- Thank you received: 0
Physical Axioms and Attractive Forces
17 years 6 months ago #16454
by nonneta
Replied by nonneta on topic Reply from
TVF wrote: "The particle's momentum is m*v. Of course, when a particle's speed approaches c, we need a specific model for both the particle being accelerated and the particles doing the accelerating... as the original particle (P) is accelerated by collisions from behind from smaller entities (q), each adds velocity incrementally and mass directly. So all the new momentum brought in by many q's is still present in P, even though their ability to increase P's speed is approaching zero. The end result will be a momentum for P that consists of mass augmented by the factor gamma, and velocity always incrementally below c: gamma * m * v."
What you've described is not a viable model of dynamics (and would not be, even if your model of the electromagnetic field as tiny ballistic entities colliding with particles was viable, which of course it isn’t). Here are a few of the fatal flaws in your proposed mechanism:
- The “q entities” increase the rest mass of the particle as they are assimilated into the particle when they collide with it from behind. Someone co-moving with the particle would find that the particle had gained mass. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena. (Contrary to your mode, the resistance to acceleration of a moving particle relative to a co-moving system of inertial coordinates does not change.)
- The "q entities" directly add mass to the particle as they collide with it from behind, but this would be the case whether the particle is accelerating or not. For example, if a particle is maintained in the electromagnetic field at a fixed speed (say 0.99c), it would, according to your conception, continually accumulate more and more mass as the q entities impinge on it. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena.
- You model the electromagnetic force in terms of ballistic particles (rather than, say, waves in a fixed medium), so they would have a speed of c relative to the source, so there would be no reason for c (or any other speed) to be a limiting value. For example, simply accelerate your accelerator to 0.9c, and then use it to accelerate particles faster than c. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena.
- After having accumulated "q entities" increasing its mass, the particle may then be decelerated, so it must give up the same number of q entities that accumulated during its acceleration. But it is constantly being bombarded with new q-entities, even more intensely as it slows down than when it sped up. But at the same time the momentum and kinetic energies of the discarded entities must be reduced by precisely the amounts as if they continued to be co-moving with the particle. Barring some kind of magic, this can only mean that they, in fact, continue to be co-moving with the particle, contradicting the requirement for them to be discarded. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena.
- A significant fraction of the mass of most atoms is in the form of electrically neutral particles, i.e., neutrons, so when such an atom is accelerated to high speed, much of the mass is not being accelerated by electromagnetic forces, it is being accelerated by the strong nuclear force. So your model says nothing about accelerating ordinary matter.
- Electromagnetism is an attractive as well as a repulsive force. One and the same field causes one kind of charge to move in one direction while causing another kind of charge to move in the opposite direction. (Also the forces are generally not central.) An impulsion/ballistic theory fails to account for this fundamental aspect of the observed phenomena.
TVF wrote: “An alternate way to accelerate P is to use a gravitational force, so that the q's are all gravitons traveling >> c with no accompanying elysium. Then the speed increments are not slowed or limited in any way as speed c is approached, and the speed of P rises smoothly past c to any desired level and with no significant change in the effective mass of P.”
- So, according to your conception, an object accelerated by gravity would not undergo the relativistic effects of velocity that are associated with all other kinds of acceleration. For example, if a repeated slingshot effect was used to accelerate an object to high speed, and if another identical object was accelerated to that same speed directly by means of rockets, only the latter object would exhibit relativistic effects. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena.
And so on.
I would also mention that you are claiming the electromagnetic FORCE propagates at the same speed as electromagnetic waves. This is interesting, because in many of your other messages here you have strenuously insisted that this is not the case. Now that you conceed this point, you need to address the lack of aberration of the electromagnetic force between two uniformly moving charged particles. The force always points directly toward the instantaneous position of the other particle, not the retarded position. You have hereby falsified your own claim that lack of aberration can only be due to extreme superluminal speeds.
=================================
TVF wrote: “It is now apparent that you are unfamiliar with Lorentzian relativity. While the two are mathematically similar, LR is physically very different from SR in that LR has no speed limit, so going faster than c is not "special".”
What you’re describing is not Lorentzian Relativity, and more importantly, what you’re describing is contradicted by plentiful experimental observations on a daily basis. You’re playing a shell game, by first referring to the fact that Lorentzian Relativity[1] is experimentally consistent with special relativity (and ipso facto with all empirical tests), and then following this with the claim that there is nothing ‘special’ about c in “Lorentzian Relativity”[2]. This is a shell game because your [2] is completely unrelated to [1], except that you have given it the same name in an attempt to deceive people.
