicate with the English language?

I rate myself at about 9.5, for English. English is my native tongue.

For Spanish (I'm trying to teach myself) I'd give me a 2. I can follow some conversations, and I can occasionally make myself understood. For French: 1.5, Arabic: almost 1, Italian: 1.5.

Based on what I've seen from you, I'd place you somewhere between 8 and 9 for English, probably closer to 9 than 8.

(FYI, in this context the word "fix" has the same meaning as the phrase "attach a coordinate origin to". Exactly. The other meaning of "fix" (to hold an object stationary) is not what is meant here. But someone who has recently learned English is not likely to have discovered this very fine point. In fact, now that I think of it I know plenty of native English speakers that would probably make the same mistake.)

Regards,
LB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

jacques
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 10 months ago #4003 by jacques

Replied by jacques on topic Reply from

The Newton equations describe the earth movement around the sun very well. With these equations very accurate ephemerid are made. Take the ephemerid of the eclipse and ocultations of Jupiter satellites, synchronise your whatch with GMT and take a telescope and observe those eclipse and transit and they will be right on. Using these same equations, satellites and space probe are launched and most of the time they go on their target.
I don't understand your point Makis. What are you trying to tell us?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Samizdat
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 10 months ago #4305 by Samizdat

Replied by Samizdat on topic Reply from Frederick Wilson

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I gather your technical journal reading is at least four months behind. <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle> -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You're too kind, Tom -- I admit that the extent of my technical journal reading goes as far as this and a few other message boards, where, perhaps lazily, I figure much good work and thinking is summarized, synthesized, and perfected.

Thanks for clarifying some of the finer points between SR and LR and pointing out where SR is wrong. Forgive my denseness, but I'm still stuck on something. If GPS data support SR (at least to some degree)
does it also support LR to a higher degree? If so, is it statistically significantly higher?

Lastly, I may have overlooked this and if you've already done so, I apologize and will look closer, but would you comment on my suggestion that we build an experiment which would produce statistically significant phenomenal results by training a sensing apparatus set to one rotation per day on a point in the sky 8 minutes and 19 seconds ahead of the sun's apparent position [20 arc-seconds in front] in order to detect FTL energy? And on Cherekon's suggestions in the same vein, beginning with www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=115
(Cherekon 24 November 2002 9:15:17?

Thanks,

Rick

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 10 months ago #4486 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If GPS data support SR (at least to some degree) does it also support LR to a higher degree? If so, is it statistically significantly higher?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

As with four previous experiments, both SR and LR can be reconciled with all GPS data. However, as with the four previous experiments, LR offers the simpler interpretation.

Specifically, LR is based on a preferred frame (the local gravity field) and therefore the possibility of a universal time. So it comes as no surprise to LR that all atomic clocks on board orbiting satellites in many different orbits can be simultaneously synchronized with one another and with all ground clocks on the rotating Earth, and remain that way indefinitely, despite high relative speeds, differing gravitational potentials, and no two of them sharing a common inertial frame. But part of achieving this is that the signal speeds are c+/-v instead of always c.

By contrast, SR insists by postulate that the signal speeds must always be c. That is still possible, but only if different synchronization corrections are applied to each clock pair at each moment of time. That would make the system so complex as to be impractical. So LR synchronization in the Earth-centered inertial frame (the local gravity field) is used in the GPS instead of Einstein sybchronization.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>would you comment on my suggestion that we build an experiment which would produce statistically significant phenomenal results by training a sensing apparatus set to one rotation per day on a point in the sky 8 minutes and 19 seconds ahead of the sun's apparent position [20 arc-seconds in front] in order to detect FTL energy?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

All solar radiation propagates at c or slower, so we don't expect to see any of that traveling FTL. But we do in fact see energy arriving from the exact spot you describe, and it is called "gravitation". Six experiments confirm that gravitational force always behaves as if it propagated FTL, and no experiments suggest a speed as slow as c is possible.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>And on Cherekon's suggestions in the same vein:

"a solar orbital platform would appear to provide the best opportunity for experiment. Presuming that such a vehicle were available, and assuming that a stable solar orbit was established well away from planetary gravitation (should such a thing be truly possible within the system as a whole), then let's imagine this platform as the base of a pendulum. This could easily be many miles in length, --say, a significant mass attached to the end of a cable-- so that at some extension from the platform, it's angle, relative to orgital direction, would be measurably affected by the mass of the sun as the prevailing center of gravity. This angle, relative to the apparent optical position of the sun, should then indicate the actual solar position in, as some would put it, forward in time."<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

One of the six experiments is exactly this experiment pretty much as described. The name of the pendulum is "the Moon". We can measure both the time of maximum solar eclipse (the middle of totality) and the time of maximum solar gravitational force on the Moon (time of minimum lunar acceleration toward Earth). And it turns out that the two differ by 38 seconds of time (gravitational maximum follows optical maximum), which is the time it takes the Moon to move through that 20-arc-second angle by which the apparent Sun is retarded relative to the true, instantaneous Sun.

