Subject: Re: Gravity and Electromagnetism
From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner)
Date: 8 Dec 1996 02:56:05 GMT
In <58cs1j$ne8@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen
Meisner) writes:
>
>In <32A9A11A.66D4@club.innet.be> Marc Verkruysse
> writes:
>>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Hallo, I do not believe that gravity or gravitomagnetism has
something
>>to do with electrical charges at all.
>>But if you take the formula's of Lienard-Wichard, formula's that
>procure
>>us the magnetic forces acting upon and electrical charge due to
linear
>>movement and acceleration... These are the formula's that take into
>>account the retarding potentials and influences ... because of the
>>limited velocity of (electromagnetical and gravitational signals )...
>>If you change the electrical charge things and formulas to the analog
>>things for mass and gravity then, by assuming some simplifications to
>>the shape of the universe you get formulas like:
>>
>>1) F = const.m.a (2nd law on Newton ? NO ! :when mass under test m
>>accelerates with acceleration a than F seems to be the force exerted
>by
>>the masses of the universe, following Mach's idea)
>>2)F' = const.v ( v is the constant velocity of mass m under test
>and
>>F' seems to be the force... exerted by the same masses of the univers
>:
>>strange formula while controversial to the law of inertia, but what
if
>>in this formula the constant is extremely small, so small that we
>cannot
>>notice it with earthly experiments ...?)
>>
>>Remember that magnetic forces are only a second order effect due to
>>motion and acceleration of electrical charges, in the same way
>>gravitomagnetism (that has nothing to do with electrical magnetism at
>>all but could be similar to it) would be a second order effect of
>moming
>>masses and their accelerations. When you realize that we need a huge
>>mass (the earth, the sun ... ) to prove the gravitational forces
>>excerted by to masses to each other then the proofs for gravito-
>>magnetical forces are even more far away. This seems to me the main
>>reason that gravitomagnetism and its proofs for gravitation is not
yet
>>covered by our schoolbooks !
>>
>>Marc VERKRUYSSE, Belgium
>
> Yes, this is exactly the sort of thing I have been looking for,
>because there is something bothering me about some ideas I have. The
>problem, as I see it, is why, in Newton's force and impulse laws, is
>the acceleration only a function of mass and not of both mass and
>charge? Charge is just as much a physical entity as mass. With regard
>to neutral bodies this is not a problem. The effects of the positive
>and negative charges cancel each other. But why does the acceleration
>due to a force or impulse on a charged particle depend only on the
mass
>and not on both the mass and charge? You cannot say that charge and
>mass are different dimensions because in Coulomb's Law the
acceleration
>due to electrostatic forces is a function of both mass and charge. Why
>in Newton's Laws is the acceleration a function only of mass? For
>example if you shoot a neutron at a deuterium nucleus, the change in
>momentum is only a function of mass. Can the eqautions that you give
>above account for this anamoly? In other words can the equations you
>give above be interpreted as saying that the accelerations are indeed
a
>function of both mass and charge? Any thoughts anybody? A reply would
>be greatly appreciated.
>
>Regards,
>Edward Meisner
I think now that I have an answer to this problem, but I will have
to correct some errors I have made. I think now that in Coulomb's Law
the acceleration is a function of mass alone. Here is my reasoning.
Let's go back to Mr. Oakley's model of the atom. He said that mass is
electromagnetic energy rotating in an orbital fashion. I made the
amendment that mass is the stationary energy and that the orbital
kinetic enewrgy of the mass gives rise to charge. The mass therefore is
producing a kinetic field. The kinetic or inertial field of the mass
energy is a linear distortion of spacetime, as I have explained in
previous posts. Charge is the kinetic energy of the mass. In other
words, charge is not an energy in itself that gives rise to the
electrostatic curvature. Charge is the electrostatic curvature. Charge
is nothing more than the kinetic energy field of the mass as it
propagates in an orbital fashion. The linear distortion of spacetime of
this kinetic energy field converts to an curvature in spacetime due to
the orbital motion of the mass. Say we had two charged particles. The
charges of the two particles are merely the electrostatic curvatures.
The accelerations of the two particles follow the geodesics of the
electrostatic fields. There is therefore no charge energy to react to
these curvatures, since the charges are the curvatures themselves. That
leaves only the mass energy to respond to the spacetime curvatures.
This can be applied to forces or impulses that are caused by
collisions or contact reactions. These forces are described by Newton's
laws, in which the accelerations are a function only of mass. How is
this so, if the molecules or atoms really come into contact with each
other? If this were the case then the kinetic energy of the mass, that
is, the charge energy, would indeed play a role in the accelerations.
