Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity

Pax wrote:
<Paradise_@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1165770567.660298.142160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

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.

A completely coherent beam in a perfect vacuum... Odd scenario, but I would
guess dispersion with distance happens, regardless, due to the fact light is
a wave.


A wave only "disperses" due to the dissipation of energy, such as
through "impedence". Although you may already be famiilar with the term
"impedence", as it applies to EM waves, I should explain that impedence
is the AC (Alternating Current) equivalent of DC (Direct Current)
"resistance". A perfect vacuum would be a superconductor with an
impedence of zero Ohms. Therefore, a perfect vacuum would allow for the
propagation of an AC current (in the form of an EM wave) without
dissipation of the EM wave's energy, just as a superconducting circuit
can maintain a current forever without dissipation. As impossible as it
may seem, superconductors do in fact allow for perpetual motion.

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.

Yes, but it doesn't matter, reflected light is not coherent.


I refer to the measurement of parallel photon density over increased
distances (perhaps by using a polarisation filter) as a way of
determining whether photon density is affected by distance. Earlier I
surmised that it would not. Yet, after contemplating the facts, I have
decided that photon density may increase as distance increases. If I
understand correctly, an object looks smaller as relative distance
between the object and an observer increases because the photons are
condensed into a smaller area (although the energy of the EM
waves/fields would undoubtably dissipate [in an imperfect vacuum]). If
I am correct, this as an astonishing revelation. One would expect that
the distance between the photons would remain unchanged. Yet, relative
distance appears to introduce very "real" and easily
measurable/observable relativistic effects: The size and energy of an
object appears to decrease as distance from the observer increases (and
the size and energy of the observer appear to decrease from the
perspective of the object). A basic understanding of optics is required
to properly visualise what I am saying. Yet, I believe that such an
understanding is not outside of the grasp of the common individual.

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.

Not the increase in bulging at the middle as it spins.

I am referring to the CENTRIPETAL force which counteracts the bulging
you refer to. This counter-force opposing the centrifugal force of the
fluid would originate from the resistance to deformation by the elastic
material of the balloon itself. The liquid in the balloon does not have
enough mass to generate an appreciable gravitational force which would
counteract the centrifugal force of the liquid. The only centripetal
force in the balloon analogy originates solely from the elastic limits
of the material of the balloon itself.

The Earth is,
primarily, a viscous liquid.

Or so it is commonly believed. There are valid reasons to disagree with
such a belief. One reason being that the Earth's interior is under
considerable pressure. I'm sure you are aware of the relationship
between energy, pressure, density, and temperature? A gas under intense
pressure will become a liquid just as a gas which is cooled to a
sufficiently low temperature will *conDENSE* into a liquid, due to the
relationship between energy, temperature, density, and pressure.
Although it is true that temperature appears to increase when you
compress a gas, this only occurs while the molecules are being
compressed. The gas molecules are ultimately forced to liberate energy
as the density increases and this manifests in the form of an increase
of heat in the surrounding environment. This only temporary.

Although the nitrogen molecules in a tank of liquid nitrogen stored at
room temperature may exist in liquid form at room temperture as long as
the proper pressure is maintained, the molecules will absorb
considerable energy from it's environment if allowed to decompress into
a gas (hence it's freezing properties). Thus, one can clearly see that
there is a difference between the energy of liquid nitrogen and gaseous
nitrogen, although both gaseous and liquid may exist at room
temperature. The difference manifests in the form of a difference in
the momentum of the molecules. As the density of the nitrogen
increases, the distance between the nitrogen molecules decreases. The
molecules do not need to travel at the same velocity in order to
vibrate or collide at the same frequency. In fact, a decreased velocity
is required to maintain the same frequency of molecular collisions as
the distance between the molecules decreases. Thus, the molecules are
moving at a slower speed when condensed into a liquid as opposed to a
gas. In other words, the molecules have less energy in the liquid state
and are therefore "colder" than in the gaseous state. If I understand
correctlyl, this is why it has recently been announced that the Earth's
core is frozen!

Round is the most energy conservative shape,
with the least surface area, and all liquids try for it in a low-gravity
environment. In a weightless environment, rotation tends to distort liquid
drops outward, perpendicular to their axis of rotation, in direct relation
to their speed of rotation.


The only reason rotation tends to distort liquid drops in the manner
you have described is because there isn't sufficient mass for the
liquid drops to generate an appreciable counter acting centripetal
gravitational force. If the liquid drops did have sufficient mass, the
results would be different because the mechanics would be different.

In the Earth, the centripetal force is a result of gravity.

Okay... it's the force that keeps things moving toward the center of
rotation. So that's how you wound up with your hollow Earth idea?


No. My idea isn't a hollow Earth idea. I merely said that I ALSO
believe the Earth *MAY* be hollow (due to the centrifugal force causing
cavitation at the center). That is only speculation which is aside from
my main proposal that the Earth's oblate spheroid structure is due a
contraction between the poles as a result of an increased gravitational
force (relative to the relatively weaker gravitational force between
opposite sides of the equator).

