A Revision of the Relativistic Lorentz-Fitzgerald Transformation

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 5, 2006, 2:09:05 PM12/5/06

to

It is commonly believed that as an object is accelerated, it's length
contracts along the axis of motion. This supposedly only becomes
observable at tremendous velocities. At the speed of light, it is
believed that the length of an object would decrease to zero. Yet, it
should be obvious that length contraction along the axis of motion does
not happen. Since the contraction was invoked to explain the absence of
expected results from the Michaelson-Morley experiments by elucidating
the effects of an increased Aether (or ZPE, AKA "vacuum flux" or
"cosmic background radiation") pressure in the direction of motion, it
is obvious that there would be a decrease in (Aether) pressure opposite
the direction of motion. In other words, there would be an equal and
opposite length expansion opposite the direction of motion. The result
of an equal yet opposite expansion in addition to the contraction,
along the axis of motion, would be no apparent change in length along
the axis of motion.

Several references support my conclusion. The first reference is Simply
Einstein: Relativity Demystified by
Richard Wolfson (1). On pages 116-7 Wolfson states: "However, that
doesn't mean you see the object contracted." And: "Remarkably, the
object appears not contracted but rotated!"

The other reference is a well respected graduate level textbook called
Classical Electrodynamics (3rd Ed.) by John David Jackson, one of the
most highly respected references in the field of E&M (2). Jackson
writes in the suggested reading section of chapter 11, the chapter on
special relativity, page 567: "Another neglected subject is the
appearance of rapidly moving objects. This fascinating topic
illustrates how careful one must be with concepts such as the
FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction."

Another reference is "Observation of Length by a Single Observer," by
Roy Weinstein (3). Weinstein writes (p. 608 of ref. 3): "As a result of
(the usual length contraction equation), educators from Einstein to
Gamow have concluded that an observer sees the rapidly moving rod
contracted. An observer seeing the meter stick, however, are words
describing a particular experiment, and it is easily seen that the
experiment consisting of a single observer viewing a rod is not the
experiment described by the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction."

And finally, in Oleg D. Jefimenko's Electromagnetic Retardation and
Theory of Relativity (4), the first sentence of chapter 9 clearly
states: "There is a wide-spread belief that according to relativity
theory the length of a body becomes shorter when the body moves. This
is incorrect." On pg. 209, Jefimenko further reveals: "Taking into
account that in chapters 6 and 7 we obtained correct relativistic
transformation equations on the basis of the retarded length and volume
of moving charge distributions, taking into account that Lorentz
contraction requires not one but two observers (two points of
observation) for its exact manifestation, and taking into account that
electromagnetic fields and light propagate with the same speed, we have
hardly any choice but to conclude that the relativistically correct
visual shape of a moving body is its retarded shape. We then also have
a clear answer to why the retarded field theory, without using Lorentz
contraction for determining the effective shape of a moving charge,
yields relativistically correct fields of the charge. The answer is
very simple: as a physical phenomenon the relativistic (kinematic)
Lorentz contraction does not exist. And the fact that the several
revisions of this concept had no ill effect on relativistic
electrodynamics or on any other branch of physics is an excellent
indication that the concept does not represent a physical phenomenon in
the conventional sense." I should point out that Jefimenko is not an
anti-relativist. His work attempts to prove relativity, although his
interpretation is different from the standard.

Although there would be no apparent change in length due to interaction
with the Aether (or ZPE/CBR), as outlined above, I expect there would
be an observed length expansion along the axis of motion due to the
delay between photon absorption and photon emission. The accelerated
object's atoms will carry absorbed photons a distance before emitting
them. Since the object is made visible by the absorption and subsequent
emission of photons, the object will appear stretched or spread out to
an observer which is at rest (relative to the object's motion) due to
the photons absorbed at one point being emitted at another. The
phenomena would appear similar (if not identical) to the appearance of
an aircraft propeller in motion when the engine is started or akin to a
time lapse photograph. Some of the references I cite support the
concept of an observed length expansion under limited conditions, yet
for different reasons (which are actually refuted by the other
references). Thus, although no changes are observed as a result of
Aetheric pressure changes with motion, I insist that there are optical
effects which would cause an apparent (as opposed to actual/physical)
length expansion along the axis of motion.

References:

1. Wolfson, Richard, Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified, W. W.
Norton & Company, 2003. ISBN 0-393-05154-4

2. Jackson, John David, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd Ed., Wiley,
1999. ISBN 0-471-30932-X

3. Weinstein, Roy, "Observation of Length by a Single Observer,"
American Journal of Physics, Vol. 28, No.7, Oct. 1960, pp. 607-610.

4. Jefimenko, Oleg D., Electromagnetic Retardation and Theory of
Relativity, Electret Scientific Co, 1997. ISBN 0-917406-21-4

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Dec 5, 2006, 2:34:55 PM12/5/06

to

<Para...@kaxy.com> wrote in message news:1165345745....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
>
> It is commonly believed that as an object is accelerated, it's length
> contracts along the axis of motion. This supposedly only becomes
> observable at tremendous velocities. At the speed of light, it is
> believed that the length of an object would decrease to zero. Yet, it
> should be obvious that length contraction along the axis of motion does
> not happen. Since the contraction was invoked to explain the absence of
> expected results from the Michaelson-Morley experiments by elucidating
> the effects of an increased Aether (or ZPE, AKA "vacuum flux" or
> "cosmic background radiation") pressure in the direction of motion, it
> is obvious that there would be a decrease in (Aether) pressure opposite
> the direction of motion. In other words, there would be an equal and
> opposite length expansion opposite the direction of motion. The result
> of an equal yet opposite expansion in addition to the contraction,
> along the axis of motion, would be no apparent change in length along
> the axis of motion.
>
> Several references support my conclusion. The first reference is Simply
> Einstein: Relativity Demystified by
> Richard Wolfson (1). On pages 116-7 Wolfson states: "However, that
> doesn't mean you see the object contracted." And: "Remarkably, the
> object appears not contracted but rotated!"

Lenght contraction refers to measuring the length of the
object by subtracting the distances to both ends of the
object when these distances are measured simultaneously
on the object.
The measurment can (for instance) be carried out by sending
light or radar or laser pulses to the ends of the object and
making sure that the reflection-events are simultaneous
according to the one who makes the measurments.

This is not related to "seeing" the object. Seeing an object
is essentially receiving light signals from both ends of the
object simultaneously at the eye (or photographic plate).

So this and the 3 other references do not support your
conclusion at all.
Do you understand this?

Dirk Vdm

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 5, 2006, 4:36:41 PM12/5/06

to

No, because you are treating the eye as a single detector when in fact
it is an array of microscopic EM (or photo) detectors (known as "rods"
and "cones"). If the eye does not detect a difference in length as the
object is accelerated then I wouldn't expect a different result from
the experimental apparatus as defined in the references (comprised of 2
photo-detectors using reflected light to compare differences in the
detection of reflected light).

Phineas T Puddleduck

unread,

Dec 5, 2006, 4:40:23 PM12/5/06

to

In article <1165354601.5...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
Para...@kaxy.com wrote:

> No, because you are treating the eye as a single detector when in fact
> it is an array of microscopic EM (or photo) detectors (known as "rods"
> and "cones"). If the eye does not detect a difference in length as the
> object is accelerated then I wouldn't expect a different result from
> the experimental apparatus as defined in the references (comprised of 2
> photo-detectors using reflected light to compare differences in the
> detection of reflected light).

You don't understand relativity much do you?

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Dec 5, 2006, 4:49:18 PM12/5/06

to

<Para...@kaxy.com> wrote in message news:1165354601.5...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

If you see (or make a snapshot of) the two end points of a
moving object, light signals from both parts enter your eye
(or hit the photographic plate) simultaneously.
So you don't see the length of the object, since the light signals
from both end points were not sent out simultaneously.
If there is anyhing you don't understand about this, feel free
to ask.
If you do understand this, do you also understand the difference
between seeing (or making a snapshot) and measuring the
length?
If not, can you explain what it is that you don't you understand?

Dirk Vdm

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 5, 2006, 5:05:47 PM12/5/06

to

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> In article <1165354601.5...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
> Para...@kaxy.com wrote:
>
> > No, because you are treating the eye as a single detector when in fact
> > it is an array of microscopic EM (or photo) detectors (known as "rods"
> > and "cones"). If the eye does not detect a difference in length as the
> > object is accelerated then I wouldn't expect a different result from
> > the experimental apparatus as defined in the references (comprised of 2
> > photo-detectors using reflected light to compare differences in the
> > detection of reflected light).
>
> You don't understand relativity much do you?
>

I believe you are the one who fails to understand what I have said.
This is understandable considering that it is so very different from
the standard interpretation. I don't expect you to understand at the
moment. Contemplate what I have shared for a while and then let me know
what you think. I believe you will see what I see in the end.

In the interim, I need to elaborate upon my explanation of what occurs.
In the direction of motion, there will be an increase in the frequency
of incident ZPE flux (i.e., "virtual particle oscillations" AKA
"background radiation") due to a doppler shift. This will cause the
atoms absorbing this energy to expand. Opposite the direction of motion
this same phenomena will cause the atoms to contract, since the atoms
will be receiving less energy from the ZPE flux. Nevertheless, the sum
of the simultaneous expansion and contraction will be zero change in
overall length.

Phineas T Puddleduck

unread,

Dec 5, 2006, 5:16:04 PM12/5/06

to

In article <1165356347....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Para...@kaxy.com wrote:

> In the interim, I need to elaborate upon my explanation of what occurs.
> In the direction of motion, there will be an increase in the frequency
> of incident ZPE flux (i.e., "virtual particle oscillations" AKA
> "background radiation") due to a doppler shift. This will cause the
> atoms absorbing this energy to expand. Opposite the direction of motion
> this same phenomena will cause the atoms to contract, since the atoms
> will be receiving less energy from the ZPE flux. Nevertheless, the sum
> of the simultaneous expansion and contraction will be zero change in
> overall length.

Mr Occam on line 2

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 5, 2006, 5:29:04 PM12/5/06

to

First of all, I am imagining that the object (a rectangle) is centered
within my field of vision and moving perfectly perpendicular to my line
of sight. I am also imaging that the source of light is a pulsed
coherent light source, such as the light from a laser, which has passed
through a beam spreader. This light is projected perfectly parallel to
the line of sight onto the object. I would expect that this would be
identical to the experimental apparatus outlined previously, involving
two (spatially separated) detectors. I would not expect that what one
would see would be any different from what one would measure using the
experimental set up involving the two detectors. In fact, I would not
expect to measure any change in length, regardless of it's direction of
motion relative to the detectors just as I would not expect any
observable change in length. I will explain why in the near future, if
an explanation is required of me.

Furthermore, I was not even describing what one would see when I say
there would be no change in length and cited references to prove it. I
was attempting to determine whether there is an actual change in length
or not. The first several references were provided primarily to build a
foundation for the last. Together, they all support my claim that there
would be no physical change in length...although you may notice that I
proposed there would be an *observed* INCREASE in length (which is
merely an illusion and not an actual physical change in length).

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 5, 2006, 5:33:55 PM12/5/06

to

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> In article <1165356347....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Para...@kaxy.com wrote:
>
> > In the interim, I need to elaborate upon my explanation of what occurs.
> > In the direction of motion, there will be an increase in the frequency
> > of incident ZPE flux (i.e., "virtual particle oscillations" AKA
> > "background radiation") due to a doppler shift. This will cause the
> > atoms absorbing this energy to expand. Opposite the direction of motion
> > this same phenomena will cause the atoms to contract, since the atoms
> > will be receiving less energy from the ZPE flux.

Of course, you do understand that I am refering to the atoms in both
the "front" and "back" (front being the direction of forward motion and
the back being opposite the direction of motion)? The atoms in the
front will expand while the atoms in the back will contract due to
differences in energy levels.

T Wake

unread,

Dec 5, 2006, 5:38:07 PM12/5/06

to

"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-F...@free.teranews.com...

> In article <1165356347....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Para...@kaxy.com wrote:
>
>> In the interim, I need to elaborate upon my explanation of what occurs.
>> In the direction of motion, there will be an increase in the frequency
>> of incident ZPE flux (i.e., "virtual particle oscillations" AKA
>> "background radiation") due to a doppler shift. This will cause the
>> atoms absorbing this energy to expand. Opposite the direction of motion
>> this same phenomena will cause the atoms to contract, since the atoms
>> will be receiving less energy from the ZPE flux. Nevertheless, the sum
>> of the simultaneous expansion and contraction will be zero change in
>> overall length.
>
> Mr Occam on line 2
>

Didn't he cut himself shaving?

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 5, 2006, 5:38:48 PM12/5/06

to

...or measure...

> when I say
> there would be no change in length and cited references to prove it. I
> was attempting to determine whether there is an actual change in length
> or not. The first several references were provided primarily to build a
> foundation for the last. Together, they all support my claim that there
> would be no physical change in length...although you may notice that I
> proposed there would be an *observed* INCREASE in length (which is
> merely an illusion and not an actual physical change in length).

So perhaps, I should rewrite the first paragraph as follows:

> > >> > It is commonly believed that as an object is accelerated, it's length
> > >> > contracts along the axis of motion. This supposedly only becomes
> > >> > observable at tremendous velocities. At the speed of light, it is
> > >> > believed that the length of an object would decrease to zero. Yet, it
> > >> > should be obvious that length contraction along the axis of motion does
> > >> > not happen. Since the contraction was invoked to explain the absence of
> > >> > expected results from the Michaelson-Morley experiments by elucidating
> > >> > the effects of an increased Aether (or ZPE, AKA "vacuum flux" or
> > >> > "cosmic background radiation") pressure in the direction of motion, it
> > >> > is obvious that there would be a decrease in (Aether) pressure opposite
> > >> > the direction of motion. In other words, there would be an equal and
> > >> > opposite length expansion opposite the direction of motion. The result
> > >> > of an equal yet opposite expansion in addition to the contraction,
> > >> > along the axis of motion, would be no apparent change in length along
> > >> > the axis of motion.

The last sentence should be rewritten to read:

The result of an equal yet opposite expansion in addition to the

contraction, along the axis of motion, would be no change in length
along the axis of motion (neither an observed/measured change nor an
actual change).

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 5, 2006, 5:45:38 PM12/5/06

to

Actually, considering that there would be an observed/measured (as
opposed to acctual/physical) length expansion for reasons explained
later in the document, I should have written that last sentence to
read:

The result of an equal yet opposite expansion in addition to the

contraction, along the axis of motion, would be zero overall change in
(actual/physical) length (although there will be an observed/measured
INCREASE in length, for reasons I shall explain).

