Re: Higher decay rates would have burned the planet?

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 23:30:47 -0400, Bury Setterfield wrote
(in article <1157599847.544656.279110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):


Cygnus X-1 wrote:
Actually, the mass change does create a c-dependence in atomic radius
in a simple Bohr-type analysis. Atoms are held together as a *balance*
of forces. While the electrostatic force won't change, the electron
mass does, which alters the balance. (see paper on my site)

Well, in the Bohr atom you'll still get the energy levels as being
equal (up to a numerical factor of something like a half) to alpha^2 *
m* c^2, where alpha is the fine-structure constant, m the mass of the
electron (or its reduced mass, if you prefer.) But since masses go as
c^-2, the energy will be independent of c. (One gets the same result in
the Schroedinger equation.)


Opps! I see I forgot to scale Planck's Constant for the quantum
condition in section 5.5.3 of my paper. Need to fix that. The problem
with working too much with computational math is one seems to loose the
algebraic skills.

Where's my peer reviewer! ;^)

And since Gm is c-independent, the
acceleration of a planet is also time-independent, so its period is
constant, which seems to be the basis of BS preferring dynamical time
to atomic time.

However, if the equation from your earlier post

d(pc)/dt = cF

is correct, note that in central-force problems, there will be a force
tangential to the motion - which will act as a drag or thrust to an
orbiting body.

I think that's right for gravitational problems. I don't see the basis
for it in other central-force problems. In the gravitational case of a
circular orbit, BS theory requires the angular velocity to be constant.
That means, for m ~ c^-2, that there would have to be some hitherto
unsuspected tangential component to th gravitational force!

Of course the equations of motion aren't really part of BS theory
because BS didn't propose them himself. He hasn't gotten around to such
fundamental results, being too busy predicting the cosmological
ramifications of his theory to attend to such elementary chores. But I
did suggest those laws of motion in good faith. I can't find anything
better, or more in the spirit of BS theory.

One of the consequences of the laws of motion that I have proposed is
the conservation of the product of angular momentum and c for systems
of particles truly interacting via central forces. (So pc and Lc are
conserved, rather than the familliar p and L.I would think that should
make BS happy, since angular momentum is quantized in units of h_bar
and hc is strictly constant in his theory. So LC is a good quantum
number, and it's satisfying to a BS theorist that such a good quantum
number actually corresponds to a classically-conserved quantity.

How do you define 'truly interacting by central forces'? Technically,
even objects in linear motion have an angular momentum around arbitrary
origins that is conserved. The classical momentum scales as c^-2 which
creates problems when the quantum and classical levels can interact
(section 4.2).

And I would appreciate your feedback on my c-decay analysis. I believe
I include an analysis (supernovae reflection timing, section 2.4) that
seems to trace back to your posts prior to 2000. So many parts of that
work are based on hints/ideas from this group that I just filled in the
details. I want to make sure the proper people get credited.

Tom
--
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1
cygnusx1@xxxxxxx
"They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "archaic" view of atom structure
    ... I was told that the view of an atom as a nucleus with ... meaning there is zero angular momentum of the electron ... The only thing preventing the electron from falling into ... This means that there is going to be random motion, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Quantum Spin 1 Is it not Classical Spinning?
    ... No motion no spin. ... > electron only as a "point" TreBert ... If it has a property that transforms like angular momentum, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Charged spinning disks
    ... the radial separation between the charges. ... less space between them when in relative motion. ... (principle of relativity) ... requires the recoiling electron to know how it's supposed to respond. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Charged spinning disks
    ...  The relativity quacks get ... less space between them when in relative motion. ... relative motion of those charges and our test charge matter. ... requires the recoiling electron to know how it's supposed to respond. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Dons blog
    ... > the term 'angular momentum' or indeed anything relating to gravitation ... > for orbital motion by way of angular momentum there is no room left to ... > movement and the planet as a whole.The next step is astronomical ... >> You take it as your primary proof of expansion. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)