I am producing a study furthering my gravitation study of 2006, from which I got to enjoy five months' discussion with Hal Puthoff. I see my old friend Zephyr has a thread mentioning vacuum birefringence from 2007. The PV theorists I believe used only a scalar vacuum permittivity, and GR demands anisotropic behavior, so I have shown such a field as a tensor construction. Anybody around these days? Back in maybe 2007 I mused that we really should seek a tensor construction for this, and GOOGLE picked this right up, how cool. I finally realized I could do this.Yesterday I wrote the first rough three pages, and shall complete this in a few days.
Hal Puthoff answered within a halfhour, Wednesday, and after I proofread dumbos, I sent him a copy Thursday morn. No response yet, and I talked at him questioning his use of isotropic coordinates. This is serious shop talk. I also mailed to Alexander Burinskii.
QUOTE (Albers+May 27 2012, 01:56 AM)
Hal Puthoff answered within a halfhour, Wednesday, and after I proofread dumbos, I sent him a copy Thursday morn. No response yet, and I talked at him questioning his use of isotropic coordinates. This is serious shop talk. I also mailed to Alexander Burinskii.
Please, spare us the rabid frothings of a consummate delusional, brain-forsaken fucktard. (and that's being all nice and peachy)
Please, spare us the rabid frothings of a consummate delusional, brain-forsaken fucktard. (and that's being all nice and peachy)
Do you have any idea what I am doing? You speak with ugly words. Speak up or shut up.
QUOTE (Albers+May 27 2012, 02:27 AM)
Do you have any idea what I am doing? You speak with ugly words. Speak up or shut up.
Thank you, I needed that abreaction.
Thank you, I needed that abreaction.
QUOTE (Albers+May 27 2012, 01:56 AM)
Hal Puthoff answered within a halfhour, Wednesday, and after I proofread dumbos, I sent him a copy Thursday morn. No response yet, and I talked at him questioning his use of isotropic coordinates. This is serious shop talk. I also mailed to Alexander Burinskii.
Wow, Hal Puthoff. Sounds like you get a major woody when you talk to crackpots. This site will be floater central for you.
Wow, Hal Puthoff. Sounds like you get a major woody when you talk to crackpots. This site will be floater central for you.
I talk with anyone willing to think about gravitation and the vacuum. I also today offered Puthoff a friendly critique of his use, and I think over-reliance, on isotropic coordinates. Can any of you snotty fools tell me why we all fall down?
QUOTE (Albers+May 26 2012, 09:01 PM)
I talk with anyone willing to think about gravitation and the vacuum. I also today offered Puthoff a friendly critique of his use, and I think over-reliance, on isotropic coordinates. Can any of you snotty fools tell me why we all fall down?
You can use whatever coordinates you like. Whats wrong with using isotropic coordinates?
You can use whatever coordinates you like. Whats wrong with using isotropic coordinates?
Whose physics are you describing, by what measures? Coordinate choices are freely avaliable, yes, but who is going to know your map?
QUOTE (Albers+May 27 2012, 04:01 AM)
I talk with anyone willing to think about gravitation and the vacuum. I also today offered Puthoff a friendly critique of his use, and I think over-reliance, on isotropic coordinates. Can any of you snotty fools tell me why we all fall down?
Maybe you should tie your shoelaces. Nobody gives a crap about unsupported crackpot nonsense.
Maybe you should tie your shoelaces. Nobody gives a crap about unsupported crackpot nonsense.
Goodbye. You might enjoy my 2009 study on the Kerr metric. Burinskii complemented this.
http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na
SMILE, YOU'RE ON GOOGLE. [BIGTEETH]
http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na
SMILE, YOU'RE ON GOOGLE. [BIGTEETH]
QUOTE (Albers+May 26 2012, 09:17 PM)
Whose physics are you describing, by what measures? Coordinate choices are freely avaliable, yes, but who is going to know your map?
I can understand his map just fine. In fact anyone with even a little experience with coordinate transformations should be able to understand that fine. Isotropic coordinates are actually ideal for PV models because it leaves the remotely observed "index of refraction" of vacuum independent of direction. I in fact have doubt that PV models can be accurate descriptions of nature for anything but isotropic coordinates for that very reason.
I can understand his map just fine. In fact anyone with even a little experience with coordinate transformations should be able to understand that fine. Isotropic coordinates are actually ideal for PV models because it leaves the remotely observed "index of refraction" of vacuum independent of direction. I in fact have doubt that PV models can be accurate descriptions of nature for anything but isotropic coordinates for that very reason.
I have a further theoretic offering here. I produce an arbitrarily anisotropic polarizability tensor. One can approach any metric with this. Can you look at the Kerr metric in the final form with clear cylindric symmetry, and understand what you are seeing? Check out my Kerr study. My brother is helping proofread, so this new study should be available in a few days at my cache.
QUOTE (Albers+May 27 2012, 10:09 AM)
I have a further theoretic offering here. I produce an arbitrarily anisotropic polarizability tensor. One can approach any metric with this. Can you look at the Kerr metric in the final form with clear cylindric symmetry, and understand what you are seeing? Check out my Kerr study. My brother is helping proofread, so this new study should be available in a few days at my cache.
My issue with this kind of modeling is simpler than bringing up the Kerr metric would be needed to address it. Take the simple nonrotating noncharged black hole solution. In Schwarzschild coordinates a PV model essentially gives the space a directionally dependent index of refraction accounting for variance in the remote observed coordinate speed for light. But in isotropic coordinates the speed isn't directionally dependent. There are even coordinates so that the coordinate speed of radial moving light is c everywhere. Especially this last fact sure seems to me to contradict the idea that the spacetime is correctly described by a PV model. Not only that, but normally mediums with an index of refraction different from one have some amount of wavelength dependence to it which would tend to have a prism effect of splitting wavelengths in light and we don't see this in gravitational lensing.
My issue with this kind of modeling is simpler than bringing up the Kerr metric would be needed to address it. Take the simple nonrotating noncharged black hole solution. In Schwarzschild coordinates a PV model essentially gives the space a directionally dependent index of refraction accounting for variance in the remote observed coordinate speed for light. But in isotropic coordinates the speed isn't directionally dependent. There are even coordinates so that the coordinate speed of radial moving light is c everywhere. Especially this last fact sure seems to me to contradict the idea that the spacetime is correctly described by a PV model. Not only that, but normally mediums with an index of refraction different from one have some amount of wavelength dependence to it which would tend to have a prism effect of splitting wavelengths in light and we don't see this in gravitational lensing.
Hello !!! Welcome to the future. My one prediction right now is, viewing tangential emissions near the limb of a BH, the vertically polarized will be less redshifted than those with plane polarization tangential. What do you know here?....."There are even coords.... " are you not speaking of proper time??? waitdavid137, if you can indeed show me why I should abandon this, I will tip my hat to you. I have simply reproduced the null geodesics, completely.
Some material that may be related to this topic can be found online. Being a new member I'm not yet allowed to include a link. So please go over to Google and search for this:
"Polarization of thermal emission from accreting black holes"
By M. Dovčiak et al. (Cambridge Book Online)
It discusses what is currently being modeled for comparison with black hole X-ray polarimeter observations.
It has a pay wall, so maybe some of the other links that come up in the search would be of interest. One question is whether the polarization dependent red shift would be detectable observationally in the context of other phenomena that are occurring. And what are these other phenomena?
Here is an excerpt from the Google Book:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multicolour black-body emission from the accretion disc around the black hole can be polarized on its way through the atmosphere above the accretion disc. We model this effect by assuming Kerr metric for the black hole, a standard thin disc for the accretion flow and Thomson scattering in the atmosphere. We compute the expected polarization degree and the angle as they can be measured for different inclinations of the observer, optical thickness of the atmosphere and different values of the black hole spin. All relativistic effects near a compact centre are taken into account. We also assess the perspectives for the next generation of X-ray polarimeters.