However, I do not think that atoms or molecules ever come into contact
with each other. I think momemtum is really due to the inertial kinetic
energy field, which is a linear distortion of spacetime. A force or
impulse is really the transfer of kinetic energy between one system of
atoms and another. When two systems of atoms collide, the linear
distortion of the inertial field of a system is imparted to the other
system.
Edward Meisner
Subject: Re: Vietmath War: war victims; blinded victims
From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 8 Dec 1996 03:29:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Vietmath War: war victims; blinded victims
From: jpb@iris8.msi.com (Jan Bielawski)
Date: 1996/12/03
Message-Id:
References: <579f9n$vv8@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
<57ij0k$sga@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Organization: Molecular Simulations Inc.
Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.physics,sci.math
In article <57ij0k$sga@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
< In article
< jpb@iris8.msi.com (Jan Bielawski) writes:
<
< > Archie, did I ever tell you my most favorite Natural Number is
< > .....55555655556555655656. because my casio watch beeps at odd
< > hours of the day such as 55 minutes into the hour. But I am
< > beginning to see the light!!! That Naturals = Finite Integers
< > is as fake as well, as fake as the Flat-Earth theory and so
< > who cares about what the corners or edges of the Earth are.
< > They do not exist, same as Fermat's Last Theorem is a
< > nonproblem since Finite Integers do not exist.
<
< I don't know about your casio watch. Have you tried unscrewing
< the back plate and taking the battery out for a brief second,
< thereby defaulting the watch back to ground 0 and you can
< reprogram the watch from that point? I too, do not save any
< instructions.
<
P-adics makes so much difference in my life. Fermat asked a question,
a phony question, just like all the phony questions about falling off a
Flat-Earth
when you reach a corner or edge of Earth.
We could never expect Fermat to realize that his FLT was as phony of a
problem
as what the edge of a Flat Earth is phony or what the epicycles of
comets is a phony problem or action-at-a-distance in Newtonian physics
is a phony problem.
< Just like physics where it is hoped that the laws discovered match
the
< reality of the physical world and those laws are changed to ever come
< into closer agreement with the physical reality. Mathematics is the
< same way, we have to change and modify the axioms until they fit the
< real and true mathematics that exists independent of us.
Thank you Archie for making me realize that since Finite Integers is a
phony
idea just as Flat Earth is a phony idea that I can now drop another
phony question--- FLT. How may I serve you Archie?
--
Jan Bielawski
****
That is a fine gesture Jan. You could go to Ken Ribet there in
California, nearby you and ask him to prove that the Successor
postulate of Peano Axioms is not in conflict with Math Induction. I
doubt that he will pay any attention to you for he is a math pigeon.
One who thinks he has made a name for himself in mathematics but come
to find out that is work is either piddle paddle little chickshit or
utter wrong. And report back here on the Net what Ken Ribet says to
you.
Subject: Calculating Launch-Windows and Paths of Projectiles in the Solar System.
From: "Nick Kallen"
Date: 8 Dec 1996 03:57:04 GMT
I'm considering, as a school project, to write a moderately-sized
application to calculate launch windows and the path of projectiles
(satellites) in the soloar system (for inter-planetary space-travel). I
once saw some image or video of a similar NASA application that they use to
calculate launch-windows, et al, so they know when to launch a satellite
for an optimum path -- a path where once the satellite is out of earth
orbit, gravity will provide all the energy needed to get to a planet. I
want, in essence, to do this.
I do know a little about how its done--some moderately complicated
differential equations. Can anyone perhaps provide data on this procedure,
or pointers to web sites, books, etc. where I can find the algorithms
necessary? Perhaps there are applications, source code, etc. that already
do this?
Please respond via email.
phantom@earthlink.net
thanks for any responses.!
-nk
Subject: Mystery Found in Relativity
From: crebigsol@aol.com
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 01:21:05 -0600
Please help! A solution is needed for the following matter regarding
relativity.
Relativity states that the quotient of the circumference of a circle
divided by the diameter can be measured as greater than pi (3.14159265…),
if the measurement is done with rigid moving-rods along the circumference
of the
circle.
But, where is the mathematical proof?
It seems that the only mathematical support for this statement
found in relativity is in the following quotation: "This is readily
understood if we envisage the whole process of measuring from the
‘stationary’ system K, and take into consideration that the measuring-rod
applied to the periphery undergoes a Lorentzian contraction, while the
one applied along the radius does not." This quotation appears in the
article titled "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" , by
Mr. A. Einstein, published in
1916.
This quotation, if mathematically sound, however, should lead us
to arrive at the exact opposite conclusion: The quotient we seek with the
same process of measuring should be smaller than pi, and even approach
zero if the measuring-rod escalates its speed.
