Le Repteux

You mean corrections for doppler effect I suppose, but these are not GR corrections, and all we need to make them is synchronized clocks, not GR notions. This requires that we can measure the drift of the satellite's clocks, but it seems to me that we do not have to know about GR to do that. What I mean is that even if GPS is consistent with Relativity, we could manage it even if we did not know about GR. Am I wrong?

Strange, Swantson wrote the following text on post 13: you don't agree with him? "if the GPS satellites were not corrected the system would still nominally work. Since all of the satellites' clocks would be off, the differences would still be valid as long as the clocks were not drifting off from each other, and it's timing differences that give the position. But they would drift, so they need to be synched up, and the choice was to use a ground control station to do that, hence the decision to shift the clocks to reflect time on earth (specifically UTC(USNO))." By GR time, I mean the time that runs at the satellite's orbit. xyzt, To me, Swantson's post means that there is a way of synchronizing the orbiting clocks without using GR formulas, which is to use the time from our own clocks at ground level. You don't agree with him?

Thank's Syst, Now, since only the synchronism of the clocks is useful for positioning, we could use some other time for the satellites than the one we get from GR to synchronize them, which means that we use GR time only because it is more practical. If that is true, it means that, if we did not know about GR before installing the GPS system, we would nevertheless have found a way to synchronize it, would we? But what a surprise to observe all the satellites clocks drifting away from ours.

I was commenting this post of yours in response to a post about SR: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83940-is-gps-consistent-with-relativity-split-from-is-relativity-100-proven/?p=813695 But my questioning is about the apparent impossibility to apply SR to 12 satellites going in different directions and at different speeds from one another. It seems to me that only GR is applicable. Is that so?

Swantson, If the GPS system can get away with SR while taking the center of the earth as a common reference frame, then it appears to me that we can do the same with any inertial motion since any of them is subjected to gravitation. For instance, the twin's paradox disappears if we take the center of the sun as a reference frame for both twins, and if one of them goes around it at high speed, because from the sun's point of view, none of them would have aged more than the other. Is that what you meant?

OK, I cannot find a way to calculate the energy of one step from the total link energy between two atoms, but I can calculate the kinetic energy of that step and see how it compares with the total link energy. For an atom of mass 10-27 kg and speed 10-18m/10-18s the kinetic energy is .5 x 10-27 kg.m2.s-2 which is 10-27 j or 10-30 kj and the total link energy is 10-21 kj/atom which means that, at the frequency of 1018 steps/s, the kinetic energy of any step between two atoms would have to be around 109 times more energetic than 10-27 kg.m2.s-2 to break their link. Hey, Swansont, can you comment while you laugh?

Sorry again, I messed it all up as usual. At the frequency of 1012 steps/s, for the atoms to travel 1 m/s, the steps will be 10-12 meter long, and it will take 100 to 500 steps to travel the distance between two atoms, which is between 100 and 500 x 10-12 meter. But at that frequency, for a speed of 1 km/s, the steps would have to be 1,000 x 10-12 meter long, longer than the distance between two atoms, so I conclude that their frequency must be grater than 1012 steps/s. If I use 1018 steps/s instead, for the atoms to travel 1m/s, the steps would be 10-18 meter long, which is OK for a 1 km/s speed, but not for the speed of light, which is 3 x 108 m/s, and which would give us steps 3 x 10-10 meter long, much longer than the distance between two atoms. If we want to account for the speed of light and still count lots of steps in the distance between two atoms, we have to use a gamma ray frequency for the steps, but since the steps themselves are not in inertial motion, since they accelerate and decelerate constantly, their speed at the end of an acceleration would be grater than the speed of the light that produces them by means of the doppler effect, which is physically impossible. Relativity does not provide us with a physical mechanism to explain mass increase: here is a possible one. I hope my calculations are OK this time!

Sorry, the last number is .5 x 10-24 kj.

