[General] Relativity

Fri Nov 3 12:37:58 PDT 2017

Hi Chip,

I indeed see what you mean.

Since the constant velocity of light is established in such certain terms as an absolute velocity, what actually came to my mind was the idea of possibly establishing the asymptotic speed of light itself as the absolute reference with respect to which all motion could be measured.

I'll have a look at Albrecht's work.

André

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 12:25:40 -0500, "Chip Akins"  wrote:

Hi Andre (and Albrecht) and All

I think that if Einstein’s statement “light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source” is true, then the only reference which makes any sense is the frame of space itself. It is implicit within the statement that the reference frame for this velocity is space itself. Lorentz argued that there must be a fixed frame of space for these same reasons.

What we observe is exactly compatible with this concept, that there is a fixed frame of space, and that we are not able to measure our motion relative to that fixed frame because matter is made of confined propagating energy which moves at the same velocity as light. Then, in a Euclidian three dimensional space, we would experience the exact transformations Lorentz suggested are required. As a result we would always measure the speed of light to be the same speed. In this causal form of relativity there is no room for the supposition that all motion is relative. For motion is, in such a situation, relative to the frame of space.

The impulse which is momentum (a specific force for a finite time) is quite compatible, it seems, with your concept of the importance of kinetic energy in the behavior of propagating disturbances which make up all particles.

One reason I am interested in the kinetic energy analysis is because it would be nice to better understand the subject of momentum as it refers to the propagation of energy through space. I think it would be helpful if we understood the mechanisms which create this momentum.

Albrecht has done some work in this area, using a novel approach which evaluates the behavior of “extended bodies” in space, which is also very interesting.

Chip

From: André Michaud [mailto:srp2 at srpinc.org]
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 11:23 AM
To: chipakins at gmail.com; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc: srp2 at srpinc.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: [General] Relativity

Hi Chip,

I have been thinking about what you wrote here:

"Einstein stated that “light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source”, which is an incomplete statement, logically inconsistent, because the velocity c in empty space has no meaning, unless we use the fixed frame of space, or some other reference, as the logical reference for that velocity. A velocity simply must be stated in reference to something."

My own view on this hinges on the kinetic energy viewpoint that you seem to have taken an interest in.

On page 14 of my paper on the de Broglie photon hypothesis, you will find my take on this issue, which relates the "some other logical reference" that you mention, to the physical presence of momentum related translational kinetic energy:

"Now this brings up the old issue of what this "equilibrium" constant velocity of photons in vacuum (free moving kinetic energy) is relative to in reality. Is it relative to the medium? To the point of emission? To the point of absorption? To the observer? To this or that reference frame, or multiple reference frames, inertial, non inertial, Galilean, moving or not, etc.?

A deeply ingrained habit has developed since the beginning of the 20th century to hypothesize various reference frames in attempts to make sense of the experimentally observed data. But in physical reality, velocity depends on only one criterion: the actual presence of translational kinetic energy. If translational kinetic energy is present and if the local electromagnetic equilibrium allows it, there will be velocity in vacuum, relative to there being absence of translational kinetic energy, irrespective of any hypothesized reference frame or frames. 

The absolute lower velocity limit, as seen from this perspective, would be an electron possessing zero translational kinetic energy in excess the energy making up its rest mass. Of course, such an electron totally deprived of translational kinetic energy can only be theoretical, because all massive particles are subject to gravitational or electrostatic acceleration in physical reality from the moment they start existing. 

The absolute upper velocity limit involving electromagnetic oscillation is reached when an amount of translational (aka unidirectional) kinetic energy propels an equal amount of kinetic energy captive in transverse electromagnetic oscillation, that is, a free moving photon for example, as described in this paper. 

The only other possible case between these two limits involving electromagnetic oscillation, applies to an amount of kinetic energy captive in transverse electromagnetic oscillation being propelled by a lesser amount of translational kinetic energy, such as the kinetic energy making up the rest mass of an electron, plus the transversely oscillating half of its carrier-photon's kinetic energy, both quantities being propelled by the unidirectional half of the carrier-photon's quantum of kinetic energy. The velocity of such a system will mandatorily lie between zero and asymptotically close to the speed of light."

