Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity


Pax wrote:
<Paradise_@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1165613566.544176.32780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Pax wrote:
<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.

Although I disagree with you about the L-F transformation not producing or
being the product of any physical stresses, I do agree with you that the
accelerated object would begin to vanish from the point of view of an
observer with a line of sight perpendicular to the axis of the object's
motion since the number of reflected photons per unit of space would
become less dense as velocity increased. In other words, the object would
appear to become "dim". One must take into consideration that this would
only be true for an object moving perpendicular to the line of sight or
away from the observer, not towards the observer (not even to the
slightest degree towards the observer). I'm not sure whether distance
from the observer would have any effect on the brightness of the
acclerating object. I would say no, that distance would have no effect on
it's brightness. Yet, I am not sure at this time.

Sure it would, at least for the observer. Further away, less photons from
the object hitting the observer, same as with stars.


I understand what you are saying. Yet, the brightness of stars
diminishes over distance due to the inverse square law which dictates
that there will be a decrease in amplitude as a result of the photons
follwing divergent paths, which definitely causes a decrease in photon
density per unit of space. I wonder: Would a perfectly collumnated
laser beam diminish in intensity if projected through a pure vacuum? I
would expect that the field intensity of a laser also diminishes in
intensity over distance due to the progressive decoherence of the
virtual particles comprising the beam. The number of real photons may
remain the same, yet the amplitiude would diminish since the number of
virtual photons comprising the beam would decrease over distance. I'm
not so sure that the field intensity would decrease over distance
according to the inverse square law, since that appears to be based
upon a decrease in real photon density as a result of photon
divergence. Since the photons of a perfectly collumnated laser beam
would not diverge, I would not expect the inverse square law to apply.
Rather, I suspect the beam intensity would decay at half the rate of
incoherent light. Of course, the decoherence of virtual photons may be
a product of an imperfect vacuum. A perfectly collumnated laser beam
might not decay in intensity at all in a perfect vacuum.

There also seems to be a relationship between frequency and amplitude,
since the refraction of light is dependent not only on frequency but
amplitude as well. It is said that photons do not have amplitude, that
they only have frequency. The energy of a photon is supposedly
dependent only upon it's frequncy...whereas the energy of EM radiation
is a product of both frequency and amplitude. The amplitude of EM
radiation is supposedly the product of a photon density. Yet, in light
of the fact that refraction is also dependent upon amplitude, I suspect
that the amplitude of EM radiation is ultimately dependent upon the
virtual photon density of the EM radiation. In fact, I suspect that
both frequency and amplitude of EM radiation is a product of virtual
photon density. I say this because I presume the dependence of
refraction upon both frequency and amplitude also applies to a single
photon such as a collumnated laser beam. If a perfectly collumnated
laser beam decays in amplitude over increasing distance, I would
suspect the same would be true of a single photon. This would imply
that a photon does have an amplitude which is dependent upon the
virtual photon density/coherence of a "real" photon.

Regarding the subject of whether or not relative distance would have
any effect on the moving object's brightness, I propose a thought
experiment to obtain an answer. Imagine that we are measuring only
photons having parallel paths and taking into account the effect of
distance on field intensity to subtract the effects of distance on
field intensity. Would the relative distance between the object and an
observer have any effect on parallel photon density? I don't believe
so.

In fact, I am wondering whether relative distance would have any effect on
the illusory stretching or not. Intuitively, I am inclined to say no.
Relative distance would not have any effect on the absorption and emission
of photons.

No, not for the object, but it would have an effect on how much light is
intercepted.

And for the same reason, I don't believe relative distance would have any
effect on the brightness of the object, since the brightness would be a
function of the density of reflected photons per unit of space (although
one should take into consideration the possibility of the wavelength of
the photons increasing over distance which would affect the number of
photons per unit of space since photon size corresponds to the EM
wavelength).

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?

I believe that inertial forces are the result of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald
transformation. In other words, inertial forces are Lorentz forces (which
arise as a result of the charges comprising matter interacting with the EM
field generated by ZPE flux). For more information, I suggest you research
the information available in the following links:

http://www.google.com/search?q=lorentz+force+inertia&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/LorentzForce.html

Besides, that would require us to be physically experiencing something
that shouldn't affect our personal frame.

Inertial Lorentz forces are the result of absolute motion relative to the
boundary (or the aether of the EM field of ZPE flux).

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.

I don't believe my solution is any more complex than what you have
suggested. My solution agrees with accepted physics, which recognises that
the centripetal and centrifugal forces would be equal yet opposite
(according to Newton's Third Law of Motion). No offense, but I don't
believe your solution agrees with accepted physics.

Fill a balloon with water and spin it. It will bulge in the middle and
compress at the top and bottom. :) Contained liquids do that as a result of
centrifugal force, and the Earth is mainly a viscous liquid with a crust
about the thickness of a balloon's rubber surface when filled to tautness.
Yes, the centrifugal force is weakest at the top and bottom, but centrifuges
count on the fact the force lessens toward the center of rotation.


The Earth is not a balloon. There is a vast difference between the
ballon analogy you use and the Earth. The centripetal force in your
balloon analogy occurs purely as a result of the elastic limits of
ballon's elastic material itself. In the Earth, the centripetal force
is a result of gravity. Perhaps I didn't explain my idea properly.
Allow me to explain again. When the Earth rotates around it's own
center of gravity, it experiences inertial forces which cause the
surface of the Earth to be pulled in the direction opposite the spin.
This is the centrifugal force. The centripetal force is the result of
gravity originating from the matter rotating near the center of the
Earth, which pulls upon the matter above it so as to rotate it along as
well. These two competeing forces cause a change in density which
counteracts the contraction of the surface which would result if there
were no change in density.

To see what would happen to the surface of the earth, rotate an
old-fashioned cotton fiber mop so that the axis of spin is the
longitudinal axis of the mop handle. The mop head would spin and the
fibers would be angled opposite the direction of spin rather than
straight outward from the center, as a result of inertia. The faster
the mop is spun, the more angled the fibers will become, reducing the
diameter and radius of the mop. If you spin the mop fast enough, the
fibers will tightly wrap completely around the mop and the
diameter/radius will be much less than if you were to rotate the mop
slower. I suspect that a decrease in the Earth's diameter, which would
otherwise result ifrom it's rotation, is counteracted by a decrease in
the Earth's density, perpendicular to the axis of spin which causes an
expansion. This decrease of density (and the resulting expansion) would
be greatest at the equator (where the contraction would otherwise be
greatest)...and is minimal at the poles (where the contraction is also
minimal). I may be wrong and there may actually be some residual
contraction of the diameter of the Equater as a result of the rotation.
Yet, I remain confident that the Earth is an oblate spheroid because
the force of gravity is strongest at the poles (of rotation) which
causes the diameter between the poles to decrease relative to the
diameter of the Equator...and not solely because of an expansion due to
centrifugal force at the equator.

Now, if you're trying to find the "Why?" behind what makes centrifugal force
work in the first place, that's a different matter... and one I really can't
comment on. :)


The centrifugal force is a result of inertia. Inertia is a Lorentz
force resulting from the interaction of a mass with the Zero-Point
Field (ZPF).

You may find it ironic to hear me complain about an idea not agreeing with
accepted physics, yet my ideas do ultimately agree with accepted physics,
although they may expand upon the exsisting standard or challenge the
incorrect understanding of many improperly educated minds.

Physics should agree with nature, if it doesn't, it's wrong, not nature.


Amen.

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

Perhaps you could be more specific?

Because everything would look funny? lol I read something written by a
contemporary of Einstein's to explain (to school children, I think) what
happens to ourselves and the world as the velocity of our frame gets close
to c. Perhaps you've read it? It describes everything and everyone becoming
compressed, rather like the picture on a TV when you view it from the side.
From what I gathered, the writer took it to be an actual, physical affect.


The rotation of the Earth is far from c.

But, honestly, I think it would violate the basic premise of Relativity...
the "everything's relative" part.

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 ... I would expect that the outward centrifugal force should be ... believe your solution agrees with accepted physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • velocity of light in the Lorentz equations
    ... >> scientists tell us that the coordinates of the photon are given by ... >> To find the velocity of the photon in K, we divide x by t to get c. ... >> the Lorentz equations. ... > light cones imposes on the most general transformation and then ...
    (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 ... the outward centrifugal force should be counterbalanced by the L-F ... My solution agrees with accepted physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: time intervals
    ... If indeed it is more accurate than the Lorentz ... transformation, it will be in fact be a "winning transformation." ... There is no distance contraction. ... takes a photon to travel from the origin of a set of coordinates to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
    ... transformation have always bothered me on a level I really can't ... the fact is that Lorentz believed the transformations ... I would expect that the outward centrifugal force should be ... as determined by our own velocity, rather than that actual reality is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast