Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #711230 > unrolled thread

kilogram to be redefined

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  kilogram to be redefined Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 14:54 +0000
    Re: kilogram to be redefined benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 13:26 -0400
      Re: kilogram to be redefined Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 18:07 +0000
      Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:29 +0100
        Re: kilogram to be redefined benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 16:26 -0400
          Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-03 21:48 +0100
            Re: kilogram to be redefined Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:57 +0000
    Re: kilogram to be redefined Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-11-03 16:01 -0700
      Re: kilogram to be redefined yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-11-04 00:46 -0700
        Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-04 09:00 +0100
    Re: kilogram to be redefined Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 20:23 -0700
      Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-04 08:15 +0100
        Re: kilogram to be redefined Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 01:11 -0700
          Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-04 09:35 +0100
            Re: kilogram to be redefined Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 04:34 -0800
              Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-04 14:14 +0100
                Re: kilogram to be redefined Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 19:52 -0800
                  Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-05 06:58 +0100
                    Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-05 07:37 +0100
                    Re: kilogram to be redefined Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 18:33 -0800
                      Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-06 08:19 +0100
                    Re: kilogram to be redefined Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 18:44 -0800
                      Re: kilogram to be redefined benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 21:56 -0500
                      Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-06 07:53 +0100
      Re: kilogram to be redefined yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-11-04 00:36 -0700
        Re: kilogram to be redefined Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-04 08:51 +0100
    Re: kilogram to be redefined Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 14:41 -0600
      Re: kilogram to be redefined benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 16:33 -0500
        Re: kilogram to be redefined Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 23:38 -0600
          Re: kilogram to be redefined benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 17:33 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#711814

Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Youre suggestion that "Kinematic time dilation and space-time oscillations of G. waves  are not related."Thats more or less the same as saying "inertial mass and gravitational mass are not related".

It is not a fair analogy, as in classical mechanics these masses
 are equivalent, what is far from to be true for phenomena of time
 dilation and g.  waves. In SR context, inertial mass is
 abandoned, as it is ambiguous direction dependent 
 quantity.

Some differences:
Time dilation occurs even in flat spacetime.
Time dilation is not periodic.
Time dilation affects the mean measured time intervals.

BTW, what is the supposed relation of G. waves and metre definition ?
Much more relevant is to consider mechanical vibrations affecting
 metre reproducibility.
-----

> Your comment"Every good textbook has arguments for that. The key is to realize  a motion is not absolute. "Ok, so this regards whether or not there are preferred reference frames. 

If there was a preferred frame, then there would be observed
 assymetry of properties and behaviour of objects,
depending on their absolute speed.
As this is not observed, there is good reason to suppose there is
 no such a frame.

> And without a preferred reference frame nobody can decide who is and who isnt moving. SR rejects a preferred reference frame and suffers the paradox that "your clock is running slower than my clock, while my clock is running slower than your clock". 

> No, this is SR misunderstanding. SR does not suffer paradoxes. It is the human mind that suffers, as it cannot wrap around unintuitive ideas of SR, so distant to everyday human experience.
--------
> For all practical purposes a gravitating body services all the attributes of being   a preferred reference frame, 

You confuse a frame of choice and a preferred frame. While this
 may be equivalent grammatically, they are very different
 physically.
----------
> and so this is what I have come to adopt. This more or less mashes SR and GR into a single construct, 

There is no mashing, SR is GR in flat spacetime, for what the S
 and G gives a direct hint.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711793

