Super-Relativistic Dynamics
mitchell_dinowitz
Hello,
(This is the second time I'm posting this on USENET, thanks for all the
comments from the first time around :) )
Recently, my brother Steven published some research that I think people
interested in Special Relativity will find fascinating. The article appears
in the Nov/Dec. issue of Galilean Electrodynamics (Vol.2 No.6, 1991).
The title is "Super-Relativistic Dynamics" and the abstract reads as follows:
"A new equation for mass is proposed in which motion relative to the
locally dominant gravitational fields is the critical factor in determining
changes in mass. According to this equation, a body at the Earth's surface,
moving at the velocity of light relative to the Earth's gravitational field
in the direction of, or opposite to, the Earth's orbital velocity about the
Sun, will have a mass 120,000 times it's rest mass. This is the minimum mass
a body at the Earth's surface can have when moving at the velocity of light
relative to the Earth's gravitational field. For an electron this mass
corresponds to an energy of 60 Gev. At energies beyond 60 Gev, under these
conditions, an electron will attain a velocity greater than light. Phase II
of the Large Electron Positron (LEP) accelerator should be capable of
imparting an energy of 100 Gev to an electron. However, it is predicted that
under these conditions, and utilizing the mass equation of Special Relativity
to operate, the LEP will fail to impart an energy of more than 60 Gev per
electron."
If you are interested in obtaining the article, please send your mailing
address to mi...@pinet.aip.org or at mi...@aip.bitnet. Please feel free
to send any comments, questions, etc to the same e-mail address. I will
make sure that my brother receives all replies.
If you would like to write directly to my brother, his address is:
Steven Dinowitz
72 Townhouse East
Massapequa Park, NY 11762
U.S.A.
Sincerely,
Mitchell J. Dinowitz
William K Glunt
>
>
>Recently, my brother Steven published some research that I think people
>interested in Special Relativity will find fascinating. The article appears
>in the Nov/Dec. issue of Galilean Electrodynamics (Vol.2 No.6, 1991).
Say, isn't this the journal that Beckman was involved with?
--
Dr. William K Glunt | Are you ABNORMAL?
postdoctoral loonie | Then you are probably better than most people!
U of Kentucky math dept | Are alien space monsters bringing a STARTLING NEW
home phone 606 258 8864 | WORLD? from _The book of the SubGenius_
Kurt Sonnenmoser
(mitchell_dinowitz) writes:
|
| Recently, my brother Steven published some research that I think people
| interested in Special Relativity will find fascinating. The article appears
| in the Nov/Dec. issue of Galilean Electrodynamics (Vol.2 No.6, 1991).
In article <1991Oct21....@ms.uky.edu> b...@ms.uky.edu
(William K Glunt) writes:
| Say, isn't this the journal that Beckman was involved with?
Exactly. And they are both talking about "motion with respect to a
gravitational field". I wonder whether they still refuse to tell us
how this is defined and/or how you detect it.
BTW, Galilean electrodynamics is that subdomain of Maxwellian electro-
dynamics, where you may safely neglect the displacement current, i.e.
where you may regard the velocity of light as infinite. (All elementary
experiments with stationary currents are in this domain.)
The journal of the same name mainly seems to attack the orthodox
(relativistic) view that there are no preferred reference frames.
(With such -- what should I say -- difficult concepts like "motion
with respect to a field".)
--
Kurt Sonnenmoser, Institut fuer Theoretische Physik, Universitaet Zuerich
inet: k...@physik.unizh.ch (bang: uunet!chx400!forty2!ks)
Beckman
>Exactly. And they are both talking about "motion with respect to a
>gravitational field". I wonder whether they still refuse to tell us
>how this is defined and/or how you detect it.
For more information on GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS write for a free
brochure (including contents of the first two volumes, 1990 and 1991)
to Galilean Electrodynamics, Box 251, Boulder, CO 80306 or send me
your US Snail address.
Alternatively, if independent use of your brain is too troublesome,
contact schi...@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu or ma...@oddjob.uchicago.edu,
two alleged PhDs who are two of this country's foremost experts on books
and papers that they have not read.
Petr Beckmann
Greg Scott Hennessy
# We have never refused to answer this point.
# For more information on GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS write for a free
#brochure (including contents of the first two volumes, 1990 and 1991)
#to Galilean Electrodynamics, Box 251, Boulder, CO 80306 or send me
#your US Snail address.
Why don't you simply answer Mr. Sonnermoser's question rather than
sending out advertisements?
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gs...@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Robert Low
>My brother replies....
>
>I define "motion with respect to a gravitational field" as follows:
>
>Let 'n' be a point where a test body would experience no net gravitational
>force from the gravitational source in question (for the Earth, it would
>be its center). Motion relative to a gravitational field produced by body
>'x' is the same as the motion relative to 'n' of source 'x' (Motion relative
>to the Earth's gravitational field is the same as motion relative to the
>Earth's center)
Would you please ask him what motion with respect to a graviational
field is when the source is not (equivalent to) a point source?
Like, for example, say there are two planets of roughly equal mass
involved, rotating round one another; how does one determine
the motion relative to that?
Note that applying this method to the earth, considered as two
hemispheres glued together, must give the same answer as before.
I wait in breathless anticipation.
--
Robert Low email(JANET): Rob...@uk.ac.coventry.cck
smail : Mathematics Department, Coventry Polytechnic,
Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, England.
Keep an open mind---but not so open your brain falls out.
Kurt Sonnenmoser
(mitchell_dinowitz) writes:
>My brother replies....
>I define "motion with respect to a gravitational field" as follows:
>Let 'n' be a point where a test body would experience no net gravitational
>force from the gravitational source in question (for the Earth, it would
>be its center). Motion relative to a gravitational field produced by body
>'x' is the same as the motion relative to 'n' of source 'x' (Motion relative
>to the Earth's gravitational field is the same as motion relative to the
>Earth's center)
If it's the same, then the concept is totally superfluous. So please
keep the fields out of the game and just talk about motion with respect
to bodies (something one can *measure*). (One can measure the strength
of a field in a given reference frame, but not motion with respect to
a field.)
Now one must deal with the discontinuity in the speed of light (re-
fraction!) you get at the boundaries of the regions belonging to
different dominating bodies. Observing the sky we should from time
to time see celestial bodies (say comets or asteroids) jump around
like mad (an old argument from a former sci.physics discussion).
Kurt
Beckman
>fraction!) you get at the boundaries of the regions belonging to
>different dominating bodies. Observing the sky we should from time
>to time see celestial bodies (say comets or asteroids) jump around
>like mad (an old argument from a former sci.physics discussion).
different directions, and you have to treat each medium as anisotropic.
See "Entrainment by non-refractive media," Galilean Electrodynamics,
p.32, May/June 1990. You will find the results DERIVED there, not hunches
"from a former sci.physics discussion."
Petr Beckmann
Matt Austern
> In the General Theory of Relativity, the rest standard for the
> velocity of light is the space determined by the gravitational
> potential.
I don't have the faintest clue what this sentence means. In
particular:
(1) I don't know what a "rest standard" is,
(2) I don't know what it means when a "rest standard," whatever it
is, is "for the velocity of light,"
(3) I don't know what "the space determined by the gravitational
potential" is; and
(4) In fact, I don't know what "the gravitational potential" is in
general relativity. (I know what the metric tensor is, and I
know how it reduces to Newtonian gravitation in the weak-field
limit, but I know of no way in general to define a gravitational
potential.
Does this sentence make any sense? If so, can anyone explain what it
means? (Equations would be nice.)
--
Matthew Austern I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band of
(415) 644-2618 of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
ma...@physics.berkeley.edu taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
aus...@theorm.lbl.gov multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
aus...@lbl.bitnet me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
Matt Crawford
) >Exactly. And they are both talking about "motion with respect to a
) >gravitational field". I wonder whether they still refuse to tell us
) >how this is defined and/or how you detect it.
Beckman:
) We have never refused to answer this point.
The only answer you gave was that "the object with the largest value of
m/r" determined the so-called dominant gravitational field of Beckman-
science.
