Re: FFiMP: Misconceptions about Special Relativity


"Surfer" <no@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3cvc34tjnqh1ejs2pi576ealc7rh45oihh@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 22 May 2008 11:20:58 -0400, "Jan Gooral"
<jmg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


But when one assumes that it is relative motion which causes the
retardation of clocks, one runs into paradoxes and contradictions.
Let's say, we have two observers C and D, who are moving relative
to one another. If C sends one of his clocks to D (so that it is now
at rest relative to D), according to C the rate of this clock will
decrease, but according to D - the rate of this clock will increase.
Obviously, the rate of this clock cannot be increased and decreased at
the same time. Some try to avoid contradictions of this kind by
implying that motion does not cause any real retardation of clocks;
but this implication is contradicted by evidence.

This is an excellent example of a contradiction.

I can recommend you look at a theory which does not have such
problems:

Dynamical 3-space: A Review
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Dynamical3Space.pdf
To be published in Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory

Abstract: For some 100 years physics has modelled space and time via
the spacetime concept, with space being merely an observer dependent
perspective effect of that spacetime - space itself had no observer
independent existence - it had no ontological status, and it certainly
had no dynamical description. In recent years this has all changed. In
2002 it was discovered that a dynamical 3-space had been detected many
times, including the Michelson-Morley 1887 light-speed anisotropy
experiment. Here we review the dynamics of this 3-space, tracing its
evolution from that of an emergent phenomena in the
information-theoretic Process Physics to the phenomenological
description in terms of a velocity field describing the relative
internal motion of the structured 3-space. The new physics of the
dynamical 3-space is extensively tested against experimental and
astronomical observations, including the necessary generalisation of
the Maxwell, Schrodinger and Dirac equations, leading to a derivation
and explanation of gravity as a refraction effect of quantum matter
waves. The flat and curved spacetime formalisms are derived from the
new physics, so explaining their apparent many successes.

More papers here:
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html

-- Surfer



In the section on generalising the Schroedinger equation, I see how gravity
is introduced. Certainly, one of the uses of solutions of the Schroedinger
equation is to model hydrogen, for example. If the PHI on the left of eq.
(13) is for the tiny mass of the proton, this contribution to hydrogen's
binding energies will be miniscule, so I am a little confused. Is the
velocity in eq. (14) from an inflow of space due to mass, the small mass of
a proton, e.g., in a hydrogen atom? It does not appear to be. It appears to
be from the Coulombic attractions that come to light when using the specific
form of the Hamiltonian for hydrogen, which I presume is the Hamiltonian on
the right of (13), for example, when (13) is applied to hydrogen, since the
gravity term is included on the left all by itself. In this case, I don't
understand the jump from the 2nd to last line in eq. (16) to the last line,
where the Hamiltonian has vanished. If eq. (17) is meant to imply that for a
bound system like hydrogen, the acceleration of an orbiting electron is
simply the gravitational acceleration induced from the small mass of the
proton, well that won't work, the gravitational acceleration is unbelievably
small and will not correctly bind the electron. I see a way out of this,
though. I think there is a way to extend Dr. Cahill's work where not only is
the relativistic fluid dynamics of space a function of mass, but is also a
function of charge. The velocity inflow for hydrogen would not be from the
mass of the proton, but rather from its charge.

Steve Bell

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: FFiMP: Misconceptions about Special Relativity
    ... retardation of clocks, one runs into paradoxes and contradictions. ... To be published in Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory ... For some 100 years physics has modelled space and time via ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Conversation with Edwin Taylor (Spacetime Physics)
    ... >> No they don't observe approaching clocks to run fast. ... Once again what you call falderall is what relativity predicts. ... If you insist that a large body of mass emitting ... Since we don't have to many astronomers ar ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: FFiMP: Misconceptions about Special Relativity
    ... retardation of clocks, one runs into paradoxes and contradictions. ... To be published in Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
    ... Note it is humanly speaking impossible to synchronise clocks to the QM ... > and of the subject of relativity. ... > Physics works on new ideas, we always need people to challenge ... It is simply a matter of clock synchronisation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: I am Trying To Learn Relativity
    ... logical contradictions in relativity. ... two directions or where the frame jumping took place. ... He thne conludes that the clocks are not synched. ... A simple one is that the rod is moving, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast