[Physics] Aether theory discussion

Wed Dec 21 22:26:07 CET 2016

Ruud, I have now read your web page http://www.shmoop.com/forces-motion/gravity-orbital.html  (speed read only, a
more leisurely read will follow), and find that I have to disagree with two
parts. This is the first :-

“Since we’re more familiar with weight in pounds than kilograms, we
can use the Earth-bound conversion of 1 kg in 2.2 lb to say that this same 60
kg person weighs 132 pounds on Earth, but this conversion doesn’t work for
Mars: pounds aren’t the same over there.”

This is not quite correct. To be sure, pounds are not the same on Mars
as they are here, and kilograms are not the same on Mars as they are here, but
the ratio is the same so the conversion does work on Mars the same as on Earth.

Then there is this statement :-

 “And what’s the orbital velocity required for orbiting planet Earth?
To answer that, we have to choose a distance from earth for the orbit. The
closer the distance between the two, the faster the necessary velocity to stay
in orbit. This is precisely why inner planets have shorter “years” around the
Sun than the outer planets. Nor can the velocity change for a given radius: by
changing the velocity, the radius of orbit changes too.”

This statement is in error, but only very slightly. However, an error
is an error. If the orbits are calculated using only the mass of the Sun and
not the mass of the planet, then your statement that the orbital velocity cannot change for a given radius is correct but only as an approximation.
To get a true orbital velocity requires that the masses of both primary
and secondary are used, as when calculating the orbits of a binary star pair.
If the masses of both are used when calculating the orbits (and they definitely
are) of binary pairs, why are both masses not used when calculating the orbits
of planets around their stars?

In short, the more massive the planet, the faster is its orbital
velocity around its star. This boils down to the fact that a more massive
object falling in a gravitational field falls faster that a less massive
object. This I proved in my web page http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/carmam/Hollings.html#gravity
. A detractor replied to the fact that a more massive object falls faster in a
gravitational field than a less massive object, by saying that this would lead
to the conclusion that a more massive object in orbit would orbit faster than a
less massive one, thinking that that would shut me up. It did not, because I
agreed with him – he was and is absolutely correct. When the mass of the
secondary is taken into account, the orbital speed differs for different
masses. A small difference to be sure, but noticeable. If the Earth was in the
same orbit as Jupiter, Jupiter would catch up to the Earth (assuming they
started on opposite sides of the orbit) in 12,500 years, quite simply because
Jupiter would be faster in that orbit than would the Earth. This explanation is
in the same section #gravity above, the program to run to simulate this is in
that section as is the source for your perusal.

Please prove me wrong.Tom Hollings.

----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/20161221/119af3a9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 28783 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161221/119af3a9/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161221/119af3a9/attachment-0001.png>