Re: World without Lorentz transforms wrong

All velocities are relative, including light.
Put a *** of paper in your desk and draw a vertical line
on it as you slide it across.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Vectorvel.gif





"Josef Matz" <josefmatz@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44da7a84$0$6979$9b4e6d93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| No you have to subtract Hubble velocity v = r/T T=13.7 billion years
from
| the original velocity including normal
| Newton gravity. Then you have the true local absolute velocity.
|
| See this: A star 1.37 billion lightyears away has v=1/10 light velocity.
But
| the background radiation there is
| same as on earth nearly isotropic. So the stars absolute velocity is about
| zero or in the near of zero.
| Same happens with pioneer though its closer than a far star. And the Spin
| redshift of pioneer is nothing else
| than the stars redshift. Such simple it is. Thats the essential Pioneer
| effect.
|
| Other effects add but have different increasing and subtracting
| contributions and in total about 1/10 of
| the pioneer anomaly in worst case. Therefore Pioneer effect is Hubble
effect
| of the expanding universe.
| The expansion becomes slower with time. Therefore in the very far new
| regions of the viewable universe
| nw stars systems come into view when time increases. The universe is
| infinite. This did not fit in any physicits brain
| formerly. A universe can only be finite they all thought inclusive
Einstein.
| But the truth is : It is infinite. And because light speed is limited we
| just can few a finite part because the Big Bang was time zero. But this
| viewable part enlarges with time,
| while the universe was infinite already at or short after Big Bang. But it
| was much denser than today.
|
| Ok thats my view of things. And it fits better to the known facts than any
| GR cosmology. This simple
| SR cosmology based on infinite universe does not need dark matter.
|
| Light bending and mercury perihelion can be explained without having GR.
| Black holes do not exist.
| Singularties in metric as well not. But heavy very heavy bodies are almost
| black because the photons
| emitted fall back exept very high energy ones. And you have a weak
glimsing
| of the most very heavy objects
| But the are some which can emit very very hot radiation for very long
times
| too.
|
| So thats the picture i have. GR is dead. This also because instant signal
| tunneling has been discovered.
| All this only compatible incl. QM with an infinite universe. So this easy
| theory is fully compatibe with
| quantum mechanics. The assumption of SR that moving refernce frames all
have
| same physical evidence
| is falsified by the existence of the background radiation. A very fast
mass
| passing the earth would see
| the stars in flight direction very hot while in backward direction colder
| than you see from earth.
| So the equivalence principle in SR is wrong. c as limiting velocity is
right
| in all reference frames.
| So Lorentz transforms are wrong. They do not fit into our universe. We
| should forget them. But the velocity
| dependence of mass is right, when v is the absolute local velocity. This
| ensures that no mass object
| can exceed light velocity. In moved coordinate systems the mass depends a
| little on the velocity difference
| to the local absolute. Therefore we measure slight changes in some
| fundamental constants as the fine
| structure constant, because the earth rotates at different speeds, moves
| around the sun and sun moves
| in the galactic arm of milky way and milky way rotates and has slight
speed
| versus local background zero
| reference. This all contributes to small time dependances of the fine
| structure constant.
|
| Nice ideas or ? And one can understand nearly everything without maths
| better than with any GR
| formalism.
|
| Josef
|
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: Ivars Fabriciuss
| To: Josef Matz
| Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 9:38 PM
| Subject: Re: Do photons take part in gravity ?
|
|
| Hello,
|
| If it is pointing towards sun, does it mean that slowdown is caused by
| interaction with gravitons present in bacground radiation? Otherwise they
| should follow normal planetary calculations in Vacuum?
|
| I am little new to this issue despite my comments, what is exactly Hubble
| effect. Does it arises from expansion of universe as a force which has
| direction?
|
| Just shortly.