When I showed you that the Sun's field dominated the Earth's on those
terms, you gave no satisfactory reply. Do you recall from almost
exactly 2 years ago (31 Oct 89 18:41:07 GMT):
Beckmann says in article <13...@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, and more clearly
and explicitly in email, that the object which creates the greatest
magnitude of gravitational potential m/r is the "dominant" one to which
measurements of the speed of light must be referred. He also said, in
email, that in an experiment done on earth, m/r for the earth is much
greater in magnitude than m/r for the sun or any other star.
The mass of the sun divided by the mean earth-sun distance is
(2.0*10^33g) / (1.5*10^13cm) = 1.3*10^20 g/cm.
The mass of the earth divided by the mean equatorial radius of the earth
is (6.0*10^27g) / (6.4*10^8cm) = 9.4*10^18 g/cm.
When you were asked what the dominant field would be at the origin,
given objects of mass { m_i } at locations { x_i } moving with
velocities { v_i }, your answer was "It's too complicated."
I think that qualifies as refusing to answer.
) Alternatively, if independent use of your brain is too troublesome,
) contact schi...@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu or ma...@oddjob.uchicago.edu,
) two alleged PhDs who are two of this country's foremost experts on books
) and papers that they have not read.
I think Paul and I understand this basic Beckman-concept of "dominant
field" just as well as you do. That is to say, not at all.
Ball's in your court, Petr. Going to volley with facts or personal
remarks?
________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford ma...@oddjob.uchicago.edu
Beckman
>Is the Galilean Electrodynamics journal the one that people
>submit to when the peer reviewed journals turn them down?
Galilean Electrodynamics IS peer-reviewed, and maybe more carefully than
many orthodox journals. For more info write Galilean Electrodynamics, Box 251,
Boulder, CO 80306.
Petr Beckmann
mitchell_dinowitz
My brother replies....
I define "motion with respect to a gravitational field" as follows:
Let 'n' be a point where a test body would experience no net gravitational
force from the gravitational source in question (for the Earth, it would
be its center). Motion relative to a gravitational field produced by body
'x' is the same as the motion relative to 'n' of source 'x' (Motion relative
to the Earth's gravitational field is the same as motion relative to the
Earth's center)
Beckman
> Explain why interplanetary space has to be treated anisotropic.
If a planet with its gravitational field moves with velocity v in the
gravitational field of the sun (for example), then light in the outer field
moving against v will, for an observer in the inner field, have a velocity
c + v; whereas light moving at right angles to v will have a velocity c.
That makes it the equivalent of an anisotropic medium because its effective
index of refraction is different for different directions.
Your specific objection was also raised by a reader and was answered
in detail in Galilean Electrod. July/Aug. 1990, p.52. The calculation shows
that in this case of a virtually non-refractive medium (n \app 1),
the extraordinary ray is absent and the ordinary ray, contrary to your
assertion in a previous posting, suffers no refraction.
Petr Beckmann
A
Iain Jameson
>Hello,
>Recently, my brother Steven published some research that I think people
>interested in Special Relativity will find fascinating. The article appears
>in the Nov/Dec. issue of Galilean Electrodynamics (Vol.2 No.6, 1991).
>The title is "Super-Relativistic Dynamics" and the abstract reads as follows:
Is the Galilean Electrodynamics journal the one that people
submit to when the peer reviewed journals turn them down?
>Sincerely,
>Mitchell J. Dinowitz
Iain.
Kurt Sonnenmoser
(Beckman) writes:
> ... The refractive index is clearly different in
> See "Entrainment by non-refractive media," Galilean Electrodynamics,
> p.32, May/June 1990. You will find the results DERIVED there, not hunches
> "from a former sci.physics discussion."
1) The argument stands for itself. I just wanted to disclaim authorship.
2) Before I look at a derivation, I want to know its starting assumptions.
Explain why interplanetary space has to be treated anisotropic.
3) I afraid we don't have Galilean Electrodynamics in our library (neither
has the nearby ETH). And before I consider looking out for it I want to
see at least one tiny little good reason to do so. Seen none so far.
--
Greg Scott Hennessy
# Galilean Electrodynamics IS peer-reviewed, and maybe more carefully than
#many orthodox journals.