Imagine that a circle is circumscribed and inscribed respectively
by two equilateral polygons of n sides. Let them rotate about the center
of a circle with the same angular velocity. Regardless of the magnitude
of the angular speed, n, the number of sides of the polygons, stays the
same all the time once it is defined. Each side of both polygons would
contract in length according to the above quotation. Each side of the
inscribing polygon is virtually a moving measuring-rod because it always
has both of its endpoints on the circular circumference. The higher the
rotating speed, and subsequently the higher the tangential speed of each
side, the more those sides would contract. This would result in a sum of
lengths that would eventually approach zero as the speed increases when
we add all the sides of the rotating polygons together. We know that the
length of the circumference of the circle must be smaller than that of
the circumscribing polygon but larger than that of the inscribing
polygon. If both polygons have their circumference approach zero, the
circular circumference must also approach zero. On the other hand, the
length along the radial direction stays unchanged all the time according
to the above quotation. The quotient between a diminishing circular
circumference and an unchanged diameter thus must approach zero rather
than approach any value larger than
pi.
Is there any way to reconcile the contradiction between
Einstein’s larger-than-pi statement and his subsequent mathematical
support? Please
help!
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: otter@agii.solluna.org (Miskatonic Gryn)
Date: 8 Dec 1996 02:49:21 -0500
In article , wrote:
>A similar "flood" exist in Objibwa legend as the Biblical
>flood. The Objibwa are hardly agrarians, being rather
>poor corn farmers.
>
>It is also part of the legend that the first Objibwa man
>was offered a 'holy book' from the great spirit. The book
>made many demands in how he was to act and behave. For
>various reasons, he gave it back, and was given a much
>smaller book on how to be a good hunter, fisherman, etc.
>
>An interesting coincidence. But not meaningful beyond
>that.
You need to keep two things in mind when dealing with any culture's history:
1. It is very difficult to find groups of people in areas colonized by
Europeans who have retained their original belief set. The various
cultures of Central and South America are a great example of cases where
a polytheistic belief system has been altered by an invading monotheistic
system, but not entirely destroyed.
2. People tend to move around. Just because a particular group may live
in one area, does not mean they have always lived in that area. Nor does
it mean that when they do move, they will lose track of all of their
stories, traditions, and whatnot.
It would be an interesting exercise to see how long ago the Ojibwe picked
up their flood legends. I bet they'd either be extremely recent, say,
within the last few hundred years, or very old-- like, when they actually
lived in an area prone to flooding.
Personally, I think the Ojibwe flood legend sounds an awful lot like a
story someone would cook up after hearing the story a few too many times
from an overzealous missionary: "You know what... I don't want to hear
about your stupid book anymore. All it does is cause you trouble. Leave
me alone, and let me hunt and fish like I had been before you showed up."
That sort of thing.
- Gryn
Gryn: Yes! Forks are often much more useful than gods.
Prask: You can't eat fries with omnipotent beings.
Gryn: Yeah. I guess some things just can't replace plastic.
Subject: Re: Mystery Found in Relativity
From: nurban@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Nathan M. Urban)
Date: 8 Dec 1996 03:22:16 -0500
In article <850024059.31056@dejanews.com>, crebigsol@aol.com wrote:
> Relativity states that the quotient of the circumference of a circle
> divided by the diameter can be measured as greater than pi (3.14159265…),
> if the measurement is done with rigid moving-rods along the circumference
> of the circle.
Or it could be smaller, depending on how spacetime is curved there.
> But, where is the mathematical proof?
Hmm, I can't think of any references that prove it explicitly offhand,
they all just state it. But it's not hard to see that it must be true,
intuitively. And it _can_ be proven rather easily, by putting a metric
on spacetime and integrating proper distances along various paths.
> It seems that the only mathematical support for this statement
> found in relativity is in the following quotation: "This is readily
> understood if we envisage the whole process of measuring from the
> ‘stationary’ system K, and take into consideration that the measuring-rod
> applied to the periphery undergoes a Lorentzian contraction, while the
> one applied along the radius does not." This quotation appears in the
> article titled "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity" , by
> Mr. A. Einstein, published in 1916.
> This quotation, if mathematically sound, however, should lead us
> to arrive at the exact opposite conclusion: The quotient we seek with the
> same process of measuring should be smaller than pi, and even approach
> zero if the measuring-rod escalates its speed.
No.. if the rods contract around the circumference, then it should take
more rods to go around the circumference, since they're shorter. The
circumference is measured by the number of rods it takes to go around.
Therefore, it's larger than it would be in Euclidean space. Since
the number of rods in the radial direction is the same, c/d is larger
than the 'pi' you get for Euclidean space.
> Imagine that a circle is circumscribed and inscribed respectively
> by two equilateral polygons of n sides. Let them rotate about the center
> of a circle with the same angular velocity. Regardless of the magnitude
> of the angular speed, n, the number of sides of the polygons, stays the
> same all the time once it is defined. Each side of both polygons would
> contract in length according to the above quotation. Each side of the
> inscribing polygon is virtually a moving measuring-rod because it always
> has both of its endpoints on the circular circumference. The higher the
> rotating speed, and subsequently the higher the tangential speed of each
> side, the more those sides would contract. This would result in a sum of
> lengths that would eventually approach zero as the speed increases when
> we add all the sides of the rotating polygons together. We know that the
> length of the circumference of the circle must be smaller than that of
> the circumscribing polygon but larger than that of the inscribing
> polygon. If both polygons have their circumference approach zero, the
> circular circumference must also approach zero. On the other hand, the
> length along the radial direction stays unchanged all the time according
> to the above quotation. The quotient between a diminishing circular
> circumference and an unchanged diameter thus must approach zero rather
> than approach any value larger than
> pi.
Your argument was well reasoned, but there is a flaw in your logic.
The rods contract, but that doesn't make the circle get smaller, since
its radius stays the same. Rather, there are gaps in the circle of
rods now! They need to be filled. If you did this experiment
physically, say spinning a hoop at relativistic speeds, the hoop would
get ripped to pieces rather than contract like a noose.
Keep up the good work! Your difficulty with the paradox was quite
understandable, and most people wouldn't have even bothered to reason
it out.
P.S. If you have further questions about relativity,
sci.physics.relativity would be a better place to ask them.
--
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech
Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Light Source wanted
From: rmiller@landau.ucdavis.edu (Roger Miller)
Date: 8 Dec 1996 10:08:28 GMT
Ja det er MEG! (renato.bugge@fysel.unit.no) wrote:
: In article <583hkp$n7l@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>, pavan1@student.monash.edu.au (Paul van den Bergen) wrote:
: >Howdy folks,
: >Umongst other things I am a mineral collector, and I have been
: >investigating setting up a UV fluoresence display.
: >As such I am looking for suitable UV lights, esp. short wave UV.
: >
: >I have read a bit about the subject, and I know I need a low pressure
: >mercury tube with a glass capable of transmitting below 240 nm (the
: >strong Mercury UV line is around 255nm)
: >I have a lamp with a soda-lime glass (comp.???), that gets down to 280
: >nm, and I would really like to get the really short 180nm lines too
: >For this I really need a fused silica bulb or tube, or an alumina tube
: >(if they make them)
: >
: You probably need a deuterium lamp which emits UV mostly
: from 180nm and up (with the main peak at 225nm). Try
: Instruments S.A.Inc.,
: JOBIN YVON/SPEX Division (France and US)
: They also have a phone number in Germany: 89-4603001.
A word of caution--a low pressure mercury lamp can give you a nasty first
degree burn very rapidly. In addition, the 254 nm line likes to interact
with DNA. Deuterium lamps are even nastier since all the light is in a
biologically active range. If you start using these lamps, make sure your
eyes are fully shielded, and you have little or no exposed skin
You would be wise to have the lamp and your samples behind a UV opaque
shield.
Subject: Particles&Waves;Wholes&Aspects;
From: ddiamond@shell01.ozemail.com.au (Diana Diamond)
Date: 8 Dec 1996 13:26:27 GMT
Particles and Waves; Wholes and their Aspects.
----------------------------------------------
(By Chris Lofting c/o ddiamond@ozemail.com.au)
It has been often pointed out that in QM a particle does not exist until
you 'look' at it. I hope the following helps in resolving this apparent
paradoxical concept.
The basic axiom here is that the brain processes information in the form
of wholes and their aspects. (for neurological refs please email me.
Sperry's work helped to demonstrate the apparent hemisphere-oriented
biases to whole/aspect functioning, with later work showing more of a
continuum than the discrete left/right-ness that Sperry observed, but this
could result from the method of analysis - see below).
Aspects have three basic forms, static, dynamic, and removable. The latter
are called parts and can be treated as wholes but at a different level of
analysis. This introduces the concept of wholes having hierarchical
structure.
Overall, we state that that which is not interpreted as a whole is
interpreted as an aspect.
In the mind, when we explicitly attend to a whole, the whole is detected
to be an object, something with substance. Thus the placing of a detector
close to a hole through which an electron is supposed to pass will detect
exactly that - an apparantly solid object passing through the hole.
The moment we try to observe statistically we move from a narrow angle of
concentration to a wide diffuse angle (mentally we go from a 'what is'
state to a 'what could be' state). This act changes the level of analysis
from that of a whole to the analysis of many wholes that are now aspects
of a greater whole - the group and the period of observation; this is
often missed and thus the apparent whole we were detecting is now
aspectual and appears to have 'wave' characteristics. Thus all information
is more in aspectual form (harmonics) rather than whole form.
The accumulation of data on a photographic plate beyond the storing of the
first bit of information (the first electron - object) leads to an
aspectual mapping (wave harmonics).
The use of down-converters in light-based experiements take a whole and
try to cut it. What you get out of it are the aspectual characteristics -
waves and their interferences within the initial context of the
pre-converted single photon (whole). (For the EPR experiment, note the
emphasis on correlation, where the two start as one(whole) and are then
split).
This is also the case in single-slit, double-slit, and polarization
experiments. The moment you try to cut a whole you drop an analytical
level. If you insist on treating this level as within the context of the
cut whole than all you will perceive is aspectual information. Only when
you also drop the context to the same level do you perceive 'wholes'
again. Text and context are tied. To change levels with one without the
other leads to aspectual data only since, to the brain, that is what you
are after, holding the original context but changing levels gives you all
new information but within the original context set in a different level.
The roots of our senses are primarily audition and vision. It is proposed
that these have been abstracted at higher levels into aspectual bias (the
sub-tones of audition, the colour of vision - both termed 'harmonics') and
whole bias (the octave (audition) and the object (visual)) Thus the
overall bias to one:many relationships.
When something is not explicitly observed/heard it becomes an aspect of a
higher whole (background). In QM all particles etc are aspects of the
universe and thus can be treated as if harmonics (aspects) of the octave
(whole). As we 'zoom' in so we cross hierarchic boundaries (as revealed by
the integer coeffeciant) and deal with 'lesser' wholes and their aspects.
This is 'fractal' behaviour; it's wholes and their aspects all the way
down.
The brain of the infant is a raw but sensory-integrated whole. Exposure to
the environment leads to degrees of sensory differentiation and the
development of abstract metaphors tied to a sense. Thus much of the
success of hard Science is based on a wave-analysis approach rooted in the
audition system with it's basic symbolism of wholes and their aspects as
captured by the metaphor we call Mathematics (strong serial bias). The
vision-rooted part is in the concept of a whole (parallel bias).
Since our detection equipment are extensions of our senses, so the above
properties are (unconsciously) built-in to the equipment.
The crossing of a boundary is captured by the detection of
integer-controlled 'jumps'. Thus in the context of an atom, the electrons
are treated as aspects of the whole and thus have specific 'levels' when
observed within the overall hierarchic format of the atom (in hierarchy,
everything has it's place). Outside of the atom electrons take-on the form
of wholes and the energy 'jumps' are not observed. All of these
observations are made by our senses or by tools designed to extend them.
The interaction of aspects and wholes is captured by the use of dichotomy
in the way we make maps. This method is strongly statistical in that for a
map to be understood by more than just the originator, a degree of
concensus is required. Each dichotomy adds a level of 'meaning' and each
dichotomy is based on extremes such that the variations in personal
methods of interpretation still lead to the single piece of 'factual'
information. The brain works this way in making maps of reality - it
creates specific metaphors to deal with the various types of wholes and
their aspects. Wholes are observed as discrete, aspects are observed as
more continuums.
Thus the wave/particle nature of things is 'false', it is the method of
analysis that leads to the apparant paradoxes where the context is held
constant and we attempt to change textual levels.
The hierarchic structure of our brain leads to the 'manifestation' of
processing information as wholes(one)/aspects(many). *ALL* information
acquired will be semantically within the context of wholes/aspects and
will lead to specific emotive responses that enable the forming of
analogies across different disciplines purely because of the whole/aspect
dichotomy.
(for details on the character of dichotomy see my "The sense of
dichotomy")
It is through the holding of the context of a whole and analysis of the
aspects (level change) that leads to emergence and creativity. But often
when contextually viewed at the 'correct' level the apparent complexity is
simplified (As seen in the increasing number of dimensions needed to get a
TOE).
Chris Lofting c/o ddiamond@ozemail.com.au
Subject: Re: WHY do we need to go faster than c (light)
From: raven@david.silesia.pik-net.pl (Grzegorz Kruk Ph.D.)
Date: 8 Dec 1996 14:06:36 GMT
Sat, 07 Dec 1996 15:32:37 -0500
Organization: University of Maryland (Physics)
To: "Grzegorz Kruk Ph.D."
Subject: Re: WHY do we need to go faster than c (light)
>>>Nick Cummings writes:
I've never studied relitivity, but based on what I know general
relativity says the Lorenz transformations, and indeed all of special
relativity, are only a special case for inertial frames (at constant
velocity. They were only concieved of, and written, to apply assuch.
In non-inertial frames they would not yeild correct answers.
>>>I was writing about inertial frames also. Bet me my weight isthe same
>>> to me
>>>no matter how many objects in the inertial frames travel at thespeed
>>>close (and const.) to the speed of light. Yet my example concerns
>>>two inertial frames and at constant certain speed the distancebetween
>>>two planets in two galaxies becomes 60 cm from our point of view
>>>according to that what Lorenz has published (COPY of my recent
>>>examples enc. below).
For one
thing they rely on, and predict, euclidian space time, which is not
present in an inertial frame.
>>>So should they not be used with relativity ?
If I understand GR correctly, the space
time invarient, which can be calculated via. the Lorenz transformations,
is not even invarient in accellerated frames. As you know not even
Newtons laws hold in accellerated frames (an object with no forces
acting on it will change velocity in an accellerated frame), so one
should not expect the Lorenz transformations to do any better. Consider
the time transformation, for example. If the relitive velocity ofthe
frames of reference is not constant, then it would not yeild theright
transformation, just as a newtonian transformation like x=x'+vt willnot
yeild the correct answer at time t and relitive speed v. In thiscase
one could use the average velocity (which may require a simple
integration in accelleration is not constant) to find the correct
answer, but if one derived the Lorenz transformations (and does not
assume them ad hoc as H. A. Lorenz did) one would probably not find
generalizing them so easy. Unfortunately, my information and
mathematical knowledge are insufficient for me to prove any furtherwhy
this must be true or to tell you what does exactly happen in
accellerated frames, but perhaps one of the more learned readersof the
news group could go further. If not, ask me again in 5 or 6 yearsand
hopefully I'll be able to prove it to you.
>>>I hope so, you must just study harder. If not, you always willbe able
>>>to buy me nice flowers after my burial.
In all the examples you used with people making round tripsto other
planets and accellerating in and out of earth's "rest" plane (asyou
know earth is actually a non-inertial frame), one cannot use theLorenz
transformations to predict.
>>>Say nothing is really an inertial frame. And if you do not likethat
>>>example with the Earth say someone is in an inertial frame closeto
>>>the Earth. The result will be the same. We can approximately makethe
>>>Earth in this case an inertial frame like one is able to makea ball
>>>of an electron in some cases.
One must use a more general form that
includes the Lorenz transformations as a special case for a=0. AsI
said, using Lorenz's equations in these situations would be as absurdas
the misuse of the newtonian transformations I mentioned. As everyone
who has responded has said, only if the people in space ships maintained
a constant velocity could they make short trips to other planets,as the
Lorenz transformations suggest. As soon as they accellerate youmust
use some other tools to predict their experiences. As to what would
happen, once they accellerate, for now I can only believe what I'mtold,
that they would have experienced a short time for the trips and that
everyone else would have expetienced a long time.
What does real mean other than what one can observe ?
>>>One can observe me and can say I am bad, however I am good.
>>>One can observe me while travelling at the speed of light andcan say
>>>my mass is larger than the mass of his pet-elephant travellingwith him
>>>and believe me if I were a lady I would get angry about it.
>>>I would argue because my weight in the bathroom says somethingelse.
>>>I still need the same amount of gas to accelerate with my careven if
>>>his misinterpreted theory would say something else.
>>>(perhaps :) he would say: you can not go shopping with this carlike some
>>>people say we can not reach other galaxies)
>>>The "real" is relative however.
I will take the
phenominalist view that any "observed" qualities due to relativityare
"real" if they are the only ones that can be observed and are consistant
with all other data.
Regards,
GK
@RAVEN
: > The theory says...
: >
: > And yet it says the time becomes infinity outside. FOREVER becomes real.
: >
: > Infinity to the future (and to the past) ? If also to the past return
: >
: > travels are possible (a-pex & business please).
: >
: > now
: >
: > If someone says:
: >
: > "It is only when we accelerate"
: >
: > so what ?
: >
: > The distance becomes 0 anyway at the speed of light,
: >
: > even if it requires the general relativity. What the general relativity
: >
: > says ? That the Lorentz's equations are wrong ? I do not think so...
: I've never studied relitivity, but based on what I know general
: relativity says the Lorenz transformations, and indeed all of special
: relativity, are only a special case for inertial frames (at constant
: velocity. They were only concieved of, and written, to apply as such.