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Dec 5, 2006, 5:46:29 PM12/5/06

to

<Para...@kaxy.com> wrote in message news:1165357744.1...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

You "would not expect that what one would see would be
any different from what one would measure".
Well, I explained the conceptual difference between measuring
the length of a moving object and seeing the object.
If, after this, you still "would not expect that what one would
see would be any different from what one would measure",
feel free to ask questions about it, but do so only if you can
refrain from dragging irrelevant details into it.

unread,

Dec 5, 2006, 7:14:15 PM12/5/06

to

In article <cLqdnYH_neZ5aejY...@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

An awful accident I hear.

Phineas T Puddleduck

unread,

Dec 5, 2006, 7:16:47 PM12/5/06

to

In article <1165359327.4...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Para...@kaxy.com wrote:

> Perhaps I should have mentioned that the detectors in the experimental
> apparatus are oriented equidistant from the object, parallel to the
> angle of the projected light. In other words, the detectors are
> oriented perpendicular to the object's motion, just as the eye of the
> observer is.

All you are doing is adding more and more incredulous detail

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 6, 2006, 7:07:56 AM12/6/06

to

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> In article <1165358035....@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Para...@kaxy.com wrote:
>
> > Of course, you do understand that I am refering to the atoms in both
> > the "front" and "back" (front being the direction of forward motion and
> > the back being opposite the direction of motion)? The atoms in the
> > front will expand while the atoms in the back will contract due to
> > differences in energy levels.
>
> But yet what happens if I instead consider the object is at rest and I
> am the one moving?

You would be able to determine if you were moving or not based upon the
presence or absence of a doppler shift in the ZPE flux (AKA "background
radiation" or "Aether"). The frequency of the ZPE flux would be
increased in the direction of motion and decreased opposite the
direction of motion.

>There is no inherent symmetry in your scheme.
>

Are you suggesting that the principle of SR, which dictates that it is
not possible to determine which of two observers are moving and which
is stationary (if they are moving in uniform motion at a constant
velocity relative to each other)...must hold true? Was not SR replaced
by GR?

T Wake

unread,

Dec 6, 2006, 8:12:07 AM12/6/06

to

<Para...@kaxy.com> wrote in message
news:1165406876.4...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

>
> Was not SR replaced by GR?
>

Not really, no.

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 6, 2006, 8:32:57 AM12/6/06

to

Perhaps my language is incorrect. When I say uniform motion, I mean
constant velocity. I do not mean they are stationary relative to each
other as they move.

Greg Hansen

unread,

Dec 6, 2006, 11:03:32 AM12/6/06

to

Para...@kaxy.com wrote:
>
>
>
> It is commonly believed that as an object is accelerated, it's length
> contracts along the axis of motion. This supposedly only becomes
> observable at tremendous velocities. At the speed of light, it is
> believed that the length of an object would decrease to zero. Yet, it
> should be obvious that length contraction along the axis of motion does
> not happen. Since the contraction was invoked to explain the absence of
> expected results from the Michaelson-Morley experiments by elucidating
> the effects of an increased Aether (or ZPE, AKA "vacuum flux"

The aether of Lorentz and the ZPE of modern quantum mechanics are
different things. And quantum field theory is fully relativistic, so
don't expect doppler shifting of the vacuum fluctuations-- the theory
doesn't recognize a state of absolute rest. Electrons shot down the
pipe of a LINAC do not scatter from vacuum fluctuations.

> or
> "cosmic background radiation")

And that's a third thing that's different from the first two.

> pressure in the direction of motion,

No, not a pressure. If it were pressure, then the amount of contraction
would depend on the mechanical properties of the materials used to make
the interferometer.

>it
> is obvious that there would be a decrease in (Aether) pressure opposite
> the direction of motion. In other words, there would be an equal and
> opposite length expansion opposite the direction of motion. The result
> of an equal yet opposite expansion in addition to the contraction,
> along the axis of motion, would be no apparent change in length along
> the axis of motion.

Consider this a theory of your own, and not an elaboration on Einstein's
or Lorentz's.

>
> Several references support my conclusion. The first reference is Simply
> Einstein: Relativity Demystified by
> Richard Wolfson (1). On pages 116-7 Wolfson states: "However, that
> doesn't mean you see the object contracted." And: "Remarkably, the
> object appears not contracted but rotated!"

This and the other references refer to the visual appearance of an
object. But unless noted otherwise, discussions of relativistic effects
always assume the intelligent observer who knows, for instance, that it
takes a signal a longer time to go a longer distance, and makes suitable
corrections to account for it.

Length, in relativity, is defined as the simultaneous distance between
the front and back of an object. You can have a row of clocks the
record the time of each passing, for instance. The length changes in
relativity theory because simultaneity is not invariant, not because of
mechanical stresses on the object. It has nothing to do with visual
appearance. It's actually a small effect compared to the visual effect
of an object appearing longer when it approaches and shorter when it
recedes, which itself is a small effect.

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 6, 2006, 12:43:31 PM12/6/06

to

Greg Hansen wrote:
> Para...@kaxy.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > It is commonly believed that as an object is accelerated, it's length
> > contracts along the axis of motion. This supposedly only becomes
> > observable at tremendous velocities. At the speed of light, it is
> > believed that the length of an object would decrease to zero. Yet, it
> > should be obvious that length contraction along the axis of motion does
> > not happen. Since the contraction was invoked to explain the absence of
> > expected results from the Michaelson-Morley experiments by elucidating
> > the effects of an increased Aether (or ZPE, AKA "vacuum flux"
>
> The aether of Lorentz and the ZPE of modern quantum mechanics are
> different things. And quantum field theory is fully relativistic, so
> don't expect doppler shifting of the vacuum fluctuations-- the theory
> doesn't recognize a state of absolute rest. Electrons shot down the
> pipe of a LINAC do not scatter from vacuum fluctuations.
>

I am not so sure this is true. Could you possibly cite a reference?

> > or
> > "cosmic background radiation")
>
> And that's a third thing that's different from the first two.
>

Yes. Because it is comprised not only of the virtual particle flux but
also radiation emitted by other sources, such as celestial bodies. Yet,
it is often regarded as being fundamentally comprised of the ZPE flux
of virtial particle pairs. All else is variable. Some regard it as the
reverberation of he Big Bang. I regard it as a property of the
hyperspatial neutronium condensate comprising the zero-point "Aether"
which our universe exists within. This hyperspatial neutronium
condensate comprises the "singularity" of the black hole which our
universe is hypothesised to exist within. The ZPE flux of virtual
particles may be the result of neutronium instability which is only
maintained by gravitationally induced pressure.

> > pressure in the direction of motion,
>
> No, not a pressure. If it were pressure, then the amount of contraction
> would depend on the mechanical properties of the materials used to make
> the interferometer.
>

The material properties DO affect the contraction. The more massive the
material, the more ZPE flux energy is required to induce a
contraction/expansion or, alternatively, move the material so as to
induce the same contraction/expansion as compared to a less massive
material.

> >it
> > is obvious that there would be a decrease in (Aether) pressure opposite
> > the direction of motion. In other words, there would be an equal and
> > opposite length expansion opposite the direction of motion. The result
> > of an equal yet opposite expansion in addition to the contraction,
> > along the axis of motion, would be no apparent change in length along
> > the axis of motion.
>
> Consider this a theory of your own, and not an elaboration on Einstein's
> or Lorentz's.
>

I DO consider it MY theory, since it is the inverse of what Einstein
and everyone else has proposed.

