Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity


<Paradise_@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1165528587.016177.292690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.

I see that now. :)

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.

I'm not surprised, since I had it so screwed up. lol Perhaps it's due to
my missing the very important word "perpendicular" in Einstein's example? Of
course y' wouldn't be affected if it is perpendicular to x'. Good thing I'm
old enough to be used to getting things wrong. I was assuming a flat... y'
was... oh, nevermind. <grin>

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

Yes. Thanks for bearing with me. :)

Anyway, what happens to the angles of the star in the direction of flight?
Does the thing appear to crumple in on itself? There are some parts of the
shape that are more subject to forward acceleration than others, are they
more affected, or is the affect uniform from nose to tail, regardless of
angle?

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
increase 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.

If they are each moving superluminally in relation to the other, how could
either detect the other?

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
    ... 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 ... this case) to appear stretched or expanded along the axis of motion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_The_conception_=93acceleration=94=2E?=
    ... That's funny, because since college, I have believed that acceleration ... Mathematica" by Newton himself. ... Maxwell derived the velocity of light from the combined ... Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity ...
    (sci.physics)