🚀 go-pugleaf

$$                Sue... wrote: > > mrd wrote: -=-
> > The double slit experiment:
> > Wave interference observed - hey they're waves!
> > Placing a detector at one or both slits removes interference
> > - they act like particles? What kind of reasoning is that?
> > Obviously you disturbed the photon during detection and no
> > interference occurs as a result of a phase shift of some kind.
> > Have they tried repeating the experiment, replacing the
> > detector with other means of disturbing the photons to
> > discover what does/doesn't affect this phase?
>
> <<Now, does not the prize to Einstein imply
> that the Academy recognised the particle
> nature of light? The Nobel Committee says
> that Einstein had found that the energy exchange
> between matter and ether occurs by atoms emitting
> or absorbing a quantum of energy,hv .
>
> As a consequence of the new concept of light quanta
> (in modern terminology photons) Einstein proposed the
> law that an electron emitted from a substance by
> monochromatic light with the frequency [  ] has to have
> a maximum energy of E=hv-p, where p is the energy needed to
> remove the electron from the substance. Robert Andrews
> Millikan carried out a series of measurements over a
> period of 10 years, finally confirming the validity of this
> law in 1916 with great accuracy. Millikan had, however,
> found the idea of light quanta to be unfamiliar and strange.
>
> The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
> particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
> photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
> which the prize decision rested only in connection with
> emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
> that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
> law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
> the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
> a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
> http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
>
> << in 1961 Claus Jönsson of Tübingen, who had been
> one of Möllenstedt's students, finally performed an actual
> double-slit experiment with electrons for the first time  >>
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/1
>
> >
> > Time dilation:
> > Apparently an experiment was performed with atomic clocks
> > synchronized and one was flown around on a jet, to discover
> > they were no longer in sync - it must be because the jet was
> > approaching the speed of light!
> > What the?! Velocity is relative, whose to say the jet wasn't
> > moving slower compared to the surface of the earth? The
> > obvious difference between the two is that the jet traversed
> > the fields of the earth - gravitational, magnetic, or what
> > have you.  Seems obvious the fields are interacting with the
> > atoms of the passing object and causing them to oscillate
> > slower or faster, in effect changing the rate that object
> > experiences time, or ages.  I wonder if this has
> > implications on inertia within a reference frame of an object
> > that is far from any fields that could interact with it?
>
> Abstract
> Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
> in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
> written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
> critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
> of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
> relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
> and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
> gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
> of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
> Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to
> simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss
> Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues
> that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using
> gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
> physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
> setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
> many issues related to the comparison of transported
> clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
> resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
> principle formulated originally for physics in empty
> space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.
>
> C. S. Unnikrishnan
> Gravitation Group,
> Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
> Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India
> http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment
>
> Sue...

$$                  Sue isN'T much of a FLUFFY.
$$ General THEORY of Relativity (GTR); T, the FLAT-EARth cult part.
$$ Special THEORY of Relativity (STR) ..T, ABSOLUTE rest-mass part.
$$ Both no AMBiENT except GR-SPACE-time-"curvature"; NO barycentre.
$$
$$ Newton ..fixed with (n - 1) .. G*M1*m1/(n-1)=m1*rA^2*g=m1*rA*v1.
$$ [(n-1) provides the SiGN; Positive=OUTgoing; Negative=iNcoming].
$$
$$ SCiENCE started to get too SiMPLE, but COMPLEXiTY *had* to RULE.

Re: WHY the SAME old FLAT-EARth cult was so AT HOME ..in GR-Tivity.
Re: HOW the SAME old FLAT-EARth cult was so AT HOME ..in GR-Tivity.
Re: Major [ FLAT EARth ] physics misinterpretations.   End of POST.