[General] SR?????

Thu Nov 2 17:30:05 PDT 2017

Grahame: I am glad to see that people are beginning to understand the power of cultural brainwash that makes even the scientists remain spellbound for over a century!
     However, the turn around will require enormous amount patience while slowly creating a positive ENQUIRING culture.

Very similar degradation had taken place with the economic-political system of the United States.

Chandra.

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 2, 2017, at 7:16 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com<mailto:grahame at starweave.com>> wrote:

Hi All,

I have great regard for Einstein (as I do also for others of his time) - but I don't hold him in the unquestioning quasi-religious reverence that the mainstream physics community seems to.

Just as one example, I'm deeply concerned that the one hailed as the greatest genius of the last millenium, given that he highlighted the root cause of Brownian Motion, was fixated on the idea that Fizeau's results for speed of light in a fluid were pretty conclusive evidence in favour of SR (think about it for a second or two)!  This strikes me as remarkably symptomatic of tunnel vision.

Since every phenomenon claimed as supportive of SR * is (necessarily) explainable without reference to SR, what support is there, exactly, for this claimed metaphysical property of the cosmos?  [* In the sense of objective inertial frame symmetry.]

Just a thought,
Grahame

========
----- Original Message -----
From: Chip Akins<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Fwd: half-photons??

Hi Albrecht

I concur that the relativity of Lorentz and Poincare are more causal and therefore I prefer this approach. It seems to me that SR has adopted too many assumptions and arbitrary conclusions without offering explanation for cause of these twists and additions to the theory of relativity.

While you and I have followed different approaches to derive our respective models, we have come to many of the same conclusions.  Much of the difference in our models is actually a matter of semantics, with a few physical differences.

I think that this is because the data, the information available, is leading us to the same eventual solution.  We each see part of the puzzle now, but finally when humans can see more of the puzzle, it will become clearer, more in focus.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:23 PM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Fwd: half-photons??

Hi André, hi Chip and hi All,

now as there is so much about relativity here I would like to contribute also my comment about it.

Einstein has developed SR from the requirement to explain the constancy of the speed of light c in all inertial systems (which he called a "principle"). So he has made assumptions about space and time and with these assumptions he developed his SR on a purely mathematical basis.

There was earlier asked the question here whether SR can also be deduced on a basis of causality. This is clearly true and was done (prior to Einstein) by Lorentz and Poincare.

In 1888 Oliver Heaviside deduced from Maxwell's equations that a field in motion necessarily contracts. (This was later deduced for all kinds of forces.) Lorentz concluded that if fields contract also objects must contract. This insight was then titled the "Lorentz contraction". So, contraction was explained by cause. For dilation Lorentz and / or Poincare found out that this can be explained by the assumption that on the lowest level of matter, i.e. the elementary particles, there is a permanent motion with c. From both assumptions, Heaviside and Lorentz/Poincare the gamma factor follows, in the case of dilation very simply geometrically (Pythagoras). The internal motion in particles with c was later independently deduced by Dirac and Schrödinger specifically for the electron and given the name "Zitterbewegung".

So, there are no axiomatic assumptions needed for SR, but SR can be based on physical facts which are known otherwise.

I do not see a specific relation to the Coulomb law. This is not plausible; among others arguments by the fact that the dominant force in elementary particles is not the electrical force but the strong force.

And how can the increase of mass be explained? I have presented earlier (in this group and in San Diego) a particle model which explains among other properties inertia. According to this model the mass of an elementary particle is universally given by   m = h(bar)/(c*R) where R is the radius of the particle. Now the relativistic increase is very simple: In motion the quantity R decreases by the factor gamma and so the mass increases by gamma.

We have discussed all this earlier at this place but I thought I should recall it here in this stage of the discussion.

Best regards
Albrecht

Am 01.11.2017 um 19:29 schrieb André Michaud:

Hi Chip,

As you might expect from my previous statement, I have an unusual view of time dilation and length contraction.

Not that I think that SR is not be self-consistent or that it has no uses, but I think that its doesn't completely address high relativistic velocities or very close charges proximity, in the latter case due to an issue with the concept of momentum when translational velocities are hindered.

I find SR as good as classical Newton in the non-relativistic range, which covers all needs at the macroscopic level, given that zero momentum kinetic energy is the asymptotic limit from which energy is induced according to the gamma factor by the Coulomb force, and I find that it only partially addresses energy induction in the relativistic range (momentum correctly calculated, but no account taken of the related mass increase).

I discussed time dilation and length contraction a little with Richard I think. At least I gave him my general opinion.

I do not dispute either the validity of having derived the gamma factor from strict geometric and trigonometric considerations. I find it a clean derivation.

What I think is the problem is the axiomatic assumption that the concepts of time dilation and length contraction logically emerge simply from the fact that the method brings into play velocities (thus time and space "seconds and meters") by plugging a velocities ratio into the otherwise dimensionless gamma factor.

We tend not to pay attention to this particularity, but if you think about it, these dimensions simplify completely out of the gamma factor whatever calculation you involve it in, just like dimensionless constants such as alpha.

What I mean is that time dilation and length contraction are axiomatic assumptions, not conclusions drawn from prior experimentally collected and analyzed data, contrary to the data collected by Kaufmann that relates the gamma factor to kinetic and mass energy induction in the accelerating electron.

I always tended to keep axiomatic assumptions at arm's length, not even meaning that they are useless or always misleading.

As for how I understand the manner in which kinetic energy accumulates in accelerating (and even in accelerated "meaning stabilized in some least action equilibrium state") charged particles, I see this energy as separate from the energy quantum making up the actual invariant rest mass of the electron, that is, as its "carrying-energy" or "carrier-photon", because from my understanding, it structures as a completely normal electromagnetic photon, but one that is stuck with the job of carrying "on its back", metaphorically speaking, the inert mass of the translationally inert electron quantum.

I explain this idea in the paper titled "From Classical to Relativistic Mechanics via Maxwell". It stems in direct line from a derivation made by Paul Marmet from the Biot-Savart equation; a derivation that demonstrates that the magnetic field of an accelerating electron increases synchronously with its velocity, which directly matches Kaufmann's figures.

That about summarizes what I think on these issues.

Best Regards
---
André Michaud
GSJournal admin
http://www.gsjournal.net/
http://www.srpinc.org/

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu<mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171103/d0ccf3a9/attachment.html>