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 competing forces cause a
change in density which counteracts the contraction of the surface which
would result if there were no change in density.

That conclusion doesn't naturally follow. Gravity is a real force, whereas
centrifugal force isn't.


The centrifugal force is an inertial force and inertia is the product
of gravity (whether you believe Mach's principle or the SED and
ZPE/Casimer theory of gravitation).

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.

What you are describing isn't applicable to the Earth.


Why do you object? True, the mop is not capable of visibly expanding as
a result of the outward centrifugal force so as to counteract the
inward centripetal force, as the Earth does. Yet, if it were made of an
elastic material...it would.

I suspect that a decrease in the Earth's diameter, which would otherwise
result from it's rotation, is counteracted by a decrease in the Earth's
density, perpendicular to the axis of spin which causes an expansion.

No, experiments with liquids in space prove otherwise.


As I said, there isn't sufficient mass to generate a centripetal force
which would counteract the centrifugal force. There are other reasons
experiments with liquids in spece would not apply to the Earth.

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.

You make my brain do flips. lol :)


That was my intention. One must learn to challenge as opposed to
accept. And so I appreciate your resistance to my ideas. Yet, one must
question the standard explanations as well.

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).

Yes, it's a result of inertia... thought you were trying for deeper than
that... but, guess you are with the ZPF?

Zero-Point Field
http://www.halexandria.org/dward155.htm

[Open Quote]
If the ZPF gives rise to the phenomenon of inertia, does it in some way
generate the effect of gravity? Andrei D. Sakharov suggested as much in
1968, an idea which was addressed 20 years later by Puthoff. Using
stochastic electrodynamics, Puthoff showed that if a charged particle is
subjected to ZPF interactions, it fluctuates, simultaneously causing charged
particles everywhere in the universe to also fluctuate. These fluctuations
result in electromagnetic fields, which have an attractive force between
them. This force is much weaker than the electromagnetic attractive or
repulsive forces between electric charges. It is also always an attractive
force, which suggests it is simply gravity.

The fluctuations are relativistic -- i.e. moving at velocities at or close
to the speed of light. The energy associated with the fluctuations can then
be interpreted as the energy equivalent of gravitational rest mass. Since
the gravitational force is caused by these fluctuations, physics no longer
needs the concept of a gravitational mass as the source of gravitation.
Instead, the source of gravitation is based on electric charge in motion.
[Close Quote]


Thanks for the quote. I am looking for whatever I can find concerning
the SED theory. I believe it is close to the truth, yet some underlying
assumptions are incorrect. For one, a gravitational field is not the
same as an EM field. Furthermore, gravity propagates instantaneously
(although gravity WAVES propagate at the speed of light). Gravitational
fields are not the same as gravitational waves.

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.

True, but the fictitious setting in the example given was assuming the Earth
moving at a velocity near c, not rotating at that speed.

Be well - Pax

Why would you express concern over the possibilty of the
Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation causing physical as opposed to
illusory deformation within such a fictitious scenario? There is no
reason to believe the Earth is moving at a velocity near c. Even if my
propositions are correct and the Earth were somehow moving at a
velocity near c, this would only cause an observable distortion of the
Earth were ACCELERATING as a result of a NON-GRAVITATIONAL force. If
the Earth were either moving at a constant velocity (as opposed to
accelerating) or accelerating as a result of gravitational force (as
opposed to a non-gravitational force), then there would be no
Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation (in my opinion), since the
Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation describes inertial forces. There are
no inertial forces resulting from either gravitationally induced
acceleration or constant velocities. Because rotation is a form of
acceleration, even if the speed of rotation remains constant, there
would be appreciable inertial forces and a Lorentz-Fitzgerald
transformation resulting from the Earth's spin if the Earth spun at a
velocity near c.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Einstein elevators thought experiment
    ... with an acceleration equal to that of one Earth gravity. ... signal meets the floor at a distance from the ceiling < h. ... Let Nu the frequency of the photon emitted ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einstein elevators thought experiment
    ... The light *travels* the whole distance h. ... You are using GM/Rd where d is the height of the tower. ... Let Nu the frequency of the photon emitted ... The gravity at the surface of the Sun being ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Photon Mass, Measuring Distance, and Mercurys orbit
    ... >My second question is, how exactly do we measure the distance from, ... >Finally, thinking purely in Newtonian physics here, if we measure ... >distance using a photon, and if the photon can be lensed/reshifted by ... >gravity, doesn't that imply that our measurements of distance are ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Photon Mass, Measuring Distance, and Mercurys orbit
    ... Mercury's orbit ... My second question is, how exactly do we measure the distance from, ... distance using a photon, and if the photon can be lensed/reshifted by ... gravity, doesn't that imply that our measurements of distance are ...
    (sci.physics)
  • 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)