|
| Thanks,
| Ivars
|
|
| On 8/9/06, Josef Matz <josefmatz@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
| Its obvious that it is a Hubble effect. It points towards the sun. So it
has
| to do mainly with the expansion
| effect and the background radiation delivers the argument why it is
slowdown
| and not increase and why
| Spin is affected same way.
|
| Yes interesting very much. Pointing towards the errors in relativity.
|
| Thanks
|
| Josef Matz
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: <ivars.fabriciuss@xxxxxxxxx>
| Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
| Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 4:04 PM
| Subject: Re: Do photons take part in gravity ?
|
|
| > And here You have the answer: It has been measured.
| >
| > "One of the most intriguing mysteries in physics is the "Pioneer
| > anomaly," the slowing down of two spacecraft by an unknown force. NASA
| > launched Pioneer 10 and 11 in 1972 and 1973, respectively, and the
| > craft returned stunning images of Jupiter and Saturn. But as both
| > spacecraft continued their voyages at speeds of roughly 27,000 miles
| > per hour, astronomer John Anderson of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
| > Pasadena, Calif., noticed anomalies in telemetry data dating from as
| > far back as 1980. With continued analysis, researchers determined that
| > the spacecraft had been slowing down at a constant rate: each year they
| >
| > fell 8,000 miles short of their calculated positions. The strange
| > behavior sparked several theories, but the lack of data made culling
| > the ideas difficult. Now a proposal to analyze telemetry from the early
| >
| > years could literally point toward the correct explanation.
| >
| >
| > "The most obvious theory was that something on the spacecraft
| > themselves created a braking force--leaking gas or heat radiation,
| > perhaps. Over the years, however, researchers increasingly viewed this
| > hypothesis as less likely, and some physicists began to explore
| > possible flaws in Newton's laws and relativity. Others posited that
| > dark matter was the culprit: it might exert a gravitational or drag
| > force. A third theory embraces the idea that a minute acceleration
| > exists in the velocity of light, which might result in the appearance
| > that the probes are slowing down: if light travels faster, telemetry
| > signals arrive faster, and the craft seem to be closer.
| >
| >
| > "Anderson and theorist Michael M. Nieto of Los Alamos National
| > Laboratory have proposed a way to filter the ideas, noting the
| > interesting fact that the direction of the anomalous force would be
| > different for each theory. If the force points toward the sun, then it
| > should be a gravitational effect. If it points toward Earth, it should
| > be an anomaly relating to the velocity of light. If it points in the
| > direction of motion, it should be a drag force or a modification of
| > inertia. And finally, if it points along the spin axis of the probes,
| > it should indicate a force generated by the craft. ..."
| >
| >
| >
| > ivars.fabriciuss@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
| > > Ok,
| > >
| > > The fact they have not been measured is either :
| > >
| > > 1) too weak
| > > 2) looking in wrong place
| > >
| > > The graviton field is spreading out from each rotating mass as
| > > spherical surface with speed c^2 = m^2/s^2 - this is not linear speed
| > > but speed of gravitons beeing able to cover increased surface; may be
| > > it is 4*pi*c^2, not just c^2
| > >
| > > That means if we are looking for waves, they are surface waves which
| > > change their wavelenght proportionally to 2*pi*r.
| > >
| > > 1) it is very difficult to sigle out single source as all space is
full
| > > of such spreading spheres
| > >
| > > How to detect such stuff?
| > >
| > > I will think about it.
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > > Josef Matz wrote:
| > > > < ivars.fabriciuss@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
| > > > news:1155127979.335324.33350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > > > > I agree I do not know GR;
| > > > >
| > > > > On other hand it even can not give a reasonable and possible to
| > > > > understand model of Universe, so why shoul I learn it? To predict
| > > > > deviations of light in gravitation field? You dont need GR for
that.
| > > > >
| > > > > Graviton IS the field of photon, in Your language.
