Physical Axioms and Attractive Forces

I'm still at a loss as to the context in which Loronz uses arcsin [] I'm in my spaceship doing c. I see an electron, and let's say, it looks like a torus. With arctan I will see what looks like a washer at 45 degrees. With arcsin I will see either a straight line, or a full on washer, depending on whether the washer rotates round the radius. My navigator is rapidly going bald here [] Help him/her out before I need a straight jacket.

On accelerating electrons to near the speed of light. An electron has some internal frequency at rest. This manifests itself as an external matter wave, such that the matterwave wavelength times the inteernal frequency equals a constant. As i push my electron towards c, ints internal energy falls towards zero. Its matterwave wavelength heads towards infinity.

Now I don't have any problems with complex roots. I've said often that i think the ether is a viscoelastic. I wanted to up the speed of gravity to ten million times pi, simply so the maths of rotating vectors in complex space became easier[] So, i think that an electron traveling at c "untwists" the barrier between two regions of quite different space. We could pour al of teh mass energy of our universe into an electon and into this other sort of space. Pouring water into a bucket with no bottom in effect.

On the question of gold, everyone send me their gold so i can do some totally destructive tests on it [8D] matter as a construct of fields? Are these the same fields that Einstein was having second thoughts about before his death? Are they "real" or some sort of geometry? Why do tehy configure themselves in such a way as to create matter? A chicken and egg thing?

When Einstein died, the universe took to ringing me up at all hours of the day and night, to ask what it should be doing. I told it, it was doing a stirling job but I could have been made a bit better looking. Actually I was scared in case it acted on any of my crazy ideas on how the universe worked. I'm glad that it nodded gravely at Einstein's advice, then sauntered off sniggering, and did what it felt like.[][][8D]

(edited) Oh yeah, I once wrote to CERN suggesting that they dope an atom with quantum dots, then pop it down their machine. I reasoned that they would not get teh expected mass increase, sue to cohesive forces in aggregate matter. Thye never replied [][]

As I’ve indicated several times to nonneta, I’m too busy right now to tutor at a micro-level about unfamiliar concepts. I expect knowledgeable professionals to self-educate by reading the published literature first, then ask questions or pose challenges. But since terminology conflicts seem to be posing an insurmountable barrier to further reading, I’ll add just this additional explanation until I have more time later in the month.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nonneta</i><br />Your attempts to evade the fatal flaws in your conception of dynamics are all based on the erroneous premise that particle accelerators use electromagnetic WAVES to accelerate particles. They don’t. They produce extremely strong electric and magnetic FIELDS, and these fields exert forces on charged particles, which are thereby accelerated.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In Meta Science, we eschew mysticism. Everything is well-defined based on the principles of physics. [ metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp ] So “fields” are not some new form of existence, but are themselves composed of particles and/or waves, just as everything else is.

In particular, both gravitational and electromagnetic fields are elysium, the light-carrying medium. (We were discussing whether local fields near masses or charges are pressure or density variations.) Accelerators do indeed work by potential changes in fields, and are therefore limited to the wave speed of elysium, c. By contrast, both gravitational and electric forces propagate at strongly FTL speeds. So light-bending is a potential field effect, which is why it depends on c. But orbital motion is a force effect and does not depend on c.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Lorentzian relativity is well known, sometimes called neo-Lorentzian relativity, and sometimes the Lorentzian pedegogy, or the Lorentzian interpretation. These all refer to the same thing, which you can read about in, for example, Whittaker''s "History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity", Vol 2, in which he describes the theory of relativity developed by Lorentz and Poincare, up to and including relativistic theories of gravity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are again speaking of the Lorentz Ether Theory (1904), which was not formally named and was referred to in many ways over the years. More important than its name, that theory was developed in an aether context and had no time dilation or space contraction. The effects were on clocks and rulers. So it had no speed limit except for electromagnetic phenomena (meaning light and its equivalent at other wavelengths).

Terminology: Since the Meta Model does not accept that light has any charge or magnetism, we refer to “electromagnetic force” as the force of radiation pressure, a light-related phenomenon. And when we do wish to speak of an electric force, we say “electrodynamic”. It isn’t perfect, but the confusion was not of our making.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I repeat, the term "Lorentzian relativity" is understood by the scientific community to refer to the interpretation of special relativity that asserts the existence of an absolute time coordinate and absolute simultaneity, and accounts for the relativistic effects in dynamical rather than kinematic terms. In its mature form, it is experimentally indistinguishable from special relativity. Needless to say (or so one would have thought), this implies that momentum and energy go to infinity as speed goes to c, as demonstrated daily in particle accelerators.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is unfortunate that you have never ventured into the main journals where non-mainstream views on relativity have been discussed for the past two decades: Apeiron, Physics Essays, Galilean Electrodynamics, Meta Research Bulletin, Progress in Physics, etc. The term “Lorentzian relativity” (LR) now refers exclusively to the variant of LET in which the preferred frame is identified as the local gravitational potential field, different for every mass. This was first proposed by Tangherlini ~1960, and elaborated by Beckmann in his 1987 book, and by Hatch in a series of papers in the early 90s.

We will be continuing to use that term and the abbreviation LR for this model, described in fullest detail at metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp . So let’s skip past historical details and get to the modern version, which is still experimentally indistinguishable from SR in all lightspeed or slower experiments. But the two are distinguished by anything propagating FTL in forward time. So the papers showing that gravitational force is such a phenomenon falsify SR in favor of LR because time dilation is essential to the proof that nothing real can propagate FTL. The mere existence of LR as an unfalsified theory counters that proof.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Now, in an attempt to evade the obvious falsification of your ideas...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Reminder: Do not attribute motives to posters. This is a form of ad hominemism. Make your arguments about the science. That way, they can win or lose on their scientific merit, and not by questioning the qualifications or competence of the person or by intimidating readers with less strong backgrounds than your own.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">you've claimed that the electric force in a particle accelerator propagates only at the speed of light.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, particle accelerators use changes in electrical potential to accelerate. All potential fields are forms of elysium and limited by lightspeed.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Forgive me for being underwhelmed by your defense of your ideas.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As am I over your reluctance to read published references that contain answers to your present and future questions. Please catch up before we resume later in the month. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />I'm still at a loss as to the context in which Lorentz uses arcsin<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Lorentz himself did not use either arcsin or arctan because he did not discuss aberration. Special relativity has time dilation and length contraction, and therefore requires an arcsin to represent reality. Lorentzian relativity has neither time dilation nor length contraction, and nothing can affect the dimensions of space and time. It therefore uses plain old arctan because the speed of the observer and of the light originating at a right angle are equal, making the opposite and adjacent sides of the velocity triangle equal and yielding an aberration of 45 degrees.

You pick which theory you want to follow. But Vigier and I have argued unchallenged in print that SR is now falsified. -|Tom|-

Your message simply re-affirms that you believe the "electric force propagates superluminally". Now, accelerators work by applying an electric force to the test particles, which are thereby accelerated. (If you need a refresher on how the application of an electric force to a charged particle causes the particle to accelerate, see any introductory high school Physics text book.) Once again, the blatent contradiction in your advertised views is that you believe two mutually contradictory things:

(1) The electric force must propagate superluminally because it exhibits no aberration, and

(2) The electric force must propagate only at the speed c in order to account for the relativistic effects observed in particle accelerators.

My point is that, since both of these claims cannot be true, your entire world view is falsified. Maybe if you could briefly answer a couple of questions, it would clarify your position:

Are you claiming that a charged particle subjected to an electric force does not accelerate?

Are you claiming that particle accelerators do not apply an electric force to accelerate particles?

Are you claiming that the existence of a stationary electric potential in a region of space does not correspond to the existence of an electric force on a charged test particle located in that region?

Are you now claiming that there are THREE kinds of forces, one of which is electric force, the second of which is radiation/EM waves, and then the third being some previously unknown magical quasi-force that is exerted by particle accelerators and that doesn't behave like either a wave or a force?

Just to be perfectly clear about this, we've established in this thread that TVF's ideas are based on two mutually exclusive premises. The first is that if a force (like the electric or gravitational force) exhibits no appreciable aberration, then it must propagate at a speed much greater than the speed of light. The second is that the relativistic effects seen in particle accelerators are due to the electric force propagating only at the speed of light. At least one of these premises must be false, and whichever one it is, TVF's entire world view is utterly falsified.

He has been given ample opportunity to provide a rational explanation for this obvious self-contradiction, but none has been forthcoming.

TVF wrote: "Lorentz himself did not use either arcsin or arctan because he did not discuss aberration."

As usual, Tom is spreading misinformation. Lorentz has a whole chapter on aberration in his book "The Theory of the Electron". He also wrote papers on the subject, famously pointing out the flaw in Stoke's attempted explanation (for example).

TVF wrote: "Special relativity ... requires an arcsin to represent reality. Lorentzian relativity ...uses plain old arctan..."

Again, Tom is mis-informed (and sharing his mis-information with others). The angle of aberration is not a matter of interpretation, it can be measured and observed. Any theory that this empirically equivalent to special relativity (including Lorentzian relativity) MUST use arcsin(v/c) for perpendicular aberration. This differs DRASTICALLY from arctan(v/c) for values of v approaching c.

TVF wrote: "Vigier and I have argued unchallenged in print that SR is now falsified."

Again, Tom is mistaken. It is his own view that stand falsified. Every fallacious arguement against Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity (including the old chestnuts that Tom traffics in) has been thoroughly rebutted in print. See any physics text book. And remember, Tom is the one who says it takes no energy to accelerate a body.