Ref: www.agora.demon.co.uk/dynamics.txt
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 Aug 2005 16:19:28 -0700
This article is O'Barr's comments on T3 of:
http://www.agora.demon.co.uk/dynamics.txt
An article by Tony Hollick.
Titled: Relational Dynamics
My date: 12 Aug 2005
>TITLE: A Scientific Research Programme of Relational
>Dynamics
>===============================================
>TEXT: The basis of Relational Dynamics is the single
>principle, that the laws of physics have the same
>form in all frames of reference in uniform
>translation, and are the same everywhere. It
>extends Classical Mechanics into the realms
>presently occupied by Special and General Relativity
>and Quantum Mechanics.
O'Barr comments:
Acceptable! I hope you are not saying that you
are only using one principle.
Since this approach (both your approach and mine)
is the simplest possible approach, and since
classical mechanics is the simplest possible
mechanics, then we should assume all these points
until forced to do otherwise!
This also is what is done in the at theory.
>
> Dimensional Analysis of Measure Ratios: Mass = M.
>Length = L. Time = T.
>
> [1] MATTER IN INFINITE SPACE: Material objects
>having extension exist in a space which is without
>intrinsic properties, and which exists to infinity
>in every direction.
O'Barr comments: Fairly well said. Space does have
some intrinsic properties, such as extension (itself
being 3-D), and it offers no resistance to the motion
of matter through it, and matter has mass (and thus
density, 'hardness' and inertia), and particles of
matter have a means of maintaining themselves as
particles even if they have individual spin, etc.
Thus, there must be some kind of a 'contact force' so
that matter can hold itself together as particles.
Reality is a simple compound of opposites, a
'something' versus 'nothing,' the something being
matter, and the nothing being space. The most basic
property of matter is inertia. Space has no inertia.
> [2] UNIFORM TIME WITH UNIVERSAL SIMULTANEITY: The
>elapsing of time is uniform and unidirectionally
>forward, with an instantaneous present time which
>occurs at the same moment -- simultaneously --
>everywhere.
>Signal intervals can be recalculated to achieve
>corrected accurate predictive and retrodictive data.
O'Barr comments:
I can live with what I think this says. Actually,
there is only one existence, it is only the now, and
thus, much of what you say has to be correct. Time
exists only because in our reality there is motion or
change existing, and if motion is constant, or
uniform, then time has to also be constant and
uniform to that exact same degree. Who can say what
is that allows all this?
>[3] EQUIVALENT GALILEAN RELATIVITY: All forces,
>material coordinate positions and velocities are
>relational; and all co-ordinate systems or frames of
>reference in uniform motion relative to one another
>are Galileian systems. There is no privileged or
>"absolute" reference frame. There is full addition
>of velocities across co-ordinate systems or
>reference frames.
O'Barr comments:
On the very lowest level of all, this is all
correct. But on the level where we have charged
particles, and photons (the kind of matter that we
deal with), then Lorentz transforms and assumptions
are useful. No one's science will be complete until
the simple assumptions can be shown to lead to SR
type of math.
> [4] GENERALIZATION OF THE LAWS OF MECHANICS: All
>the laws of mechanics have the same form in every
>inertial frame of reference or coordinate system.
O'Barr comments:
It is not possible to follow you here, unless I
know on what level you are speaking. On the level
where there is only matter and space, and where there
are no space reaching forces, then this is true. And
on the level where things are being controlled by an
ether, they again become true as far as math and math
measurements are of concern.
> [5] CLASSICAL MECHANICS: INERTIA: The stasis or
>movement of anything does not change unless and
>until a force acts upon it.
>
> [6] CLASSICAL MECHANICS: ACTION: A change in
>movement of anything is proportional to the force
>acting upon it, and is made in the direction of the
>force which acts upon it. (f = ma = ML/T^2; Force =
>mass times acceleration).
>
> [7] CLASSICAL MECHANICS: REACTION: For every
>action, there is an equal reaction in the opposite
>direction. (f1 = -f2).
O'Barr comments:
On the lowest level, all these assumptions are
fine. What one has to be careful about, is that on
the level of our present physics, we use tools that
can change as their velocity changes, and thus what
gets measured will appear to change, even when no
change occurs. Thus, the above points must be very
carefully considered under these conditions where
changes or differences in velocities are involved and
can affect the tools used in the measurements.
> [8] RELATIONAL GRAVITATIONAL FORCE: The relational
>gravitational attraction between massy objects is
>proportional to their masses, and is proportional to
>the inverse square of the distance between their
>centres of mass. If gravitational force should
>prove to be propagated at a finite rate, and objects
>be moving radially relative to each other, then the
>additional velocity-dependent modification for
>propagated spherical forces, Woldemar Voight's
>[1887] Doppler equations (later known as "Lorentz
>Transformations") would be required, as a first
>approximation to non-linear equations for delayed
>interaction over a distance.
O'Barr comments:
Gravity is not a force unto itself, but the
results of collective interactions of other
particles. These other particles are not unique
particles (such as gravitons), but are shared with
other particles and other effects. And these
particles do not have a 'one value' velocity.
Gravity will be not be found to be perfect in being
exactly equal to the mass or inverse square, etc.
We will even eventually accept negative gravity.
Negative gravity will not exist in the same space
where positive gravity exists, but negative gravity
can exists in space that is far removed from the
space where regular gravity exists.
> [9] RELATIONAL ELECTRIC FORCE: The relational
>electric attraction or repulsion between charged
>objects is inverse-square proportional to the
>distance between them. If "changes in electric
>force prove to be propagated at a finite rate, and
>objects be moving relative to each other, then the
>additional velocity-dependent modification for
>propagated spherical forces -- Woldemar Voight's
>[1887] Doppler equations (later known as "Lorentz
>Transformations") -- are required, as a good first
>approximation to non-linear equations for delayed
>interaction over a distance via a field of force.
>
> Coulomb's Law and Voight's equations yield
>Maxwell's equations without further assumptions, as
>proved by Leigh Page, Yale Professor of Mathematical
>Physics [1912] and [1913]. Electrodynamics is fully
>deriveable from electrostatics via Classical
>Mechanics.
<O'Barr deletes of references>
O'Barr comments:
All space reaching effects (force fields) will
have to eventually be explained as being the
collective effects of other interacting particles.
This will be similar to what LeSage tried to do, but
we will find that spalls will be the type of
collisions being experienced, not a bounce.
> [10] RELATIONAL MAGNETIC FORCE: The relational
>magnetic attraction or repulsion between north and
>south magnets is inverse-square proportional to the
>distance between them. If changes in magnetic
>force prove to be propagated at a finite rate, and
objects be moving radially relative to each other,
>then the additional velocity-dependent modification
>for propagated spherical forces, Woldemar Voight's
>[1887] Doppler equations (later known as "Lorentz
>Transformations") would be required, as a first
>approximation to non-linear equations for delayed
>interaction over a distance via fileds of force.
>
> (The [static] lines of magnetic force follow
>from the force interactions as described by
>Poisson's equations).
<O'Barr deletes of references>
O'Barr repeated comments:
All space reaching effects (force fields) will
have to eventually be explained as being the
collective effects of other interacting particles.
This will be similar to what LeSage tried to do, but
we will find that spalls will be the type of
collisions being experienced, not a bounce.
By the way, some of these interactions will result
in very strange (or different) types of force fields,
where one set of particles will appear to attract all
other particles (like gravity does), and one set of
particles will appear to repel all other particles.
> [11] QUANTIZED MASS AND ENERGY VALUE OF
>ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION:
> Electromagnetic structures which are radiated and
>absorbed ('photons') have intrinsic mass, . . .
O'Barr comments:
This one statement makes my answering worthwhile!
This is absolutely correct, if your definition of
mass is basic matter! Today, the SR experts have
changed the definition of mass. But in terms of mass
being matter, then a moving photon has matter, and
has momentum and energy because that matter is
moving, etc. There is no such thing as a massless
particle (even for a neutrinos.)
> . . . and this
> mass occurs in in multiples of a minimum mass....
O'Barr comments:
Perfect, perfect, perfect! This minimum mass
consists of two 'oppositely charged' particles, that
are able to translate through the ether. These two
particles are much smaller particles than any we
presently know about, and their charges are not
exactly the same as the charges we see on electrons
and protons, etc.
> . . . This
>mass, when in linear translation and with up to
>three axes of classical rotation, ('spins') as well
>as three degrees of vibration, gives rise to quantum
>effects. Such electromagnetic structures
>('photons') are made from the same material as other
>forms of matter - negatively charged microparticles
>(which we can call electrinos); positively-charged
>microparticles, (which we may call positrinos).
>There are also neutral (perhaps bound-pair)
>microparticles, (presently called neutrinos).
O'Barr comments:
I like your word, 'translation'! And I like your
word, neutrinos! How do you know as much as I know?
The charges that appear to be on the sub-particles
that make up a photon are not exactly the same as we
find charges to be on regular particles. At least I
have never required them to be the same.
> In free space the velocity of emittance of a
>radiated photon _relative to its source_ is constant
>at L/T = 299,792.485 + or - .0012 km/second. 'c'.
>
> E = hv, where E is the energy value of the photon;
>v is its frequency; and h is Planck's constant,
>which has the measure-ratio of ML^2/T, and is
>presently calculated as 6.6262 x 10^-34
>Joules/second.
O'Barr comments:
I am not going to argue with you. Whatever the
'emittance' velocity might have been, once the photon
inters free space, it will obtain a velocity fixed by
the space that it is in, irrespective of what
velocity it might have had at its origins, or at any
other point.
> There is accordingly a lower as well as an upper
>limit to photon mass. Relevant equations may be
>found in R.A. Waldron, [1977] and [1982].
>
> These quantized electromagnetic structures, in
>conjunction with Beckmann's [1987] theory of stable
>electron orbits, provide the basis for developing
>the quantized dynamics of particle systems,
>including atoms and molecules. (See the Carr-
>Parrinello method).
O'Barr comments:
I know that photons do have a structure, and this
structure is not of a fixed size or shape (it can
vary under many situations), though there are real
limits to its effective size.
> [12] CONSERVATION LAWS: There is full conservation
>of mass; full conservation of energy over time; and
>full conservation of momentum.
O'Barr comments:
Now I would have made this statement to be number
3 or 4, certainly much sooner than last! There is
also a conservation of number of particles. This is
not so important until you come to the phenomena of
spalls.
>
> Mass is invariant with respect to relative
>velocities, as are also length and time.
>
>=================================================
>[ Copyright Anthony Hugh Hollick, Bristol, England.
>February 28 [2000] ]
>==================================================
O'Barr comments:
Thank you for your article. Have you read my at
theory? Have you put it on your computer to test it?
Thanks again.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: How can this work in relativity?
- Next by Date: Re: GPS 'GR Correction' Myth.
- Previous by thread: Albert was a sex maniac!
- Next by thread: Space/Time/Energy characteristics .0
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