Theory [1] is an absolutist interpretation of special relativity called Lorentzian Relativity, in which there is a single “true” absolute time. This interpretation is indeed indistinguishable from special relativity, but this indistinguishability arises from the fact that, in both interpretations, the momentum of a particle of mass m moving at speed v is mv/sqrt[1 – v^2/c^2] and the kinetic energy of that particle is mc^2/sqrt[1 – v^2/c^2] – mc^2. If both interpretations didn’t predict these same expressions for momentum and energy, they would be easy to distinguish experimentally. It follows that superluminal travel is no more feasible under the Lorentzian interpretation than under the Einsteinian interpretation, so it doesn’t serve your purpose. You need to invent a totally different theory… but unfortunately it must grossly conflict with the observed phenomena in order to be consistent with your agenda. So, trying to have your cake and eat it too, you begin by laying claim to the empirical success enjoyed by [1], and then you surreptitously switch to [2], which is a set of ideas according to which c is not special and superluminal travel is possible. But of course, by making this switch, you forfeit the empirical viability of [1].
You can’t have it both ways. Either you espouse [1], in which case your ideas are consistent with experience but superluminal travel is not a viable concept, or you espouse [2], in which case you are abundantly falsified by experiment. Your shell game has a chance of fooling only people who don’t know the difference between [1] and [2]. You re-affirm in your latest message that no energy is required to accelerate a material particle. This is empirically false, and utterly contrary to the empirically supported Lorentzian relativity[1], proving once again that the ideas you espouse are actually the empirically falsified and non-sensical [2].
=====================================
TVF wrote: “In your strawman model, what happens to the q's after they do their incremental velocity increase? Answer: They magically disappear from the universe, which is where the missing momentum goes. That is why your strawman cannot represent real physics.”
You misunderstood. I was not describing a strawman, I was describing the model you espouse. As you described it, the reason particles can’t be accelerated by electromagnetic forces to a speed greater than c is that electromagnetic force propagates at c. Are you denying that this is what you claimed?
I simply explained what your claim (which is an old canard, a favorite among… shall we say… original thinkers) is well known to be false. If you want to disavow it now, I would be happy to congratulate you on your progress.
======================================
TVF wrote: “One "principle of physics" is that motion cannot arise from non-motion (another form of conservation of momentum). “
Compare the above with your other statement
TVF wrote: “Your kinetic energy right now is zero relative to your monitor, but big enough to smash you if the rotating Earth ran into a wall not sharing that rotation speed, and big enough to vaporize you if the orbiting Earth ran into a wall not orbiting the Sun. So "energy" is an arbitrary concept of use in some contexts, but overrated when taking about cause and effect.”
It’s interesting that you insist on conservation of motion as a matter of principle, and yet you are totally indifferent to the conservation of energy, even though they both are of the same extrinsic nature. You insist that it takes no energy to accelerate a particle, so energy can arise from no energy, but you just as vehemently insist that motion cannot arise from non-motion. How odd.
=================================
TVF: “This again says you know nothing about LR. But surprisingly, it also says you are unfamiliar with aberration. The exact formula for aberration is arctan (v / c), which continues smoothly as v approaches infinity. There is no gamma factor in aberration, and therefore no opportunity for imaginary angles.”
As usual, you are mistaken. The exact aberration angle in both Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity is arctan(v gamma) = arcsin(v/c), so the angle is not a real number for v greater than c.
==================================
TVF: “Some of your message deals with the topic of this thread, which is very much "unsettled science", and where we need experimental help to guide us. Your comments there cannot help this thread along unless and until you accept the premises we are working from. So I will pass over your remarks on that subject.”
Well, “my comments” consisted of detailed explanations of the answer to the questions you were struggling with, and why your reasoning was wrong. What you are wrestling with is nothing but elementary fluid dynamics (and simple logic). You erroneously believe that pressure can fluctuate without corresponding fluctuations in density, which means you are hypothesizing the existence of perfectly rigid objects, which implies instantaneous action over distance. There is no such thing.
What you've described is not a viable model of dynamics (and would not be, even if your model of the electromagnetic field as tiny ballistic entities colliding with particles was viable, which of course it isn’t). Here are a few of the fatal flaws in your proposed mechanism:
- The “q entities” increase the rest mass of the particle as they are assimilated into the particle when they collide with it from behind. Someone co-moving with the particle would find that the particle had gained mass. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena. (Contrary to your mode, the resistance to acceleration of a moving particle relative to a co-moving system of inertial coordinates does not change.)
- The "q entities" directly add mass to the particle as they collide with it from behind, but this would be the case whether the particle is accelerating or not. For example, if a particle is maintained in the electromagnetic field at a fixed speed (say 0.99c), it would, according to your conception, continually accumulate more and more mass as the q entities impinge on it. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena.
- You model the electromagnetic force in terms of ballistic particles (rather than, say, waves in a fixed medium), so they would have a speed of c relative to the source, so there would be no reason for c (or any other speed) to be a limiting value. For example, simply accelerate your accelerator to 0.9c, and then use it to accelerate particles faster than c. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena.
- After having accumulated "q entities" increasing its mass, the particle may then be decelerated, so it must give up the same number of q entities that accumulated during its acceleration. But it is constantly being bombarded with new q-entities, even more intensely as it slows down than when it sped up. But at the same time the momentum and kinetic energies of the discarded entities must be reduced by precisely the amounts as if they continued to be co-moving with the particle. Barring some kind of magic, this can only mean that they, in fact, continue to be co-moving with the particle, contradicting the requirement for them to be discarded. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena.
- A significant fraction of the mass of most atoms is in the form of electrically neutral particles, i.e., neutrons, so when such an atom is accelerated to high speed, much of the mass is not being accelerated by electromagnetic forces, it is being accelerated by the strong nuclear force. So your model says nothing about accelerating ordinary matter.
- Electromagnetism is an attractive as well as a repulsive force. One and the same field causes one kind of charge to move in one direction while causing another kind of charge to move in the opposite direction. (Also the forces are generally not central.) An impulsion/ballistic theory fails to account for this fundamental aspect of the observed phenomena.
TVF wrote: “An alternate way to accelerate P is to use a gravitational force, so that the q's are all gravitons traveling >> c with no accompanying elysium. Then the speed increments are not slowed or limited in any way as speed c is approached, and the speed of P rises smoothly past c to any desired level and with no significant change in the effective mass of P.”
- So, according to your conception, an object accelerated by gravity would not undergo the relativistic effects of velocity that are associated with all other kinds of acceleration. For example, if a repeated slingshot effect was used to accelerate an object to high speed, and if another identical object was accelerated to that same speed directly by means of rockets, only the latter object would exhibit relativistic effects. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena.
And so on.
I would also mention that you are claiming the electromagnetic FORCE propagates at the same speed as electromagnetic waves. This is interesting, because in many of your other messages here you have strenuously insisted that this is not the case. Now that you conceed this point, you need to address the lack of aberration of the electromagnetic force between two uniformly moving charged particles. The force always points directly toward the instantaneous position of the other particle, not the retarded position. You have hereby falsified your own claim that lack of aberration can only be due to extreme superluminal speeds.
=================================
TVF wrote: “It is now apparent that you are unfamiliar with Lorentzian relativity. While the two are mathematically similar, LR is physically very different from SR in that LR has no speed limit, so going faster than c is not "special".”
What you’re describing is not Lorentzian Relativity, and more importantly, what you’re describing is contradicted by plentiful experimental observations on a daily basis. You’re playing a shell game, by first referring to the fact that Lorentzian Relativity[1] is experimentally consistent with special relativity (and ipso facto with all empirical tests), and then following this with the claim that there is nothing ‘special’ about c in “Lorentzian Relativity”[2]. This is a shell game because your [2] is completely unrelated to [1], except that you have given it the same name in an attempt to deceive people.
Theory [1] is an absolutist interpretation of special relativity called Lorentzian Relativity, in which there is a single “true” absolute time. This interpretation is indeed indistinguishable from special relativity, but this indistinguishability arises from the fact that, in both interpretations, the momentum of a particle of mass m moving at speed v is mv/sqrt[1 – v^2/c^2] and the kinetic energy of that particle is mc^2/sqrt[1 – v^2/c^2] – mc^2. If both interpretations didn’t predict these same expressions for momentum and energy, they would be easy to distinguish experimentally. It follows that superluminal travel is no more feasible under the Lorentzian interpretation than under the Einsteinian interpretation, so it doesn’t serve your purpose. You need to invent a totally different theory… but unfortunately it must grossly conflict with the observed phenomena in order to be consistent with your agenda. So, trying to have your cake and eat it too, you begin by laying claim to the empirical success enjoyed by [1], and then you surreptitously switch to [2], which is a set of ideas according to which c is not special and superluminal travel is possible. But of course, by making this switch, you forfeit the empirical viability of [1].
You can’t have it both ways. Either you espouse [1], in which case your ideas are consistent with experience but superluminal travel is not a viable concept, or you espouse [2], in which case you are abundantly falsified by experiment. Your shell game has a chance of fooling only people who don’t know the difference between [1] and [2]. You re-affirm in your latest message that no energy is required to accelerate a material particle. This is empirically false, and utterly contrary to the empirically supported Lorentzian relativity[1], proving once again that the ideas you espouse are actually the empirically falsified and non-sensical [2].
=====================================
TVF wrote: “In your strawman model, what happens to the q's after they do their incremental velocity increase? Answer: They magically disappear from the universe, which is where the missing momentum goes. That is why your strawman cannot represent real physics.”
You misunderstood. I was not describing a strawman, I was describing the model you espouse. As you described it, the reason particles can’t be accelerated by electromagnetic forces to a speed greater than c is that electromagnetic force propagates at c. Are you denying that this is what you claimed?
I simply explained what your claim (which is an old canard, a favorite among… shall we say… original thinkers) is well known to be false. If you want to disavow it now, I would be happy to congratulate you on your progress.
======================================
TVF wrote: “One "principle of physics" is that motion cannot arise from non-motion (another form of conservation of momentum). “
Compare the above with your other statement
TVF wrote: “Your kinetic energy right now is zero relative to your monitor, but big enough to smash you if the rotating Earth ran into a wall not sharing that rotation speed, and big enough to vaporize you if the orbiting Earth ran into a wall not orbiting the Sun. So "energy" is an arbitrary concept of use in some contexts, but overrated when taking about cause and effect.”
It’s interesting that you insist on conservation of motion as a matter of principle, and yet you are totally indifferent to the conservation of energy, even though they both are of the same extrinsic nature. You insist that it takes no energy to accelerate a particle, so energy can arise from no energy, but you just as vehemently insist that motion cannot arise from non-motion. How odd.
=================================
TVF: “This again says you know nothing about LR. But surprisingly, it also says you are unfamiliar with aberration. The exact formula for aberration is arctan (v / c), which continues smoothly as v approaches infinity. There is no gamma factor in aberration, and therefore no opportunity for imaginary angles.”
As usual, you are mistaken. The exact aberration angle in both Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity is arctan(v gamma) = arcsin(v/c), so the angle is not a real number for v greater than c.
==================================
TVF: “Some of your message deals with the topic of this thread, which is very much "unsettled science", and where we need experimental help to guide us. Your comments there cannot help this thread along unless and until you accept the premises we are working from. So I will pass over your remarks on that subject.”
Well, “my comments” consisted of detailed explanations of the answer to the questions you were struggling with, and why your reasoning was wrong. What you are wrestling with is nothing but elementary fluid dynamics (and simple logic). You erroneously believe that pressure can fluctuate without corresponding fluctuations in density, which means you are hypothesizing the existence of perfectly rigid objects, which implies instantaneous action over distance. There is no such thing.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
-
Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 6 months ago #16459
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<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 />The “q entities” increase the rest mass of the particle as they are assimilated into the particle when they collide with it from behind. Someone co-moving with the particle would find that the particle had gained mass. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena. (Contrary to your mode, the resistance to acceleration of a moving particle relative to a co-moving system of inertial coordinates does not change.)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your claim not only has no experimental backing, but (if true) would violate SR as well. In SR, particles traveling at a large fraction of lightspeed have a large time dilation (gamma factor), and consequently resist acceleration in any direction, including slowing back down.
And it's not relevant what a co-moving system would see because that is theory-dependent and not observable. More than that, until the 1980s, it was universally taught that in SR, inertial mass increased with speed (to account for the acceleration resistance.) It took an article in "Physics Today" to change the opinion of the physics community to what it is today. But then, the physical interpretation of SR has changed several times during the 20th century.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The "q entities" directly add mass to the particle as they collide with it from behind, but this would be the case whether the particle is accelerating or not. For example, if a particle is maintained in the electromagnetic field at a fixed speed (say 0.99c), it would, according to your conception, continually accumulate more and more mass as the q entities impinge on it. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There are no “q entities” unless the particle is in an accelerator which generates a field (read: electromagnetic waves) traveling at speed c in the same sense as the particle. Any collision of a lightspeed wave with a sub-lightspeed particle will necessarily accelerate it. Your objection violates conservation of momentum (collisions without acceleration) and therefore cannot be valid.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You model the electromagnetic force in terms of ballistic particles (rather than, say, waves in a fixed medium), so they would have a speed of c relative to the source, so there would be no reason for c (or any other speed) to be a limiting value. For example, simply accelerate your accelerator to 0.9c, and then use it to accelerate particles faster than c. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The “entities” must travel at c, which is why c is a limit when only electromagnetic forces are involved. This objection is also invalid.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">After having accumulated "q entities" increasing its mass, the particle may then be decelerated, so it must give up the same number of q entities that accumulated during its acceleration. But it is constantly being bombarded with new q-entities, even more intensely as it slows down than when it sped up. But at the same time the momentum and kinetic energies of the discarded entities must be reduced by precisely the amounts as if they continued to be co-moving with the particle. Barring some kind of magic, this can only mean that they, in fact, continue to be co-moving with the particle, contradicting the requirement for them to be discarded. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">My point in describing the model so abstractly to you was simply to show you that viable models exist to explain the observed phenomena in classical physics terms. In any such sketchy overview, many details are omitted. Moreover, some of the details, such as the pressure-vs.-density issue in this thread, are still open issues. If you want to understand the model at this level of detail, read “The structure of matter in the Meta Model”, MRB 12#4: 58-63 (2003).
In those details, you will see that the “elysium atmosphere” of particles I alluded to will necessarily increase in size and mass as the particle approaches lightspeed because rapid motion through elysium encounters more elysons per second, analogous to a particle at rest in a denser elysium atmosphere. So the fast particle’s elysium atmosphere acquires temporary mass and elongates in the direction of motion. As the particle slows again, the accumulation reverses and the atmosphere resumes normal shape and density.