: In non-inertial frames they would not yeild correct answers. For one
: thing they rely on, and predict, euclidian space time, which is not
: present in an inertial frame. If I understand GR correctly, the space
: time invarient, which can be calculated via. the Lorenz transformations,
: is not even invarient in accellerated frames. As you know not even
: Newtons laws hold in accellerated frames (an object with no forces
: acting on it will change velocity in an accellerated frame), so one
: should not expect the Lorenz transformations to do any better. Consider
: the time transformation, for example. If the relitive velocity of the
: frames of reference is not constant, then it would not yeild the right
: transformation, just as a newtonian transformation like x=x'+vt will not
: yeild the correct answer at time t and relitive speed v. In this case
: one could use the average velocity (which may require a simple
: integration in accelleration is not constant) to find the correct
: answer, but if one derived the Lorenz transformations (and does not
: assume them ad hoc as H. A. Lorenz did) one would probably not find
: generalizing them so easy. Unfortunately, my information and
: mathematical knowledge are insufficient for me to prove any further why
: this must be true or to tell you what does exactly happen in
: accellerated frames, but perhaps one of the more learned readers of the
: news group could go further. If not, ask me again in 5 or 6 years and
: hopefully I'll be able to prove it to you.
: In all the examples you used with people making round trips to other
: planets and accellerating in and out of earth's "rest" plane (as you
: know earth is actually a non-inertial frame), one cannot use the Lorenz
: transformations to predict. One must use a more general form that
: includes the Lorenz transformations as a special case for a=0. As I
: said, using Lorenz's equations in these situations would be as absurd as
: the misuse of the newtonian transformations I mentioned. As everyone
: who has responded has said, only if the people in space ships maintained
: a constant velocity could they make short trips to other planets, as the
: Lorenz transformations suggest. As soon as they accellerate you must
: use some other tools to predict their experiences. As to what would
: happen, once they accellerate, for now I can only believe what I'm told,
: that they would have experienced a short time for the trips and that
: everyone else would have expetienced a long time.
:
: >
: > If someone says:
: >
: > That says only about this what we can observe. That would have to mean
: >
: > also that the observed energy increases, not the real one, so again
: >
: > we can go faster than c and moreover observe other star systems at the
: >
: > speed of c.
: >
: What does real mean other than what one can observe? I will take the
: phenominalist view that any "observed" qualities due to relativity are
: "real" if they are the only ones that can be observed and are consistant
: with all other data.
: > This or that way we can perhaps reach other galaxies if only using fast
: >
: > enough engines or other accelerating systems.
: >
: > When thinking about curvature of our spacetime...and reaching the speed of
: >
: > light...
: >
: > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;Who's wrong who's right ?
: >
: [snip]
: > >Since the other galaxies are well over 100 light years away, it will be
: >
: > >impossible to visit them in the 21st century (i.e., within the next 100
: >
: > >years) -- unless, of course, we discover a method of traveling faster than
: >
: > >'c'.
: >
: > I think it has been misinterpreted someday and do not think so....:)
: >
: > Thank you for your (one of the very few) response.
: >
: > Regards,
: >
: > GK
: >
: Hope I didn't just repeat others' arguements,
: Nick Cummings
Subject: Lorenz, relativity and galaxies
From: raven@david.silesia.pik-net.pl (Grzegorz Kruk Ph.D.)
Date: 8 Dec 1996 14:24:23 GMT
Return-Path: greymatr@wam.umd.edu
Sat, 07 Dec 1996 15:32:37 -0500
Organization: University of Maryland (Physics)
To: "Grzegorz Kruk Ph.D."
Subject: Re: WHY do we need to go faster than c (light)
>>>Nick Cummings writes:
I've never studied relitivity, but based on what I know general
relativity says the Lorenz transformations, and indeed all of special
relativity, are only a special case for inertial frames (at constant
velocity. They were only concieved of, and written, to apply assuch.
In non-inertial frames they would not yeild correct answers.
>>>I was writing about inertial frames also. Bet me my weight is the same
>>> to me
>>>no matter how many objects in the inertial frames travel at the speed
>>>close (and const.) to the speed of light. Yet my example concerns
>>>two inertial frames and at constant certain speed the distance between
>>>two planets in two galaxies becomes 60 cm from our point of view
>>>according to that what Lorenz has published (COPY of my recent
>>>examples enc. below).
For one
thing they rely on, and predict, euclidian space time, which is not
present in an inertial frame.
>>>So should they not be used with relativity ?
If I understand GR correctly, the space
time invarient, which can be calculated via. the Lorenz transformations,
is not even invarient in accellerated frames. As you know not even
Newtons laws hold in accellerated frames (an object with no forces
acting on it will change velocity in an accellerated frame), so one
should not expect the Lorenz transformations to do any better. Consider
the time transformation, for example. If the relitive velocity ofthe
frames of reference is not constant, then it would not yeild theright
transformation, just as a newtonian transformation like x=x'+vt willnot
yeild the correct answer at time t and relitive speed v. In thiscase
one could use the average velocity (which may require a simple
integration in accelleration is not constant) to find the correct
answer, but if one derived the Lorenz transformations (and does not
assume them ad hoc as H. A. Lorenz did) one would probably not find
generalizing them so easy. Unfortunately, my information and
mathematical knowledge are insufficient for me to prove any furtherwhy
this must be true or to tell you what does exactly happen in
accellerated frames, but perhaps one of the more learned readersof the
news group could go further. If not, ask me again in 5 or 6 yearsand
hopefully I'll be able to prove it to you.