Introduction
We consider polarization originating from a Keplerian, geometrically thin and optically thick accretion disc near a black hole. At each radius the accretion disc emits black body radiation, the temperature of which is given by the Novikov-Thorne expression for the outer part of the standard disc. The thermal photons are scattered in the atmosphere of the disc and thus the observed radiation becomes polarized. We assume multiple Thomson scattering with different optical depths of the disc atmosphere. The effect of hardening of the energy of photons due to scattering is taken into account via the hardening factor that increases the effective temperature.
Once the photons leave the atmosphere the polarization vector can be rotated due to strong gravity of the black hole. The energy of photons is shifted by the gravitational and Doppler effects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The full PDF is available for this paper on my Google search:
"X-ray spectra and polarization from accreting black holes - IOPscience"
"Polarization of thermal emission from accreting black holes"
By M. Dovčiak et al. (Cambridge Book Online)
It discusses what is currently being modeled for comparison with black hole X-ray polarimeter observations.
It has a pay wall, so maybe some of the other links that come up in the search would be of interest. One question is whether the polarization dependent red shift would be detectable observationally in the context of other phenomena that are occurring. And what are these other phenomena?
Here is an excerpt from the Google Book:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multicolour black-body emission from the accretion disc around the black hole can be polarized on its way through the atmosphere above the accretion disc. We model this effect by assuming Kerr metric for the black hole, a standard thin disc for the accretion flow and Thomson scattering in the atmosphere. We compute the expected polarization degree and the angle as they can be measured for different inclinations of the observer, optical thickness of the atmosphere and different values of the black hole spin. All relativistic effects near a compact centre are taken into account. We also assess the perspectives for the next generation of X-ray polarimeters.
Introduction
We consider polarization originating from a Keplerian, geometrically thin and optically thick accretion disc near a black hole. At each radius the accretion disc emits black body radiation, the temperature of which is given by the Novikov-Thorne expression for the outer part of the standard disc. The thermal photons are scattered in the atmosphere of the disc and thus the observed radiation becomes polarized. We assume multiple Thomson scattering with different optical depths of the disc atmosphere. The effect of hardening of the energy of photons due to scattering is taken into account via the hardening factor that increases the effective temperature.
Once the photons leave the atmosphere the polarization vector can be rotated due to strong gravity of the black hole. The energy of photons is shifted by the gravitational and Doppler effects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The full PDF is available for this paper on my Google search:
"X-ray spectra and polarization from accreting black holes - IOPscience"
Good grief, thank you scalbers. Maybe I should run and hide, but only because there are so many effects. I'll examine this further, 'cept now the sun is out ... !!!AWRIGHT, folks. How can my reinterpretation be different from any other well-followed coordinate change?
If you can show me the usefullness of isotropic coordinates and how to make clear transformations between coord. systems, I will appreciate it. These coordinates may well serve some analytic purposes, and I need to learn further here. On the other hand of the transform, I claim to have mapped the metric of any solution of the Einstein field equations into a vector map in 3-space, of vacuum polarizability.
"normally mediums with an index of refraction different from one have some amount of wavelength dependence to it which would tend to have a prism effect of splitting wavelengths in light" Normally, ...... sorry, babe, we are no longer in Kansas.
QUOTE (Albers+May 27 2012, 08:09 PM)
Hello !!! Welcome to the future. My one prediction right now is, viewing tangential emissions near the limb of a BH, the vertically polarized will be less redshifted than those with plane polarization tangential. What do you know here?....."There are even coords.... " are you not speaking of proper time???
With light tangetially going near the limb of the black hole it gets pretty tricky for various reasons. I'm unsure what path it takes if you are within the photon sphere that light can orbit at. The photon sphere is outside the event horizon. The polarization also gets rotated as the light path goes around the black hole.
In general I wonder if the vacuum polarization induced effects on light polarization are more prominent with microscopic black holes, much smaller than the ones that can be observed astronomically. These black holes are near the Planck length in diameter and maybe such quantum effects would be showing up in greater proportion?
I hope I can post links soon as offline I was able to send Norm some interesting ones about modeling of images and such. This worked since I left out the http.
hera.ph1.uni-koeln.de/~heintzma/k2/GC_X_bh1.htm
With light tangetially going near the limb of the black hole it gets pretty tricky for various reasons. I'm unsure what path it takes if you are within the photon sphere that light can orbit at. The photon sphere is outside the event horizon. The polarization also gets rotated as the light path goes around the black hole.
In general I wonder if the vacuum polarization induced effects on light polarization are more prominent with microscopic black holes, much smaller than the ones that can be observed astronomically. These black holes are near the Planck length in diameter and maybe such quantum effects would be showing up in greater proportion?
I hope I can post links soon as offline I was able to send Norm some interesting ones about modeling of images and such. This worked since I left out the http.
hera.ph1.uni-koeln.de/~heintzma/k2/GC_X_bh1.htm
This is a fine chaotic discussion. Uh, thank you so much, brother scalbers.
QUOTE (Albers+May 27 2012, 08:09 PM)
Hello !!! Welcome to the future. My one prediction right now is, viewing tangential emissions near the limb of a BH, the vertically polarized will be less redshifted than those with plane polarization tangential. What do you know here?....."There are even coords.... " are you not speaking of proper time??? waitdavid137, if you can indeed show me why I should abandon this, I will tip my hat to you. I have simply reproduced the null geodesics, completely.
You're prediction is wrong. The delta you claim would have been observed during 'this event' which confirmed the GR prediction for the remote coordinate frame observation. IE the light falling into the black hole 'winks out'. It would have been included in the event analysis if something not predicted occurred. IE: the path of the falling light exhibiting some confusion with respect to the GR prediction for redshift.
'Death Spiral' Around a Black Hole Yields Tantalizing Evidence of an Event Horizon
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/r...e/2001/03/text/
A simulation of the event.
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/videos/...-a-low_mpeg.mpg
I was at the ASA & AAPT conference in San Diego and attended the discussion on this event. It makes scientific sense to read the literature to see if there exists any experimental evidence supporting a theoretical prediction. Cheeky with David is pretty stupid since he's an expert on gravitational physics.
You're prediction is wrong. The delta you claim would have been observed during 'this event' which confirmed the GR prediction for the remote coordinate frame observation. IE the light falling into the black hole 'winks out'. It would have been included in the event analysis if something not predicted occurred. IE: the path of the falling light exhibiting some confusion with respect to the GR prediction for redshift.
'Death Spiral' Around a Black Hole Yields Tantalizing Evidence of an Event Horizon
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/r...e/2001/03/text/
A simulation of the event.
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/videos/...-a-low_mpeg.mpg
I was at the ASA & AAPT conference in San Diego and attended the discussion on this event. It makes scientific sense to read the literature to see if there exists any experimental evidence supporting a theoretical prediction. Cheeky with David is pretty stupid since he's an expert on gravitational physics.
QUOTE (Albers+May 27 2012, 01:09 PM)
... waitdavid137, if you can indeed show me why I should abandon this, I will tip my hat to you. ...
I'm not saying that you should abandon this at all. What I am saying is why I doubt the feasibility of the model and that its on you if you want to convince me of it.
If you can show me the usefulness of isotropic coordinates and how to make clear transformations between coord. systems, I will appreciate it.
The transformation between the standard RN coordinates and isotropic coordinates is equation 7.1.12a-c in my chapter on general relativistic electromagnetism
I doubt isotropic coordinates exist for the Kerr solution as I think in order to truly be considered isotropic they would have to at the same time diagonalize the metric.
They are useful in that they leave the coordinate speed of light c' independent of direction as
c' = (1 - G²M²/4r²c⁴ + Gkq²/4r²c⁴)c/[(1+GM/2rc²)² - Gkq²/4r²c⁴]²
If the radial and tangential polarizations should be affected differently then why does these coordinates exist allowing the effect on light in both directions to be the same?
If a PV model is correct why don't we see a wavelength dependence on the index of refraction of space in this equation here just like you see in materials?
Consider also the Schwarzschild solution in Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates. The coordinate speed of radial moving light is everywhere c. How does your model cope with that?
If your model prefers Schwarzschild coordinates, you need to demonstrate why there really is a preferred frame. If you can demonstrate that there really is a preferred frame, then you truly have demonstrated something profound.
I'm not saying that you should abandon this at all. What I am saying is why I doubt the feasibility of the model and that its on you if you want to convince me of it.
QUOTE
If you can show me the usefulness of isotropic coordinates and how to make clear transformations between coord. systems, I will appreciate it.
The transformation between the standard RN coordinates and isotropic coordinates is equation 7.1.12a-c in my chapter on general relativistic electromagnetism
I doubt isotropic coordinates exist for the Kerr solution as I think in order to truly be considered isotropic they would have to at the same time diagonalize the metric.
They are useful in that they leave the coordinate speed of light c' independent of direction as
c' = (1 - G²M²/4r²c⁴ + Gkq²/4r²c⁴)c/[(1+GM/2rc²)² - Gkq²/4r²c⁴]²
If the radial and tangential polarizations should be affected differently then why does these coordinates exist allowing the effect on light in both directions to be the same?
If a PV model is correct why don't we see a wavelength dependence on the index of refraction of space in this equation here just like you see in materials?
Consider also the Schwarzschild solution in Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates. The coordinate speed of radial moving light is everywhere c. How does your model cope with that?
If your model prefers Schwarzschild coordinates, you need to demonstrate why there really is a preferred frame. If you can demonstrate that there really is a preferred frame, then you truly have demonstrated something profound.
Perhaps its true seeing a redshift that depends on polarization would be easier than I thought, since once can measure this precisely using spectral lines.
There is actually possible evidence that the index of refraction of space varies according to wavelength. This is based on the arrival times of high energy photons from gamma ray bursts showing some dispersion.
There is actually possible evidence that the index of refraction of space varies according to wavelength. This is based on the arrival times of high energy photons from gamma ray bursts showing some dispersion.
1)"Why does this coord. exist?" (Allow my abbreviation of coordinate) It exists because we found the transformation to create it, no problem.
2) There is a preferred frame sourcing the gravitation, a large mass/energy.
3) Your other points are those we shall entertain. It would be quite useful if I could see the transform of the scalar polarizability in isotropic coords., into the anisotropic phenomenon in Euclidean coords.
2) There is a preferred frame sourcing the gravitation, a large mass/energy.
3) Your other points are those we shall entertain. It would be quite useful if I could see the transform of the scalar polarizability in isotropic coords., into the anisotropic phenomenon in Euclidean coords.
QUOTE (Albers+May 28 2012, 07:32 AM)
1)"Why does this coord. exist?" (Allow my abbreviation of coordinate) It exists because we found the transformation to create it, no problem.
No. You could just as well derive the Schwarzschild solution in isotropic coordinates from the start and then say that its Schwarzschild coordinates that exist just because we found a transformation to yield them.
No there isn't.
No there isn't.
3) Your other points are those we shall entertain. It would be quite useful if I could see the transform of the scalar polarizability in isotropic coords., into the anisotropic phenomenon in Euclidean coords.
I gave you the transformation. If you have the polarizability tensor that you claim to have, just use the tensor transformation properties of a tensor to find it. If you have an invariant scalar for the polorizability, its invariant so you already should know what it is. If you have something thats not invariant for a scalar, prove first that there is a preferred frame by actually going back and correctly addressing 1 and 2.
These links are worth looking at to review light bending antics:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_geodesics#Bending_of_light_by_gravity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere
Nah its a mess of people writing over each others work adding obfuscation just for fun it seems some times and rarely using consistent conventions with each other. My chapter 10 is better. At least I try to write it so that the reader can understand the material and use consistent conventions throughout the site.
No. You could just as well derive the Schwarzschild solution in isotropic coordinates from the start and then say that its Schwarzschild coordinates that exist just because we found a transformation to yield them.
QUOTE
2) There is a preferred frame sourcing the gravitation, a large mass/energy.
No there isn't.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2) There is a preferred frame sourcing the gravitation, a large mass/energy. |
No there isn't.
3) Your other points are those we shall entertain. It would be quite useful if I could see the transform of the scalar polarizability in isotropic coords., into the anisotropic phenomenon in Euclidean coords.
I gave you the transformation. If you have the polarizability tensor that you claim to have, just use the tensor transformation properties of a tensor to find it. If you have an invariant scalar for the polorizability, its invariant so you already should know what it is. If you have something thats not invariant for a scalar, prove first that there is a preferred frame by actually going back and correctly addressing 1 and 2.
I shall. BRUCEP, given respect I dish it out.
By the way this paper looks like it may be related to this discussion?
Polarizable Vacuum Analysis of the Gravitational Metric Tensor
Xing-Hao Ye 2009
Cite as: arXiv:0903.3665v1 [physics.gen-ph]
arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3665.pdf (URL is the web address for the full PDF file - cut and paste into your browser)
Abstract:
The gravitational metric tensor implies a variable dielectric tensor of vacuum around gravitational matter. The curved spacetime in general relativity is then associated with a polarizable vacuum. It is found that the number density of the virtual dipoles in vacuum decreases with the distance from the gravitational centre. This result offers a polarizable vacuum interpretation of the gravitational force. Also, the anisotropy of vacuum polarization is briefly discussed, which appeals for observational proof of anisotropic light propagation in a vacuum altered by gravitational or electromagnetic field.
Polarizable Vacuum Analysis of the Gravitational Metric Tensor
Xing-Hao Ye 2009
Cite as: arXiv:0903.3665v1 [physics.gen-ph]
arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3665.pdf (URL is the web address for the full PDF file - cut and paste into your browser)
Abstract:
The gravitational metric tensor implies a variable dielectric tensor of vacuum around gravitational matter. The curved spacetime in general relativity is then associated with a polarizable vacuum. It is found that the number density of the virtual dipoles in vacuum decreases with the distance from the gravitational centre. This result offers a polarizable vacuum interpretation of the gravitational force. Also, the anisotropy of vacuum polarization is briefly discussed, which appeals for observational proof of anisotropic light propagation in a vacuum altered by gravitational or electromagnetic field.
OOH, OOH, OOH.
QUOTE (scalbers+May 28 2012, 08:10 AM)
By the way this paper looks like it may be related to this discussion?
Polarizable Vacuum Analysis of the Gravitational Metric Tensor
Xing-Hao Ye 2009
Cite as: arXiv:0903.3665v1 [physics.gen-ph]
arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3665.pdf (URL is the web address for the full PDF file - cut and paste into your browser)
Abstract:
The gravitational metric tensor implies a variable dielectric tensor of vacuum around gravitational matter. The curved spacetime in general relativity is then associated with a polarizable vacuum. It is found that the number density of the virtual dipoles in vacuum decreases with the distance from the gravitational centre. This result offers a polarizable vacuum interpretation of the gravitational force. Also, the anisotropy of vacuum polarization is briefly discussed, which appeals for observational proof of anisotropic light propagation in a vacuum altered by gravitational or electromagnetic field.
Yes, this is exactly what we are talking about.
Polarizable Vacuum Analysis of the Gravitational Metric Tensor
Xing-Hao Ye 2009
Cite as: arXiv:0903.3665v1 [physics.gen-ph]
arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3665.pdf (URL is the web address for the full PDF file - cut and paste into your browser)
Abstract:
The gravitational metric tensor implies a variable dielectric tensor of vacuum around gravitational matter. The curved spacetime in general relativity is then associated with a polarizable vacuum. It is found that the number density of the virtual dipoles in vacuum decreases with the distance from the gravitational centre. This result offers a polarizable vacuum interpretation of the gravitational force. Also, the anisotropy of vacuum polarization is briefly discussed, which appeals for observational proof of anisotropic light propagation in a vacuum altered by gravitational or electromagnetic field.
Yes, this is exactly what we are talking about.
I have a presentable 3-page pdf. of my study...
<unnecessary>
QUOTE (Albers+May 28 2012, 10:27 AM)
WAITEDAVID137 sez I could upload this. How do I do this?
Actually I was talking about posting a link to it.
