Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity


Pax wrote:
<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.

Thank you.

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.


The situation is far more complex than was outlined in my intial post.
I presently believe that a Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction may manifest
in the case of some non-gravitationally accelerated masses and would be
the result of inertial forces. For example, a rocket, where the aft is
prevented from expanding opposite the direction of motion by the thrust
force of propellent. One will therefore observe or measure a
contraction in the length of the rocket if observed/measured
perpendicular to the axis of the rocket's motion (since it's aft cannot
expand so as to counterbalance the cotraction in the fore of the
rocket). The rocket's contraction would be a real physical deformation
rather than an illusory deformation. Such a contraction may be
counterbalanced at certain (relative) velocities by the effect of a
delay between photon absorption and emission (or reflection) by visible
or detectable EM radiation which would cause the object (the rocket in
this case) to appear stretched or expanded along the axis of motion.
One must take into consideration the distance of the object on it's
apparent or relative velocity (remember what I said to you and Midjis
in another forum concerning what I shared with professor Kaku?). The
further away an object is, the slower it will appear to move. So, you
may be able to observe the physical contraction which occurs as a
result of acceleration without the contraction being counterbalanced by
an illusory expansion or stretching along the axis of motion if it
appears to move slow enough. If it is close, so as to appear to move
fast, it's contraction will be offset by the illusory expansion.

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'.


I believe you are correct. Yet the transformation along the Y axis
would be due to the effect of particles being dosplaced along the X
axis as opposed to an interaction with the Aether. In other words,
matter expands along the Y axis the same as a sphere of maleable can be
deformed into a disk having a larger diameter than the sphere, if
compressed. Imagine that horizontal surface upon which the spehere of
maleable material is compressed corresponds to the Y axis and the
vector of compression, which is perpendicular to the Y axis,
corresponds to the X axis. Obviously, the expansion of the sphere along
the Y axis is caused by the subsequent displacement of the material's
particles as a result of displacement along the X axis. Do you see?

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.


Thank you.

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?


According to SR they are travelling superluminally. I am inclined to
say that the other particle will appear to be an anti-particle from thr
FoR of each particle. This has startling implications. I dare not say
another word in this regard out of fear that I may be correct. Perhaps
you will figure out what I have in mind on your own?

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
    ... in velocity, and velocity is a measure of change in position. ... acceleration is a measure of change in the change ... expanded along the axis of motion. ... If you take the PoV assumed in Relativity, ...
    (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: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
    ... in velocity, and velocity is a measure of change in position. ... acceleration is a measure of change in the change ... expanded along the axis of motion. ... be due to the effect of particles being displaced along the X axis as ...
    (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: 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 ... I will concede that an observer may not be able to see an objects true ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading