Room-temperature superconductivity?

[tomclarke]

I did NOT ASSUME this at all. What I pointed out clearly is that the electron phase within the gap is one-half of a dipole layer across the surface of the diamond: And as anybody who calls him/herself a physicist, and even a high school kid will know, a dipole layer forms in order to cancel an existing electric field. Thus when applying an electric field between the diamond and the anode, the dipole adjusts UNTIL EQUILIBRIUM IS REACHED: AND THIS IS REACHED WHEN THE DIPOLE FIELD CANCELS THE APPLIED ELECTRIC FIELD. Thus after reaching equilibrium there is no NET electric field within the depletion layer below the surface of the diamond NOR within the electron phase between the diamond surface and the anode. What my experiment shows is that although it is physically impossible for an electric field to be present within the electron phase, charge is still transferred from the diamond to the abode. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A BETTER PROOF FOR SUPERCONDUCTION EVER!!!!

I may be seeing this out of context, but:

(1) you argue theoretically field must be zero (which normally implies superconductor) and use this to prove existence of superconductor

(2) A dipole forms which cancels field on the inside of the dipole. But this cancellation is not usually perfect. We would need to investigate carefully what conditions exist (such as superconduction) to make this perfect. Again, you seem to be assuming the result you want to prove!

[DeltaV]

Further, the people who do experiments look at data and can determine the variance (due to unknown unknowns) from the data. Remember they have controls.

The controls are likely sitting in a nice, quiet bunker somewhere, not jostling about in an airplane. With nonlinearity, all bets are off. Statistics can become Voodoo.
Nonlinear effects can cross-couple in myriad ways that data analysts are not even aware of. An airplane is not a good environment for this sort of experiment.

I don't understand this. I have never disagreed with this tenet. I think you are not following the physical arguments?

If you agree with the tenet, then how can two identical clocks, each in an inertial frame, obey different laws of physics and age at different rates?

Don't give me that claptrap about how the rate comparison is meaningless because there is no absolute time. It may be meaningless if you accept Minkowski saying that a time value is just like a component of a spatial vector (+/- signature excluded) and can vary from spatial point to spatial point within the same inertial frame.

But if you accept that time is an independent (of space) scalar, with the same value at any space point within the same inertial frame, then there is no problem with comparing time in two different inertial frames.

There is an "absolute" time rate, in the sense that a time rate measurement from within an inertial frame will have the same value when measured from within any other inertial frame.
If this were not true, then different physical laws would apply in different inertial frames.

Ah - that was Paul, the clock thumper.

Paul? GIT is not Paul March, I hope.

But, you see, your arguments apply equally to me. And I enjoy calculus, whether Analysis II, or Tensor. Take your pick. Not that they are very relevant in this problem. I would say vector spaces with non-metric inner products is more relevant. I also like vector spaces.

Calculus is not very relevant for the Lorentz transform, i.e., the extrinsic, geometric, kinematic, apparent observations made between moving frames.

It is very relevant for the intrinsic, dynamical, physical-law-based aging within an inertial frame.

The mistake that you and GIT are making is replacing the intrinsic calculus with the extrinsic geometry.

The Lorentz transform is an instantaneous projection, not involving calculus. The aging dynamics of some object within an inertial frame involves "memory" (integration), or calculus.

I have to go back to having a life now, so I won't be able to reply for a while. GIT, you're free to resume character asassinations.

[Teemu]

Well maybe term assume was not good, use might be better. You used equations that are based on ideal metal model, ideal electron gas model, which can give in certain limits useful results, like equations based on ideal physical gas model, but doesn't really represent physical reality so it gives crap like electron density rising to infinity.

[tomclarke]

If you agree with the tenet, then how can two identical clocks, each in an inertial frame, obey different laws of physics and age at different rates?

sigh. They don't...

Don't give me that claptrap about how the rate comparison is meaningless because there is no absolute time.

I'm ging to give it to you, cos you don't understand how all-important that statement is.

It may be meaningless if you accept Minkowski saying that a time value is just like a component of a spatial vector (+/- signature excluded) and can vary from spatial point to spatial point within the same inertial frame

But if you accept that time is an independent (of space) scalar, with the same value at any space point within the same inertial frame, then there is no problem with comparing time in two different inertial frames.

Right, so if we live in Newtonian space + time, you have absolute time. But we don't.

There is an "absolute" time rate, in the sense that a time rate measurement from within an inertial frame will have the same value when measured from within any other inertial frame.

I don't know what this means. How do you define it experimentally? Anyway, it is wrong if it means what I suspect you think nit means.

If this were not true, then different physical laws would apply in different inertial frames.

Why? there is no requirement for canonical simultaneity to be defined between different farmes, or absolute time, in oder for physics to be the same in all frames.

You are thinking that different time rates => different physics.

(a) that is not true. You can have length and time contraction and preserve exactly all physics.
(b) all is relative. You are not saying absolute time runs slower, because tehre is no absolute time. So there is no difference in physical laws.

The source of your long long misconceptiuon on this thread is your idea that space-time can be separated into space and time.

The whole point of Minkowski space-time is that it cannot. That is not a mathematical device, but a physical reality. And it is a logical consequence of the fact that c is constant in all frames of reference.

You can't easily understand it without looking at the maths. That is a 4D vector space with a bilinear form which is nondegenerate but not positive definite (so not really a metric). In Euclidean space (even 4D) you can't have light cones which have zero diatnce all along the cone.

But if you stare at all the pictures of light beams trying to synchronise frames of reference you get some idea.