Actually I was talking about posting a link to it.
It'll be up in my cache soon, so no big deal. There may be tricks I am missing; I just have it here as a pdf. Doesn't it have to be some available place?
QUOTE (Albers+May 28 2012, 02:52 PM)
I shall. BRUCEP, given respect I dish it out.
The disrespect was unwarranted on my part. I apologize. The following is a revision 10 years after the events first reported in 2001.
A Search for Dying Pulse Trains in Cyg X-1 using RXTE
http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3164?context=astro-ph.HE
The disrespect was unwarranted on my part. I apologize. The following is a revision 10 years after the events first reported in 2001.
A Search for Dying Pulse Trains in Cyg X-1 using RXTE
http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3164?context=astro-ph.HE
Thanks, BRUCEP. Hey waitedavid I am working with the isotropic coord. t-forms, tryng to make it come out right. I am using: r = R(1 + m/2R)^2 and differentiating to get dr/dR. 'r' is the Euclidean coord., and R the isotropic radius. Will this work to express g_11[R] (dR)^2 starting with g_11[r] (dr)^2 ??? I don't yet have it. I asked Puthoff about this and would like to beat him to the punch, tho I have learned to speak nicely.
QUOTE (Albers+May 28 2012, 01:29 PM)
Thanks, BRUCEP. Hey waitedavid I am working with the isotropic coord. t-forms, tryng to make it come out right. I am using: r = R(1 + m/2R)^2 and differentiating to get dr/dR. 'r' is the Euclidean coord., and R the isotropic radius. Will this work to express g_11[R] (dR)^2 starting with g_11[r] (dr)^2 ??? I don't yet have it. I asked Puthoff about this and would like to beat him to the punch, tho I have learned to speak nicely.
I already said the transformation was equation 7.1.12abc
Set the charge to 0 for the Schwarzschild case, my r to your R, my r' to your r, then yes that is the transformation. In terms of your R the line element for the Schwarzschild solution becomes
ds² = [(1-GM/2Rc²)²/(1+GM/2Rc²)²]dct² - (1+GM/2Rc²)⁴(dR²+R²dθ²+R²sin²θdφ²)
I already said the transformation was equation 7.1.12abc
Set the charge to 0 for the Schwarzschild case, my r to your R, my r' to your r, then yes that is the transformation. In terms of your R the line element for the Schwarzschild solution becomes
ds² = [(1-GM/2Rc²)²/(1+GM/2Rc²)²]dct² - (1+GM/2Rc²)⁴(dR²+R²dθ²+R²sin²θdφ²)
I know, thanks, I am trying to make it work... I also have the full development in my text, ABS, "Intro to Drain Plumbing"... sorry, Adler, Bazin, Schiffer, "Intro to GR". Also I am trying to learn to create GOOGLE docs, and cannot yet succeed. The secretary will get around to putting this into my cache at NOAA.
Is my methodology correct? With the radial coord. t-form between Euclidean and isotropic coords, can I work to replace: g_11 [r] (dr)^2 , with
g_11 [R] (dR)^2 and expect to see the correct forms ??? Probably we do not go about business in the same paths, but is mine valid?
g_11 [R] (dR)^2 and expect to see the correct forms ??? Probably we do not go about business in the same paths, but is mine valid?
When I say 'correct forms', I mean the Schwarzschild form at first where g_11 = -1/(1-2m/r). Also I differentiate once the radial transform... more homework, I guess this is sposta work out clean...right now I suck, long time...
QUOTE (Albers+May 28 2012, 08:18 PM)
When I say 'correct forms', I mean the Schwarzschild form at first where g_11 = -1/(1-2m/r). Also I differentiate once the radial transform... more homework, I guess this is sposta work out clean...right now I suck, long time...
Lets say you know the Schwarzschild line element in Schwarzschild coordinates, but don't know what the solution looks like in isotropic coordinates
ds² = (1-2GM/rc²)dct² - dr²/(1-2GM/rc²) - r²(dθ²+sin²θdφ²)
You do the transformation
r = f( R )
so
dr = (df/dR)dR
dr² = (df/dR)²dR²
ds² = (1-2GM/fc²)dct² - (df/dR)²dR²/(1-2GM/fc²) - f²(dθ²+sin²θdφ²)
You want it to be isotropic meaning
(df/dR)²/(1-2GM/fc²) = f²/R²
So that the line element becomes
ds² = (1-2GM/fc²)dct² - (f²/R²)[dR² + R²(dθ²+sin²θdφ²)] = (1-2GM/fc²)dct² - (f²/R²)[dX² + dY² + dZ²]
so
df/[f√(1-2GM/fc²)] = ±dR/R
The plus sign turns out to be the right choice in the end
df/√(f²-2GMf/c²) = dR/R
df/√[f²-2GMf/c² + (GM/c²)² - (GM/c²)²] = dR/R
df/√[(f - GM/c²)² - (GM/c²)²] = dR/R
Simple integration
ln|f - GM/c² + √[(f - GM/c²)² - (GM/c²)²]| = ln|R| +const
f - GM/c² + √[(f - GM/c²)² - (GM/c²)²] = kR
√[(f - GM/c²)² - (GM/c²)²] = kR + GM/c² - f
(f - GM/c²)² - (GM/c²)² = (kR + GM/c² - f)²
f² - 2GMf/c² + (GM/c²)² - (GM/c²)² = (kR)² + 2kRGM/c² -2kRf + (GM/c²)² - 2GMf/c² + f²
- (GM/c²)² = (kR)² + 2kRGM/c² -2kRf
2kRf = (kR)² + 2kRGM/c² +(GM/c²)²
f = kR/2 + GM/c² +(GM/c²)²/2kR
f = R[k/2 + GM/Rc² +(GM/Rc²)²/2k]
In the limit as R goes to ∞ you want the metric to become that of special relativity transformed to spherical coordinates so f goes to R which means k=2
f = R[1 + GM/Rc² +(GM/2Rc²)²]
f = R(1+ GM/2Rc²)²
we can now replace this back into the line element
ds² = (1-2GM/fc²)dct² - (f²/R²)[dR² + R²(dθ²+sin²θdφ²)]
ds² = {1-2GM/[R(1+ GM/2Rc²)²c²]}dct² - (1+ GM/2Rc²)⁴[dR² + R²(dθ²+sin²θdφ²)]
ds² = {[(1+ GM/2Rc²)² -2GM/Rc²]/[(1+ GM/2Rc²)²]}dct² - (1+ GM/2Rc²)⁴[dR² + R²(dθ²+sin²θdφ²)]
ds² = {[1+ GM/Rc² +(GM/2Rc²)² -2GM/Rc²]/[(1+ GM/2Rc²)²]}dct² - (1+ GM/2Rc²)⁴[dR² + R²(dθ²+sin²θdφ²)]
ds² = {[1- GM/Rc² +(GM/2Rc²)²]/[(1+ GM/2Rc²)²]}dct² - (1+ GM/2Rc²)⁴[dR² + R²(dθ²+sin²θdφ²)]
ds² = [(1- GM/2Rc²)²/(1+ GM/2Rc²)²]dct² - (1+ GM/2Rc²)⁴[dR² + R²(dθ²+sin²θdφ²)]
It is the same process to do the charged case which I gave.