>>>I hope so, you must just study harder. If not, you always will be able
>>>to buy me nice flowers after my burial.
In all the examples you used with people making round tripsto other
planets and accellerating in and out of earth's "rest" plane (asyou
know earth is actually a non-inertial frame), one cannot use theLorenz
transformations to predict.
>>>Say nothing is really an inertial frame. And if you do not like that
>>>example with the Earth say someone is in an inertial frame close to
>>>the Earth. The result will be the same. We can approximately make the
>>>Earth in this case an inertial frame like one is able to make a ball
>>>of an electron in some cases.
One must use a more general form that
includes the Lorenz transformations as a special case for a=0. AsI
said, using Lorenz's equations in these situations would be as absurdas
the misuse of the newtonian transformations I mentioned. As everyone
who has responded has said, only if the people in space ships maintained
a constant velocity could they make short trips to other planets,as the
Lorenz transformations suggest. As soon as they accellerate youmust
use some other tools to predict their experiences. As to what would
happen, once they accellerate, for now I can only believe what I'mtold,
that they would have experienced a short time for the trips and that
everyone else would have expetienced a long time.
What does real mean other than what one can observe ?
>>>One can observe me and can say I am bad, however I am good.
>>>One can observe me while travelling at the speed of light and can say
>>>my mass is larger than the mass of his pet-elephant travelling with him
>>>and believe me if I were a lady I would get angry about it.
>>>I would argue because my weight in the bathroom says something else.
>>>I still need the same amount of gas to accelerate with my car even if
>>>his misinterpreted theory would say something else.
>>>(perhaps :) he would say: you can not go shopping with this car like some
>>>people say we can not reach other galaxies)
>>>The "real" is relative however.
I will take the
phenominalist view that any "observed" qualities due to relativity are
"real" if they are the only ones that can be observed and are consistant
with all other data.
Regards,
GK
@RAVEN
ABOVE MENTIONED enc. follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it matter who really travels ?
Relativity says that it only depends on choosing the coordinate system.(*)
Well, some other equation says that the mass increases while going faster
and faster until it becomes infinity at the speed of light. Mass increases,
so because of that the energy also. (**)
People say "thus we can not use so much energy to reach that speed or go over
and we can not travel far to other galaxies"
Shall we imagine how many objects travel around at the speed close to the
speed of light, yet assuming we travel from their point of view (*)our
mass should be almost infinity.
If I eat well my mass grows, otherwise bet me my weight in the bathroom
says always almost the same no matter how many objects in the Universe
travel at the speed close to the speed of light.
Yet some people say that the mass increases while accelerating. If something
accelerates or not I can also say nothing happens to my mass anyway(*).
If the relativity and Lorentz's equations concern only what we observe
or are able to measure...
perhaps nothing also happens to the mass of a spaceship from its point
of view, while going close to the speed of light and that would mean
the same energy from its engines would be required to increase the speed
by the same value at each speed. Would be no border any longer.
When going faster than light we would not see anything neither
could measure anything, nothing would exist to us, so where would
we be ? Yet we would become INVISIBLE to others in this cruel World.
Where and when could we stop our spaceship ? Would it be jump to another
line within the cone of a spacetime ?
Reminding the question from my previous postings:
What for do we need to go faster if at the speed very close to
the speed of light the distance between the Earth and other galaxy
would become e.g.
60 cm and I could shake my hand with an alien (in theory, really I go
too fast and I could harm the alien tearing his or her hand). What at
the speed of light when one is on a plane (plane ? if the spacetime is
curved and looks like a ball). So perhaps everywhere and always ?
Being a light (electromagnetic wave)...the Universe ?
Would the hf=mc^2 be an unification.
f-freq.
h-Planck's const.
m-mass
c-speed of light
Might then we say everything would be an electromagnetic wave ? Some functions
applied to these arguments describe particles and the rest.
Going further with SF today, some other functions applied would perhaps
encode me to the light by copying and decode somewhere else after optical,
laser transmission as a second, however the same person (maybe inso
called "heaven" or perhaps "hell" :).
To Giordano Bruno, who said to the priests that the Sun is in centrenot the
Earth and relativity theory proved that they should not burn himon stack.
GK
@RAVEN
.
