Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity


<Paradise_@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1165531126.012135.319470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.

Yes, I certainly did. :) I didn't make it clear that it was Lorentz, not
Einstein, who considered the transformation physical. Yet I have read of
tests which have seemed to show that the transformation was physical. Where?
Lord knows, not I. Neither can I attest to it being a valid scientific
experiment, since memory fails.

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.

What I think occurs is both illusory... in the sense that, from the FoR of
the object being observed, no transformation is occurring... and physical...
in the sense that, from the FoR of the observer, the object undergoing
transformation is actually "phasing" (physically vanishing) from the
observer's personal-c-locked reality.

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.

But, wouldn't any such transformation, if it did occur, be negligible at the
rotation speed of the Earth? Besides, that would require us to be physically
experiencing something that shouldn't affect our personal frame.

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.

Yes, but I really think applying Ockham's Razor is necessary, in this
instance. The simpler explanation is the more likely: The centrifugal force
exerted on the equator is enough to warp the top and bottom inward,
deforming the sphere, due to the displacement of greater mass to the
equatorial region.

The repercussions of such a transformation being physically applied to our
personal frame are unpleasant to consider.

Be well - Pax


.

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)