We assume spacetime should be metric of course. That is why SR is so counterintuitive.

[ladajo]

Paul? GIT is not Paul March, I hope.

I don't see any Paul March in posts by GIT. Very different personalities, it would very much surprise me to find out GIT is a Paul March Sock Puppet.

[ladajo]

I am currently looking for something that speaks to Atomic clocks not only at 11k miles, but also say twice that in some other type of bird, as well as out at Geo. I am wondering if someone has looked at these to compare clock rates against SR/GR predictions. I can't imagine that we do not have birds with onboard clocks in various orbits. I would love to see the transmitted operating data from a clock riding a Molniya bird.

If I find something I will post it.

[ladajo]

Well that was easier than I thought...

Relativistic effects in GPS and LEO
Mikkjal Gulklett
October 8, 2003
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Department of Geophysics
The Niels Bohr Institute for Physics, Astronomy and Geophysics
Supervisors: Carl Christian Tscherning and Poul Olesen

http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~cct/thesis/Speciale1.pdf

[tomclarke]

Paul? GIT is not Paul March, I hope.

I don't see any Paul March in posts by GIT. Very different personalities, it would very much surprise me to find out GIT is a Paul March Sock Puppet.

entirely my fault. Just a mistake.

[tomclarke]

Well that was easier than I thought...

Relativistic effects in GPS and LEO
Mikkjal Gulklett
October 8, 2003
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Department of Geophysics
The Niels Bohr Institute for Physics, Astronomy and Geophysics
Supervisors: Carl Christian Tscherning and Poul Olesen

http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~cct/thesis/Speciale1.pdf

From Chapter 4:

SR time dilation: 2.5E-10
GPS clock accuracy 1E-14.

25,000X larger than clock errors.

I just want to know when DeltaV & Johan will stop making obviously absurd assertions about this.

[GIThruster]

. . .and finally, and most perniciously, the bias of true-believer Clock Thumpers such as yourself, who are willing to sacrifice a basic tenet of Special Relativity (that physical laws are the same in all inertial frames) so that they may cling to their precious differential aging.

You misunderstand, DV. It is because the laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference, that time passes differently based upon relative velocity. SR and the twins are protecting the laws Johan wants to break.

As to your disregard of the evidence, I think Tom answered you better than I would, if I didn't think answering you further was a waste of time at this point. Even if you got your experiment in a tunnel, you'd have an objection, and the constraints you would place on an experiment are truly unnecessary and ridiculous. How you can hold this opinion, and at the same time support Johan's claims when he won't even do a simple 4-point test--the industry standard for demonstrating superconductivity--is beyond me.

[GIThruster]

The only sort of experiment that will resolve the Twin Paradox is one such as Johan suggested, where two identical atomic clocks (with, I would sincerely hope, an improved, much more linear and robust design), one fixed and one moving, are placed in a (slightly vertically curved) tunnel with constant gravitational potential and very carefully controlled temperature, pressure, humidity, etc.

This is not a trivial engineering challenge, but seems doable.

There are just too many variables with the airplane experiments for them to be relied upon.

Paradoxes are not "solved" by experiment. Paradoxes are pairs of mutually exclusive premises. They are "solved" with a logical explanation, not an experiment.

Experiments provide factual information. We already have enough of that and your statements to the contrary do not change this.

[parallel]

I'm not clear how this fits in, but thought it worth mentioning as it supports my previous view that Meade was right and "particles" are really waves.
I'm curious to know how the consensus atomic model scientists view this.
See Quantum theorem shakes foundations
http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-theo ... ons-1.9392

[DeltaV]

Well that was easier than I thought...

Relativistic effects in GPS and LEO
Mikkjal Gulklett
October 8, 2003
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Department of Geophysics
The Niels Bohr Institute for Physics, Astronomy and Geophysics
Supervisors: Carl Christian Tscherning and Poul Olesen

http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~cct/thesis/Speciale1.pdf

From Chapter 4:

SR time dilation: 2.5E-10
GPS clock accuracy 1E-14.

25,000X larger than clock errors.

I just want to know when DeltaV & Johan will stop making obviously absurd assertions about this.

From page 12 of the same document (emphasis mine):

At this point an observation regarding the time dilation may be useful. Very
often it is described in a way, which suggests that we are dealing with a physical
effect upon the moving clock. This is misleading, because clocks always
measure proper time. It is not a physical effect in the clock the time measures
appear to slow down as its velocity increases relative to the observer. It is
merely a metric effect due to the transformation from one system to another.
The same clock will appear to tick at different rates if seen from different
reference frames. Thus the effect is not located in the clock, but is purely a
metric effect due to the relative motion of the chosen reference frames..

Which is what Mendel Sachs, Johan and I have been trying to tell you.

So simple logic (if you can handle that) means that if two initially synchronized, perfectly accurate satellite and ground clocks were both brought to rest in the same frame, then they would show equal elapsed times (excluding GR effects due to a changing gravitational potential, which do cause an elapsed time difference, but SR does not).

I just want to know when Tom & GIT will stop making obviously absurd assertions about this.

[ladajo]

Maybe this will solve it once and for all...

http://news.discovery.com/space/time-pr ... 10223.html

[ladajo]

This is an interesting read:

See this article on page 6: "The twin paradox in a cosmological context"

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/index.ph ... tents.html

and then as far as CERN goes, I found this guy who thinks it is GPS induced...

http://www.universetoday.com/89933/spec ... o-mystery/