[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 4, Issue 4

Wed Jan 11 10:52:51 CET 2017

Hello Ruud,

My comments are as follows:

The Gravity produce acceleration and acceleration is change in velocity
with time. In case of an object that we visually see  moving wrt to a
reference frame (whatever it is), it is easy to comprehend what an
acceleration and velocity would mean.

In case of a body at rest, upon which the net force is zero, it implies
that  it is moving at a constant velocity.

Now, what could be the velocity of a body at rest. Intuitively , it should
be zero. What if, that is not the case and we have some intrinsic velocity.
If we can have an intrinsic angular momentum then why not am intrinsic
velocity or velocity of an object at rest. I have explained this concept by
taking the example of "The Moving Tub" in the Chapter 4 of my Paper (in
progress) titled "Cube". The link is provided as below.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0d7z0ukm5tp7tez/Cube.pdf?dl=0

In order to explain gravity from the concept of this rest velocity, each
spherical surface around the mass at the given radius r will be moving at
constant velocity. Please note that this is the velocity of the surface
itself, and not the velocity of the body moving through that surface. This
rest velocity gradually increases with the decreasing radius as the time
dilates(whatever that mean) with the surface area. Hence an acceleration as
we move toward the center of the mass.

Attracted body will come to apparent rest at a surface where the rest
velocity of surface will be equivalent to rest velocity of the body.

So far as factor/derivative of gamma is concerned, I see its relevance a
bit differently, which is mentioned at the end of the Chapter 5.

Regards,

Tufail Abbas

On 11 Jan 2017 11:42, "Ruud Loeffen" <rmmloeffen at gmail.com> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
Physics mailing list
Physics at tuks.nl
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20170111/3882e52a/attachment.html>