> >
> > Several references support my conclusion. The first reference is Simply
> > Einstein: Relativity Demystified by
> > Richard Wolfson (1). On pages 116-7 Wolfson states: "However, that
> > doesn't mean you see the object contracted." And: "Remarkably, the
> > object appears not contracted but rotated!"
>
> This and the other references refer to the visual appearance of an
> object.

Yet, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction was believed by Lorentz to be
the result of an actual physical contraction. And it would be an actual
physical contraction if it weren't for the fact that the contraction
were offset by an expansion opposite the direction of motion.

> But unless noted otherwise, discussions of relativistic effects
> always assume the intelligent observer who knows, for instance, that it
> takes a signal a longer time to go a longer distance, and makes suitable
> corrections to account for it.
>
> Length, in relativity, is defined as the simultaneous distance between
> the front and back of an object. You can have a row of clocks the
> record the time of each passing, for instance. The length changes in
> relativity theory because simultaneity is not invariant, not because of
> mechanical stresses on the object. It has nothing to do with visual
> appearance. It's actually a small effect compared to the visual effect
> of an object appearing longer when it approaches and shorter when it
> recedes, which itself is a small effect.

To quote Jefimenko: "...as a physical phenomenon the relativistic
(kinematic) Lorentz contraction does not exist". In other words, there
would be no measurable or observeable change in the length of an object
along the axis of motion. To an extent I agree, yet for different
reasons it seems. I do believe there may be an illusory change in the
appearance of an accelerated object resulting from the motion which
occurs during the delay between absorption and subsequent emission of
photons. In other words, the object may carry photons a distance before
emitting them. This will cause the object to appear stretched, akin to
a time lapse photograph (in other words, it will create "trails").

Igor

unread,

Dec 6, 2006, 12:56:55 PM12/6/06

to

If I hold a metal rod perpendicular to my line of sight and measure
it's length, and then rotate it in a horizontal plane, it will appear
to get shorter also. But has the rod actually shrunk? Must I
attribute the apparent shortening to some mysterious fluid in space
that is exerting a strange sort of pressure upon it? Of course not.
It's just a trick of rotation. And the same goes for anything
resulting from the Lorentz transformation, which is just a rotation in
spacetime.

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 6, 2006, 1:03:32 PM12/6/06

to

Paradi...@kaxy.com wrote:
> Greg Hansen wrote:
> > Para...@kaxy.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It is commonly believed that as an object is accelerated, it's length
> > > contracts along the axis of motion. This supposedly only becomes
> > > observable at tremendous velocities. At the speed of light, it is
> > > believed that the length of an object would decrease to zero. Yet, it
> > > should be obvious that length contraction along the axis of motion does
> > > not happen. Since the contraction was invoked to explain the absence of
> > > expected results from the Michaelson-Morley experiments by elucidating
> > > the effects of an increased Aether (or ZPE, AKA "vacuum flux"
> >
> > The aether of Lorentz and the ZPE of modern quantum mechanics are
> > different things. And quantum field theory is fully relativistic, so
> > don't expect doppler shifting of the vacuum fluctuations-- the theory
> > doesn't recognize a state of absolute rest. Electrons shot down the
> > pipe of a LINAC do not scatter from vacuum fluctuations.
> >
>
> I am not so sure this is true. Could you possibly cite a reference?
>

To be clear, I am responding to your statement about electrons "shot
down the pipe of a LINAC" not scattering from vacuum fluctuations.

Although it may be true that standard quantum field theory is fully
relativistic and doesn't recognise a state of absolute rest, I have to
wonder if this is correct. I was taught by Kaku that the boundary
condition defines absolute motion. In other words, motion IS absolute,
relative to the boundary. Of course one must question whether the
boundary truly does not move. After all, the universe may exist within
a black hole and the boundary would be the surface of the neutronium
condensate. If so, the boundary could itself be in motion if the black
hole were to be displaced by interacting with other masses such as a
black hole of equal or greater mass. Because the "masses" within the
black hole would likely accelerate in the direction opposite the
boundary's acceleration, the result would be a relative motion betwen
the "Aether" and masses within the boundary. Thus, I am inclined to
agree with you that there is no reference frame of absolute rest.

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 6, 2006, 1:06:27 PM12/6/06

to

Not according to Lorentz. Yet, Lorentz has been disproven. The Lorentz
contraction does not happen at all, as Jefimenko has proven. To quote
Jefimenko (from the reference I provided):

"...as a physical phenomenon the relativistic (kinematic) Lorentz
contraction does not exist."

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Dec 6, 2006, 1:08:54 PM12/6/06

to

<Para...@kaxy.com> wrote in message news:1165428387.7...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> Igor wrote:

[snip]

>>
>> If I hold a metal rod perpendicular to my line of sight and measure
>> it's length, and then rotate it in a horizontal plane, it will appear
>> to get shorter also. But has the rod actually shrunk? Must I
>> attribute the apparent shortening to some mysterious fluid in space
>> that is exerting a strange sort of pressure upon it? Of course not.
>> It's just a trick of rotation. And the same goes for anything
>> resulting from the Lorentz transformation, which is just a rotation in
>> spacetime.
>
> Not according to Lorentz. Yet, Lorentz has been disproven. The Lorentz
> contraction does not happen at all, as Jefimenko has proven. To quote
> Jefimenko (from the reference I provided):
>
> "...as a physical phenomenon the relativistic (kinematic) Lorentz
> contraction does not exist."

Has anyone ever told you that you are severely autistic?
Probably someone did and you probably don't even care.

Dirk Vdm

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 6, 2006, 1:26:03 PM12/6/06

to

According to Jefimenko, the transformation in length you refer to does
not happen. This can be proven in many ways, as I have attempted.
Another way to visualise why no change in length takes place, is to use
the experimental setup of the Michaelson-Morley interferometer to
demonstrate that any displacement of the one mirror would be offset by
an equal displacemet of the second mirror so that the distance between
the two mirrors (which reflect a beam of light parallel to the axis of
motion) remains unchanged.

One must then explain why the results of the Michaelson-Morley
experiment differed from the expected result. Perhaps it is because any
increase in frequency in light which is propagating in the direction of
motion between the two mirrors would be perfectly offset by a decrease
in the frequency of light propagating in the reverse direction, so that
the sum frequency remains unchanged!

unread,

Dec 6, 2006, 4:26:31 PM12/6/06

to

Actually, after further contemplation, I have decided that the matter
inside of a black hole would accelerate uniformly along with the
boundary of the neutronium condensate comprising the black hole. Thus,
the neutronium Aether would actually provide a reference frame of
absolute rest.

T Wake

unread,

Dec 6, 2006, 4:33:24 PM12/6/06

to

<Para...@kaxy.com> wrote in message
news:1165440391.1...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...

Blimey. You may want to do some more contemplation.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Dec 6, 2006, 4:45:52 PM12/6/06

to

"T Wake" <usenet...@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:dYidncpguau7qurY...@pipex.net...

