Room-temperature superconductivity?

[ladajo]

I also found this interesting...

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html

specifically:

At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by GR, then the synthesizer could be turned on bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. The atomic clock was first operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was parts in faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected this would have resulted in timing errors of about 38,000 nanoseconds per day. The difference between predicted and measured values of the frequency shift was only parts in , well, within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a validation of the combined motional and gravitational shifts for a clock at earth radii.

At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO).

Several relativistic effects are too small to affect the system at current accuracy levels, but may become important as the system is improved; these include gravitational time delays, frequency shifts of clocks in satellites due to earth's quadrupole potential, and space curvature.

[GIThruster]

His qualifications impress me more than yours.

What "qualifications" were those? Johan's PhD is in materials science. He's never had a single course in relativity and doesn't understand the simplest issues like what is a non-inertial frame of reference.

If you think those are "qualifications", I have a bridge to sell you.

Johan can't publish in the peer review world because he has no qualifications. He posts on various forums looking for an audience because he's delusional, and thinks he's going to shape reality to fit his delusions.

[kcdodd]

One only needs to look at the results of high energy particle physics to get fairly strong confirmation of time dilation, which deals with velocities orders of magnitudes higher than satellites. One can simply compare the decay time of fast particles versus lab frame. There are very large and expensive experiments which have been built to account for this. If fast particles decayed at the same rate as slow ones then they would not be able to travel as far as they do and the distances for the experiments would have to be different. And then once you have time dilation, i think length contraction is a logical consequence.

[ladajo]

And then there is this guy...

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm

who argues that the error for GPS is only .8cm per day due to relativistic effects.

[DeltaV]

You're sounding like a pathetic idiot--just like Johan.

A perfect example of what I'm talking about.

It's no wonder you were banned from NASA SpaceFlight forum.

[ladajo]

Niel Ashby's bit on GPS and SR/GR compensation:

http://www.fing.edu.uy/if/cursos/fismod/GPS.pdf

The key point for those that haven't gotten it, is that the primary mechanism for GPS GR/SR correction is in the satellties and that the atomic clock output is adjusted by a factor of 38ns up front. Then the rest of the system does what it does. Another argued point is that the actual orbits are not precise as well as the 55degree inclination brings on a relative oscillation to a ground reciever. However, these errors are shown to be very small, and thus ignored. One would also expect the actual earth gravity field variances as the satellites travel the ground paths to be negligable as well.

[GIThruster]

You're sounding like a pathetic idiot--just like Johan.

A perfect example of what I'm talking about.

It's no wonder you were banned from NASA SpaceFlight forum.

I was banned from NSF because I had had enough abuse from the rocket engineers--and specifically one of them--that I was indeed pressed past my endurance.

Just FYI, Delta; what you're engaging in is not scientific inquiry. You're doing character assassination. That's not enviable.

[kcdodd]

And then there is this guy...

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm

who argues that the error for GPS is only .8cm per day due to relativistic effects.

Some of his other "myths" include conservation of energy, ExB drift, and the lorentz force.

[ladajo]

I like his leaps...

[sparkyy0007]

How you could have read it and posted the paradox is not there, is hard to understand.

Not really, you are not the only one who enjoys tequila.

[rcain]

Hi rcain,

If I have to respond to all the issues that you have raised in your last post it will require Years of extra research. Furthermore, my present understanding of many of these issues have been summarised in my book. And lastly, my time is going to be spent more on prototype electronic and magnetic devices using phases that superconduct at room and higher temperatures. Therefore I have just lifted out a few issues from your post:

fair enough.

very good luck (...though i hope obviously, that luck plays no part...) in your experiments.

carbon is an 'amazing' substance. and diamond is very beatiful. if your results are positive i wish you all the best in attracting the folllowing and the recognition you will no doubt deserve. if the results turn out negative in the end, well that also will be a 'substantial' contribution to science. you cant lose.

ps. careful you dont end up doing a 'Rossi' however

however, with reference to your linkage below, between (general) relativity and quantum mechanics, it seems that Bells theorum gets in the way of any attempt to combine them at this level, without that is, declaring quantum gravity (i dont know what further problems that causes) - at least according to th the paper cited above.