QED
Lets say you know the Schwarzschild line element in Schwarzschild coordinates, but don't know what the solution looks like in isotropic coordinates
ds² = (1-2GM/rc²)dct² - dr²/(1-2GM/rc²) - r²(dθ²+sin²θdφ²)
You do the transformation
r = f( R )
so
dr = (df/dR)dR
dr² = (df/dR)²dR²
ds² = (1-2GM/fc²)dct² - (df/dR)²dR²/(1-2GM/fc²) - f²(dθ²+sin²θdφ²)
You want it to be isotropic meaning
(df/dR)²/(1-2GM/fc²) = f²/R²
So that the line element becomes
ds² = (1-2GM/fc²)dct² - (f²/R²)[dR² + R²(dθ²+sin²θdφ²)] = (1-2GM/fc²)dct² - (f²/R²)[dX² + dY² + dZ²]
so
df/[f√(1-2GM/fc²)] = ±dR/R
The plus sign turns out to be the right choice in the end
df/√(f²-2GMf/c²) = dR/R
df/√[f²-2GMf/c² + (GM/c²)² - (GM/c²)²] = dR/R
df/√[(f - GM/c²)² - (GM/c²)²] = dR/R
Simple integration
ln|f - GM/c² + √[(f - GM/c²)² - (GM/c²)²]| = ln|R| +const
f - GM/c² + √[(f - GM/c²)² - (GM/c²)²] = kR
√[(f - GM/c²)² - (GM/c²)²] = kR + GM/c² - f
(f - GM/c²)² - (GM/c²)² = (kR + GM/c² - f)²
f² - 2GMf/c² + (GM/c²)² - (GM/c²)² = (kR)² + 2kRGM/c² -2kRf + (GM/c²)² - 2GMf/c² + f²
- (GM/c²)² = (kR)² + 2kRGM/c² -2kRf
2kRf = (kR)² + 2kRGM/c² +(GM/c²)²
f = kR/2 + GM/c² +(GM/c²)²/2kR
f = R[k/2 + GM/Rc² +(GM/Rc²)²/2k]
In the limit as R goes to ∞ you want the metric to become that of special relativity transformed to spherical coordinates so f goes to R which means k=2
f = R[1 + GM/Rc² +(GM/2Rc²)²]
f = R(1+ GM/2Rc²)²
we can now replace this back into the line element
ds² = (1-2GM/fc²)dct² - (f²/R²)[dR² + R²(dθ²+sin²θdφ²)]
ds² = {1-2GM/[R(1+ GM/2Rc²)²c²]}dct² - (1+ GM/2Rc²)⁴[dR² + R²(dθ²+sin²θdφ²)]
ds² = {[(1+ GM/2Rc²)² -2GM/Rc²]/[(1+ GM/2Rc²)²]}dct² - (1+ GM/2Rc²)⁴[dR² + R²(dθ²+sin²θdφ²)]
ds² = {[1+ GM/Rc² +(GM/2Rc²)² -2GM/Rc²]/[(1+ GM/2Rc²)²]}dct² - (1+ GM/2Rc²)⁴[dR² + R²(dθ²+sin²θdφ²)]
ds² = {[1- GM/Rc² +(GM/2Rc²)²]/[(1+ GM/2Rc²)²]}dct² - (1+ GM/2Rc²)⁴[dR² + R²(dθ²+sin²θdφ²)]
ds² = [(1- GM/2Rc²)²/(1+ GM/2Rc²)²]dct² - (1+ GM/2Rc²)⁴[dR² + R²(dθ²+sin²θdφ²)]
It is the same process to do the charged case which I gave.
QED
A major offering, thank you. Yes that's the a priori solution. Over breakfast I'll se if I can clean up my approach. . . . time passes. . .AWRIIIGHT, given a fresh sheet of paper, I did it in about eight lines, as I laid out. One need only look at g_11 (dr)^2 and do the coord. t-form as I expressed it. Thanks for helping me learn what is going on here. Now I can talk more intelligently here and with Puthoff. My question to you here, in what frames of reference do we construct quantum field theory? I don't know much at all here, tho I am after two years' reading about to embark on chapter 21 of Penrose's "Road to Reality". My hunch is that there is a best choice of coord. frames with which we might achieve a better melding with quantum vacuum theory.
QUOTE (Albers+May 29 2012, 07:12 AM)
A major offering, thank you. Yes that's the a priori solution. Over breakfast I'll se if I can clean up my approach. . . . time passes. . .AWRIIIGHT, given a fresh sheet of paper, I did it in about eight lines, as I laid out. One need only look at g_11 (dr)^2 and do the coord. t-form as I expressed it. Thanks for helping me learn what is going on here. Now I can talk more intelligently here and with Puthoff. My question to you here, in what frames of reference do we construct quantum field theory? I don't know much at all here, tho I am after two years' reading about to embark on chapter 21 of Penrose's "Road to Reality".
Quantum field theory is done in a flat spacetime background so inertial Lorentz frames are used.
Quantum field theory is done in a flat spacetime background so inertial Lorentz frames are used.
Euclidean coordinates correspond to the experience of the distant observer. Am I correct that if we observed a large circle just off to one side of a massive object, it would appear oval, squashed in the radial sense?
QUOTE (Albers+May 29 2012, 07:53 AM)
Euclidean coordinates correspond to the experience of the distant observer.
There are no "truly" Euclidean coordinates. plot three simultaneous events around the hole. Sure in Schwarzschild coordinates the angles add up to 180, but an observer below in free fall may be using coordinates for which the events don't even occur at the same time. He doesn't have to agree that the angles do this. And by the way, the angles in isotropic coordinates agree with the angles in Schwarzschild coordinates.
The remote observer finds the most natural choice of coordinates to be those that reduce to a Lorentz frame at infinity, but both Schwarzschild and isotropic coordinates do this. Since there is spacetime curvature the remote observers coordinates HAVE to warp as they near the mass. As such there is no way of saying one set of coordinates that become rectilinear at infinity are the right choice, but some other set of coordinates that become rectilinear at infinity are wrong. You just have to pick a set of coordinates to call the standards of space and time and other than the natural choice that the coordinates are Lorentzian nearby the observer using them the choice really is arbitrary. You just make the choice, calculate what Christoffel symbols you get and just do classical physics from there out.
That depends on whose frame you were using when you called it a circle. I think you mean to refer to rigid ring of matter held over the matter so that the normal to the plane it defines isn't along the radial direction. In that case, in Schwarzschild coordinates the answer is its not a circle. Whether or not its a circle depends on the coordinates used.
There are no "truly" Euclidean coordinates. plot three simultaneous events around the hole. Sure in Schwarzschild coordinates the angles add up to 180, but an observer below in free fall may be using coordinates for which the events don't even occur at the same time. He doesn't have to agree that the angles do this. And by the way, the angles in isotropic coordinates agree with the angles in Schwarzschild coordinates.
The remote observer finds the most natural choice of coordinates to be those that reduce to a Lorentz frame at infinity, but both Schwarzschild and isotropic coordinates do this. Since there is spacetime curvature the remote observers coordinates HAVE to warp as they near the mass. As such there is no way of saying one set of coordinates that become rectilinear at infinity are the right choice, but some other set of coordinates that become rectilinear at infinity are wrong. You just have to pick a set of coordinates to call the standards of space and time and other than the natural choice that the coordinates are Lorentzian nearby the observer using them the choice really is arbitrary. You just make the choice, calculate what Christoffel symbols you get and just do classical physics from there out.
QUOTE
Am I correct that if we observed a large circle just off to one side of a massive object, it would appear oval, squashed in the radial sense?
That depends on whose frame you were using when you called it a circle. I think you mean to refer to rigid ring of matter held over the matter so that the normal to the plane it defines isn't along the radial direction. In that case, in Schwarzschild coordinates the answer is its not a circle. Whether or not its a circle depends on the coordinates used.
What do we see when we take a pic? . . . AWRIGHT my paper is now available in the cache (url below).
QUOTE (Albers+May 29 2012, 09:39 AM)
What do we see when we take a pic? . . . AWRIGHT my paper is now available in the cache (url below).
What you would see is a complicated but not so interesting result because as we all know light curves in a gravity field. The point is that a small rigid ring of matter changes shape with orientation according to Schwarzschild coordinates. It does NOT do this however in isotropic coordinates. So much for for Schwarzschild being a "better" standard.
What you would see is a complicated but not so interesting result because as we all know light curves in a gravity field. The point is that a small rigid ring of matter changes shape with orientation according to Schwarzschild coordinates. It does NOT do this however in isotropic coordinates. So much for for Schwarzschild being a "better" standard.