Once again, I stress that the details here are unimportant. What is clear is that several perfectly viable models exist to explain these phenomena that lie beyond our ability to observe the details. So the thrust of your argument – that no such models are possible – is clearly an act of faith in the mainstream position, and not based on observation, experiment, or logic.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A significant fraction of the mass of most atoms is in the form of electrically neutral particles, i.e., neutrons, so when such an atom is accelerated to high speed, much of the mass is not being accelerated by electromagnetic forces, it is being accelerated by the strong nuclear force. So your model says nothing about accelerating ordinary matter.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This again depends on how neutrons and the strong nuclear force are modeled. The reference I cited explains both and even shows why the masses do not add up in the way that simple models might expect.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Electromagnetism is an attractive as well as a repulsive force. One and the same field causes one kind of charge to move in one direction while causing another kind of charge to move in the opposite direction. (Also the forces are generally not central.) An impulsion/ballistic theory fails to account for this fundamental aspect of the observed phenomena.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The Meta Model explains attraction and repulsion in the same kinds of mechanistic terms as "pushing gravity" explains gravitational attraction using a push force instead of a pull force. Do read the references.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">according to your conception, an object accelerated by gravity would not undergo the relativistic effects of velocity that are associated with all other kinds of acceleration. For example, if a repeated slingshot effect was used to accelerate an object to high speed, and if another identical object was accelerated to that same speed directly by means of rockets, only the latter object would exhibit relativistic effects. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is no such “observed phenomenon”. This is another unbacked assertion. But as to the example itself, it is correct in principle but wrong in practice because the slingshot-accelerated object still has an elysium atmosphere and is still immersed in elysium. So as the model concludes, one must first surround the object with an “elysium shield” composed of superdense matter. Then everything would work just as you describe.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I would also mention that you are claiming the electromagnetic FORCE propagates at the same speed as electromagnetic waves. This is interesting, because in many of your other messages here you have strenuously insisted that this is not the case.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, you missed a terminology distinction. When I speak of electric or magnetic forces, is use the term “electrodynamic force”. When I speak of radiation pressure force, I say “electromagnetic force”. The former propagates >> c, the latter at c.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The exact aberration angle in both Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity is arctan(v gamma) = arcsin(v/c), so the angle is not a real number for v greater than c.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Since gamma approaches infinity as v approaches c, your claim is mathematically inconsistent as well as dimensionally inconsistent. And you provide no citation. But it is apparent that the formula you were trying to write is the one from SR, which is a falsified theory. LR has no time dilation and therefore aberration in it is purely geometric and follows the relation I wrote.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What you’re describing is not Lorentzian Relativity, and more importantly, what you’re describing is contradicted by plentiful experimental observations on a daily basis.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This and most of the rest of your post are based on simple ignorance, easily curable by reading the references. You seem to be insisting that LR is essentially the same as LET, which it is not. Particles traveling near c can gain new momentum in two ways: by accreting mass but very little speed, or by accreting speed but very little mass. Electromagnetic forces do the former, gravitational forces do the latter.
For 2-3 weeks every quarter, I disappear to conduct my editing duties for the Meta Research Bulletin. March 1 began such a cycle. I can still manage short messages, but continuing these lengthy exchanges will have to wait a few weeks. By then, I expect you to have read the references so you know what the rest of us know and what its basis is in obervations, experiments, reasoning, and citation. Once informed, your critiques will be closer to their intended target and may be of some actual value to our efforts to improve the physical models underlying mainstream theories. -|Tom|-
<br />The “q entities” increase the rest mass of the particle as they are assimilated into the particle when they collide with it from behind. Someone co-moving with the particle would find that the particle had gained mass. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena. (Contrary to your mode, the resistance to acceleration of a moving particle relative to a co-moving system of inertial coordinates does not change.)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your claim not only has no experimental backing, but (if true) would violate SR as well. In SR, particles traveling at a large fraction of lightspeed have a large time dilation (gamma factor), and consequently resist acceleration in any direction, including slowing back down.
And it's not relevant what a co-moving system would see because that is theory-dependent and not observable. More than that, until the 1980s, it was universally taught that in SR, inertial mass increased with speed (to account for the acceleration resistance.) It took an article in "Physics Today" to change the opinion of the physics community to what it is today. But then, the physical interpretation of SR has changed several times during the 20th century.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The "q entities" directly add mass to the particle as they collide with it from behind, but this would be the case whether the particle is accelerating or not. For example, if a particle is maintained in the electromagnetic field at a fixed speed (say 0.99c), it would, according to your conception, continually accumulate more and more mass as the q entities impinge on it. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There are no “q entities” unless the particle is in an accelerator which generates a field (read: electromagnetic waves) traveling at speed c in the same sense as the particle. Any collision of a lightspeed wave with a sub-lightspeed particle will necessarily accelerate it. Your objection violates conservation of momentum (collisions without acceleration) and therefore cannot be valid.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You model the electromagnetic force in terms of ballistic particles (rather than, say, waves in a fixed medium), so they would have a speed of c relative to the source, so there would be no reason for c (or any other speed) to be a limiting value. For example, simply accelerate your accelerator to 0.9c, and then use it to accelerate particles faster than c. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The “entities” must travel at c, which is why c is a limit when only electromagnetic forces are involved. This objection is also invalid.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">After having accumulated "q entities" increasing its mass, the particle may then be decelerated, so it must give up the same number of q entities that accumulated during its acceleration. But it is constantly being bombarded with new q-entities, even more intensely as it slows down than when it sped up. But at the same time the momentum and kinetic energies of the discarded entities must be reduced by precisely the amounts as if they continued to be co-moving with the particle. Barring some kind of magic, this can only mean that they, in fact, continue to be co-moving with the particle, contradicting the requirement for them to be discarded. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">My point in describing the model so abstractly to you was simply to show you that viable models exist to explain the observed phenomena in classical physics terms. In any such sketchy overview, many details are omitted. Moreover, some of the details, such as the pressure-vs.-density issue in this thread, are still open issues. If you want to understand the model at this level of detail, read “The structure of matter in the Meta Model”, MRB 12#4: 58-63 (2003).
