Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity


<Paradise_@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1165507340.701975.88880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Pax wrote:
<Paradise_@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1165403961.672796.55620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Paul Cardinale wrote:
Paradise_@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Although it is said that time slows down and stops at the event
horizon
of a black hole (due to the supposed fact that a local increase of
gravity slows the local rate of time flow), I intuitively disagree.
I
would expect that time would run infinitely fast at the event
horizon.
That's because time is a measure of entropy or change. Acceleration
is
a measure of change in velocity, and velocity is a measure of change
in
position. In other words, acceleration is a measure of change in the
change of position. Since a mass accelerates as it approaches the
event
horizon, the time rate of change (in position), or entropy, of the
mass
is increasing. Therefore, the rate of time flow for a mass entering
a
black hole should be increasing. I believe that the velocity of the
mass increases purely because it's local rate of time flow is
increasing.


So according to your intuition, time dilation is proportional to
acceleration.

Yes.

That is not what is observed. Your intuition is empirically wrong.

Rest snipped unread.

Paul Cardinale

A massive object's velocity increases in response to an increase of
gravitational force.

Yes, since gravity and acceleration are identical forces, according to
Relativity.

Yet, according to the standard interpretation and application of
Einstein's equations, the velocity of a massive object entering a black
hole will appear to decrease as it gets progressively closer to the
event
horizon and will actually never be observed to enter the black hole
because it will take an infinite amount of time for it to reach the
event
horizon (from a relatively stationary perspective outside the event
horizon).

Yes, I have heard just that said.

Yet, the fact is that the object's velocity should increase as it
approaches the event horizon, not decrease.

Logically, yes.

If the object's observed/measured velocity decreased in response to an
increase of gravitational force a paradox would be created. An object
cannot be accelerating and decelerating simultaneously.

Except through an illusionary effect causing what is observed to differ
from
what is actually occurring, perhaps.


I will concede that an observer may not be able to see an objects true
position due to delays in the propagation of reflected light. For the
same reason, we are not able to see the true positions of distant
stars. We see it's past state and position. Not it's present state or
position. The same would be true of an acclerated object. Yet, the
magnitude of such a delay would depend upon it's distance from an
observer as opposed to it's velocity (alone).

I really need to think about this more before I even attempt an answer...
which I may not ever have, actually. lol In the meantime, I'll just read
and, perhaps, pop in from time to time with comments.

By the way, I found your initial post very interesting, and worth further
consideration, especially since the claims re the Lorentz transformation
have always bothered me on a level I really can't articulate properly. It
seems logical to me that the transformation should only be illusory, not
actual yet, from what I can tell, it is asserted as an actual, physical
transformation.

Another of my main curiosities concerns the math: Why is it a given y' = y
when, from what I can see, it shouldn't? It appears that, since y' is also
subjected to forward movement, it should transform as well, though not as
markedly as x'.

If an object were to appear motionless at the speed of light, photons
would not propagate and massive particles accelerated in a paticle
accelerator would take progressively longer to reach a target as the
velocity is increased. Yet, THIS is not what is observed. Photons DO
propagate. And accelerated particles intersect with their targets in
less time when accelerated at increased velocities. Obviously, the
standard interpretation is "empirically wrong". Not I.

Wanted to mention I thought the above was a great bit of logic.

As an interesting aside, from the FoR of one ion in an accelerator moving
at almost c, the other ion coming at it from the opposite direction (also
moving at almost c) is approaching it at almost 2c. From the FoR of one
of the researchers, the ions are coming together at almost 2c. Yet, in a
conversation I had with a researcher from RHIC a couple of years ago, he
refused to even consider that simple observation, insisting velocities in
excess of c were not possible.

Although the relative velocity between the two particles may *appear* to
exceed c, the velocitities of the two particles does not exceed c relative
to the boundary (in other words, from the reference frame of the ZPE
"Aether").

If you take the PoV assumed in Relativity, and visualize the encounter from
the FoR of one or the other ion, both which are assume to be at rest in
their own inertial frames (once they have achieved maximum velocity), the
other ion is approaching them at almost 2c. Yes, neither of the ions, when
considered from external to their FoRs is moving faster than c, however
Relativity doesn't assume that position and, actually, neither do the
experimenters, since they rely on a collision at almost 2c in their
experiment.

I would guess it must be considered a "fictitious" problem, as Tom Roberts
alluded to in another post. However, it brings up an interesting point where
two objects in the universe are each moving at almost c. If they are moving
toward each other, would an observer on either object see the other object
approaching? From the FoR of one object, at rest in its inertial frame,
wouldn't the other object be considered to be traveling superluminally?

A similar paradox emerges for objects which are moving apart at a velocity
greater than 50% of c because the relative velocity between them is
greater than c. If the two objects are vehicles, how would the pilots
communicate? According to the laws of physics, any signal transmitted by
one would never be reached by the other.

Yes.

The solution is to use a relay transceiver which is relatively stationary
between the two vehicles to receive and retransmit signals. From the
transceiver's FoR, the vehicles are travelling at a velocity equal to or
less than c. And from the vehicles' FoR, the transceiver is "moving" at a
velocity equal to or less than c. Thus, communication becomes possible via
such a relay transceiver.

Logical.

Be well - Pax


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
    ... Acceleration is a measure of change ... in velocity, and velocity is a measure of change in position. ... I will concede that an observer may not be able to see an objects true ... expanded along the axis of motion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
    ... Acceleration is a measure of change ... in velocity, and velocity is a measure of change in position. ... I will concede that an observer may not be able to see an objects true ... expanded along the axis of motion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: If
    ... | observer as a camera, and restricting our field of view to a small ... | Since the length is changes as the rod accelerates, ... acceleration and if this is constant the force at the front is the same as ... After the initial contraction period the velocity at the front is the same ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
    ... horizon. ... a measure of change in velocity, and velocity is a measure of change ... acceleration is a measure of change in the ... this case) to appear stretched or expanded along the axis of motion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GR THEORY IS NOT EVEN FALSE!
    ... Proper local acceleration of a stationary observer ... remain at rest at the horizon. ... effect at 2m not as "infinite local gravity" but as ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading