[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 4, Issue 4

Wed Jan 11 08:36:25 CET 2017

To Carl Johnson.

I read on Carl’s website interesting information about the movement of our
Sun in the spiral arm of our Galaxy. I favor Carl’s ideas and insights as
he mentioned on his website  http://mb-soft.com/public/galaxy.html I am
especially interested in the information there provided:
*"Given that our local motion is believed to be around 20 km/sec toward the
Apex, this means that the Sun has a Z-axis (vertical) component velocity of
around 8.7 km/sec upward relative to the Galaxy Plane (toward the North
Galactic Pole). It also has a radially-inward (toward the Core) component
velocity component of around 12.0 km/sec. The bulk of this local motion is
the third component, along the direction of the revolution motion of the
Sun around the Galaxy, with that component being around 16.0 km/sec. This
is in general agreement with currently accepted figures: (found in
Wiedenhoff) "the galactic circular velocity components, which give [for the
Sun] U = -9 km/sec, V = +12 km/sec, and W = +7 km/sec." where "Space
motions comprise a three-dimensional determination of stellar motion. They
may be divided into a set of components related to directions in the
Galaxy: U, directed away from the galactic centre; V, in the direction of
galactic rotation; and W, toward the north galactic pole."*

I hope you read my Emails about the possible relation between Gravitation
(especially the Newtonian Constant) and Lorentz Transformation of
Mass-Energy (LTME). I calculated the velocity “v” in the LTME equation to
be 12278 m/s (12,278 km/s) or v^2 to be: 1,507553E+08

Do you think that there could be some relation between the magnitudes above
and the calculations in the LTME calculation?

I put a paper about the reasoning on the factor Gamma in my Dropbox.
Perhaps you and other members could be interested.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/88c4chl850mrqjc/The%20GAMMA%20FACTOR.pdf?dl=0

Best regards.

Ruud Loeffen.

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:11 AM, <cj at mb-soft.com> wrote:

> To Tom Hollings:
>
> I think we are on the same page, but I really believe that Gravitational
> Lensing is POSSIBLE, although I do not think it is due to any GR effects.
> My specific issue here is that geometry and logic should seem to create
> "perfectly symmetric" patterns of images, same brightness, same spacing,
> same spectras.  When I  have looked at claims of Einstein Crosses, and very
> carefully measured the spacing of the images, I have not seen any which
> really have precise spacing.  I have not had access to the spectra of the
> various Einstein Cross images, but some seem to just be "really poor".
>
> As to the basic CAUSE of possible Gravitational Lensing, it may be beyond
> me.  I look forward to anyone informing me of any Einstein Cross which
> seems to be logically and geometrically impressive, to confirm to me that
> the "phenomenon" is credible.  Once that is the case, bring on any
> arguments regarding mass and such.
>
> Mr. Hollings, you may enjoy a graphic in one of my web-pages,
> http://mb-soft.com/public/galaxy.html
>
> IIt is a sky map showing the locations of the Core, the location 90
> degrees away from that (as a potential direction our "sun orbiting" might
> be headed in that 200 million year orbit), the ACTUAL direction our Sun
> is moving (XYZ), etc.  I used that info to determine the Z velocity of our
> actual sun's motion (currently upward).  I also combined the various
> velocities to determine our components due to the Kepler gravitational
> effect and some other velocities we experience within our Orion Arm.
> Around twenty years ago, I concluded that our Solar system "weaves"
> radially across our Arm (partly due to the asymmetric taper spape of all
> Spiral Arms, where more attraction is "ahead of us" and less attraction
> "behind us" in our Arm.  Other gravitational effects also exist, all of
> which I credit to Newton, and NONE of which I credit to any GR.  I spent a
> couple years doing the newtonian gravitational attraction calculations, and
> came to an estimate that one result is that we "weave" back and forth
> across our Arm about every 52 million years (and we are currently near the
> inner edge of it.
>
> No one has ever bought into this (yet) but those calculations suggest that
> we pass through a very cluttered Arm center-line area every 26 million
> years.  I think it may be a cause for the Moon and Mars and Mercury to have
> southern hemispheres which are very pock-marked.  And possibly bombardment
> on us on Earth 65 million years ago which might have toasted the latest
> dinosaurs.
>
> Oh, the 200 million year sun orbit figure is mostly due to a (very weak)
> Kepler calculation.  It may be fairly accurate, but I am uncomfortable with
> the logic in relying on Kepler for it.
>
> And people in this group seem to assume that I am a "Relativity wonk".
> RARELY, I see enough logic to support some possible SR or GR claims, but
> many of you guys seem to w ant to associate GR with far too many things.  I
> am currently composing a fairly brief discussion about SR, which mostly
> denies almost all the issues it gets credit for.  It IS valid, but for some
> reason, nearly everyone seems to give even SR all kinds of credit.
>
> Carl Johnson
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
>

-- 
*Ruud Loeffen*
Paardestraat32
6131HC Sittard
http://www.human-DNA.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20170111/996c57f4/attachment.html>