| > > > >
| > > >
| > > > In my language GR is wrong and gravitons do not exist. Fact is there
| never
| > > > has been measured one
| > > > in any laboratory. There are not spin 2 particles in the detectors
on
| earth
| > > > found up to now
| > > >
| > > > >
| > > > > Josef Matz wrote:
| > > > > > <ivars.fabriciuss@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
| > > > > > news:1155127291.764583.251810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ...
| > > > > > > Ok, photon has kind of a mass but it is not his own, it is
mass
| of a
| > > > > > > graviton which travels togehter with this photon.
| > > > > > >
| > > > > > > If photon has straight trajectory ( relatively) then graviton
| has
| > > > > > > surface trajectory - it moves as an expanding surface.
| > > > > > >
| > > > > >
| > > > > > Sir thats full *** nonsense the photon would loose its graviton
| at
| > > > almost
| > > > > > instant if it would be so.
| > > > > > You are GR idiot.
| > > > > >
| > > > > > > Therefore the mass of photon ( actually the mass (inertia) of
| graviton
| > > > > > > = dL/dt which originates from the same source - rotating mass)
| is
| > > > > > > decreasing the further it goes from origin as its inertial
| properties
| > > > > > > decrease as 1/r^2, but Moment against origin increaes as r2
the
| > > > further
| > > > > > > it goes from point of origin.
| > > > > > >
| > > > > > > But the ratio however remains constant. That is why photon has
| spin 1
| > > > > > > always.Graviton has spin 2 = also a constant
| > > > > > >
| > > > > >
| > > > > > In GR photon movement and gravitons have noting to do with each
| other.
| > > > The
| > > > > > graviton field
| > > > > > falls with 1/r**4 and is rsult of huge swining masses.
| > > > > >
| > > > > > The photon field falls with 1/r**2
| > > > > >
| > > > > > You are a GR dreamer.
| > > > > >
| > > > > > >
| > > > > > > Ivars
| > > > > > >
| > > > > > > Y.Porat wrote:
| > > > > > > > ivars.fabriciuss@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
| > > > > > > > > A photon is angular moment axis moving forward in space
with
| speed
| > > > c;
| > > > > > > > > it does not have own mass, but is linked with the rotating
| mass
| > > > system
| > > > > > > > > which is it its origin
| > > > > > > > ----------------------
| > > > > > > > i would say simply
| > > > > > > > it moves in a hellix path.
| > > > > > > >
| > > > > > > > does not have its own mass is in your immagination....
| > > > > > > > ---------------
| > > > > > > > >
| > > > > > > > > Graviton is a Pure dL/dt axis of some rotating mass
| exapanding in
| > > > > > space
| > > > > > > > > with speed c^2=9*10^16 m^2/s^22.
| > > > > > > > ----------------
| > > > > > > > ???
| > > > > > > > >
| > > > > > > > > These 2 axis are the only space coordinates initially.
| > > > > > > > >
| > > > > > > > > A particle with spin aligned with axis of black hole goes
| through
| > > > it,
| > > > > > > > > If it enters 100% straight; If it has an a spin in angle
| towards
| > > > this
| > > > > > > > > axes, it will go through, but will be tied to black hole
and
| start
| > > > > > > > > oscillating , to be eaten inevitably.
| > > > > > > > ---------------------
| > > > > > > > just to remind you
| > > > > > > >
| > > > > > > > 1 i was not spwaking on balck holes
| > > > > > > > i was speaking about ower humble earth
| > > > > > > >
| > > > > > > > 2 just to remind you we were dealing with
| > > > > > > > phtons that make attraction!! (in our humble world all
| around us
| > > > > > > > and everywhere
| > > > > > > > we touch)
| > > > > > > >
| > > > > > > > so how is your balck hole is relevant to it ??
| > > > > > > >
| > > > > > > > TIA
| > > > > > > > Y.Porat
| > > > > > > > ------------------------
| > > > > > > > >
| > > > > > > > >
| > > > > > >
| > > > >
| >
|
|
|
|
|


.

Quantcast