Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity


Pax wrote:
<Paradise_@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1165515660.531866.220820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Pax wrote:

Paradise wrote:

Pax wrote:

Paradise wrote:

Paul Cardinale wrote:

Paradise 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.

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 displaced 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 material can be deformed
into a disk having a larger diameter than the sphere, if compressed.
Imagine that horizontal surface upon which the sphere 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?

Yes... but I can't accept it due to the fact the acceleration is steady in a
single direction in a straight line with x'. x' is contracted along its
entire length, therefore, if the contraction holds true, y' should not be
able to expand in the direction of acceleration regardless of malleability.


I am not saying that the object's Y axis expands along the X axis. I am
saying the object's Y axis expands along the Y axis.

An interesting visualization is a five-pointed star shape. Assume the top
point of the star has its tip pointing directly along the x' axis, so that
the star is balanced equally, with half of it (half the top point, one "arm"
and one "leg") to either side of the x' axis. The side "arms" of the star
contain both a z' coordinate and a y' coordinate, which y' is *behind* z',
away from the direction of movement.

If the y' undergoes transformation, what happens to the z' tied to it? On
top of that, the system would also have a w' coordinate, to correspond to
the sides that join to make the tip of the top point of the star, that
should also undergo transformation. What happens along that w' coordinate,
which is directly tied to the y' coordinate?

It's easy to lose the thrust of the argument concerning transformation when
considering either a round shape or a bullet shape, but a shape such as a
five-pointed star brings the process into sharp focus for me... well, at
least as concerns a transformation's required methods of action upon an
object. lol When considering all that, one can more readily understand why
Einstein decided to forget about trying to transform y' and just made it
equal to y. <grin>


I am experiencing difficulty deciphering your description. Yet, I
intuitively understand what you are saying, or so I believe. Hopefully,
the response above clarifies my perspective where this issue is
concerned?

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 the FoR of
each particle.

From collider experiments, it seems obvious both objects would still
interact catastrophically, even if they never saw each other coming. Of
course, that's *iff* the collider results translate into real world
applications.


Yes, they would probably interact catastrophically. I suspect it all
depends upon the nature of the particles. For example two electrons
accelerated towards each other would repel. The coulomb repulsion would
incease as velocity increased. The question I ask is whether the two
electrons could actually collide. Would the coulomb force prevent them
from colliding or not. I would expect that the coulomb force would
prevent them from colliding. Yet, I intuitively suspect that it is
possible for two electrons to collide. If so, I wonder whether it
becomes possible because they "see" each other as oppositely charged
due to relativistic phase inversions resulting from the relative
supraluminal motion.

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?

Sort of, but too many possibilities, so would prefer clarification. Perhaps
private email?

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
    ... 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: 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)
Loading