And who are some of the reviewers? Thomas Barnes and Howard Hayden?
John C. Baez
Of course, the issue is that "peers" is a relative term: orthodox physicists
would not regard Beckmann as one of their peers, and perhaps vice versa.
Jon J Thaler
(...synopsis of old exchange between Crawford and Petr Beckman deleted...)
> Ball's in your court, Petr. Going to volley with facts or personal
> remarks?
Please don't waste your, or our, time on this. I have seen Mr. Beckman in
action in sci.energy, and he doesn't respond politely to divergent
points of view.
Beckman
>> [Galilean Electrodynamics IS peer-reviewed, and maybe more carefully than
>>many orthodox journals.]
>And who are some of the reviewers? Thomas Barnes and Howard Hayden?
fessors at respectable universities (Texas and Conn., resp.) are among a very
much larger pool of reviewers, most of them also tenured professors at
respected universities (which is more than you are).
None of them would overlook such a blooper as trying to make money
from a FIRST order experiment in \beta to confirm the Lorentz transformation
and reject the Galilean trnsformation, which is what an amateur like you
tried to do two years ago.
Petr Beckmann
Beckman
>The only answer you gave was that "the object with the largest value of
>m/r" determined the so-called dominant gravitational field of Beckman-
I immediately apologized for this error (m/r instead of m/r^2),
made in a quickly written PRIVATE E-mail message AND NOWHERE ELSE,
which you viciously chose to make public, and have been harping on
ever since, studiously ignoring all physics arguments, and calling me
"fraud or idiot."
In any case, this did not concern the gravitational field as a
standard of rest. That is explained in detail in my 1987 book "Einstein
Plus Two," Golem Press (Box 1342, Boulder, CO 80306); in addition,
the point was raised by one of the reviewers of the book (a staunch
Einsteinian), whom I answer very specifically on pp. 199-200.
Since then, the case of several gravitational fields moving with
respect to each other has been analyzed in Galilean Electrodynamics,
vol. 1, p.32, May/June 1990, and again by Dinowitz in an article which
gave rise to this correspondence. A further point on the subject,
"Sagnac and gravitation," is now in press in GE, and yet another is
now in review.
In the General Theory of Relativity, the rest standard for the
velocity of light is the space determined by the gravitational
is such a crime to take the gravitational field as a rest standard,
how come you do not breathe a word against Einstein?
>Ball's in your court, Petr. Going to volley with facts or personal
>remarks?
It was this deceitful remark that goaded me into answering at all,
though two years ago I had promised not to tangle with your ignorance
or repeated indecency any more. So I have now answered with facts and
references available to anybody. But kindly do not call me "Petr."
Petr Beckmann
Mark North
Yes but who are the 'peers' Petr.
You may call me Mark.
Have a nice day.
Mark
Todd A. Brun
both sides are committing serious violations of netiquette.
Furthermore, since this is *supposed* to be a scientific group, let us
restrain ourselves from rudeness, derision, and ad hominem attacks. If the
topic *must* be discussed, let it be discussed on its merits, if any.
If one creates a new theory, one must be willing to let it be attacked.
If some of the attacks are crude, or inaccurate, then pointing our their
errors should be sufficient. Attacking the character and competence of
the critic merely lowers the tone of the discussion. If critics are rude,
ignore them. People are not impressed by rudeness.
Similarly, if you believe another person's theory is wrong, pointing out its
inaccuracies should be sufficient. If they refuse to admit that their
theory is wrong, that's their problem.
If one is seeking merely to attack an opponent, do it through email or not
at all. Frankly, the rest of us are not all that amused by this, at least
to judge from an inadequate sample of one.
Just because one is not face to face, USEnet tempts us to use language
that would be impossibly rude in person. We should all try to restrain
ourselves.
-- Todd
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Department of Physics, California Institute of Technology
"Feezeeks? Ve don't need no lousy feezeeks!"
Kurt Sonnenmoser
| gravitational field of the sun (for example), then light in the outer field
| moving against v will, for an observer in the inner field, have a velocity
| c + v; whereas light moving at right angles to v will have a velocity c.
| That makes it the equivalent of an anisotropic medium because its effective
| index of refraction is different for different directions.