Happy New Year to all! -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 10 months ago #4005 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[makis]: Tom, you have an ability to shift the focus of the discussion in trivial issues and avoid the real issue by attacking someone's ability to think clearly.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

That is your interpretation. Everyone's knowledge is limited, of course. What is less obvious is just how limited our knowledge is in any given area. Put another way, it is usually impossible for each of us to assess how much we still don't know that may be vital to understanding or judging some issue. Is our knowledge 90% complete, or still at less than 1%? By its very nature, we have no way to guess how much we don't know.

The wise person recognizes his/her own limitations, and makes an effort to assess how incomplete his/her knowledge is on some issue by listening to teachers, reading books, and talking to others with various degrees of knowledge. When anomalies appear, the first approach is to ask questions. Others may have no sense of their own limitations and assume that any fault must lie in the ignorance or biases of others. They may take a belligerent approach, and are sometimes difficult to teach because they "already have the explanation".

In the matter under discussion, I make allowance for the possibility that you might have a real point, and are simply having difficulty communicating it. Notice that I have several times asked anyone else who understands some point of yours I may have missed to express it in different words. (Thanks, Larry, for making the effort.) So I do not assume that my understanding must be right and yours must be wrong just because it is clear from our discussions that you do not know much about orbital mechanics.

OTOH, you have taken an aggressive approach that makes no allowance for the possibility that the resolution may lie simply in incompleteness of your knowledge. I may not be certain that you are wrong about orbital mechanics, but I do feel certain that your attitude is detrimental to discovering the limitations of your own knowledge and to learning new things. My "shift of focus", as you call it, is based on a legitimate concern that you may be a person (of which the world has hundreds of millions) who lacks the capacity to unlearn something once it has been learned wrongly.

In my opinion, this does not make you "dumb" (Jim's favorite word) or indeed lesser than me in any way. My opinion of "intelligence" is that it is not monolithic (i.e., reducible to a single parameter such as "IQ"). Intelligence is a manifestation of mental ability. Many abilities qualify: reasoning, memorization, abstraction, induction, intuition, creativity, analysis, visualization, organization, synthesis, empathy, collation, computation, judgment, ability to unlearn or correct error, problem-solving ability, motivation, normal association, creative free-association (“thinking outside the box”), communication, awareness, etc.

IMO, nearly every person excels at a few of these abilities, and nearly every person is terrible at a few of these abilities, and nearly everyone is roughly average at all the others. It is the special abilities that we individually excel at that make us special, and that we tend to value most. But we often take these abilities for granted and scoff at others who can't do what we can as well as we can. And it is the abilities that we individually are poor at that we tend to devalue, even when we can admire others who are good at them.

Makis, you manifest intelligence in many ways, just as everyone on this Message Board does. But you do not excel at all those skills. I expressed concern about one particular skill, the ability to unlearn, and the accompanying recognition of one's own limitations. I offered unsolicited advice about how you might deal with such a problem, if applicable to you. You can call this "shifting the focus" if you wish. But it remains a concern of mine because this discussion could never come to a conclusion if my concern is correct. Perhaps you could show me that my concern is mistaken by citing a few counter-examples from your experiences – things you first learned one way, then had to unlearn and relearn another way. I could cite many of my own such experiences. In fact, of the new things I learn every day (from reading journals, if not from life experiences), a fair fraction require me to correct a misimpression I previously had.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>This is circular thinking Tom<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

It is a legitimate concern. Give me assurances it is unwarranted, or take it under advisement for the benefit of your life.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The orbit of the earth around the sun is not circular. It is supposed to be an ellipse. Therefore, there must be r-dot and r-dot dot some place generated. But even if it were not, as in the case of a circular uniform path, what is the mechanism for keeping the sun, which experiences another force to reducing that distance, r?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The mechanism is identical to the mechanism that keeps Earth from falling into the Sun. The Sun and Earth have the same relative motion with respect to one another. And in gravity, heavier bodies do not resist acceleration more than light ones.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Your whole thinking is based on a fixed sun Tom. Attached with big bolts on a certain origin. Non-movable and if it is, magically powered to counter act any forces from the earth.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Here, you are becoming repetitious. I already explained that the Sun accelerates because the Earth's mass is too large to ignore. How can it be otherwise? I further stressed that adopting the Sun as an origin (an arbitrary and unnecessary choice) does not imply that the origin (Sun) is stationary. Larry has explained this point with greater care than I did. Yet instead of listening and considering that your initial learning about this matter was probably incorrect, you simply reject these explanations with unfounded declarations.

Please find a way to explain yourself without requiring a false premise (such as "putting the origin at the Sun implies the Sun does not move") as a starting point. For any two bodies, we are always free to examine their motions relative to A, or relative to B, or relative to any third point C, fixed or moving.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>This is how things work in dogmatic science though. Along the way in trying to support a dogma, the solution is hidden.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Talk about changing the subject! And how can the dogma supporters tell that their own position is unreasonable? Indeed, how do you tell that the fault is theirs and not yours?

I question the implications of having no clear argument that you can articulate, and at the same time making no allowance for the possibility that the limitation in understanding might be yours. The way we all test the clarity and completeness of our own thinking is by trying to communicate with others. Most of us eventually succeed in this effort although it may take a f

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.431 seconds