If you read my book, you will see that it is correct explanation of the EPR paradox which unifies gravity with quantum mechanics.

shame i do not have a copy. perhaps it will become public, in time.

by 'matter wave' - i assume you mean (something analageous to) Schrodinger Wave or perhaps DeBroglie wave?

Both, but there is a difference since a solution of the Schroedinger equation is always a standing wave within an inertial reference frame, while a De Broglie wave is a Schroedinger-wave as observed from another passing inertial reference frame: i.e it is a Lorentz-transformed Schroedinger wave.

- again what do you mean by 'matter waves',

The intensity of any matter wave is proportional to its mass and gravitational energy NOT a probability distribution for a “particle”.

and when you say 'are actually' i suspect yu meant to say 'can be rewritten as' (which is not quite the same thing)?

The intensity of a light wave is proportional to it’s electric (and magnetic) energy. Since it moves with speed c it can never be staionary within any inertial reference frame: i.e. it has NO MASS ENERGY. A matter wave’s intensity, similar to that of alight wave, is also proportional to electric- and magnetic energy: But since the matter wave can be stationary, within its own inertial reference frame, the electric-energy determines its rest mass, and the magnetic energy its “spin”. Within a passing inertial reference frame the mass energy is larger since the wave has now in addition kinetic energy. It thus also now has momentum and therefore it is ONLY now a De Broglie wave.

that sounds 'about' right to me. (and i have no reason to doubt your powers of dimensional analysis). but it is merely a matter of 'categorisation' and 'chosen' parameter space. the 'wave' (/'field') paradigm seems certainly a 'desirable' thing to maintain, to the extent that it (usually) both simplifies our algebra/calculus and also enables some extension of the truth's/verifyable predictions of the theory.

directtly from wikipedia::

Matter wave
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the quantum mechanical concept of all matter having a duality model as a wave. For the ordinary type of wave propagating through material media, see Mechanical wave.

In quantum mechanics, a matter wave or de Broglie wave ( /dəˈbrɔɪ/) is the wave (wave–particle duality) of matter. The de Broglie relations show that the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum of a particle and that the frequency is directly proportional to the particle's kinetic energy.

The wavelength of matter is also called de Broglie wavelength.

i am very interested to know, however, what sort of 'formula' we will end up with once a) recent netrinos b) entanglement, have been successfuly resolved with SR (+GR). i have a feeling it we may all be 'astonished' by a new grand-theory very soon.

A new theory is LONG overdue. If it is, however, based on “wave-particle duality” and “complementarity” it will again be wrong; Just as any theory of superconduction based on the assumption that the charge-carriers MUST be bosons is wrong and will always be wrong.

I am flying back to South Africa tomorrow. So for now So Long

by 'wrong' i understand you to mean either inconsistent or incomplete, or both. “wave-particle duality” and “complementarity” are simply devices of 'categorisation'. on 'bosonic' charge carriers, you've lost me.

hope you have/had a good trip. (dont forget to pack your attomic clock)

[GIThruster]

How you could have read it and posted the paradox is not there, is hard to understand.

Not really, you are not the only one who enjoys tequila.

Naah, really Sparky; Einstein's physics follow him completely.

If some one wants to say Uncle Al was wrong, they need to have hundreds or thousands of data points on offer. Anyone who says Einstein was wrong, needs to supply serious evidence. Missing that, jerk-off disputers need to show why anyone in their right mind ought to listen to them.

[DeltaV]

If some one wants to say Uncle Al was wrong, they need to have hundreds or thousands of data points on offer.

Take another tequila shot, GIT. Your god Uncle Al is indeed fallible:
On Einstein's Later View of the Twin Paradox

[GIThruster]

If some one wants to say Uncle Al was wrong, they need to have hundreds or thousands of data points on offer.

Take another tequila shot, GIT. Your god Uncle Al is indeed fallible:
On Einstein's Later View of the Twin Paradox

Okay. gulping tequila.

Life still says Einstsein is right, and your petty dissenter is wrong.

[DeltaV]

But, but... Einstein said Einstein was wrong (in that specific area). Duh.