Beckmann simply states here that if one adopts a non-relativistic point of
view, light will spread anisotropically in every reference frame except
in the preferred one. This is trivial and it does not mean that the
medium is anisotropic. (In the rest frame of an isotropic medium, waves
will spread isotropically.)
It is completely clear that no discussion is possible between Beck-
mannians and orthodox physicists: there is no agreement about even the
most basic concepts of physics (e.g. "isotropy of a medium"). He does
not stand orthogonal to Relativity but to modern physics as a whole.
| Your specific objection was also raised by a reader and was answered
| in detail in Galilean Electrod. July/Aug. 1990, ...
Still seen no reason to look out for it.
Kurt
mitchell_dinowitz
A note from the author...
I do not know exactly what took place on USENET two years ago. However, I do
know that "Super-Relativistic Dynamics" has no problem dealing with multiple
gravitational sources, and I do not define gravitational dominance in terms of
m/r. I would be glad to send anyone a copy of "Super-Relativistic Dynamics".
All you need to do is request it and send me your postal (not e-mail) address.
I appreciate all the requests I have received for the paper thus far and I
thank everyone for their input.
Sincerely,
Steven Dinowitz
mitchell_dinowitz
I don't know about other authors who have submitted papers to Galilean
Electrodynamics (GE) for publication, but here are a couple of reasons
why I did...
(1) Incorporated into the foundations of GE is the belief that certain
quantities, such as mass, are simply not dependent on motion relative to
the observer. This is not to say that mass must be constant, but if mass
changes with moition, it is not motion relative to the observer that is
the mechanism for the change. Since I was proposing a new equation for
mass that has this quality, GE seemed a natural candidate for publication.
Perhaps Mr. Jameson is correct, I don't know. I do know that I did not
submit for publication anywhere else.
(2) I greatly admire Dr. Beckmann for what he attempted in his book
"Einstein Plus Two" and in providing a medium for the expression of
creative ideas in GE.
Steven Dinowitz
BECKMANN PETR
>view, light will spread anisotropically in every reference frame except
>in the preferred one.
between two media, namely one between a gravitational field moving through
another, and that you said that that if this were so, we would see
the stars hopping around in the sky. Moreover, there is no preferred
ONE frame, in which the velocity is c. It is c with respect to every
local gravitational field it moves through.
Viewed from one field to another, however, the neighboring field
must by all accepted definitions of anisotropy be anisotropic.
>This is trivial and it does not mean that the medium is anisotropic.
Ah, so it's trivial now, is it? Does that mean I have converted
you?
Of course it is anisotropic. If you have an interface between a
isotropic medium and a birefringent crystal, you have what we have here,
the interface between an isotropic and anisotropic medium. Look up your
"Krystalloptik." Most people accept that a medium with different properties
in different directions, and especially one with different velocities
of light (i.e. refractive indices) in different directions, is anisotropic.
I agree you may logically define the locus of all points equidistant
from a central point as a pentagon; but you will be all by your little
self with your definition, and you won't be able to derive different
properties for what you call a pentagon and most others call a circle.
Petr Beckmann
P.S. Your points about my being orthogonal to all physics are best ignored,
and they do not get us anywhere. They are what in your sweet mother tongue
is called "Klugscheisserei" (wisdom shitting). Skip it and keep to the point.
I do not accept Einstein's two SRT postulates and I find the equivalence
principle quite unneccessary. That's all. Otherwise I adhere VERY STRICTLY
to the laws of physics, especially to the unwritten law that one should be
guided only by experience, reason and simplicity, and not by authority.
Matt Crawford
) (1) Incorporated into the foundations of GE is the belief that certain
) quantities, such as mass, are simply not dependent on motion relative to
) the observer. ...
Special and general relativity have the same idea. Mass is mass is
mass. There were just some misguided expositions early on that used a
"relativistic mass" m = m0 gamma in order to preserve the Newtonian
formula p = m v, instead of adopting p = m v gamma.
) (2) I greatly admire Dr. Beckmann for what he attempted in his book
) "Einstein Plus Two" and in providing a medium for the expression of
) creative ideas in GE.