I am not convinced you aren't outfoxing yourself. What do you mean to say "We all know..." , are you saying we know to correct with the t-forms? You seem unclear about the far observer and the circle. Maybe I am the one not clear yet. In special relativity, we would, I guess snap a pic of the fast-moving "train" and get a normal-looking length. When we calculate back for when light left to reach our camera, we get contraction, yah?
QUOTE (Albers+May 29 2012, 10:09 AM)
I am not convinced you aren't outfoxing yourself. What do you mean to say "We all know..." , are you saying we know to correct with the t-forms? You seem unclear about the far observer and the circle.
Maybe I was putting to much faith in others. I assumed everyone here knows that light trajectories are curved in the presence of gravitation. This distorts picture images.
Maybe I was putting to much faith in others. I assumed everyone here knows that light trajectories are curved in the presence of gravitation. This distorts picture images.
I do not claim to know all these details. That's why I'm here !
MY PAPER IS NOW AVAILABLE IN THE CACHE below, 'Vacuum polarizability tensor' It builds on the Gravitation and Vacuum Polarizability study, and also the Kerr electron. WAITEDAVID137, I appreciate our discussions! Please know that I have not been near a university for forty years. I "am" a semi-retired piano tuner/tech who loves working in my 5-acre woods, and gardening. I also love mathematical physics. B.A. Princeton, Aero Engineering, 1970. M.S. Stanford, Applied Physics, 1972. I took the GR at Stanford from Schiffer.
Sorry, a B.S.E. from Princeton, whatever. I sat in the second row of all the midweekk physics colloquia. Murray Gell-Mann was cool, tall in tweed wool. Wilson and Dicke walked the halls, and the microwave horn was still up on the roof. Too bad I am 40 years out of sync, but hey, NOT. As we suspected, time is not a universal marker, HAAAAAA. At Stanford grad school the GR course from Menachem Schiffer was the high point of my education. This short punchy German would fill five blackboards, then turn briefly to say, "Do you see?" Immediately he turned back to fill a sixth blackboard. . . . . . . . At the end of the final lecture, we all stood and applauded for two minutes, astounded by what we had been led to see.
QUOTE (Albers+May 29 2012, 03:11 PM)
MY PAPER IS NOW AVAILABLE IN THE CACHE below, 'Vacuum polarizability tensor' It builds on the Gravitation and Vacuum Polarizability study, and also the Kerr electron. WAITEDAVID137, I appreciate our discussions! Please know that I have not been near a university for forty years. I "am" a semi-retired piano tuner/tech who loves working in my 5-acre woods, and gardening. I also love mathematical physics. B.A. Princeton, Aero Engineering, 1970. M.S. Stanford, Applied Physics, 1972. I took the GR at Stanford from Schiffer.
Right now you don't have a true tensor. You have a 3x3 matrix. If you could get a 4x4 matrix for it that obeyed the actual tensor transformation properties and used it to define a PV model in a frame independent way, then all my complaints about how the results rely on a particular choice of frame would be over. Can you develope this into such a true tensor model?
Right now you don't have a true tensor. You have a 3x3 matrix. If you could get a 4x4 matrix for it that obeyed the actual tensor transformation properties and used it to define a PV model in a frame independent way, then all my complaints about how the results rely on a particular choice of frame would be over. Can you develope this into such a true tensor model?
Wow, thanks for your response... uh, duh, maybe so, I shall see. Nullspeeds are relevant only in 3x3, but one can sometimes write in a fourth element, if not only trivially, like <1,0,0,0>. Mañana.
For inspiration I am rereading a fine paper by Dirac, describing how he came to his wave equation using spin matrices, for the electron. He started messing with the sigma's and noticed that forming the inner product with momentum, and squaring, the sigma's disappeared. He then sought a fourth term...
QUOTE (Albers+May 30 2012, 06:26 PM)
For inspiration I am rereading a fine paper by Dirac, describing how he came to his wave equation using spin matrices, for the electron. He started messing with the sigma's and noticed that forming the inner product with momentum, and squaring, the sigma's disappeared. He then sought a fourth term...
Ok, that's a real start (late 1920's) stuff;- don't you think;- the last 80+ years of study (with people actually exhibiting a semblence of intelligence) have explored all available/posssible avenues of contructive/associative reasoning/extrapolative modelling, and not arrived @ your mentally-meanderingly, misconstrued conclusion?
Ok, that's a real start (late 1920's) stuff;- don't you think;- the last 80+ years of study (with people actually exhibiting a semblence of intelligence) have explored all available/posssible avenues of contructive/associative reasoning/extrapolative modelling, and not arrived @ your mentally-meanderingly, misconstrued conclusion?
This was a speech by Dirac in about 1970.
Fine, but still a humungus 4 decades ago concetualization.
What's 'concetualization? ¿
QUOTE (Albers+May 30 2012, 09:18 PM)
What's 'concetualization? ¿
A total mis-spelling of conceptualisation.
A total mis-spelling of conceptualisation.
I have in my current study shown how to take any GR metric and derive from it a polarizability vector field. If this is old hat, tell me so and I will get another life. I have not even played music for... quite some time.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+May 27 2012, 03:37 PM)
I can understand his map just fine. In fact anyone with even a little experience with coordinate transformations should be able to understand that fine. Isotropic coordinates are actually ideal for PV models because it leaves the remotely observed "index of refraction" of vacuum independent of direction. I in fact have doubt that PV models can be accurate descriptions of nature for anything but isotropic coordinates for that very reason.
VOILÁ. WAITEDAVID, anyone with experience should be able to transform such a scalar field into the vector field I have expressed.
VOILÁ. WAITEDAVID, anyone with experience should be able to transform such a scalar field into the vector field I have expressed.
I think the attitude I just spoke sucks. I did it to be the MIRROR.
"Ok, that's a real start (late 1920's) stuff;- don't you think;- the last 80+ years of study (with people actually exhibiting a semblence of intelligence) have explored all available/posssible avenues of contructive/associative reasoning/extrapolative modelling, and not arrived @ your mentally-meanderingly, misconstrued conclusion?"
LADY ELIZABETH, say something pertinent or hush up your bitching mouth.
LADY ELIZABETH, say something pertinent or hush up your bitching mouth.
QUOTE (Albers+May 31 2012, 03:43 AM)
"Ok, that's a real start (late 1920's) stuff;- don't you think;- the last 80+ years of study (with people actually exhibiting a semblence of intelligence) have explored all available/posssible avenues of contructive/associative reasoning/extrapolative modelling, and not arrived @ your mentally-meanderingly, misconstrued conclusion?"
LADY ELIZABETH, say something pertinent or hush up your bitching mouth.
I apologise for being rather caustic; however, when any member starts blurting material which seemingly appears as pathetic ego-blown, banner waving, revelationesque excreta, I get a sudden urge to punish.
LADY ELIZABETH, say something pertinent or hush up your bitching mouth.
I apologise for being rather caustic; however, when any member starts blurting material which seemingly appears as pathetic ego-blown, banner waving, revelationesque excreta, I get a sudden urge to punish.
Talk shop or shut up. I will not deal with crappola 'tudes, I don't have time. I just reported your post, saying, I will not deal with such ugliness. I WILL NOT DEAL WITH INSULTING DISCUSSIONS AND CRAPPY ATTITUDES. IF THIS IS PHYSFORUM, COLOR ME GONE.
lady elizbeth, take your sudden urges to HELL. SAVE YOUR ONE-WAY TICKET STUB, I signed it.
QUOTE (Albers+Jun 1 2012, 12:07 AM)
lady elizbeth, take your sudden urges to HELL. SAVE YOUR ONE-WAY TICKET STUB, I signed it.
..... why don't you just chill off, and totally murder another Gary Moore number, Lui.
Edit
ps;- for all you newbies Lui = Mirrorman, Boneidol, MickDerry etc.
..... why don't you just chill off, and totally murder another Gary Moore number, Lui.
Edit
ps;- for all you newbies Lui = Mirrorman, Boneidol, MickDerry etc.
Why don't you talk shop? With 'waitedavid137' I have enjoyed discussion. You stink, and waste my time. You are no lady, you are a thug.
