The Physical Basis of Lorentz Transformation.

[Viraj Fernando]

Dear All,

Atten: Stephan, Harry, David, Nick, Carl, Akinbo

I think the approach Stephan is taking, is ultimate reduction of physics to mathematics – to a “science of transformations”. It is a reduction of physics to an absurd level, where there is no physics left. Not only that, as Einstein has done it conflates the cause with the effect, and blurs the possibility of understanding the physics that underlies the phenomena concerned.

Actually, what these transformations depict are certain energy transfers that happen in the process of generation of natural forces. Newton’s actual program was to develop physics based of the emergence of natural forces but he was frustrated that he could not have sufficient experimental evidence to develop the theory based of the emergence of natural forces. Therefore, he was grudgingly limited to work only with his mechanics which he developed only on a provisional basis.

We can realize the above from what Newton  wrote in the Preface to the Principia: “I wish we could derive the rest of the phænomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain; but I hope the principles here laid down will afford some light either to this or some truer method of philosophy”.

What Newton says above are the following: (1) Newton’s attempts so far to demonstrate other natural forces by the application of mechanical principles as he did with Gravitation had not been successful. (2) Since how these forces originated was unknown, philosophers’ (i.e. Newton’s) search has got entirely frustrated. (3) Newton hoped revision of his mechanics might provide some help in this search or (4) An entirely more accurate method will be discerned in the future.   

In Newton’s time experiments with fast moving particles were not available from which the emergence of natural forces could be discerned. These experiments became possible only towards the end of the 19^th century and at the beginning of the 20^th century. By that time Newtonian mechanics had come to be considered an infallible dogma (and not as a provisional theory as Newton considered it to be). Therefore the call of the day by the scientific establishment was to find a patchwork explanation of the new phenomena while preserving the framework of classical mechanics.

This solution was provided by Einstein (1) by preserving the Newtonian framework by amending the second law from F = ma to gF = ma (2) by obscuring the physical basis of new phenomena that arose by claiming that they are due to Lorentz transformation. (3) by tinkering with the concept of time by claiming that it is a consequence of Lorentz transformation.

If we now have a closer look at Einstein’s 1905 paper, we find that in art 3 he has derived the Lorentz transformation.  In art 4 he had derived the formula for time dilation.  And in art 6 he has applied Lorentz transformation to demonstrate the change of value of the magnetic force.

That is what he had done because he was unable to explain the physical reason why the magnetic field changes value is the following. He has provided the mathematical result (the “Lorentz transformation”) that occurs as a consequence of the change of value of the field (that is the effect), as the cause of the change by itself. That is the basic trickery and treachery Einstein has committed is to conflate the cause and the effect of the change of value of the magnetic field into one.

Let us “unconflate” Einstein’s conflation figuring out what physically causes the change of the magnetic field which gives rise to the effect of a magnetic field of a reduced strength. It is this magnetic field with reduced strength that find expression mathematically as the “Lorentz transformation”.

We know what is at the heart of Maxwell’s theory is the Displacement current. So let us bear in mind wherever there appears a primary current, there will emerge an auxiliary (displacement) current also. The question is from where is the energy sapped to generate this auxiliary current?

With that question in mind, let us look at how Lorentz transformation occurs step by step. (1) Now we know that Oersted discovered that when a current passes through a wire, there occurs a magnetic field surrounding the wire.(2) Ampere found out that when two current carrying wires are placed in parallel to one another, they repelled one another or attracted one another according as the currents were in the same direction or in the opposite direction. That means a current passing through a wire produces not only a magnetic field it also produces an electric field. We know that the energy for the primary current is provided by the applied EMF. But the question arises from where the energy for the auxiliary current/field comes from. My contention is that this energy gets tapped from the magnetic field, and that is why the magnetic field undergoes Lorentz transformation.

In order to understand what happens, we must consider the simplest case- That is an electron in motion. An electron set in motion is equivalent to a passage of a current. The electron in motion at velocity v produces an electric field of strength E, and a magnetic field of strength H, such that H = E.v/c. [The actual formula is H = gE.v/c but this is to be discussed later]. However, in accordance with Maxwell’s laws there must also appear a displacement current. From where does the energy for this displacement current come? It is usurped from the magnetic field.

The physical basis of the Lorentz transformation of the magnetic field is the following. Energy is usurped from the magnetic field to produce a secondary electric field (through the displacement current) which is in opposite direction to the main current. This creates an attractive force so that whole ensemble of fields (the primary electric field, the magnetic field and the displacement electric field) get bundled up together and move along with the primary current – the electron.

Let the initial energy of the magnetic field be H. *Field energy H(g-1) flows in and enhances to total energy of the field to gH = B. In order to produce the auxiliary electric field energy B.v/c gets usurped.

Energy of the magnetic field that remains is        

B’ = B(1-v/c)

Since B = gH, we may write:

H’ = gH(1- v/c).

Lorentz transformation!

Note: *In all interactions of energy without exception field energy amounting to the value of (g-1)E flows in from the field to augment the energy of initial value E to gE as a prelude to the energy fragmenting of to two component parts. This is a basic law of nature which has hitherto not been discerned. This is a Universal Law.

Best regards,

Viraj

 

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>Stephan is taking, is ultimate reduction of physics to mathematics <<

done long ago. The whole basis of Copernican revolution was that it was mathematical.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/1285717958.5041979.1695108772487%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Franklin Hu]

Or, you could say that displacement current is a fantasy since there is no direct experiment that can show it. Then you don’t have to explain it.

Franklin 

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 19, 2023, at 12:35 AM, Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:



[Viraj Fernando]

Viraj:>>"Stephan is taking, is ultimate reduction of physics to mathematics" <<

Roger A: "done long ago. The whole basis of Copernican revolution was that it was mathematical".

Viraj's response: Roger why do you leave out Ptolmey? Was his system not mathematical? With Copernicus' kimematic system there was no way to decide, whether his heliocentric system was correct or whether Ptolmey's system was correct or Tycho Brahe's hybrid system was correct. The decisive tie break came with Newton's System of the World, based on Dynamism. Newton showed that the underlying factor was the balance between the gravitational force and the centrifugal force. You do not seem to understand that from then on physics became synonimous with dynamics.

From then on Mathmatics alone was not considered the sufficient criterion. Classical physics developed on the basis of dynamics represented in mathematical terms. 

So Roger you must understand that the methodolgy of ultimate reduction of physics is not an advancement of physics but a retrogression.. .

Regards,

Viraj

[Viraj Fernando]

Franklin, I am sorry I have declared that I will have no correspondence with you, since you have been blatantly intecllectually dishonest. I have proved it to this forum in no uncertain terms.Go pick your arguments with someone else.

Viraj

[David Tombe]

Hi Viraj,

             It's worse than that.

              Stephan does the same as Einstein. He uses the maths of the Doppler effect, but applies it as an inertial transformation, hence leading to the absurd concept of time dilation.

            Stephan ignores the intrinsic energy considerations in GPS clocks, which can lead us backwards to the Lorentz transformation, on the plausible argument that the radiation in the atomic clocks is being Doppler shifted in its interaction with the caesium atoms, due to both gravity and motion.

                               Best Regards

                                  David

[HARRY RICKER]

David,

Despite his claims made in his tables, Stephan has convinced no one that the STs are valid physics. So I doubt he will convert any mainstream scientists to his position either.

Harry

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Viraj

Under Ptolemy - it was based on observations - the frame of reference for observers was the earth; from that frame - the sun, stars moved; math was then subservient to what was observed. Under Copernicus - we had to consider observations from a frame (that of the sun) where we did not have any observers; the mathematics said such a frame was possible, so we became subservient to what mathematics allowed. Newton et al was just more mathematics.

[Viraj Fernando]

Hi Roger,

You wrote: "Under Ptolemy - it was based on observations - the frame of reference for observers was the earth; from that frame - the sun, stars moved; math was then subservient to what was observed". That was still mathematical representation of what is observed. What Copernicus effectively did was that he transformed Ptolmey's geocentric Co-ordinates to Heliocentric co-ordinates. Still it was purely mathematical. The decisive factor between which system is true came with Newtonian dynamics. Newton's work brought in the necessary Complimentarity between mathemtics and dynamics.

Under Stephan/Einstein/Selleri also the situation is analogous to Ptolmaic system. The so-called  "transformations" depict  phenomena from the observer's frame of reference. It stands parallel to Ptolemaic system. What is necessary is not only a mathematical interpretation of these with respect to the "preferred frame" (Copernicus), but also to discern the dynamics underlying these phenomena (Newton). For a system to be considered authentic there must be Complimentarity between mathematics and dynamics!!

Regards,

Viraj

[Stephan Gift]

Dear Viraj,

You said "I think the approach Stephan is taking, is ultimate reduction of physics to mathematics – to a “science of transformations”. It is a reduction of physics to an absurd level, where there is no physics left. Not only that, as Einstein has done it conflates the cause with the effect, and blurs the possibility of understanding the physics that underlies the phenomena concerned."

You seem to have forgotten the scientific method of observing, codifyng, predicting and testing. This is precisely how Selleri derived his transformations. As I indicated, the underlying mechanisms in the predicted phenomena need to be determined, but that does not prevent the utilization of the confirmed predictions. For example, clock retardation is well codified and extensively used in the GPS, even though we do not fully understand the underlying mechanism. This kind of situation occurs very often in real life where a law or relation is unearthed and proves to be useful, even though the underying mechanism is unknown. I really do believe that I am on the right track with the STs and I am supported by seven successful tests.