What he attempted, to put it broadly, was to prove relativity is wrong,
no? 100 people in the 1940s put out a book for the same purpose with no
better motive than sheer nazi racism.
Not to imply anything about current efforts, of course, but it shows
making an effort is not necessarily something to admire.
________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford ma...@oddjob.uchicago.edu
BECKMANN PETR
>What he [Beckmann] attempted, to put it broadly, was to prove relativity is
>better motive than sheer nazi racism.
papers he had never read. As for nazi racism, the comment by this "physicist"
speaks for itself.
Petr Beckmann
Greg Scott Hennessy
#better motive than sheer nazi racism.
You can tell that a debate has been going on too long on Usenet when
somone mentions Hitler or the Nazi party.
BECKMANN PETR
>#100 people in the 1940s put out a book for the same purpose with no
>#better motive than sheer nazi racism.
>You can tell that a debate has been going on too long on Usenet when
>somone mentions Hitler or the Nazi party.
It is nevertheless significant that you carefully erased the author
of the above quote. It is your good friend and comrade-in-arms Matt Crawford
(ma...@oddjob.chicago.edu) and he used it against me.
Petr Beckmann
Greg Scott Hennessy
# I entirely agree. Stop talking nazism and start talking physics.
Fine. How about answering questions I asked before?
What testable predictions can be used to distinguish between your
theory and relativity?
What does your theory predict for energy loss due to gravitational
radiation from, say, two orbiting neutron stars?
I asked these over a year ago, and got zip for an answer.
BECKMANN PETR
>What testable predictions can be used to distinguish between your
>theory and relativity?
interferometer about its axis, which will show a fringe shift due to the
earth's rotation. Brillet and Hall in 1976 did indeed find such a sinusoidal
shift, but dismissed it as spurious, and their sensitivity was only just
able to show it qualitatively.
As for POSTDICTIONS, there are several, e.g.
1) the synchronization of satellites does not depend on the space
coordinate, contradicting the Lorentz transformation.
2) the Edwards effect.
Both are described in detail in Galilean Electrodynamics. For a
brochure write Box 251, Boulder CO 80306, or try the "R"command and send
me your US SNail address, but my home computer (schof) has been down for
6 days, and I am writing this from a substitute machine.
Beyond that, however, even when two theories are supported by all
pertinent evidence, it is customary to give preference to the one that
needs fewer hypotheses (is simpler) and does not lead to any contradictions.
(A recent paper by a Russian prof in GE shows that not even the number of
discrete events, an integer, is an invariant in the Lorentz transformation.)
>What does your theory predict for energy loss due to gravitational
>radiation from, say, two orbiting neutron stars?
My theory does not predict ANY gravitational waves, so that any
energy loss of two orbiting stars would have to be explained some other
way.
However, the conclusion about the absence of gravitational waves is
preliminary.
What surprises me is that an issue is being made out of neutron stars
and nobody has asked about such an elementary phenomenon as time dilation.
How is it possible without the Lorentz transformation?
OK, don't let me force it on you. If interested, ask.
Petr Beckmann
Loren Petrich
Ahhh, Petr Beckmann himself is back.
According to his dominant-mass theory, the speed of light must
be referred to the frame in which the object that produces the largest
m/r ratio is at rest. How does this compare with observations?
First off, how may we determine m/r? An easy way is to
determine Gm/r, which is equal to v(dynamical)^2. The factor of G is
just a convenient multiplicative factor.
The relevant experiments are: Michelson-Morley experiments,
which probe only the local Earth space-time; and starlight-arrival
observations, using X rays from X-ray pulsars, which probe
interstellar and even intergalactic space. The arrival of neutrinos
from SN1987A can be compared with the time of its first visual
manifestation; any strange propagation effects may be manifest as a
time differential different from the time needed for the shock wave to
travel from the core to the photosphere.
Here are the approximate values of the dynamical velocities in the
Earth environment, listed by source:
Laboratory equipment (miniscule)
the Earth itself 7 km/s
the Sun 30 km/s
the Galaxy 250 km/s
the intergalactic neighborhood 300 km/s
the observable Universe 300,000 km/s (c).
The dominant mass is the Galaxy and its neighbors -- if not
the Universe as a whole, which move at a velocity of a few*100 km/s
relative to the Earth.
However, the MM experiments done to date can easily detect
changes in relative velocity MUCH smaller than the changes that would
be produced by the Earth's travels around the Sun.
Similar conclusions are evident from X-ray pulsar evidence and
the SN1987A neutrinos, which show no changes in arrival time larger
than a few hours after 150,000 years of travel. Pulsars, both X-ray
and radio, are almost certainly neutron stars, and the SN1987A
neutrinos were emitted from the hot neutron star that formed from the
collapsed core of the parent star. Neutron stars have dynamical
velocities of about 100,000 km/s (0.3 c), presumably implying a STRONG
dominant-mass effect. An X-ray pulsar is in orbit around a companion
that supplies material that makes the X-ray luminosity; this causes
changes of velocity relative to the Earth. The newly-formed SN 1987A
neutron star was almost certainly rotating, and the leading/trailing
differential would be about 100 km/s for a spin period of 1 s (a
rather slow pulsar rate). Furthermore, the light from the supernova's
photosphere originated much at a much greater distance from the
center, enough to reduce the appropriate dynamical velocity to about
400 km/s (estimate derived from the Sun and the assumption of
main-sequence-like structure). The dominant mass for the photosphere
is therefore the intergalactic neighborhood.
One concludes that the dominant-mass theory is a miserable
failure.
One has to wonder how far the Beckmannite reformulation of
physics has gone: what are the putative Maxwell-Beckmann equations,
dominant-mass terms and all, for example?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster: lo...@sunlight.llnl.gov
Since this nodename is not widely known, you may have to try:
Greg Scott Hennessy
# Very few, but some, such as rotating a Michelson-Moreley type
#interferometer about its axis, which will show a fringe shift due to the
#earth's rotation.
What does your theory say about the frequence of a gamma ray from a
specified atomic de-excitation traveling east verses a gamma from the
same wavelength traveling west? Is it the same or different? Are the
wavelengths the same or different?
#Brillet and Hall in 1976 did indeed find such a sinusoidal
#shift, but dismissed it as spurious, and their sensitivity was only just
#able to show it qualitatively.
The version of the Michelson-Morley experiment done by Townes with his
maser also showed a similar effect. It is very hard to determine if
such an wavelength shift is due to a table tilt of a very small angle,
or magnetorestrictive effects (as Brillet and Hall, and Townes
respectively attributed the effect to, or if it such an effect such as
Beckmann postulates). Quite a challenging experiment.
# As for POSTDICTIONS, there are several, e.g.
What is a postdiction, pray tell?
# Beyond that, however, even when two theories are supported by all
#pertinent evidence, it is customary to give preference to the one that
#needs fewer hypotheses (is simpler) and does not lead to any contradictions.
#>What does your theory predict for energy loss due to gravitational
#>radiation from, say, two orbiting neutron stars?
# My theory does not predict ANY gravitational waves, so that any
#energy loss of two orbiting stars would have to be explained some other
#way.
# However, the conclusion about the absence of gravitational waves is
#preliminary.
Are you familliar with the Binary Pulsar? It is losing energy at the
exact rate as predicted by GR, so I would submit that this is a case
that GR supports, and your theory does not.
I can get futher references, but Marty Rybka (I apologize if I am
misspelling Martys' last name) used to be on the net, and he can speak
much more knowledgeably than I can on this matter.
P.S. Do you have an alternate mail address. I have several comments
inappropiate for the net, and it is very annoying to have mail to
schof continually bounce.
Loren Petrich
>When you were asked what the dominant field would be at the origin,
>given objects of mass { m_i } at locations { x_i } moving with
>velocities { v_i }, your answer was "It's too complicated."
I presume an appropriate estimate is:
v_eff = Sum_i[(Gm_i/r_i)v_i]/Sum_i[(Gm_i/r_i)]
This presumably gives the effective velocity of the EM
reference frame due to the dominant mass of Beckmann's theory.