I await comments also on my Kerr electron study. We are talking faerie rings. Face the mathematics, and say something useful, or shut up.
Lui, you ask for math, yet entirely offer none yourself. Implying, you're nothing more than the number befuddled troll you've always been.
Waitedavid137 has provided the only math in this thread, and I truly doubt a flim-flam merkaba-drooling sacred geometry buffoon like you would comprehend any of it
I rest my case.
Waitedavid137 has provided the only math in this thread, and I truly doubt a flim-flam merkaba-drooling sacred geometry buffoon like you would comprehend any of it
I rest my case.
QUOTE (Lady Elizabeth+Jun 1 2012, 09:10 PM)
Lui, you ask for math, yet entirely offer none yourself. Implying, you're nothing more than the number befuddled troll you've always been.
Waitedavid137 has provided the only math in this thread, and I truly doubt a flim-flam merkaba-drooling sacred geometry buffoon like you would comprehend any of it
I rest my case.
He put the results of his math in his papers. My real argument with it isn't really with what he himself is doing with the model, its with the whole idea of PV models alone which he wasn't the one to come up with.
Waitedavid137 has provided the only math in this thread, and I truly doubt a flim-flam merkaba-drooling sacred geometry buffoon like you would comprehend any of it
I rest my case.
He put the results of his math in his papers. My real argument with it isn't really with what he himself is doing with the model, its with the whole idea of PV models alone which he wasn't the one to come up with.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jun 2 2012, 04:26 AM)
He put the results of his math in his papers.
Dave,
Look carefully and you'll see 'his papers' are 99% plagurized pastiche.
I've dealt with this idiot on a number of occasions;- he's a sad talentless delusional loser, heavily garnished with pretence. Don't waste your precious time on this certifiable troll.
Although, if you've a yearning burning for dimwitted sub-remedial 'mind' games, he's most definitely, The Man.
Dave,
Look carefully and you'll see 'his papers' are 99% plagurized pastiche.
I've dealt with this idiot on a number of occasions;- he's a sad talentless delusional loser, heavily garnished with pretence. Don't waste your precious time on this certifiable troll.
Although, if you've a yearning burning for dimwitted sub-remedial 'mind' games, he's most definitely, The Man.
How insulting. I have plagiarized nothing.
QUOTE (Albers+Jun 2 2012, 03:32 PM)
How insulting. I have plagiarized nothing.
When two in cahoots work as one, I get a little confused .... sorry.
When two in cahoots work as one, I get a little confused .... sorry.
You have never dealt with an original like me. I have lived alone for decades in rural Oregon. I have never dealt with such an *** as you. Just as Nicholai Tesla said to Thomas Edison, "I am inventing electricity and you are an ***."
QUOTE (Albers+Jun 2 2012, 05:06 PM)
You have never dealt with an original like me. I have lived alone for decades in rural Oregon. I have never dealt with such an *** as you. Just as Nicholai Tesla said to Thomas Edison, "I am inventing electricity and you are an ***."
Here I accept guilt for plagiarizing Tesla.<<Would you believe, anal pore?>>
I have not heard from other people. What sort of gulag is this forum? Bad attitudes like 'Lady Elizabeth' should make like positronium, annihilate, and get the hell outta here.
Lui, are you Chinese? Whoever U R, U bring shame upon your people.
QUOTE (Albers+May 29 2012, 05:13 PM)
I do not claim to know all these details. That's why I'm here !
These links are worth looking at to review light bending antics:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_geodesics#Bending_of_light_by_gravity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere
These links are worth looking at to review light bending antics:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_geodesics#Bending_of_light_by_gravity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere
QUOTE (scalbers+Jun 2 2012, 03:39 PM)
These links are worth looking at to review light bending antics:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_geodesics#Bending_of_light_by_gravity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere
Nah its a mess of people writing over each others work adding obfuscation just for fun it seems some times and rarely using consistent conventions with each other. My chapter 10 is better. At least I try to write it so that the reader can understand the material and use consistent conventions throughout the site.
QUOTE (Albers+Jun 2 2012, 08:28 PM)
Lui, are you Chinese? Whoever U R, U bring shame upon your people.
Sorry Albers, I got you all wrong;- thought you were some manifestation of Lui Di Martino.
(I must be losing it) 
I take back all my unfounded accusations etc, and will shove them back up my pooper accordingly.
Sorry Albers, I got you all wrong;- thought you were some manifestation of Lui Di Martino.
(I must be losing it) I take back all my unfounded accusations etc, and will shove them back up my pooper accordingly.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jun 3 2012, 03:49 AM)
Nah its a mess of people writing over each others work adding obfuscation just for fun it seems some times and rarely using consistent conventions with each other. My chapter 10 is better. At least I try to write it so that the reader can understand the material and use consistent conventions throughout the site.
It probably would have been clearer if there was a way for me to link to the post I was quoting. Also this forum can be improved by adding post numbers within the thread - so one can see that I was replying quite logically to comments about light bending earlier in this thread. Please review this thread as the context should be clear.
Can you perhaps link once again directly to your chapter 10 just to be the most convenient - here it is:
www.modernrelativitysite.com/chap10.htm
Also, here is a direct full (user friendly) URL to Norm Albers' tensor study:
laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na/Vacuum_Polarizability_Tensor.pdf
I agree with you it's nice to have a web page set up to help provide a more complete discussion and context of various writeups.
Steve
It probably would have been clearer if there was a way for me to link to the post I was quoting. Also this forum can be improved by adding post numbers within the thread - so one can see that I was replying quite logically to comments about light bending earlier in this thread. Please review this thread as the context should be clear.
Can you perhaps link once again directly to your chapter 10 just to be the most convenient - here it is:
www.modernrelativitysite.com/chap10.htm
Also, here is a direct full (user friendly) URL to Norm Albers' tensor study:
laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na/Vacuum_Polarizability_Tensor.pdf
I agree with you it's nice to have a web page set up to help provide a more complete discussion and context of various writeups.
Steve
Damn, boy, here is hope. We're still gonna torture each other, but there is a lot here to share. You and Waitedavid are teaching me things and I am hungry to know. Whatever dark place of your chooisng will do. [BIGTEETH]. Feel free to use the INHOUSE INVECTIVE i just created for you yestereday. haaaaaaaaaa
Sorry, I used that term 'torture' with Brucep, who is being less than graceful.
WAITEDAVID, can my polarizability field be called a pseudo-vector?
WAITEDAVID, can my polarizability field be called a pseudo-vector?
QUOTE (Albers+Jun 3 2012, 10:52 AM)
Sorry, I used that term 'torture' with Brucep, who is being less than graceful.
WAITEDAVID, can my polarizability field be called a pseudo-vector?
I would call it a pseudo tensor. pseudo vector may infer to people just hearing about it that you are talking about a 3 vector, a three component pseudo vector. My suggestion is to write out the equations for the laws you want to apply your matrix in and see if you can generalize to actual tensor equations for which the matrix becomes a part of the true tensor for it. Once you've done that what you have in terms of tensors will be valid for all coordinates if they are valid for the Schwarzschild coordinates from which you started.
WAITEDAVID, can my polarizability field be called a pseudo-vector?
I would call it a pseudo tensor. pseudo vector may infer to people just hearing about it that you are talking about a 3 vector, a three component pseudo vector. My suggestion is to write out the equations for the laws you want to apply your matrix in and see if you can generalize to actual tensor equations for which the matrix becomes a part of the true tensor for it. Once you've done that what you have in terms of tensors will be valid for all coordinates if they are valid for the Schwarzschild coordinates from which you started.
One pseudo-vector I know is the angular momentum (AM) vector, aha! I sense this sort of "screwiness" here actually. Given a statement from the GR metric about a certain nullspeed, I say consider the dipole polarizability in the 2-D tranverse space. Can you sense what I am trying to point to?
Oh jeeezis I open Penrose (Road to Reality) to section 13.8 speaking of "pseudo-orthogonal groups" one of which is the LORENTZ GROUP. Well sheeeet, I am not in bad company.
