Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity


Pax wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in message news:leYdh.224700$Lb3.5051427@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Pax" <SherriFWhite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:LNXdh.8594$wc5.3632@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

[snip]

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.

Perhaps you don't really understand what transformations
are supposed to do.

That's always a possibility but, in this case, I don't think so.

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.

Yes, indeed... you have missed something somewhere.

What? That an affect that is due to light might be an actual physical
affect? In order to accept that premise, one must conclude that the
propagation of both time and dimensions for all objects within the universe
are tied directly to our own personal c, as calculated by our personal FoR.
That is contrary to the entire set of assertions of Relativity. It is not
logical that the universe is built in such a way as to warp itself to our
own FoR, when considering that, according to Relativity, *all* FoRs, no
matter their personal velocity, are considered equally valid... meaning the
FoR of the object under acceleration as well. Before you jump dead in the
middle of that (lol), let me clarify:


It seems many people believe the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformations are
illusory. Yet, the fact is that Lorentz believed the transformations
were actual physical deformations. I for one believe that Lorentz was
correct. Although the transformations may not always be visible, they
do occur. Inertial forces are explained by the Lorentz-Fitzgerald (L-F)
transformations.

A paradox to consider: A spinning sphere will be rotated along the axis
of rotation by the L-F transform and the circumference of the sphere
will decrease due to a change of density as atoms are compressed along
the axis of rotation. In other words, the shape of the sphere will
become an oblate spheroid as a result (with the longitudinal axis being
the axis of rotation). Yet, the observed fact is that spinning masses
deform in the opposite manner. The Earth bulges at the equator due to
the centrifugal force of it's spin. How does one resolve this paradox?
I would expect that the outward centrifugal force should be
counterbalanced by the L-F transformation. Yet the Earth bulges. Why?
Perhaps the Earth bulges not because of centrifugal force causing the
sphere to expand at the equator but because the centrifugal force is
weakest at the "poles" of rotation (as opposed to the magnetic poles)
allowing the inward gravitational force to compress the sphere into an
oblate spheroid by decreasing the distance between the poles.

What I think is happening is that, from our own personal FoR, the viewed
object undergoing transformation is "phasing out of" our detectable range,
as determined by our own velocity, rather than that actual reality is
"unbuilding" a dimension in the accelerating object's direction of movement.
Since velocity is frame-dependent, observation is as well.

What Lorentz has described, and Einstein has accepted as valid (Lorentz'
work), is that process of "phasing". Yes, we observe an actual physical
shortening, but it is due to the fact we are locked into our own "c"
reality. Our reality is *only* our reality, and may not be applied to the
reality of any other FoR moving at a different velocity from ours.

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'.

It seems that you don't understand what these variables represent.

Yes, I do, Einstein is very clear.

x' and y' are numbers.
Numbers are not subject to forward movement.
Do you know what x' and y' actually represent?

x' and y' are coordinates of K' system undergoing transformation and, as
such, are subject to movement.

To clarify, I'm talking about Einstein's example:

Einstein:
Chapter 11. The Lorentz Transformation:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/11.html

Dirk Vdm

Be well - Pax

PS - My first post to your reply might appear as well, but I'm afraid if it
does, it will be a mess, so just ignore it and follow the link I provided
above to get on the same page as me.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
    ... especially since the claims re the Lorentz ... transformation have always bothered me on a level I really can't ... which definitely causes a decrease in photon ... I would expect that the outward centrifugal force should be ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
    ... especially since the claims re the Lorentz ... transformation have always bothered me on a level I really can't ... I would expect that the outward centrifugal force should be ... believe your solution agrees with accepted physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why Einstein is the founder of special relativity
    ... > this alludes to the fact that Lorentz didn't use the "correct" transformation ... i post before only part of the quote by Lorentz. ... relativity principle as a rigorous and universal truth. ... DEFECTS OF MY work [after noted by Einstein -i already cited- that SR ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
    ... especially since the claims re the Lorentz ... transformation have always bothered me on a level I really can't ... the outward centrifugal force should be counterbalanced by the L-F ... My solution agrees with accepted physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why Einstein is the founder of special relativity
    ... Exactly Lorentz says (i repeat again now with ... > are such that the Maxwell equations after the transformation are indeed ... > transformation relate space-time measurements in two inertial frames, ...
    (sci.physics.research)
Loading