>
> <Para...@kaxy.com> wrote in message news:1165440391.1...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Para...@kaxy.com wrote:
>>> Paradi...@kaxy.com wrote:

[snip]

>>> >
>>> > I am not so sure this is true. Could you possibly cite a reference?
>>> >
>>>
>>> To be clear, I am responding to your statement about electrons "shot
>>> down the pipe of a LINAC" not scattering from vacuum fluctuations.
>>>
>>> Although it may be true that standard quantum field theory is fully
>>> relativistic and doesn't recognise a state of absolute rest, I have to
>>> wonder if this is correct. I was taught by Kaku that the boundary
>>> condition defines absolute motion. In other words, motion IS absolute,
>>> relative to the boundary. Of course one must question whether the
>>> boundary truly does not move. After all, the universe may exist within
>>> a black hole and the boundary would be the surface of the neutronium
>>> condensate. If so, the boundary could itself be in motion if the black
>>> hole were to be displaced by interacting with other masses such as a
>>> black hole of equal or greater mass. Because the "masses" within the
>>> black hole would likely accelerate in the direction opposite the
>>> boundary's acceleration, the result would be a relative motion betwen
>>> the "Aether" and masses within the boundary. Thus, I am inclined to
>>> agree with you that there is no reference frame of absolute rest.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, after further contemplation, I have decided that the matter
>> inside of a black hole would accelerate uniformly along with the
>> boundary of the neutronium condensate comprising the black hole. Thus,
>> the neutronium Aether would actually provide a reference frame of
>> absolute rest.
>
> Blimey. You may want to do some more contemplation.

Who knows what would have come next.

You shouldn't have interupted them :-(

Dirk Vdm

T Wake

unread,

Dec 6, 2006, 7:01:57 PM12/6/06

to

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:kSGdh.223374$Ty6.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

Sorry. My mistake.

Greg Hansen

unread,

Dec 6, 2006, 11:06:15 PM12/6/06

to

Para...@kaxy.com wrote:
> Para...@kaxy.com wrote:
>
>>Paradi...@kaxy.com wrote:
>>
>>>Greg Hansen wrote:
>>>
>>>>Para...@kaxy.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It is commonly believed that as an object is accelerated, it's length
>>>>>contracts along the axis of motion. This supposedly only becomes
>>>>>observable at tremendous velocities. At the speed of light, it is
>>>>>believed that the length of an object would decrease to zero. Yet, it
>>>>>should be obvious that length contraction along the axis of motion does
>>>>>not happen. Since the contraction was invoked to explain the absence of
>>>>>expected results from the Michaelson-Morley experiments by elucidating
>>>>>the effects of an increased Aether (or ZPE, AKA "vacuum flux"
>>>>
>>>>The aether of Lorentz and the ZPE of modern quantum mechanics are
>>>>different things. And quantum field theory is fully relativistic, so
>>>>don't expect doppler shifting of the vacuum fluctuations-- the theory
>>>>doesn't recognize a state of absolute rest. Electrons shot down the
>>>>pipe of a LINAC do not scatter from vacuum fluctuations.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I am not so sure this is true. Could you possibly cite a reference?
>>>
>>
>>To be clear, I am responding to your statement about electrons "shot
>>down the pipe of a LINAC" not scattering from vacuum fluctuations.
>>

Pretty much any text on quantum field theory, like Peskin & Schroeder.
I'm not a fan of virtual particles, myself, and this is one reason why.
But you can get much more about that from Wald's book on black hole
thermodynamics.

>>Although it may be true that standard quantum field theory is fully
>>relativistic and doesn't recognise a state of absolute rest, I have to
>>wonder if this is correct. I was taught by Kaku that the boundary
>>condition defines absolute motion. In other words, motion IS absolute,
>>relative to the boundary. Of course one must question whether the
>>boundary truly does not move. After all, the universe may exist within
>>a black hole and the boundary would be the surface of the neutronium
>>condensate. If so, the boundary could itself be in motion if the black
>>hole were to be displaced by interacting with other masses such as a
>>black hole of equal or greater mass. Because the "masses" within the
>>black hole would likely accelerate in the direction opposite the
>>boundary's acceleration, the result would be a relative motion betwen
>>the "Aether" and masses within the boundary. Thus, I am inclined to
>>agree with you that there is no reference frame of absolute rest.

It depends, of course, on whether the particle runs into the boundary
condition.

> Actually, after further contemplation, I have decided that the matter
> inside of a black hole would accelerate uniformly along with the
> boundary of the neutronium condensate comprising the black hole. Thus,
> the neutronium Aether would actually provide a reference frame of
> absolute rest.

Neutron stars have neutronium. Black holes have a singularity. If the
neutronium could stand up to the gravity, it wouldn't have become a
black hole.

Greg Hansen

unread,

Dec 6, 2006, 11:17:05 PM12/6/06

to

Para...@kaxy.com wrote:

I couldn't begin to speak for Jefimenko without reading him in some
detail. But if by length contraction you mean strain resulting from
mechanical stresses, then he is quite right that it does not occur. But
that's not what length contraction means in Lorentz's theory or in
Einstein's. Lorentz simply proposed that object lengths contract by
just the amount required to give a null result to the Michelson-Morley
experiment. In Einstein's theory, the length contraction is a logically
necessary result of the relativity of simultaneity. In the latter
theory, observers moving with different speeds will measure different
lengths of the same object-- length is not an invariant quantity in
special relativity.

And then you went on to quote some of Jefimenko's opinions on the visual
appearance of a quickly moving object. This is not the same as the
length contraction that everyone is talking about.

Relativity explains the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment
simply by postulating that there is no aether wind pushing the light
along like waves carried in a river (that would be the first postulate,
the principle of relativity). If there's no aether wind, then the lack
of observable effects of an aether wind is trivially explained.

Jeff…Relf

unread,

Dec 7, 2006, 4:42:11 AM12/7/06

to

Hi Greg_Hansen and Paradise_,

Eintein's ether is space-time where time is truly spatial, falsely directional;
so, not only does the ether " have no wind ", it's immutable, static, spatial
and, of course, parochial.

The reason for this is trivially obvious:

Nothing could ever be truly random.
Were it not so, science would never have progressed,
and forecasts could never have improved.

But, despite Einstein's great prestige, many object to this fact because:

1. It's too metaphysical.

2. Like evolution, it zooms too far, making humans look too small.

3. It means all changes, including all choices, are perfectly virtual.

T Wake

unread,

Dec 7, 2006, 5:52:56 AM12/7/06

to

"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_...@Cotse.NET...

> Hi Greg_Hansen and Paradise_,
>
> Eintein's ether is space-time where time is truly spatial, falsely
> directional;

Nonsense.

> so, not only does the ether " have no wind ", it's immutable, static,
> spatial
> and, of course, parochial.

Do you have a citation to support your claims or are you just making it up?

> The reason for this is trivially obvious:
>
> Nothing could ever be truly random.
> Were it not so, science would never have progressed,
> and forecasts could never have improved.

Nonsense.

> But, despite Einstein's great prestige, many object to this fact because:
>
> 1. It's too metaphysical.
>
> 2. Like evolution, it zooms too far, making humans look too small.
>
> 3. It means all changes, including all choices, are perfectly virtual.
>

4. It is utter crap.

And 4 it is.

I love the way you add words together to give them false gravitas.
"Perfectly Virtual" is brilliant.

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 7, 2006, 7:19:15 AM12/7/06

to

I can see why you would say this. I did not fully explain my
conclusion. I should have explained that I believe the interior of
every black hole contains an exact duplicate of the universe in which
the black hole exists. So, not only do a black hole and the universe
inside it move together in uniform motion (so that there is no relative
motion between the black hole and the universe inside), any motion of
the black hole is mirrored by the "mirror" universe inside of the black
hole. The mirror universe inside a black hole is entangled with the
universe outside and the two are one. The mirror universe inside IS the
universe outside. As above so below. The inside becomes the outside and
the outside becomes the inside. Therefore, there is no absolute motion
of the Aether. There is only absolute motion relative to the Aether.
Any motion of the Aether (and the universe which exists within the
Aethereal substrate) is relative to ITSELF (the mirror universe). If
one properly visualises such a paradigm, it becomes obvious that the
Aethereal substrate (within which the universe inside of a black hole
exists) effectively remains a reference frame of absolute rest. I do
not expect anyone to understand what I am saying. Yet, I will be
creating computer animations to illustrate what I am attempting to
convey, which will be presented on a web page. I will provide a URL to
this website once I have completed the animations. I believe that once
you have seen these animations, you will understand (if you don't
already).

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 7, 2006, 9:33:53 AM12/7/06

to

Actually, I would expect that acceleration would induce both a
contraction and a strain. Depending upon the circumstances, the
contraction may or may not be cancelled. For example, the thrust of
propulsion could push against the rear of a vehicle so as to cancel a
displacement opposite the direction of motion. Thus, there would be no
aft displacement to counterbalance the displacement at the front of the
vehicle and there would be an observeable/measurable contraction.

> But
> that's not what length contraction means in Lorentz's theory or in
> Einstein's. Lorentz simply proposed that object lengths contract by
> just the amount required to give a null result to the Michelson-Morley
> experiment.

As I recall, the explanation proposed by Lorentz invoked the Aether
wind concept which was/is also believed to explain acceleration forces.
Lorentz believed that the contractions he proposed were actual physical
deformations and not illusory. In the case of acclerated motion, I
would agree. Yet, such an Aether wind does not explain how such a
transformation could exist for an object moving at a constant velocity,
since there would be no acceleration forces. According to my proposal,
as outlined previously (in this thread and other related threads), the
object does undergo a transformation, yet this transformation is not
measurable or observable since there is an equal and opposite
"expansion", or displacement opposite the vector of motion. One could
even regard the "contraction" as a result of this displacement opposite
the vector of motion. Therefore the transformation would not be
measurable/observable because the entire object is displaced opposite
the direction of motion. This displacement opposite the direction of
motion is obviously cancelled by ithe object's displacement in the
direction of motion (which causes the opposing displacement). The
stress of this opposing displacement manifests itself only in the form
changes in entropy.

> In Einstein's theory, the length contraction is a logically
> necessary result of the relativity of simultaneity. In the latter
> theory, observers moving with different speeds will measure different
> lengths of the same object-- length is not an invariant quantity in
> special relativity.
>

The Michaelson-Morley experiment failed to detect the differences
because the differences cancel. In other words, the increase of
frequency of light propagating in the direction of motion was
counterbalanced by an equal yet opposite decrease of frequency in the
light propagating opposite the direction of motion (between the two
mirrors).

> And then you went on to quote some of Jefimenko's opinions on the visual
> appearance of a quickly moving object. This is not the same as the
> length contraction that everyone is talking about.
>

As I understand, Jefimenko condemns both the possibility of a
measurable and an observable visual Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation.
He and others have condemned the possibility of a measurable
transformation due to the inabilty to properly correlate measurements.
In other words, the differences in simultaneity would supposedly
prevent one from detecting the deformation.

> Relativity explains the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment
> simply by postulating that there is no aether wind pushing the light
> along like waves carried in a river (that would be the first postulate,
> the principle of relativity). If there's no aether wind, then the lack
> of observable effects of an aether wind is trivially explained.

In my opinion, the differences in simultaneity are actually explained
by the Aether wind. In other words, the differences in simultaneity
predicted by the fact that the speed of light is constant (and that
only the frequency of EM radiation changes) prove the existence of the
Aether. To reiterate, the fact of the constant speed of light proves
the existence of the Aether. Of course, a full understanding of the
nature of the constant speed of light requires that we change our
understanding of the nature of the Aether, since the speed and
frequency of light remains unchanged even for observers whom are
stationary relative to a moving source of EM radiation. To elaborate, I
believe the correct solution to a constant speed of light and a correct
theory of the Aether lies in the Heaviside-Gibbs and the
Whittaker-Stoney equations, wherein EM radiation and the Aether are
comprised of EM waves atop and within EM waves.

The correct solution may also involve the possibility that energy is
actually negative (an increase of "energy" is actually a decrease of
positive energy and a decrease of energy is actually an increase in
"positive" energy). Such a hypothesis explains the paradox which exists
between the physics of hydraulics and fluid dynamics (wherein the
definition of energy seems to be opposite for the two sciences).
Because the enfolded waves of the Whittaker-Stoney and Heaviside-Gibbs
equations propagate faster than the speed of light, and therefore
constitute the time-reversed or phase conjugate half of an EM wave, the
energy of these enfolded phase-conjugate waves would actually be
negative. The possibility of energy being negative may resolve the
paradox between Einstein's proposal that the rate of time flow should
decrease for an accelerated observer (relative to a "stationary"
observer) and my proposal that the rate of time flow should increase
for an acclerated object. For example, as an object is accelerated it's
(negative) energy increases, yet this increase of energy is actually a
decrease of positive energy. Therefore, the rate of time flow
decreases. Yet, since (negative) energy is associated with electron
energy levels in an atom, the entropy of the matter comprising an
accelerated object will appear to "increase" (as the electron energy
levels increase and the atoms accquire a negative charge). The apparent
"increase" of entropy occuring as a result of acceleration could
therefore be regarded as an actual decrease of entropy, since the
apparent increase is an increase in the negative direction. The concept
of an apparent increase of entropy being an actual decrease in entropy
is supported by the fact that (hot) plasmas, which are created by
raising the electron energy levels of atoms, are regarded as having a
negative absolute Kelvin temperature.

Para...@kaxy.com

Phineas T Puddleduck

unread,

Dec 7, 2006, 1:00:16 PM12/7/06

to

In article <1165493955.2...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Para...@kaxy.com wrote:

> Yet, I will be
> creating computer animations to illustrate what I am attempting to
> convey, which will be presented on a web page.

So Disney cartoons are an accurate representation of reality?

Phineas T Puddleduck

unread,

Dec 7, 2006, 1:04:14 PM12/7/06

to

In article <1165502685.0...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
Para...@kaxy.com wrote:

> Electrons, positrons, and protons are believed to be polarisations of
> the Aethereal ZPE Flux of virtual particles. In other words, matter is
> comprised of Aether and not seperate from it. The only reason that the
> Aether exerts a force on matter purely due to the EM force of Doppler
> shifted ZPE Flux radiation acting upon the charges comprising matter.

Only by you.

Jeff…Relf

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 2:22:45 AM12/8/06

to

Hi Paradise_kaxy ( and Greg_Hansen ),

Random fluctuations are just that... Random, unpredictable.
Now compare that with General Relativity,
where the ether ( space plus spatial time ) is static, predictable.

The difference is this: A priori information.

" The polarization coupling of paired photons "
is also about a priori information.

The photons are paired... Duh !
So, as soon as you know one's spin, you know the other's.
No information traveled anywhere... The spin just becomes known, a priori.

Likewise, an _Ideal_ ( i.e. perfect ) laser is, by definiton, a pure wave,
it has no observable photons ( i.e. no particles or random radiations );
and physics is only concerned with what's observable, the rest is metaphysics.

We know the laser's momentum ( i.e. its frequency ) perfectly
only because we know, a priori, that it's perfectly coherent.
Ideal lasers are Bose-Einstein systems,
i.e. the state of matter ( like ice, water, steam ) near absolute zero.

From the famous double-slit experiment, the Uncertainty Principle says that
we can _Never_ know the postion of a random photon ( from radiation )
coming out of an _Ideal_ ( i.e. perfectly cold ) laser
when it passes through a slit.

Why ? because there's simply no radiation to observe !
it's too cold, too coherent.

That's Quantum Mechanics in a nutshell,
and it's merely a refinement of thermodynamics.

Further, the laws of thermodynamics are cosmic in scope, I posit;
i.e. they're true for all places and times.
Observed or not, the structure of the universe is forever dissipating;
i.e. Gibbs_Free_Energy is constantly being consumed... creating virtual life.

While Bohr's much lauded Copenhagen Interpretation was intentionally mute
on metaphysical issues, Einstein's much maligned Interpretation wasn't so shy.
Einstein asserted that nothing is truly random.
In other words, all changes ( including all choices ) are merely virtual.

This means that today's theories and technologies are
not the last word, i.e., if the past is any indicator,
theories and technologies will improve.
Einstein's ability to find once hidden causalities
decades before they were empirically proven exemplified his Logical positivism.
For example, decades before it could be empirically verified
his General Relativity explained exactly how
a clock with 10 ^ -16 second accuracy ticks faster
with a minute increase in altitude. See:

PhysicsToday.ORG/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html

Phineas T Puddleduck

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 4:01:59 AM12/8/06

to

In article <Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET>,
JeffŠRelf <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:

> Hi Paradise_kaxy ( and Greg_Hansen ),
>
> Random fluctuations are just that... Random, unpredictable.
> Now compare that with General Relativity,
> where the ether ( space plus spatial time ) is static, predictable.
>
> The difference is this: A priori information.
>
> " The polarization coupling of paired photons "
> is also about a priori information.
>
> The photons are paired... Duh !
> So, as soon as you know one's spin, you know the other's.
> No information traveled anywhere... The spin just becomes known, a priori.
>
> Likewise, an _Ideal_ ( i.e. perfect ) laser is, by definiton, a pure wave,
> it has no observable photons ( i.e. no particles or random radiations );
> and physics is only concerned with what's observable, the rest is metaphysics.
>
> We know the laser's momentum ( i.e. its frequency ) perfectly
> only because we know, a priori, that it's perfectly coherent.
> Ideal lasers are Bose-Einstein systems,
> i.e. the state of matter ( like ice, water, steam ) near absolute zero.
>
> From the famous double-slit experiment, the Uncertainty Principle says that
> we can _Never_ know the postion of a random photon ( from radiation )
> coming out of an _Ideal_ ( i.e. perfectly cold ) laser
> when it passes through a slit.

Shut up you moron.

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 4:05:21 AM12/8/06

to

Jeff,

I don't believe Einstein's theories fully explain why an atomic clock
positioned further from a center of gravity appears to "tick" faster
relative to an atomic clock positioned closer to a center of gravity.
This is because Einstein did not explain that energy, which is
associated with electron energy levels, is actually negative...as I
have explained (in either this or another thread). I may be the first
to have properly exlained this.

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 4:19:04 AM12/8/06

to

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> In article <1165493955.2...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Para...@kaxy.com wrote:
>
> > Yet, I will be
> > creating computer animations to illustrate what I am attempting to
> > convey, which will be presented on a web page.
>
> So Disney cartoons are an accurate representation of reality?
>

I'm sure you'd prefer an arcane mathematical description which would
probably be incomprehensible to most people. Yet, I believe a simple
animated visual illustration would be a more effective way to
communicate and even PROVE what I am attempting to convey.

Jeff…Relf

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 4:24:49 AM12/8/06

to

Hi Paradise_,

General Relativity's " immutable ether " is the " ground state ".
It has four _Spatial_ ( static, parochial ) dimensions and is
the only thing we know ( a priori ) about the _Local_ cause of gravity.

Locally, microscopically, gravity is too weak to be directly obsevered.

Eric Gisse

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 4:35:30 AM12/8/06

to

God, shut the fuck up you babbling moron. You don't know shit about
physics - you didn't even graduate high school!

Sue...

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 5:29:01 AM12/8/06

to

Oh?
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

<< Mach's stipulation is favoured
in general relativity by the circumstance
that acceleration induction in accordance
with the gravitational field equations really
exists, although of such slight intensity
that direct detection by mechanical experiments
is out of the question. >>
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html

Einsteins mistakes
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html

Sue...

Jeff…Relf

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 6:57:29 AM12/8/06

to

Hi Sue, Re: ESA.INT/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

That's an old story. They're comparing two models:

virtual gravitons vs. virtual photons

Virtual gravitons are the domain of string theory, not General Relativity.

Re: Einstein's so-called mistakes, mentioned here:

AIP.ORG/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html

From Einstein's 1905 paper until his death,
Einstein realized that nothing could ever be truly random.
He knew that time was truly spatial, falsely directional.

He wrote about it so clearly, so many times,
that it blows my mind everytime I see someone like you, who doesn't get it.
The ponderable ether is static, immutable, space plus spatial time.

Locally, microscopically, gravity is too weak to be directly obsevered.

In " Ether and the Theory of Relativity " ( 1920 ), Einstein wrote:

But this ether may not be thought of as
endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media,
as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.

The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

TUHH.DE/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

Hermann Weyl, Einstein's colleague, said:

The world doesn't happen, it simply is.

Einstein said:

But the scientist is possessed by
the sense of universal causation.
The future, to him, is
every whit as necessary and determined as the past.
EinsteinAndReligion.COM/sciencereligious.html

and:

People like us, who believe in physics, know that
the distinction between past, present, and future is
only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
SpeakingOfFaith.PublicRadio.ORG/programs/einsteinsgod/unheardcuts.shtml

Hawking said:

In relativity,
there is no real distinction between the space and time coordinates,
just as there is no difference between two space coordinates.
......

In summary, the title of this essay was a question:

Is_Everything_Determined ?

The answer is yes, it is.
But it might as well not be, because we can never know what is determined.
......

The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.
The universe would be completely self-contained
and not affected by anything outside itself.

It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just _Be_.
What place, then, for a creator ?

I you need further research, you can read these high-quality links:

Urgrue.ORG/lib/mysterious-flow.html
Title: That Mysterious Flow
Journal: Scientific American, Sep 2002

Plato.Stanford.EDU/entries/time/#8
Title: 4D View of Time

WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Block_time

Philsci-Archive.Pitt.EDU/archive/00002408/
Title: Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View ?

T Wake

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 11:45:28 AM12/8/06

to

"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message

news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...

> Hi Paradise_kaxy ( and Greg_Hansen ),

Hi Jeff, well done on producing 58 lines of nonsense. Did you use a random
text generator? If so its a good one. Every now and then the words even look
like sentences at first glance.

> Random fluctuations are just that... Random, unpredictable.
> Now compare that with General Relativity,
> where the ether ( space plus spatial time ) is static, predictable.

Gibberish, there is no ether in GR - unless you have a citation to the
contrary.

> The difference is this: A priori information.
>
> " The polarization coupling of paired photons "
> is also about a priori information.

Brilliant. If you could have changed "is" to somethng longer I would really
have been impressed. No matter what word you used it would still make the
same sense (i.e. none).

The rest of the post is just more, repetitive, evidence that you have no
idea what you are talking about.

Remember, when you are ready to _learn_ we can start with the fundamental
forces and what "spatial" dimensions are (including why time isn't one of
them).