I did not do any calculations yet, but since nobody wants to do them, I think it is time that I try, but do not laugh at me if I am wrong. First consideration: since they concern mass, those calculations should concern resistance to acceleration and inertial motion. - Concerning inertial motion. When we walk, the frequency of our steps can remain constant while we change their length, permitting us to change our inertial speed without changing their frequency, which is how I think the atoms proceed: the limit of that speed is then given by the length of our legs and by their strength. In the same way, the length limit of the atom's steps is given by the length of their link, which varies from 100 to 500 picometers (10-12 m), while the strength of that link varies from 100 to 800 kj/mol. For the frequency of the steps, I will try first the average frequency of visible light, which is around 500 terahertz (1012 steps/s). At that frequency, if the steps are 500 picometers long, they will travel 1 m in one second, which is a good order of magnitude for the speed we can walk, but THz are not fast enough since the step of each atom should be much smaller than the distance between two atoms. If I use EHz instead (1018 steps/s), the average distance between two atom would be traveled in 5x108 steps, and the length of each step would be 10-18 picometer. I note that this order of magnitude for the frequency of the steps, which is in the X rays, includes the frequency of the electron when calculated from its mass. To be more precise, I should take into consideration that each one of the the two atoms has to move one step, but one after the other, for their molecule to move the same distance, so that the latter will take twice the time to travel one meter, but that does not change the order of magnitude, which, by the way, is surprisingly close to what I was hoping. - Concerning resistance to acceleration. I have to calculate the energy needed to accelerate a step, to stretch it from zero to 10-18 picometer long, which should be equal to its resistance to that particular acceleration, but without using the mass of that atom as a given. To stretch its step, this atom has to break the synchronism of the link with the other atom for one second by steps of 10-18 second, and that link is around 10-21 kj/atom for a 600 kj/mole atom (1 mole is 6x1023 atoms), but for the moment, I do not find how to calculate the energy needed to stretch or shrink such an atomic link by only 10-18 picometer. Do you? If we had that number, we could compare it to the kinetic energy of an atom whose mass is around 10-27 kg and speed around one m/s, which is .5 x 10-27 kj. Are you laughing?

When a molecule encounters another one, the nuclei do not meet. It means that either the electrons repel each other, either the nuclei do so, either the repelling comes from an alternative EM wave, which should be the case if electrons move much faster than molecules. QM is a theory about electrons, not about motion. If the small steps exist, their study might change the way we understand the quantum steps. For the moment, apart from saying that it is a property of massive bodies, there is no "other explanation" of inertial motion. Calculations and Occam's razor was the only way to test heliocentrism, what if it was the only way to test the small steps?

If the electrons are around the nuclei when two molecules meet, they should be affected first, no? What does the theory say about that? Since, for a given molecule, its electrons hold the atoms together at a fixed distance, if their path is affected from the outside, it will take some time before the nuclei receive the signal to move, and that time will depend on the speed of the electron wave. Good question! I have not succeeded to answer that one yet: how a particle having the properties of solid matter like mass can appear to have no components? Maybe it has and we cannot observe them, maybe it has not because it is only a mediator wave for the atoms when they form a molecule, and stays a mediator even when they are far apart, as within an electron accelerator. With the small steps, resistance to acceleration comes from the synchronism between two nuclei, which comes first from the synchronism between their components, and so on indefinitely, in such a way that the mediator that links two atoms has to affect their ultimate components at first, and precisely because the acceleration that they are undergoing unsynchronizes them, these components let go some of their mediator. This way, electrons could originate from the hart of atoms and be able to interfere back with it to produce motion of all the particles and its corollary: their mass. As with light though, there is still the duality wave/particle to be explained with a physical mechanism.

If two molecules meet at a certain speed, their electrons meet first, and they carry the motion to their nuclei at a their own speed. Since those electrons can be considered as waves, we can consider that they have their own frequency, and since they interact with the nuclei, we can consider that those nuclei can synchronize themselves with that frequency, but since both have inertia, they cannot change frequency instantly, so that if there is initially doppler effect on the electron waves, the nuclei will have to move away at each electron pulse to stay synchronized with it, thus forcing the electrons to follow them after, which would give the same inertial steps between the nuclei as those of my animation, though I admit, in a more complicated way. To analyze the small steps, it is easier to consider that the waves escape from the nuclei, this is why I was proposing to use light as a possible mediator at first.

