[Physics] Aether theory discussion

[carmam at tiscali.co.uk]

Thank you for your reply and taking an interest Ruud. I have put your web page in my favourites folder, I will look at it shortly. You did not comment on my deduction that the rocket's mass increase is not accumulative, and therefore there is nothing to prevent faster than light speed. Do you agree?Tom.



----Original Message----

From: rmmloeffen at gmail.com

Date: 21/12/2016 06:12

To: "General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list"<physics at tuks.nl>

Subj: Re: [Physics] Aether theory discussion



Hello Tom.
Thank you for your reply. I visited also again your full explanation on http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/carmam/Hollings.html#lorentz  It's good to see that you are struggling with the Lorentz Transformation too. I am happy to see, that you also think it's admissible to relate the Lorentz Transformation to mass increase. About the calculation of your rocket: I agree on "The mass increase is therefore 0.0000015 Kg or 0.0015 gram". The calculation is correct. Now the question is: If we apply this to the fall acceleration on the surface of the earth: would this lead to an accelerated increase? I think yes: because the outcome is an accelerated velocity in m/s^2. Long time ago, when I started to study these phenomena I learned that the orbital velocity of the planets in fact are accelerated speeds, because they are composed from two directions: one centrifugal (falling) to the earth and one straight forward. Neverteles they are expressed in m/s and v^2 is expressed in m^2/s^2.
 http://www.shmoop.com/forces-motion/gravity-orbital.html 
Velocity, acceleration, and force are vector quantities. In centripetal motion, the velocity is tangential to the orbit, and perpendicular to the force and acceleration which are in the same direction, as usual, as related through .

The Newtonian Gravitational Constant is expressed in m^3/kg/s^2. You can read this as a change in cubic meter over the mass in kg and in an accelerated way. So the result is: accelerated linear change. Transforming the Newtonian Gravitational Constant in to the Lorentz Transformation of mass-energy I keep the same units m^3/kg.s^2 resulting also in an acceleration on the surface 9,8 m/s^2. Although this is "mind-blowing" and has many implications, this is still an option (for me and also for Stavros Tassos and Tufail Abbas).
I think you are very well informed about the Lorentz Transformation and I appreciate it very much if you would read Mind-blowing Gravitation. You can see that a very small factor gamma can have big results if applied to big masses as our planets. But also applied to our atoms they result in 9,8 m/s^2 acceleration on the surface. Here are three different derivations related to the radius of the earth and the quantity of atoms in one line on the radius (as a sort of educated guess):


I know the chosen magnitudes are a little bit fictitious. It's just to show how the growing of the earth could be a part of the complete "growing" image with also particles involved. That's where we need geologist, chemists and quantum physics.
Note: I am not good in thought experiments about the age of twins and the influence of black holes etc. I strive to keep my reasoning as close as possible to my environment and daily experience. I don't say that it is not useful to extrapolate thoughts to the nearly unimaginable world, but it's not my preferred restframe   I just want to know: why does something fall to the ground if I drop it.
Best regards.
Ruud Loeffen.
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161221/b3c5dcfd/attachment.html>