Alternative Models of Reality

Akinbo Ojo

JRC,

I agree that it can be difficult distinguishing illusion from reality. After all, we have the illusion that the earth is stationary, while in reality it is moving at 30km/s about the sun.

Coming back to the issue under focus, it takes light 1.5 times longer to traverse a given distance in glass than it does in air. In interpreting this phenomenon, one is at liberty to say that the speed of light is 1.5 times faster in air than in glass OR that 'time' is slowed in glass and what takes 1 second in air will take 1.5 seconds in glass. That is 'more time' as you call it. Both are equivalent mathematically. The choice of one over the other may however be discerned when one interpretation leads to paradoxes, like twin paradox, grandfather paradox, worm holes, time travel, etc.

It is to Einstein's credit that he elucidated that gravity by some mechanism has an effect on light propagation. The mechanism Tom and some others prefer is that gravity has a curving effect on space and a dilating effect on time. I propose a mechanism based on density changes in the space traversed. It is known that matter is denser, the nearer it is to a source of gravity and there is now speculation already bordering on certainty that there is an abundance of matter, called dark matter in our solar system. I should not distract from the focus on Gamma here, so let us enjoy the paradoxes and absurdities the original and 'corrected' gamma want to entertain us with, viz. length contraction, length dilation, time contraction, time dilation, etc

Regards,

Akinbo

John Cox

Akinbo,

When you say, "The mechanism Tom and some others prefer is that gravity has a curving effect on space and a dilating effect on time." ... I must answer, "When and where does he EVER say that?"

That is NOT what GR is. GR is an assemblage of maths, that are teamed up to be used more like a calculator than a 'theory'. It is simply a gross error to say that GR depicts gravity as having an 'effect' on 'curving' space. GR is distinctly different, and intentionally so, from SR in the choice of geometric axioms. SR is flat Lorentzian space (rectilinear) and GR is spherical Lorentzian space (curvilinear). Gravity is subjected to theoretical measure in a curvilinear regime in the first place. Forget the rubber sheet, or the men in white coats will wrap you in one. (They're coming to take me away HeeHee HawHaw HooHoo, to the funny farm, with trees and flowers and chirping birds, and they're coming to take me AWAY!) Read Robert Wald: arXiv:gr-qc/0511073v1 14 Nov 2005

Its a brief essential read, enjoy. :-) jrc

James Putnam

Concerning the value of the speed of light during gravitational deflection of light:

Quoting Akinbo,

"It is to Einstein's credit that he elucidated that gravity by some mechanism has an effect on light propagation. The mechanism Tom and some others prefer is that gravity has a curving effect on space and a dilating effect on time. I propose a mechanism based on density changes in the space traversed. It is known that matter is denser, the nearer it is to a source of gravity and there is now speculation already bordering on certainty that there is an abundance of matter, called dark matter in our solar system. I should not distract from the focus on Gamma here, so let us enjoy the paradoxes and absurdities the original and 'corrected' gamma want to entertain us with, viz. length contraction, length dilation, time contraction, time dilation, etc"

Going back further and quoting Akinbo:

"Einstein wrote many books and papers. Quoting from one such paper, he says, "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to this theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity.... From the proposition which has just been proved, that the velocity of light in the gravitational field is a function of the location, we may easily infer, by means of Huygens's principle, that light-rays propagated across a gravitational field undergo" ..."

James: On page 903 [Actually just page 7 of the linked paper]of the 1911 paper linked to by Akinbo there is equation (3) giving the variable velocity of light as a function of location "with the gravitation potential". Is there a fairly simple explanation for its existence? I have read the paper. An example of a fairly simple explanation for me could be: The velocity, and its speed, vary in four dimensional space but is the constant C when projected back into Three dimensional space." In another paper [I have read the paper] that reviews the 1911 paper and a 1915 paper on page 6 there is given a 1915 version of a variable speed of light equation. Can someone certain about their level of knowledge on this matter please address it. Thank you.

James Putnam

Akinbo Ojo

John and James

John Cox,

Thanks for the linked paper. It was nice but I wish I was in the classroom, I would surely have asked Robert Wald some of those naughty questions that make teachers scratch their heads in embarrassment.

But James, you shouldn't eat your cake and have it. I read you in earlier discussion with Tom and John Cox, that what you describe with your corrected gamma has nothing to do with 'spacetime', why then looking for "a fairly simple explanation... in four dimensional space..."?

Regarding simple explanations, if you have a column of gas or some other matter, given that the density will be highest at the bottom of the tower than at the top due to gravity, will there be a variation of light velocity at each horizontal stratum/ layer? Will it then not make sense to say "variable (horizontal) velocity of light as a function of location (with the gravitation potential)"?

What of if the light is now directed vertically travelling the variations in density, will this result in something similar to what Pound and Rebka discovered in their ?1960 experiment?

Regards,

Akinbo

James Putnam

Akinbo,

I don't have a problem with learning what others say is correct. I can think they are wrong and that they do brilliant work in developing it. I think that your work is wrong but I don't think you are unintelligent for it.

"But James, you shouldn't eat your cake and have it. I read you in earlier discussion with Tom and John Cox, that what you describe with your corrected gamma has nothing to do with 'spacetime', why then looking for "a fairly simple explanation... in four dimensional space..."?"

My interest is in understanding why those equations appear in work that denies that the speed of light varies for the example under consideration. Sometimes pre-relativity physics is used to solve for relativity type solutions such as is often done with Pound-Rebka. I read the paper and didn't think that that was what Einstein was doing. So, I am not certain why he derived it.

Your attitude is different from mine. I will be answering your questions, but, I don't think it will be productive. You already know, without learning and understanding my work, that your the rightest. As right as you are, you happen to be wrong. Your calculation for the speed of light in free space is wrong. Even though I think you are wrong about that, I do agree that the speed of light increases with distance from matter and that time is not dilated. However, the length contraction of objects is real. E=mc^2 requires it and there is physical evidence for it. With all due respect to your right to your ideas and your attitude, And, without my agreeing with relativity theory, I remain interested in understanding the reason for those equations in relativistic work.

I will leave this matter here in this thread and return to my own thread unless someone in the know responds.

James Putnam

Akinbo,

"In your newly invented gamma formula, you write

L = Lo (Vc/ C)

where Lo is the stationary length, L is the length due to the relative velocity of the object, Vc is the variable speed of light and C is the local speed of light and is always the constant.

(I cut some information about one origin of gamma.)

"...what is your value of Vc that gives the null finding (or nearly null finding as some say)?

When telling us the velocity you wish to add or subtract from C, indicate whether this will be the 30km/s earth orbital velocity, the 225km/s solar system galactic velocity or the 380km/s absolute velocity relative to CMBR that you will use to calculate the exact amount of length contraction required..."

"...since ALL these velocities are simultaneously applicable to Michelson and Morley."

The effect of the Earth's motion through an ether depends upon the relative velocity with respect to the ether. The experiment was meant to help determine that relative velocity. None of the three velocities that you quote is the answer to your question.

With regard to length contraction and Michelson-Morely, the null result is expected because all local measurements of the speed of light are the value C. The arm facing the direction of the velocity of the Earth's orbit would be measured remotely, if it had been measured remotely, to have a lowered speed of light. It also would have measured remotely to have shortened. The amount of its length contraction is the same as relativity gamma would predict. The velocity used to substitute into gamma is the velocity of the Earth in orbit. The three velocities that you offer are not simultaneously applicable as separate choices. I didn't do any calculations for your question because the results are too small.

"If 'Corrected Gamma' does not die from this poison, I will prepare another one :)"

Your messages thus far appear to me to represent confusion and error on your part.

James Putnam

The gamma used in my essay is the relativity, or Lorentz, gamma. I have not presented a different gamma. I performed a few simple legal mathematical manipulations to relativity gamma. The result showed that there may be two different velocities of light represented in gamma itself. I say there is. My essay develops the consequences of following through on the alternative form of gamma. I refer to this alternative form as the corrected gamma. It is not pulled out of thin error or invented. It is the Lorentz gamma in a more complete form. An accurate reading my essay will confirm this.

James Putnam

Akinbo Ojo

James,

Your points are noted. Let me respond this way..

"...The result showed that there may be two different velocities of light represented in gamma itself. I say there is"

I agree. I have not read your essay recently but I have read what you attached here. When I squeeze out time to read the essay itself, I will know whether the 'two different' velocities you talked about is same with Galileo's, i.e. actual velocity and the resultant/ relative velocity.

"With regard to length contraction and Michelson-Morely, the null result is expected because all local measurements of the speed of light are the value C. The arm facing the direction of the velocity of the Earth's orbit would be measured remotely"

Firstly, no measurements were being done remotely, all were local. Correct me if I am wrong on this. Secondly, the null result was actually unexpected despite the measurements/ observations being local.

"The velocity used to substitute into gamma is the velocity of the Earth in orbit. The three velocities that you offer are not simultaneously applicable as separate choices"

Gamma was devised to explain the result after the unexpected null finding (Lorentz transformation in place of Galilean transformation). At the time of the experiment, I believe only the orbital velocity, 30km/s was known, that is why others were not taken into reckoning. If three scientists calculate the length contraction required to explain the null result, the amount of contraction required will vary depending on whether the scientist under reference chooses the 30km/s orbital velocity, the 225km/s solar system motion through space or the 380km/s relative to CMBR to do his calculation to explain the null result using Lorentz transformation. Surely, an interferometer arm cannot be expected to shorten by three different values in the same experiment!

"Your calculation for the speed of light in free space is wrong. Even though I think you are wrong about that, I do agree that the speed of light increases with distance from matter..."

I will not like to distract from the topic. I think this is better criticized under the post I made in this regard. Thanks for reading though.

Having said that, will the value of C on Earth, 299792458m/s then have a value lower than the value as the 'distance from Earth's matter' increases as you say?

A positive answer has implication for Lorentz transformation and possibly for your model.

Regards,

Akinbo

James Putnam

Akinbo,

The full sentence:

"The arm facing the direction of the velocity of the Earth's orbit would be measured remotely, if it had been measured remotely, to have a lowered speed of light." I proceeded this sentence with ""With regard to length contraction and Michelson-Morely, the null result is expected because all local measurements of the speed of light are the value C." Even though one sentence followed the other, a careful reading of the two sentences plus what I have said in the previous messages describe the measurement process of the experiement as local measurements. The remote perspective is necessary to talk about length contraction which is what you asked about. Length contraction is not observable locally. You are trying too hard to point out error where there is no error.

James Putnam

The speed of light will be less on the Earth than it is in free space. However, measuring it here is a local measurement and the value will be the same as it actually is for real in free space. That value is C. I am not including the remote calculation of the speed of light on Earth in this message at this time.

It doesn't matter that the Earth is orbiting the sun other than it establishes that the Earth has a forward motion. The Michelson-Morely experiment used that forward motion to look for evidence of a velocity relative to an either.

John Cox

The physical argument of length contraction is this; If a ponderable body is in motion through space and time, the trailing edge must progressively catch up with the leading edge relative to body's absolute velocity for the trailing edge to be found at the same point in time as the leading edge. So if we accept length contraction as a physical phenomenon, how can we then say that the inherent relationship of space and time embodied in the equivalence principle is imaginary? It is academic to argue that because we can only (presently) say that all motion is relative to some other ponderable body, that any body in motion does not have an absolute velocity.

James, I do like the permutation of C[1-(v^2/c^2)], that makes C a proportional limit, rather than infinity. :-> jrc

John Cox

OOPS,

C[1-(v^2/c^2)]^1/2

jrc

James Putnam

John Cox,

When I asked for a physical description of your orbit example without using space-time, I was expecting a description of the same example without the relativity terminology. Tom had said your example was nothing other than Galilean. I didn't expect that you would conclude that without space-time available the description is reduced to the something like special relativity.

In your more recent message, that description of justification for the existence of length contraction is only 'the' description for relativists. It could be reworded in an analogous argument for length contracting as light slows. That condition allows for the speed of light to measure locally as C.

With regard to my corrected gamma retaining a limit, that follows automatically because I am using the Lorentz gamma. It is the same equation as relativists use. The difference is that the more completed version that I show justifies consideration of a variable speed of light rather than a variable nature for time. A variable speed of light can be empirically confirmed. A variable nature for time cannot be empirically confirmed. There are no tests that can be run on 'time'. All evidence claimed to be in support of relativity theory consists of patterns of changes of velocities of objects. That is not empirical evidence for changes of velocities of either space or time.

Perhaps you are not familiar with my work although I have presented a lot of it here mostly through the essay contests. I find that there are early theoretical decisions that are in error and are what opened the door for imaginary properties to be injected into physics equations. The beginning three errors are the decision to accept both mass and temperature as indefinable properties plus the circular definition of electric charge which masks but does not avoid electric charge also being an indefinable property.

I don't expect that this will make sense to anyone who is not familiar with my work. However, I have corrected these errors and achieved many results that demonstrate fundamental unity right from the start and continuous direct connection to empirical evidence for all properties. What I mean by this is that all properties are defined in the same terms in which the empirical evidence from which their existence is inferred are expressed.

One example of this is correcting f=ma such that both mass and force are defined properties. they are both defined in the same terms as is their empirical evidence. Their empirical evidence is patterns of changes of velocity of objects with respect to time, in other words acceleration. I will leave it at that, unless you see worth and have interest in it. It goes on and on. It is not relativity theory. But it includes replacement equations for some of those from relativity theory including the replacement equation for E=MC^2.

I have essays available at academia.com that present some of my important results. If you find all this too much to take seriously, I understand. I feel the same way about relativity theory. Relativity theory is not the only game in town. My message is there is a better way to go. My work is intended to show that way. Just letting you know something about where I am coming from. Thanks.

James Putnam

John Cox

James,

Briefly, I've lots of snow to contend with.

1: On the orbital matter, I had stated a generic, Galilean relativity in regards inertia. In GR the elapsed time on a curve, is that on a timelike curve, but your refutation of both SR and GR makes dialogue contentious. Not that I don't also think that there is unfinished business in the Newtonian realm.

2: I have followed a number of your posts, but quite frankly the Constant Speed of Time paradigm so quickly becomes chaotic, that I get lost. I think that it is one of the reasons that QM had such a rapid rise, because that chaos can be treated as entirely non-locally and mathabstractly probabilistic. And it is a bit of a fudge to throw out SR but retain its several conclusions as QM does.

The nature of time has confounded humanity since day One.

Gotta go. :) jrc

ross nickel

Dear Armin,

Thank you for taking the time to read over my work and offer your thoughtful evaluation in a courteous manner. It is the first time anyone has done so and I appreciate it very much. It is interesting that we both have arrived at the same equation although interpreting it differently. I will attempt to address the concerns in your response in the terms which I have employed.

It bothered me that equation 2 predicts that my vg term will decrease as the velocity of a body increases while Special Relativity suggests such a term should increase.This contradiction is tolerable only in one condition;namely, that the overall velocity of a body is a constant and cannot vary. Although it cannot be measured, each body would then have its own constant total velocity while allowing for the individual components to vary.

This imparts a dual meaning for vg. Equation 1 defines it as a gravitation term but equation 2 has it representing a loss of universal velocity. It is associated with both a loss of kinetic energy and an equal gain of gravitational energy.

Another factor weighing in support of this addition to current theory is its modest success in calculating a wide variety of measured values. I have tried to include all the tests I could think of. These, of course, are 'postdictions' rather than predictions except in the case of the size of the quarks.

I had differentiated several versions of my equations unsuccessfully looking for new equations with which I could use to check against measured values. I did generate several equations of which the meanings were not totally clear to me.I therefore deemed it unwise to introduce them in the presentation. It might be worthwhile to do a thorough theoretical assessment to see if a sound basis could be found to construct a more complete model.

I have been considering this idea for over thirty years although I just wrote it up in its present form in 2009. I do realize that the number of inspired insights that 'pan out' is statistically low but I must not ignore the possibility that it contains, or could lead to, a measure of truth. So I welcome other opinions while still considering and valuing your knowledgeable reply.

Regards,

Ross

Akinbo Ojo

Ramin,

- What logical basis or arguments make you prefer Lorentz transformation to those of Galileo and Newton? Or to be more specific, given a source at a known distance can an observer's motion towards or away from the light beam after it has been emitted but yet to arrive hasten or delay the light's arrival time?

- Can a math equation without any physical mechanism to implement it produce all those effects attributed to General relativity?

Regards,

Akinbo

James Putnam

Hi Ramin Zahedi,

Thank you for your message left posted in my essay forum. I have read your paper. You did accept full guidance from empirical evidence as well as adopting a theoretical interpretation of that evidence. Your mathematics exists for the purpose of counting things. You counted things that are believed to be physically real based upon empirical evidence. If your mathematics revealed anything that was not already dictated by the empirical evidence which you relied upon, I could not find it to be so. Examples of your accepting guidance for your work from empirical evidence are your adoption of special relativity effects including, of course, E=mc2, also, your adoption of discreteness as well as the use of both vector and scalar fields. You could know none of this without learning it from empirical evidence. Please let me know what your opinion is and why. Thank you again.

James Putnam

Dear Ramin,

"It seems that the best reasonable model of reality should be based on logical arguments than empirical evidences. In any case, based on a a recent research, it is possible without referring to any empirical evidence, and only by mathematics to derive the most general forms of all mathematical laws of fundamental forces of physics, including gravitational field equations."

You appear to me to have relied solely on empirical evidence. Even in your mathematics your logic is based upon the existence of countable things that exhibit behaviors upon which our knowledge of possible patterns of behaviors exists. In other words, one cannot derive equations about forces and their effects without first knowing their effects. One can give the appearance of not relying upon foreknowledge of effects by showing a force formula as one's starting point. However, each and every force formula has its form due completely to empirical evidence. The appearance of exceptions to this rule can be presented due to the inclusion of empirically unsupported properties that result from imaginative theoretical interpretations of empirical evidence. Imagined properties do not count in any effort to show a model the real universe. It appears to me to be clear that in no way did you "...without referring to any empirical evidence, and only by mathematics to derive the most general forms of all mathematical laws of fundamental forces of physics, including gravitational field equations." If it is a part of your case that the Lorentz transforms do not account for gravity, I think that, along with relativists, you are mistaken. I have introduced here quite some time ago a better understanding of the physical implications of the Lorentz transforms. It was ignored, but, should you wish to learn it, I will repeat it.

James Putnam

dieu le

FEATHER, HAMMER & GRAVITY

Here's my answer to the question:

Why do two balls with different size, shape and mass, falling from the same height, have the same acceleration (in the absence of air resistance)?Attachment #1: FEATHER_HAMMER__GRAVITY.doc

David Heggli

You might wanna check out www.einsteinsintuition.com - especially "Constants of nature":

- http://einsteinsintuition.com/2014/the-constants-of-nature/ (movie clip)

- http://einsteinsintuition.com/what.../constants-of-nature/ (text / formula)

For an easy introduction into QST (quantum space theory): http://einsteinsintuition.com/2011/conversations-part-one/ and

http://einsteinsintuition.com/2013/conversations-part-2/

=> I think you guys are all circling around the same ideas - and I think that QST has the best chance to be not proofen incorrect ;-)

William Christie

Once in the youngness of my life I was pondering over why I could not understand relativity intuitively. In order to believe, I had to see it and not just go on with blind faith. To me time was time and space was space. I loved physics with its logic and truth and I also loved architecture I guess in the same way.

In architecture there was also the mystery and challenge to resolve the right design for each project. My mentor in architecture told me to get uncomfortable and get outside the box - think for myself. That night I went home and picked up my book "The Evolution of Physics" by Albert Einstein and his understudy Leopold Infeld. I suddenly realized that by stepping outside the box, one could reinterpret the findings of the Michelson Morley experiment and perhaps come up with a model of matter that would explain the null result on the fringe shift and relativity all at the same time. I think it's pretty clear by now that we are all being transmitted through space.

A little later on that year in 1979 I considered a classically rotating (spinning) wave and it seemed to answer all the questions at once. The spin axis is in the direction of motion and so by EM theory the planar wave fronts must incline at an angle that is perpendicular to their helical path as the electron goes forward. The inclined path creates length contraction. The helical path is stretched out and thus longer than the original stationary circle of spin, so the time cycle is dilated as well. Of course by right hand rule the magnetic dipole is induced and field of charge generated by the rotating waves.

After working out the basics and drawing up some illustrations along with math, I approached professors at UBC with the tactful question what do you think and got one precious "that's neat" on the vectorial Quantum Triangle Pcbar = Pvbar Prbar (1st order relativistic momentum). That is now to be compared with Paul Dirac's equation. When Dirac was later commenting on the spinor matrices, he responded: "They must therefore denote some quite new dynamical variables, which may be pictured as describing some internal motion in the electron. We shall see later that they just describe the spin of the electron." (old copy to be sourced)

I spent quite a few evenings and weekends in the physics library searching for everything related (David Bohm, de Broglie, Schrodinger, Dirac, etc.) to learn more and see if there were any issues. The net today is amazing in comparison.

In 1985, I resolved to my satisfaction what gravity really is. I realized that rotating waves are interacting all the time and one rotating wave will impart some binding energy to its neighbour and bending its path. The donor thus loses energy and slows down. The overall effect at the macro level is thus the apparent slowing down of time and omni-directional expansion. Of course with the rotating wave model you have to allow the greater speed of light at greater radii from the axis of rotation. Having been a downhill racer, I was thrilled to think I had perhaps found out what gravity really was and so I drew up a sketch with equations and had it witnessed in the cafeteria at UBC per attached.

If you look for Wavicle Christie you can find it somewhere on the web. Attached is a picture which I did in autocad. I hope that is okay to say in the spirit of sharing knowledge. Disregard the old email address and the Gkl derivation is incorrect but since resolved.

I really am tired of saying it, but even if it is just another way of looking at things, it is worth investigating and critiquing. It's that thrill of the mystery that leads us on. Perhaps we will think of new applications like an electromagnetic propeller (massless rocket) to get us to Mars or perhaps a rotating beacon transmitter that more advanced life might already be using out there.

Bill ChristieAttachment #1: 1985_-_Scangravity.pdf Attachment #2: Rotating_Wave_picture.pdf

Akinbo Ojo

Hello Bill,

From your work,

"From the two postulates above, I can simply state that the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is due to an actual physical length contraction of the interferometer in the direction of its motion".

"translational velocity V"

Friendly questions that may make you retrace your steps or review your position:

- How does an interferometer know that it is moving so that it can physically contract its length?

- How does it know its direction of its motion?

- In agreeing to the Lorentz formula for contraction, what is the value of the translational velocity, V used to calculate the amount of contraction or time dilation?

- Can the null result not be explained by Galilean relativity?

Regards,

Akinbo

William Christie

Hi Akinbo,

Thanks for your comments and questions. This is about foundations so I really appreciate your focus.

Obviously I am reverting to a stationary aether. When I say stationary it might have motion which we cannot perceive (yet).

The interferometer is being transmitted through space as a rotating wave function that complies with the EM laws of light and thus Lorentz.

At the quantum level the spins are aligned with each particles translational motion. At the macroscopic level, the swarm of fermions overall show the same length contraction and time dilation.

The fermion is rotating wave to begin with. In order for it to move forward in translational motion, its planar wave fronts must incline (kind of like a propeller) so that like a light wave, both the electric and magnetic fields are always at perpendicular to the direction of the motion of the wavefront. Instead of rotating in one spot, it must rotate through a distance X as well. It doesn't have to know that it is moving in order to contract. It just has no other way of moving.

As per the model vectorially: Cbar = Vvbar (translational) Vrbar (rotational) and the square of the magnitudes: C2 = Vv2 Vr2 (sorry I'll have to get up to Latex mode. It all works per Lorentz.

The null result cannot be explained by Galilean relativity. It's a built in function of spin (rotation) that creates mass and thus momentum. Galilean relativity just deals with translational motion whereas relativistic effects are caused by the internal rotation plus forward motion.

One thing is getting over the aether block. The other thing is accepting so many rotating and interacting wave functions. However why not? There are basically two types of motion: rotation and translation (and combinations thereof). There is discrete as well as continuous. Like the earth going around the sun we have become more aware of rotation.

I notice I accidently uploaded all of a recent pdf file. I meant to just crop and attach the cover picture of the 3D figure of the rotating wave. Oh well. However, the Rkl Gkl derivation included is not correct, so I must update that with another attachment that I am sure is correct after a lifetime of trying to figure it out. I will try to do that in about 2 hours.

Bill Christie

Akinbo Ojo

Bill,

Let me repeat this my simple question

In agreeing to the Lorentz formula for contraction, what is the value of the translational velocity, V used to calculate the amount of contraction or time dilation (and even the mass increase with velocity formula)?

Akinbo

William Christie

Akinbo,

The value of the translational velocity is the square root of (C squared minus the rotational velocity Vr squared).

The direction of the translational velocity is the direction of the motion of the particle (rotating wave) = along the axis of spin.

It is shown that way in the diagram.

Bill Christie

Akinbo Ojo

Bill,

The rotational velocity of the Earth is about 465m/s. If C is light velocity, are you saying the translational velocity of the Earth important for Lorentz interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment is just a tiny bit below 3 x 108 in value?

That should be very unlikely because the amount of contraction would have made the Earth and interferometer almost vanish!

Akinbo

William Christie

Akinbo see attached:

The forward (translational) motion of the spinning electron is negligible in comparison to the rotational velocity. Given the plus or minus 456m/s earth's orbit sun's orbit galactic..., the contraction of the electron is minor. The orbital speed of the electron around the nucleus would be averaged.

The MM experiment was setup to detect the fringe shift at our low speeds.

Bill ChristieAttachment #1: C_Triangle.pdf

William Christie

Akinbo,

Further to be clear I attached the length contraction from the original article.

As Vr (rotational velocity) approaches C the length L = L0 original (spherical).

As Vr slows down and approaches zero, L goes to zero and mass goes infinite. Note how the vanes compact.

It's an iron triangle.

That's SR. When you go to GR, you have to consider that the spinning wave slows down with gravity: C = Vv Vr Vt. Vt is the radial velocity of the wave going outward. When there is no gravity, Vt = 0.

Bill ChristieAttachment #1: Length_Contraction.pdf

« Previous Page Next Page »