On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 4:28:07 PM UTC+10:30, Libor Striz wrote:
> Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > The part where this recent statement "Eventual oscillations due gravitational waves are many orders  below reproducibility of the metre length, a furthermore, the  mean value remains."
> 
> He he, it is funny, I was asking what part of the above... :-)
> ------
> > " reaffirms your original statement"The relativistic length contraction is just a space-time  projection effect for moving observer. 
> 
> Kinematic time dilation and space-time oscillations of G. waves
>  are not related. The former happens even in perfectly stable flat
>  spacetime. OTOH, for g waves time is not dilated.
> ---------
> Nothing happens to  lengths. "I assume thats its purpose?I
>  understand that we cant trust our perception of time dilation and
>  perceived length of objects.
> 
> We know that for most cases the difference is far below the
>  resolution of our measurements. Usually , measurements have to be
>  specially designed not to be.
> 
> It is question of interpretation.
> It can be also said the length of time duration is observer
>  dependent and that the "real" values for the observer in rest wrt
>  measured phenomena is just our convention.
> ----------
>  > However, I had come to the conclusion that the problem with our
>  perception is that it cant perceive the physical variation if we
>  travel to different environments alongside the object we are
>  assessing. 
> 
> There are no changes.
> -------
> > We change uniformly as the object does, so there is no contrast to perceive. 
> 
> Do you think you shrink when I start moving wrt you ?
> ------------
> 
> You have arrived at a different conclusion, that the effects of
>  length contraction are not real, but just a product of our
>  distorted perception, caused by time dilation. Do I have this
>  generally correct?Do you have a simple argument to defend this
>  view?
> 
> Every good textbook has arguments for that. The key is to realize
>  a motion is not absolute.
> 
> _--------------------
> 
> > I suggested that LIGO's method of detecting gravitational waves relys on Length contraction being a physical effect.
> 
> No, it does not.
> --------
>  Or else there would be no fluctuation in photon frequency caused
>  by LIGO's length contracted arms. 
> 
> As spacetime oscillates, it would  provide it without kinematic
>  time  dilation.
> -- 
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> 
> "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
> Miloš Forman
> 
> 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Actually, there is something I can do that might test your method of thinking. 

Question for you please?
Do you believe that time dilation imposes no physical manifestation? I ask this because length contraction would be a physical manifestation, but you refute its literal existence, right? You would dismiss it as an illusion of sorts?

Im not trying to be tricky, so I'll mention before hand. I will be interested to see if youre opinion could be changed based on an empirical derived physical observation, measurement. Can you ignore a tangible quantity in preference for your existing and preferred opinion? 

I set you this challenge respectfully

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711796

On 11/5/2018 9:44 PM, Steve wrote:
> On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 4:28:07 PM UTC+10:30, Libor Striz wrote:
>> Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>> The part where this recent statement "Eventual oscillations due gravitational waves are many orders  below reproducibility of the metre length, a furthermore, the  mean value remains."
>>
>> He he, it is funny, I was asking what part of the above... :-)
>> ------
>>> " reaffirms your original statement"The relativistic length contraction is just a space-time  projection effect for moving observer.
>>
>> Kinematic time dilation and space-time oscillations of G. waves
>>   are not related. The former happens even in perfectly stable flat
>>   spacetime. OTOH, for g waves time is not dilated.
>> ---------
>> Nothing happens to  lengths. "I assume thats its purpose?I
>>   understand that we cant trust our perception of time dilation and
>>   perceived length of objects.
>>
>> We know that for most cases the difference is far below the
>>   resolution of our measurements. Usually , measurements have to be
>>   specially designed not to be.
>>
>> It is question of interpretation.
>> It can be also said the length of time duration is observer
>>   dependent and that the "real" values for the observer in rest wrt
>>   measured phenomena is just our convention.
>> ----------
>>   > However, I had come to the conclusion that the problem with our
>>   perception is that it cant perceive the physical variation if we
>>   travel to different environments alongside the object we are
>>   assessing.
>>
>> There are no changes.
>> -------
>>> We change uniformly as the object does, so there is no contrast to perceive.
>>
>> Do you think you shrink when I start moving wrt you ?
>> ------------
>>
>> You have arrived at a different conclusion, that the effects of
>>   length contraction are not real, but just a product of our
>>   distorted perception, caused by time dilation. Do I have this
>>   generally correct?Do you have a simple argument to defend this
>>   view?
>>
>> Every good textbook has arguments for that. The key is to realize
>>   a motion is not absolute.
>>
>> _--------------------
>>
>>> I suggested that LIGO's method of detecting gravitational waves relys on Length contraction being a physical effect.
>>
>> No, it does not.
>> --------
>>   Or else there would be no fluctuation in photon frequency caused
>>   by LIGO's length contracted arms.
>>
>> As spacetime oscillates, it would  provide it without kinematic
>>   time  dilation.
>> -- 
>> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
>>
>> "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
>> Miloš Forman
>>
>>
>> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
>> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
> 
> Actually, there is something I can do that might test your method of thinking.
> 
> Question for you please?
> Do you believe that time dilation imposes no physical manifestation? I ask this because length contraction would be a physical manifestation, but you refute its literal existence, right? You would dismiss it as an illusion of sorts?

Length contraction is not a physical manifestation. Things do not change 
length.

> Im not trying to be tricky, so I'll mention before hand. I will be interested to see if youre opinion could be changed based on an empirical derived physical observation, measurement. Can you ignore a tangible quantity in preference for your existing and preferred opinion?

This is easily proved by calculating the fields from a charged rod the 
is moving with constant linear motion. If one inserts the contracted 
length into the calculation the results obtained are wrong, both from 
Maxwell retardation calculations and also from the calculations of 
relativity. The resting length must be used.


> I set you this challenge respectfully
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711813

Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> Actually, there is something I can do that might test your method of thinking. Question for you please?

> Do you believe that time dilation imposes no physical manifestation? 

No, I do not. But there is the tricky part - what is physical
 manifestation ?
The TD And LC are twins, they share the "observation dualism"
 aspects, even if for the former observation is much
 easier.

Both are physical in sense time and space intervals are frame
 dependent. The problem is, the common sense of human mind is
 fixed to the frame where object is in rest.
Both are appearant as mutual motion of object and observer does
 not affect the space and time intervals for the observer in rest
 wrt the object.

---------
> I ask this because length contraction would be a physical manifestation, but you refute its literal existence, right?

> You would dismiss it as an illusion of sorts?

No, I do not nor would not, but see above.

In light of this, I guess the challenge below is not necessery.

But I would prefer either to stick to the kilogram redefinition topic,
Either to create a dedicated thread.
---------
> Im not trying to be tricky, so I'll mention before hand. I will be interested to see if youre opinion could be changed based on an empirical derived physical observation, measurement. Can you ignore a tangible quantity in preference for your existing and preferred opinion? I set you this challenge respectfully


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711426

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 5:23:29 AM UTC+2, Steve wrote:
> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 1:24:05 AM UTC+10:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > Planck’s constant is about to be fixed, in a way similar to the way that c
> > became fixed. 
> > 
> > In so doing, the definition of the kilogram will now become determined by
> > Planck’s constant, in a way similar to how the meter is defined in terms of
> > c. 
> > 
> > Another step in the path to defining base units in terms of physical
> > constants. 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> It is immensely interesting. Defining units dependent upon what we believe are fundamentals and or constants. It forces us to really stop and think.
> 
> To do the following comment justice one needs to think in terms of human objective and subjective experience regarding "perceived time" and or "perceived length". dependent upon relativistic effects, time dilation and or length contraction.
> 
> Ok, heres the thing
> A. we take our physical meter ruler and we hold it up to measure a photons velocity. We log our result. 
> 
> B. We travel to a different location in space, near a black hole where we know Length contraction has acted upon our ruler. It has contracted our rulers length. 
> 
> C. So now we hold up our shortened ruler to measure a passing photons velocity. But the odd thing is, even though we know our ruler has shortened in length, we get the same resulting photon velocity? 
> 
> If our ruler is a variable, then how can it measure a constant as a constant?
> 
> And of course part of the answer is present within your initial post. That photon velocity is used to define the meter. They are coupled.
> 
> But, then how can you use a "constant" speed of photons to define a "variable" parameter, the meter?
> 
> If they are coupled, then both have to be constants, or both have to be variables. Right? 
> 
> We humans have to allow for what we subjectivity perceive, because we are part of the system that is being augmented by the effects of time dilation and length contraction. So we have to contrast ourselves to obtain the objective reality. Has science got subjective and objective descriptions sorted out?
> 
> Dont get me wrong, I dot question the validity of Relativity and its prescribed effects. Just questioning some of the interpretations. Interpretations are important, because thats basically our understanding of what is objectively actually occurring. So one cant be too semantic about such things.
==================================
no  length is contracted objectively 

it is the problem about how do we measure
and in what constellation 
it is  many  consociations   that are changing !!!
2
or may be we need different lengths 
to different constellations ??

===e
TIA
Y.p
===================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711428

yporat08@gmail.com Wrote in message:
 things.==================================no  length is contracted
 objectively it is the problem about how do we measureand in what
 constellation it is  many  consociations   that are changing
 !!!2or may be we need different lengths to different
 constellations ??===eTIAY.p===================

Objectively as for an observer  moving wrt the length the
 contracted length is the objective length.

Not objectively as for an observer in rest wrt the lenght  it
 remains the same, no matter how other observers 
 move.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711690

On 11/3/2018 9:54 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Planck’s constant is about to be fixed, in a way similar to the way that c
> became fixed. 
> 
> In so doing, the definition of the kilogram will now become determined by
> Planck’s constant, in a way similar to how the meter is defined in terms of
> c. 
> 
> Another step in the path to defining base units in terms of physical
> constants. 
> 
> 


Kibble Balance  (measured how much kilogram was off)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibble_balance#/media/File:NIST-4_Kibble_balance.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibble_balance



since the Kilogram is off, so are pounds and gallons

Gasoline prices will increase by 10^-34

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711697

On 11/5/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 11/3/2018 9:54 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Planck’s constant is about to be fixed, in a way similar to the way that c
>> became fixed.
>>
>> In so doing, the definition of the kilogram will now become determined by
>> Planck’s constant, in a way similar to how the meter is defined in terms of
>> c.
>>
>> Another step in the path to defining base units in terms of physical
>> constants.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Kibble Balance  (measured how much kilogram was off)
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibble_balance#/media/File:NIST-4_Kibble_balance.jpg
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibble_balance
> 
> 
> 
> since the Kilogram is off, so are pounds and gallons
> 
> Gasoline prices will increase by 10^-34
> 
Hey wait a minute. Gravity isn't a constant. It varies all over the 
planet! Seems to be what you want is a Kibble inertiaometer!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711810

On 11/5/2018 3:33 PM, benj wrote:
> On 11/5/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 11/3/2018 9:54 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> Planck’s constant is about to be fixed, in a way similar to the way
>>> that c
>>> became fixed.
>>>
>>> In so doing, the definition of the kilogram will now become
>>> determined by
>>> Planck’s constant, in a way similar to how the meter is defined in
>>> terms of
>>> c.
>>>
>>> Another step in the path to defining base units in terms of physical
>>> constants.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Kibble Balance  (measured how much kilogram was off)
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibble_balance#/media/File:NIST-4_Kibble_balance.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibble_balance
>>
>>
>>
>> since the Kilogram is off, so are pounds and gallons
>>
>> Gasoline prices will increase by 10^-34
>>
> Hey wait a minute. Gravity isn't a constant. It varies all over the
> planet! Seems to be what you want is a Kibble inertiaometer!

true, you can eat an extra doughnut in the swiss alps, and still weight
the same.


ALERT !!     Huge Shortage of good strong Gravity in Outer Space !

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711870

On 11/6/2018 12:38 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 11/5/2018 3:33 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 11/5/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2018 9:54 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Planck’s constant is about to be fixed, in a way similar to the way
>>>> that c
>>>> became fixed.
>>>>
>>>> In so doing, the definition of the kilogram will now become
>>>> determined by
>>>> Planck’s constant, in a way similar to how the meter is defined in
>>>> terms of
>>>> c.
>>>>
>>>> Another step in the path to defining base units in terms of physical
>>>> constants.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kibble Balance  (measured how much kilogram was off)
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibble_balance#/media/File:NIST-4_Kibble_balance.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibble_balance
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> since the Kilogram is off, so are pounds and gallons
>>>
>>> Gasoline prices will increase by 10^-34
>>>
>> Hey wait a minute. Gravity isn't a constant. It varies all over the
>> planet! Seems to be what you want is a Kibble inertiaometer!
> 
> true, you can eat an extra doughnut in the swiss alps, and still weight
> the same.
> 
> 
> ALERT !!     Huge Shortage of good strong Gravity in Outer Space !
> 
Perhaps we can export some of our "peak gravity" that is affecting the 
kilogram standard?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web