Oh jeeezis I open Penrose (Road to Reality) to section 13.8 speaking of "pseudo-orthogonal groups" one of which is the LORENTZ GROUP. Well sheeeet, I am not in bad company.
Allow me to free-asociate for a bit: transverse modes; photon spin modes; quantum theoretic vacuum representation;
In my set of studies you will find a handful of items. They are all really different facets of the same investigation: Given vacuum dipole availabiliy, what can we cook up?
I am trying to figure out how to transform the scalar permittivity, and thus uniform polarizability fields, of the isotropic coord. form, into my Schwarzschild polarizability field. Any hints?
QUOTE (Albers+Jun 4 2012, 08:49 AM)
I am trying to figure out how to transform the scalar permittivity, and thus uniform polarizability fields, of the isotropic coord. form, into my Schwarzschild polarizability field. Any hints?
In section 3 of chapter 11 I've just added an expression for some wave solutions including the nonrotating black hole solution which gives the metric in terms of a null vector. Multiplied by c, the three spatial components give you that coordinate frame's speed for light along the direction of the gradient of the gravitational potential which for the coordinates used is c. I think that such a null 4-vector would be the correct way to associate an index of refraction with the spacetime. When you transform the null vector to coordinates for which the coordinate speed of light isn't 1, it results in the coordinate speed being whatever the spatial coordinates of the null vector transformed to. I still wouldn't trust the whole concept as we've started with these coordinates here for which the coordinate speed of light along the gradient of that potential is everywhere 1.
In fact I the following I'm convinced completely invalidates a PV model. The coordinate speed of light being the spatial part of the null vector works in only one direction along the gradient of the potential without doing a time reversal for some coordinates. It can be the case with that black hole metric for example that the coordinate speed of light is one value along the direction and is a completely different value in the opposite direction. How can you assign an index of refraction that has different values in opposite directions and expect it to be something meaningful?
In section 3 of chapter 11 I've just added an expression for some wave solutions including the nonrotating black hole solution which gives the metric in terms of a null vector. Multiplied by c, the three spatial components give you that coordinate frame's speed for light along the direction of the gradient of the gravitational potential which for the coordinates used is c. I think that such a null 4-vector would be the correct way to associate an index of refraction with the spacetime. When you transform the null vector to coordinates for which the coordinate speed of light isn't 1, it results in the coordinate speed being whatever the spatial coordinates of the null vector transformed to. I still wouldn't trust the whole concept as we've started with these coordinates here for which the coordinate speed of light along the gradient of that potential is everywhere 1.
In fact I the following I'm convinced completely invalidates a PV model. The coordinate speed of light being the spatial part of the null vector works in only one direction along the gradient of the potential without doing a time reversal for some coordinates. It can be the case with that black hole metric for example that the coordinate speed of light is one value along the direction and is a completely different value in the opposite direction. How can you assign an index of refraction that has different values in opposite directions and expect it to be something meaningful?
WAITEDAVID, thank you for a very knowing discussion, this is what I came here for! Are you speaking of a rotating source, the Kerr? Yah you're gonna have a drag there. This might come out, I can't at the moment say but shall look. I just recall that once you have mixed metric terms you solve a quadratic for the nullspeeds.
How nice to TALK SHOP. More later; if things are as you say in your last line, one cannot argue with that. The Kerr, tho, would be different. . . . time passes . . If I proceed with the same method, then dt/dt = 1 , and the added polarizabilty is zero... maybe I could add 1 to all four components??? ¿¿¿
How nice to TALK SHOP. More later; if things are as you say in your last line, one cannot argue with that. The Kerr, tho, would be different. . . . time passes . . If I proceed with the same method, then dt/dt = 1 , and the added polarizabilty is zero... maybe I could add 1 to all four components??? ¿¿¿
QUOTE (Albers+Jun 5 2012, 06:45 AM)
WAITEDAVID, thank you for a very knowing discussion, this is what I came here for! Are you speaking of a rotating source, the Kerr? Yah you're gonna have a drag there. This might come out, I can't at the moment say but shall look. I just recall that once you have mixed metric terms you solve a quadratic for the nullspeeds.
How nice to TALK SHOP. More later; if things are as you say in your last line, one cannot argue with that. The Kerr, tho, would be different. . . . time passes . . If I proceed with the same method, then dt/dt = 1 , and the added polarizabilty is zero... maybe I could add 1 to all four components??? ¿¿¿
Actually I'm talking about the Schwarzschild solution as much as any. There are coordinates for which the speed of inward moving light for a Schwarzschild black hole is different than the coordinate speed of outward moving light. One such choice of coordinates is every bit as good a standard for time for a far away observer as Schwarzschild time is. Refer to problem 11.3.2 for example.
How nice to TALK SHOP. More later; if things are as you say in your last line, one cannot argue with that. The Kerr, tho, would be different. . . . time passes . . If I proceed with the same method, then dt/dt = 1 , and the added polarizabilty is zero... maybe I could add 1 to all four components??? ¿¿¿
Actually I'm talking about the Schwarzschild solution as much as any. There are coordinates for which the speed of inward moving light for a Schwarzschild black hole is different than the coordinate speed of outward moving light. One such choice of coordinates is every bit as good a standard for time for a far away observer as Schwarzschild time is. Refer to problem 11.3.2 for example.
Very good, thanks ! Later I shall.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jun 5 2012, 05:50 AM)
How can you assign an index of refraction that has different values in opposite directions and expect it to be something meaningful?
waitedavid...Sorry for the eavesdropping ...but...
Why would that be not meaningful ? Don't we do that for birefringent materials all the time ?...or did I miss something?
Lunar
waitedavid...Sorry for the eavesdropping ...but...
Why would that be not meaningful ? Don't we do that for birefringent materials all the time ?...or did I miss something?
Lunar
Perhaps Lunar. Don't be sorry, fine Q. Waitedavid is sticking it to me (with truth) that these coordinates, and I am eager to read this, give different forward/backward speeds, and that does sound nuts, eh? I have indeed produced a birefringent vector field for the Scwarzschild, and a trirefringent field for the Kerr. I AM HAVING MAJOR FUN NOW. I am not attached to being correct. I am attached to expressing what I finally have, and putting it on the table. Theorists describe 90% of their time trying unsuccessful models. Hell I just wish I could get paid for this.
WAITEDAVID, it sounds like we agree on expression of a three-vector in nullspeeds, yah? This is drawn directly from considerations of null trajectories, (a fancy term for possible light paths) and the metric tensor.
WAITEDAVID, it sounds like we agree on expression of a three-vector in nullspeeds, yah? This is drawn directly from considerations of null trajectories, (a fancy term for possible light paths) and the metric tensor.
I mean I should have been more correctly esoteric and said, 'null geodesics', sorry.
QUOTE (Albers+Jun 5 2012, 06:01 PM)
Perhaps Lunar. Don't be sorry, fine Q. Waitedavid is sticking it to me (with truth) that these coordinates, and I am eager to read this, give different forward/backward speeds, and that does sound nuts, eh? I have indeed produced a birefringent vector field for the Scwarzschild, and a trirefringent field for the Kerr. I AM HAVING MAJOR FUN NOW.
Thanks Abers; get back with you later ; I'm preparing for the Venus Transit of the solar disk. (looking for evidence of PV, he he
)
I'v put the link for live streaming from Griffith Observatory here and operational now if you are interested.
Click here...
http://new.livestream.com/GriffithObservatoryTV/VenusTransit
Transit begins in about 50 minutes.
Lunar
..
Thanks Abers; get back with you later ; I'm preparing for the Venus Transit of the solar disk. (looking for evidence of PV, he he
)I'v put the link for live streaming from Griffith Observatory here and operational now if you are interested.
Click here...
http://new.livestream.com/GriffithObservatoryTV/VenusTransit
Transit begins in about 50 minutes.
Lunar
..
I am not yet seeing how a scalar permittivity such as PV uses in isotropic coords. can be transformed into my Schwarzschild polarizability vector field. I don't yet know what I'm dealing with...
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.