Let us use the wave form of the electrons then, and assume that they will produce doppler effect and carry it to the nucleus if the molecule they are part of is accelerated from the outside. Can you accept that kind of mediation?

Héhé, I would love to hear you pronounce my user name... The small steps respects the laws of physics, no? Doppler effect works the way I present it, no? To me, the only unanswered question of my model is about the mediator, because we know that molecules do not radiate light outside the system, but we also know that electrons do not radiate either when they link atoms, which does not prevent us from accepting them as a mediator. You think that my model does not explain inertial mass properly, which is normally characterized by resistance to acceleration, but what about inertial motion? Have you ever heard of a theory explaining why bodies go on moving at the same speed and in the same direction after having undergone an acceleration?

I repeat a question concerning relativity and the small steps of my animation. Since light would be their mediator, since they would be composed of an acceleration followed by a deceleration, and since they could not change their frequency, the only parameter that they could change is their length, which means that they would have to increase their speed when they would be accelerated from the outside: what would happen to them when their top speed would approach c? Apart from any other question, what do you think of the small steps as an explanation of inertial mass and inertial motion Swantson?

Sorry Strange, this is the best I could do for the moment.

I already said that the brain waves did not have to match the definition of standing waves to support information: it is sufficient that they never stop and that they experience feedback loops.

Hi Strange, To me, the frequency of a natural oscillator is determined by an intrinsic standing wave mechanism. Atoms are natural oscillators whose frequencies are determined by the intrinsic standing wave mechanism of their electrons. A piano string is a natural oscillator whose frequencies are determined by the intrinsic standing wave of its mechanism.

Hi Bignose, thank's for the links! I know about the techniques used to investigate the brain, but I thought that Ophiolite wanted some proof of the standing waves I am talking about, and I never saw any hypotheses of the kind about mind, so I do not see why there should be any evidence of it in the data. You suggest that I become an expert in the matter before risking an hypotheses, but this is precisely why I am here for: I am here to consult experts in order to gain some time, because I am too old to become one, and I would like that idea to be tested before I leave. Experts should be able to know if it fits the observations, which is the only thing we can ask a new theory to fit to, and if they would by chance agree that it did, then some of them could be interested in doing some experiments.

There are waves for sure, and I suggest that they circulate in a loop that stays in the mind, which is a confined area, but since they would have to move around to be manipulated, I don't know if we can call them stationary or not.

Confinement is one of the characteristics of a standing wave, and the other is that it is stationary. It might be due to flow, like a stationary wave on a river for instance, and by the interference of two opposite waves of the same frequency, like on a rope that is shaken at the same frequency at its two ends. This is from wiki, and if you insist in asking me for textbook definitions, I am afraid that we can get nowhere, because I feel bizarre when you do that: instead, why don't you put the definition yourself and ask me to show how it fits my explanations? Now about the cerebral waves that I am talking about, I do not know if they fit exactly the definition of standing waves, but I know that there are such waves because we observe them. What I propose is that the waves can contain the brain informations while being kept alive in a loop, and that the different parts of the brain can manipulate them the way we use tools to manipulate waves.

Yes, light will always move at c from the point of view of any of the two atoms, and this is why they will both experience doppler effect, whether the reference frame will be attributed to one atom or the other. It is only from our point of view that the small steps are observed, because from the atoms' point of view, there is only doppler effect that varies constantly with time, and light always coming from the same direction.

I decided to test my luck here because there is a forum for speculative theories and because I did not find anything of the sort on french speaking scientific forums, but I am neither a scientist nor a student in science. I only had an idea about mass that seems to apply to our own resistance to change, and I try to find people that know more about sciences than me to discuss it with me. It was my own definition of a standing wave that I gave, and as I said, I will agree with a more precise one if you provide it. By asking me the same thing three times, you make me feel as if I was dumb, and since I still do not understand what you want exactly, you make me feel as if I was going to be admonished. Was it your intention?

In my animation, for steps of a given frequency, the longer the steps, the faster the system moves to the right.

It is the length of their steps that can change, not the length of the link between them. If the atoms stay synchronized, from their point of view, the distance of their link appears to stays the same, even if it does not appear to stay the same from our point of view.