This is the one logical possible other reference that I have identified.

Best Regards

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

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:23:45 -0700, Richard Gauthier wrote:

Forwarded from Chip 

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com>

Subject: [General] Relativity

Date: October 31, 2017 at 6:46:19 AM PDT

To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>

Reply-To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>

Hi Grahame (and Andre)

A while back, we briefly discussed the idea that SR is not “logically self-consistent” even though many conclude that it is mathematically self-consistent.

Regarding logical self-consistent issues…

In order to address this point I think we would need to take a look at the “landscape” as it relates to “relativity”.

While doing this, if we look at causes, which is to say that we use the concept of cause-and-effect as our guiding principle, as you have properly stressed, we can come to logical conclusions which simply do not agree with SR in all details.

So we can take a look at many of the known conditions to guide the development of a composite view of the causes for “relativity”.

Sound waves travel through a medium. Sound waves exhibit the Doppler Effect simply because they travel at a “fixed” speed through a “homogeneous” medium, regardless of the velocity of the object emitting the waves.

Light also exhibits the Doppler Effect in space.

So there is an indication that some similarities may exist between the causes of the Doppler Effect in sound and in light.

Einstein stated that “light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source”, which is an incomplete statement, logically inconsistent, because thevelocity c in empty spacehas no meaning, unless we use the fixed frame of space, or some other reference, as the logical reference for that velocity. A velocity simply must be stated in reference to something.

Einstein also stated that, “Absolute uniform motion cannot be detected by any means.” Which is indicated by experiment as well. So no problem here.

And he then followed with the assertion that “This is to say that the concept of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning.” (Paraphrased)

This second conclusion isnotfully logically supported by the evidence presented, and is logically inconsistent with the assertion that “light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source”. There are alternate interpretations of this evidence which are more causal and logical than this.

First, our inability to measure something does not necessarily make it meaningless. There are a myriad examples we can give of things which we cannot directly measure, but we have come to accept, because of indirect evidence which stipulates their existence.

We can however, from the evidence, reconstruct a set of conditions, which is causal, and yields results which match observation.

For example, if light is made of “stuff” that propagates through a fixed frame of space at c, and if matter is made of confined versions of the same “stuff” also propagating (in confinement) at c in a fixed frame of space, then we would have exactly this set of circumstances. We would not be able to detect our motion through space by using an apparatus like the Michelson-Morley experiment. Note: This approach does not relegate as meaningless anything which may in fact be quite important.

But if “the concept of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning.”Then how do we explain“light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source”and the resultant Doppler Effect when a moving object emits light?

While I am fully aware of the explanation that EM radiation is represented by vector “fields”, and that they somehow could propagate through an empty space at a fixed velocity justified only by the math. That is a less satisfactory answer logically because it does not presentphysicalcause. This consideration, and the Doppler Effect, coupled with the underlying physical cause mentioned above, for us not being able to detect our own motion through space, yields two logically consistent reasons for looking at space as a sort of medium, with a “fixed” frame.

Lorentz transformations are a natural result of the situation mentioned above regarding the constitution of light a matter. These transformations are required under the circumstances where light and matter are made of the same “stuff” and that stuff moves at the fixed speed c in a fixed frame of space. This all occurs in a 3 dimensional Euclidian space.

So there is a more logically consistent, causal view, than the one proposed by SR.

When we run the math describing the situation where space is a medium in which the propagation of disturbances is a fixed velocity, and light and matter are made of these disturbances, we obtain the set of Lorentz transformations, and cause for “relativity” is shown, precisely and clearly. This is a logically consistent basis, and one which shows cause. In contrast to SR, which is a different interpretation of the same starting information, but does not show cause, and does not appear to be as logically consistent.

Are there ways to present this and related information which better illustrates the case from a logical basis?

Thoughts?

Chip

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at srp2 at srpinc.org

Click here to unsubscribe

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171103/78da6e89/attachment.html>