In those details, you will see that the “elysium atmosphere” of particles I alluded to will necessarily increase in size and mass as the particle approaches lightspeed because rapid motion through elysium encounters more elysons per second, analogous to a particle at rest in a denser elysium atmosphere. So the fast particle’s elysium atmosphere acquires temporary mass and elongates in the direction of motion. As the particle slows again, the accumulation reverses and the atmosphere resumes normal shape and density.
Once again, I stress that the details here are unimportant. What is clear is that several perfectly viable models exist to explain these phenomena that lie beyond our ability to observe the details. So the thrust of your argument – that no such models are possible – is clearly an act of faith in the mainstream position, and not based on observation, experiment, or logic.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A significant fraction of the mass of most atoms is in the form of electrically neutral particles, i.e., neutrons, so when such an atom is accelerated to high speed, much of the mass is not being accelerated by electromagnetic forces, it is being accelerated by the strong nuclear force. So your model says nothing about accelerating ordinary matter.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This again depends on how neutrons and the strong nuclear force are modeled. The reference I cited explains both and even shows why the masses do not add up in the way that simple models might expect.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Electromagnetism is an attractive as well as a repulsive force. One and the same field causes one kind of charge to move in one direction while causing another kind of charge to move in the opposite direction. (Also the forces are generally not central.) An impulsion/ballistic theory fails to account for this fundamental aspect of the observed phenomena.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The Meta Model explains attraction and repulsion in the same kinds of mechanistic terms as "pushing gravity" explains gravitational attraction using a push force instead of a pull force. Do read the references.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">according to your conception, an object accelerated by gravity would not undergo the relativistic effects of velocity that are associated with all other kinds of acceleration. For example, if a repeated slingshot effect was used to accelerate an object to high speed, and if another identical object was accelerated to that same speed directly by means of rockets, only the latter object would exhibit relativistic effects. This aspect of your model is fundamentally irreconcilable with the observed phenomena.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is no such “observed phenomenon”. This is another unbacked assertion. But as to the example itself, it is correct in principle but wrong in practice because the slingshot-accelerated object still has an elysium atmosphere and is still immersed in elysium. So as the model concludes, one must first surround the object with an “elysium shield” composed of superdense matter. Then everything would work just as you describe.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I would also mention that you are claiming the electromagnetic FORCE propagates at the same speed as electromagnetic waves. This is interesting, because in many of your other messages here you have strenuously insisted that this is not the case.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, you missed a terminology distinction. When I speak of electric or magnetic forces, is use the term “electrodynamic force”. When I speak of radiation pressure force, I say “electromagnetic force”. The former propagates >> c, the latter at c.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The exact aberration angle in both Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity is arctan(v gamma) = arcsin(v/c), so the angle is not a real number for v greater than c.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Since gamma approaches infinity as v approaches c, your claim is mathematically inconsistent as well as dimensionally inconsistent. And you provide no citation. But it is apparent that the formula you were trying to write is the one from SR, which is a falsified theory. LR has no time dilation and therefore aberration in it is purely geometric and follows the relation I wrote.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What you’re describing is not Lorentzian Relativity, and more importantly, what you’re describing is contradicted by plentiful experimental observations on a daily basis.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This and most of the rest of your post are based on simple ignorance, easily curable by reading the references. You seem to be insisting that LR is essentially the same as LET, which it is not. Particles traveling near c can gain new momentum in two ways: by accreting mass but very little speed, or by accreting speed but very little mass. Electromagnetic forces do the former, gravitational forces do the latter.
For 2-3 weeks every quarter, I disappear to conduct my editing duties for the Meta Research Bulletin. March 1 began such a cycle. I can still manage short messages, but continuing these lengthy exchanges will have to wait a few weeks. By then, I expect you to have read the references so you know what the rest of us know and what its basis is in obervations, experiments, reasoning, and citation. Once informed, your critiques will be closer to their intended target and may be of some actual value to our efforts to improve the physical models underlying mainstream theories. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 6 months ago #16460
by nonneta
Replied by nonneta on topic Reply from
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. According to your conception, these electric and magnetic fields “propagate” much faster than light, so they should not exhibit the relativistic effects of increasing inertia with increasing kinetic energy of the particles, and those particles should be accelerated to arbitrarily high superluminal speeds as they continue to be subjected to the electric and magnetic fields. Your conception is grossly inconsistent with the observed phenomena.
Likewise, your conception of aberration as predicted by both Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity is incorrect. You say the angle predicted by these theories is arctan(v/c) but, as I said, that is wrong. The aberration angle predicted by Lorentzian relativity and consistent with experiment is arctan(v gamma/c) = arcsin(v/c). (Sorry I confused you by inadvertently omitting the “c” from the denominator of the arctan expression.) As I said, the angles given by these expressions are not real for v greater than c. The light from all the stars would appear to be coming from a single point directly ahead for a traveller approaching the speed c, so the theory you claim to espouse (Lorentzian relativity) contradicts your claims about superluminal travel, and even your claims about what is observed by someone moving at subluminal speeds.
Getting back to the main point of this thread, your belief that accoustic waves in a medium propagate at a speed relative to the source of the wave rather than to the medium is simply mistaken. The music from an ice cream truck does not propagate more rapidly in the forward direction than in the backward direction. All of this is a matter of well-known empirical fact, so your claims to the contrary are simply bizarre. Rather than writing a newsletter, I think your time would be better spent re-considering all your erroneous ideas. Now that you know your conceptions are untenable, why continue to promulgate them?
Likewise, your conception of aberration as predicted by both Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity is incorrect. You say the angle predicted by these theories is arctan(v/c) but, as I said, that is wrong. The aberration angle predicted by Lorentzian relativity and consistent with experiment is arctan(v gamma/c) = arcsin(v/c). (Sorry I confused you by inadvertently omitting the “c” from the denominator of the arctan expression.) As I said, the angles given by these expressions are not real for v greater than c. The light from all the stars would appear to be coming from a single point directly ahead for a traveller approaching the speed c, so the theory you claim to espouse (Lorentzian relativity) contradicts your claims about superluminal travel, and even your claims about what is observed by someone moving at subluminal speeds.
Getting back to the main point of this thread, your belief that accoustic waves in a medium propagate at a speed relative to the source of the wave rather than to the medium is simply mistaken. The music from an ice cream truck does not propagate more rapidly in the forward direction than in the backward direction. All of this is a matter of well-known empirical fact, so your claims to the contrary are simply bizarre. Rather than writing a newsletter, I think your time would be better spent re-considering all your erroneous ideas. Now that you know your conceptions are untenable, why continue to promulgate them?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 6 months ago #16487
by Gregg
Replied by Gregg on topic Reply from Gregg Wilson
Well, Mr. nonneta, I listened to your "philosohpy" 40 years ago and found it extremely nonsensical and useless. That is why I finally came to Metaresearch. You are still mentally trapped in the idea of fields and pure energy. The start of this thread was that "energy" was transferred by means of momemtum through collisions of particles. Your "evident" experimental references to things being limited to light speed are all conducted and observed in a realm where there is a fairly even gravitational flux. Therefore, acceleration of a particle, such as a proton, is limited to "electromagnetic" force, i.e. the light carrying medium. Since it cannot propagate transfer of momentum faster than its observed velocity of light, it cannot accelerate a particle any faster. But, given a high enough gravitational gradient, a particle could reach a velocity greater than the speed of light. I would give you a Ph. D. in attitude, but in nothing else.
Gregg Wilson
Gregg Wilson
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 6 months ago #16488
by nonneta
Replied by nonneta on topic Reply from
Gregg,
Your disagreement is with TVF, not with me. He is the one who claims that an electric field conveys force at much greater than the speed of light. He is also the one who claims that, by the application of such force, particles ought to be accelerated to arbitrarily great speeds, much greater than light. Now, as you and I both know, TVF is quite wrong about this. I welcome your help in trying to educate him.