T Wake

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 11:46:16 AM12/8/06

to

"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message

news:Jeff_Relf_2...@Cotse.NET...

Jeff, please take a night class in English.

T Wake

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 11:46:59 AM12/8/06

to

"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2...@Cotse.NET...

> <snip drivel>

I see your random word generator is fixed now - none of those pesky
sentences any more. Nice one RelfBot.

Phineas T Puddleduck

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 5:06:26 PM12/8/06

to

In article <1165568721....@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
Para...@kaxy.com wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> I don't believe Einstein's theories fully explain why an atomic clock
> positioned further from a center of gravity appears to "tick" faster
> relative to an atomic clock positioned closer to a center of gravity.
> This is because Einstein did not explain that energy, which is
> associated with electron energy levels, is actually negative...as I
> have explained (in either this or another thread). I may be the first
> to have properly exlained this.

Um no.

Phineas T Puddleduck

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 5:07:18 PM12/8/06

to

In article <1165569544....@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Para...@kaxy.com wrote:

> I'm sure you'd prefer an arcane mathematical description which would
> probably be incomprehensible to most people. Yet, I believe a simple
> animated visual illustration would be a more effective way to
> communicate and even PROVE what I am attempting to convey.

And have no relevance to reality.

Phineas T Puddleduck

unread,

Dec 8, 2006, 5:07:46 PM12/8/06

to

In article <Jeff_Relf_2...@Cotse.NET>,
JeffŠRelf <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:

Really. Perhaps you'd like to test this by jumping off a cliff?

unread,

Dec 10, 2006, 6:47:12 PM12/10/06

to

Furthermore, even if matter and energy are proven to be comprised of
microscopic black holes, I believe it would share the same boundary as
the Aether which it is comprised of. Therefore, motion remains absolute

Phineas T Puddleduck

unread,

Dec 10, 2006, 7:00:30 PM12/10/06

to

In article <1165791109.1...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>,
Para...@kaxy.com wrote:

> Furthermore, even if matter and energy are proven to be comprised of
> microscopic black holes, I believe it would share the same boundary as
> the Aether which it is comprised of. Therefore, motion remains absolute
> relative to the boundary of the Aether.

That information density (of your psot's) is asymptotically approaching
negative infinity.

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 11, 2006, 2:24:49 PM12/11/06

to

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> In article <1165791109.1...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>,
> Para...@kaxy.com wrote:
>
> > Furthermore, even if matter and energy are proven to be comprised of
> > microscopic black holes, I believe it would share the same boundary as
> > the Aether which it is comprised of. Therefore, motion remains absolute
> > relative to the boundary of the Aether.
>
> That information density (of your psot's) is asymptotically approaching
> negative infinity.
>
> --

Allow me try one last time. If one black-hole/boundary moves, so do the
others (due to the entanglement). Therefore, since none of the
black-holes/boundaries remains at rest relative to the motion of the
other black-holes/boundaries, there can be no absolute motion, nor
rest, for the movement of black-holes/boundaries. Yet, any matter or
energy existing within a black-hole/boundary is able to move
independent of the entangled motion of the black-hole/boundary in which
it exists (although matter and energy will move with the boundary when
the boundary moves, matter and energy are also able to move independent
of the boundary as a result of interacting with other matter and
energy). When matter and energy move independent of the boundary, such
motion is absolute relative to the boundary.

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 11, 2006, 2:31:28 PM12/11/06

to

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> In article <1165791109.1...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>,
> Para...@kaxy.com wrote:
>
> > Furthermore, even if matter and energy are proven to be comprised of
> > microscopic black holes, I believe it would share the same boundary as
> > the Aether which it is comprised of. Therefore, motion remains absolute
> > relative to the boundary of the Aether.
>
> That information density (of your psot's) is asymptotically approaching
> negative infinity.
>

I see where I have confused you. Although matter and energy may be
comprised of black holes, matter and energy have properties such as
charge and structure which distinguish it from the black holes of which
it may be comprised. These properties allow for matter and energy to
interact with each other (according to the rules of physics), relative
to the boundary, in a way that the boundaries themselves cannot and do
not interact. In other words, matter and energy are able to exhibit
motion independent of the motion of the boundary in which it exists. As
I said before, I do not expect you to understand. I am creating some
animations which will make what I am saying very clear. As the saying
goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Phineas T Puddleduck

unread,

Dec 11, 2006, 2:49:01 PM12/11/06

to

In article <1165865488.7...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Para...@kaxy.com wrote:

> I see where I have confused you. Although matter and energy may be
> comprised of black holes, matter and energy have properties such as
> charge and structure which distinguish it from the black holes of which
> it may be comprised. These properties allow for matter and energy to
> interact with each other (according to the rules of physics), relative
> to the boundary, in a way that the boundaries themselves cannot and do
> not interact. In other words, matter and energy are able to exhibit
> motion independent of the motion of the boundary in which it exists. As
> I said before, I do not expect you to understand. I am creating some
> animations which will make what I am saying very clear. As the saying
> goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Oh I understand. I understand its utter nonsense.

Para...@kaxy.com

unread,

Dec 12, 2006, 11:56:20 AM12/12/06

to

Perhaps. I must confess that I find the mechanics rather disorienting
and certainly not as definite as basic standard physics. Yet, standard
physics requires that one properly define the mechanics of the Aether
if one is to truly understand basic standard physics. I believe I have
found the correct solution, although I have had to make some "minor"
adjustments since we last spoke. The animations I am working on will
convey the concepts I have in mind with less effort than a verbal
description alone could, for both me and the reader. I ask that you
refrain from casting judgement until the animated illustrations are
completed. Of course, I realise this is all speculation (or prediction)
and only the investigation of a real black hole will provide real
answers. So, I don't expect you to believe. I merely hope that you will
truly understand. At this point, I don't see how you could understand
since you have not heard the latest revision which includes some minor
yet important details, such as a simplification of the mechanics.

To keep your mind occupied until the animations are complete I will
tell you that since we last spoke I have reduced the number of
universes to two twin universes (as opposed to an actual infinity of
black-hole universes within black-hole universes). Each universe is a
time-reversed duplicate of the other. Since one enters the time
reversed duplicate as a result of accelerating to supraluminal
velocities (such as by interaction with a black hole's gravity and
thereby being forced to cross over the event horizon), there is
essentially only one universe and two perspectives (a subluminal
perspective and a supraluminal perspective). Thus, there is essentially
only one side of a black hole. Not to say that there aren't actually
two sides to a black hole. Rather, I am saying that the two universes
which exist on each side of a black hole are equivalent to one universe
which can be viewed from two perspectives: a subluminal perspective and
a supraluminal perspective. Although all of the black holes within
either one of these universes effectively appear to contain a CPT
reversed duplicate of the universe in which it exists (which includes a
duplicate of itself), each of these black holes can be regarded as
"portals" to one CPT reversed universe...as opposed to actually
containing duplicate universes within each black hole (which would lead
to an infinity of black-hole universes within black-hole universes).
Both concepts are effectively equivalent and yield indistinguishable
results (and are therefore indistinguishable). Thus, with effectively
only one universe, there can be no (absolute) motion of the universe's
boundary (for what will the boundary move relative to if this one
universe is effectively all there is?). There is (effectively) nothing
beyond the boundary of the universe. The only motion which is
"absolute" is motion relative to the boundary (such as occurs for all
that exists within the boundary). Of course, I have much more to say,
yet I will save it for the animations. I hope that helps you to
understand what I am saying more so than before.