Regards,

Stephan

---

From: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 1:08 PM

To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; Cynthia Whitney <galilean_ele...@comcast.net>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Guy at Epola <r...@epola.co.uk>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Héctor A. Múnera <hmu...@hotmail.com>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Slobodan Nedic <nedic...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <steph...@hotmail.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
Cc: Af Kracklauer <af.kra...@web.de>; Alexander Unzicker <aunz...@web.de>; Frank Fernandes <aith...@gmail.com>; Harvey Fiala <hefia...@gmail.com>; Jean de Climont <jeande...@yahoo.ca>; John Fiala <ser...@wt.net>; Joseph LEVY <levy....@wanadoo.fr>; Mike Gamble <mike.gamb...@gmail.com>; Peter Whan <peter...@landisgyr.com>; Stephen Crothers <then...@yahoo.com>; Zbigniew Oziewicz <oziewicz...@gmail.com>; npa-re...@googlegroups.com <npa-re...@googlegroups.com>

[John-Erik Persson]

Viraj

Yes a model can be usable, although the underlying theory is unknown -- or  wrong.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to npa-relativit...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/SJ0PR02MB7678F17D9E290F569039C3C1A6FAA%40SJ0PR02MB7678.namprd02.prod.outlook.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Viraj

You wrote: "The decisive factor between which system is true came with Newtonian dynamics. Newton's work brought in the necessary Complimentarity between mathemtics and dynamics."

It did not.

You also wrote: " For a system to be considered authentic there must be Complimentarity between mathematics and dynamics"

There is no such thing.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/1999504644.5617893.1695143296331%40mail.yahoo.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Unzicker removed from this email.

Please reply to this

[Franklin Hu]

Viraj,

I would challenge you to show any specific instance of "intellectual dishonesty".

Quote any thing you have written which "proves" this in this forum.

Any.

I would remind you that "contradicting mainstream" is not "intellectual dishonesty". As dissidents, it is what we do to say that there is something seriously screwed up with current mainstream physics and that there are no "sacred cows" and that some of our most beloved concepts like displacement current could very well be wrong. It's our job to contradict mainstream dogma - it isn't a bug, it is a feature.

I think you are being the one that is being "dishonest" by making what appears to be a blatant and unsupported insult which is not professional or collegiate behavior. I also think this is cowardly behavior to not respond to my opinions with arguments, but you rather choose to run away from having to explain controversial positions. 

I might not be right, that's also what we do is toss around highly speculative hypothesis and see what others think. We are here to "debate" that which cannot be debated elsewhere.

-Franklin

[Viraj Fernando]

Franklin

This refers to your email of today asking me to provide evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.  I copy below my email of Sep 16. That provides ample evidence of what you are looking for. You have asked for it and I am giving it!!

Hi Franklin,

On Sept 13 you wrote me this: “NO, the physical fact ISN'T that the CS atoms change frequency in a gravitational field. What possible reference do you have for this?

You don't understand how atomic clocks work, do you?

 No, you don't have a clue.

 Look it up and be informed. If I'm wrong, then please present a credible reference.-Franklin”

 

Accordingly,  I gave credible evidence of an experiment done at NIST to prove that the frequency of Cs atoms change with changes of Gravitational potentials of the field.

 You then slimily and slyly with utmost intellectual dishonesty twisted the issue. You pretended that you did not challenge me on the gravity issue but on “how atomic clocks actually work”.

You wrote on Sep 15: “This is how you respond to my request for you to research how atomic clocks actually work because an atomic clock isn't using the Cs atoms as a time base (my assertion). Watch the video:

 How an atomic clock works, and its use in the global positioning system (GPS)"

I gave you the answer:

“…. all these facts are covered in the paper (“Relativity without Space-Time”) which I published in the General Science Journal  as far back as  2013.  

 https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/5728

 Look at  Appendix 4 “How Atomic Clocks Work”, on  p. 33  .

 

Now Franklin here’s a bit of advise from me:

 You go and eat your own stinking insulting words: “You don't understand how atomic clocks work, do you? No, you don't have a clue”. The insult is on you now.

 

I do not want ever to have any dealings with an intellectually dishonest person like you.

Viraj

[Alexander Unzicker]

--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android Mobiltelefon mit WEB.DE Mail gesendet.

Am 20.09.23, 15:45 schrieb Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>:

[Frank Fernandes]

All,

I listened to the CNPS presentation by Stephen Gift.

This slide depicting the gamma factor is empirically correct.

Once data in Kg mass is applied to the gamma factor, the true meaning of the equation emerges.

Try applying mass in kg to the symbols and watch for the reality check outcome.

What follows is the Fernandes Ether Model. GRT and this gamma equation are the same thing. Ohm's law and Newton's law are the same thing. Toying with symbols is easy. Applying data of mass in Kg is more complex. Interpretations change.

Is the velocity that of the bonds in the black hole fuel turning the velocity of the r cubed volume of photons leading to a measure of pressure or force or energy on R of an ether toroid producing c and v as outcomes of acceleration c squared and v squared measured across lengths of our choosing whether in a butterfly wing or the galactic solid center. And on and on and on.

 

F V Fernandes

On.Target Molecules Biotech Inc

Website: O.TM Biotech Inc. 

Linkedin / Facebook / Instagram

Research Work 

 

World Science Database

 

Website: Aither 186

Book: The Ether Model