Your disagreement is with TVF, not with me. He is the one who claims that an electric field conveys force at much greater than the speed of light. He is also the one who claims that, by the application of such force, particles ought to be accelerated to arbitrarily great speeds, much greater than light. Now, as you and I both know, TVF is quite wrong about this. I welcome your help in trying to educate him.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- MarkVitrone
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 6 months ago #16462
by MarkVitrone
Replied by MarkVitrone on topic Reply from Mark Vitrone
Nonneta,
You seem to promote the fact that acceleration past light speed is impossible, it is observed to be true for gravity. I would also remind you that TVF's "conception of aberration as predicted by both Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity" that you claim is incorrect works very well in the GPS system that may help you find a good Chinese restaurant. Why is it so difficult to find a particle basis in the propagtion of light. Why, in my instance, in teaching Physics do I read the text book and see the stupid disparity of all waves propagating through mediums and Oh yeah, here is electromagnetism it can conveniently propogate through a vacuum, all without any explanation of why that is satisfactory. Even when Einstein encountered this problem, his solution was to invent the photon as an explanation. Now we have to muddle through wave-particle duality while we dine on the ashes of a dead physicist. Lets examine, as a brief tangent that will arrive back at our topic, the photoelectric effect as described by Einstein (his only Nobel prize I might add). An electron (a particle) rises from the ground state to an excited state by absorbtion or interaction with energy. The particle, not enjoying being excited, falls back to its ground state and releases a photon equal in energy to the quanta absorbed. No one should have much problem with this brief summary, I will assume. Now lets examine the same effect taking into account elysium. An atom is bombarded with elysium. Electrons vibrate and propogate a transverse wave to the elysium. A propagation of that wave we call light. Simple. Since that propagation wavelengths are smaller than the diameter of atomic nuclei, it is able to pass through most matter, yet it does slow upon encountering clusters of matter (compounds such as water, glass, etc)of increasing densities. Finally the propagation stops upon encountering matter of sufficient density or atom structure that diffuses or absorbs the wave pattern altogether. This is very much like a water wave hitting the beach and reflecting, absorbing, or being dissipated based on the shoreline geometry. That is my take on this whole thread from a MM point of view. I believe this point of view to be young but more evidence-based than any other widget we have been exposed to our whole lives. The unfortunate thing is that the light speed limit is as erroneous as the sound barrier. Light traveling through elysium faces a very similar pressure situation that a rotating propeller in air or water faces, after a certain time, pressure waves in the medium prevent a further acceleration. Constructing a device that obeys this situation, yet tricks it the way a jet engine does. is crucial to human propulsion to the high velocities we need for universal expansion, if we so determine to pursue this niche. Tp an observer inside a jet engine, the sound barrier is never breached, it is super-heated dense air that propellers turn through thereby generating that speed. The other propulsion, the rocket, does not rely on pressure to function and so long as the craft is aerodynamic has no problems accelerating past light speed. We know gravity to propagate faster than light, all propulsion systems that allow velocities to or past c must be based on gravity. I do not claim to know how that is to be done, but I will speculate that a wing or propeller that generates a #8710;g as it passes through elysium could hold the key. This acknowledges that space is not a vacuum, but a densely-packed region of a medium that is palpable and composed at some miniscule level of matter.
Mark Vitrone
You seem to promote the fact that acceleration past light speed is impossible, it is observed to be true for gravity. I would also remind you that TVF's "conception of aberration as predicted by both Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity" that you claim is incorrect works very well in the GPS system that may help you find a good Chinese restaurant. Why is it so difficult to find a particle basis in the propagtion of light. Why, in my instance, in teaching Physics do I read the text book and see the stupid disparity of all waves propagating through mediums and Oh yeah, here is electromagnetism it can conveniently propogate through a vacuum, all without any explanation of why that is satisfactory. Even when Einstein encountered this problem, his solution was to invent the photon as an explanation. Now we have to muddle through wave-particle duality while we dine on the ashes of a dead physicist. Lets examine, as a brief tangent that will arrive back at our topic, the photoelectric effect as described by Einstein (his only Nobel prize I might add). An electron (a particle) rises from the ground state to an excited state by absorbtion or interaction with energy. The particle, not enjoying being excited, falls back to its ground state and releases a photon equal in energy to the quanta absorbed. No one should have much problem with this brief summary, I will assume. Now lets examine the same effect taking into account elysium. An atom is bombarded with elysium. Electrons vibrate and propogate a transverse wave to the elysium. A propagation of that wave we call light. Simple. Since that propagation wavelengths are smaller than the diameter of atomic nuclei, it is able to pass through most matter, yet it does slow upon encountering clusters of matter (compounds such as water, glass, etc)of increasing densities. Finally the propagation stops upon encountering matter of sufficient density or atom structure that diffuses or absorbs the wave pattern altogether. This is very much like a water wave hitting the beach and reflecting, absorbing, or being dissipated based on the shoreline geometry. That is my take on this whole thread from a MM point of view. I believe this point of view to be young but more evidence-based than any other widget we have been exposed to our whole lives. The unfortunate thing is that the light speed limit is as erroneous as the sound barrier. Light traveling through elysium faces a very similar pressure situation that a rotating propeller in air or water faces, after a certain time, pressure waves in the medium prevent a further acceleration. Constructing a device that obeys this situation, yet tricks it the way a jet engine does. is crucial to human propulsion to the high velocities we need for universal expansion, if we so determine to pursue this niche. Tp an observer inside a jet engine, the sound barrier is never breached, it is super-heated dense air that propellers turn through thereby generating that speed. The other propulsion, the rocket, does not rely on pressure to function and so long as the craft is aerodynamic has no problems accelerating past light speed. We know gravity to propagate faster than light, all propulsion systems that allow velocities to or past c must be based on gravity. I do not claim to know how that is to be done, but I will speculate that a wing or propeller that generates a #8710;g as it passes through elysium could hold the key. This acknowledges that space is not a vacuum, but a densely-packed region of a medium that is palpable and composed at some miniscule level of matter.
Mark Vitrone
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.553 seconds