>I think that qualifies as refusing to answer.
And I wonder what Petr Beckmann will say about my
demonstration that the "dominant mass" for a typical laboratory is
probably the Universe as a whole, which has a velocity of 300 km/s
relative to the Earth (using a naive Newtonian view -- this is the
velocity of the CMB relative to the Earth).
>) Alternatively, if independent use of your brain is too troublesome,
>) contact schi...@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu or ma...@oddjob.uchicago.edu,
>) two alleged PhDs who are two of this country's foremost experts on books
>) and papers that they have not read.
However, they are experts at working out the consequences of
theories as they understand them; I may also qualify there.
>I think Paul and I understand this basic Beckman-concept of "dominant
>field" just as well as you do. That is to say, not at all.
Well, I think I understand it; and if the net.beckmannites do
not accept my attempted interpretation of their views, they should try
to set me straight.
BECKMANN PETR
> According to his dominant-mass theory, the speed of light must
>be referred to the frame in which the object that produces the largest
>m/r ratio is at rest.
making everybody read the same things all over again. Or ask your buddy
Matt Crawford what I answered to the same false claim.
That makes the rest of your inflated "Master Buster" babble irrelevant.
Crawford, incidentally, appears to be afraid to ask the following
question in public and sent it by E-mail instead, no doubt expecting that
after all his loutishness and distortions I am now ready for a little friendly
private banter with him:
>Will the "brochure" answer any of these questions or will it merely instruct
>us to send some money somewhere?
The brochure contains, among other things, a list of all papers (author,
title, date, 1 - 2 sentences describing contents) published in Galilean
Electrodynamics. That surely is as fair as can be to anybody genuinely
interested within the limits of a brochure. And yes, it does tell you
how to get vol.1 (1990) or vol.2 (1991) or subscribe to vol.3 (1992).
If you are interested, try sending me your address to this temporary
machine (beck...@spot.colorado.edu) while my regular home computer (schof)
is down. Or write Galilean Electrodynamics, Box 251, Boulder, CO 80306.
Petr Beckmann
BECKMANN PETR
In reply to my last posting, ric...@TIS.COMM sent an E-mail circular, in which
he states:
>There have been no real speed o'light checks with the light not having
>been sqooshed through a piece of glass or something.
Not so.
Disregarding astronomical experiments (double stars, sun's limbs),
the classical experiment here is the one by A.A. Michelson in 1913 (Astro-
phys. J), in which a double interference loop had two corners on moving
mirrors (mouted on the same shaft and rotating). No glass in the loop. The
result refutes the dependence of c on the velocity of the mirrors.
In 1965 Mandics and I (Radio Science) made a mirror rotate through a
point where a laser beam was focused, and by hypothesis to be tested,
accelerate the light by throwing it into the slit of a Lloyd interferometer.
The set up was in vacuum (10^-7 Hg). Any dependence of c on the speed of
the mirror would have been easily detected by a shift of the Lloyd fringes,
but none was observed. There was no glass in any relevant part of the light
path.
Petr Beckmann
Iain Jameson
>I don't know about other authors who have submitted papers to Galilean
>Electrodynamics (GE) for publication, but here are a couple of reasons
>why I did...
>(1) Incorporated into the foundations of GE is the belief that certain
>quantities, such as mass, are simply not dependent on motion relative to
>the observer. This is not to say that mass must be constant, but if mass
>changes with moition, it is not motion relative to the observer that is
>the mechanism for the change. Since I was proposing a new equation for
>mass that has this quality, GE seemed a natural candidate for publication.
>Perhaps Mr. Jameson is correct, I don't know. I do know that I did not
^^^^
That's Dr. but, hey, I'm hip!
>submit for publication anywhere else.
>(2) I greatly admire Dr. Beckmann for what he attempted in his book
>"Einstein Plus Two" and in providing a medium for the expression of
>creative ideas in GE.
>Steven Dinowitz
The reason I posted originally was due to a memory I had of
an argument that raged through this group a couple of years
ago. Hearing about the Journal of Galilean Electrodynamics
brought back thoses memories.
On one side of the argument was Beckmann and co., and everyone
else on the other side.
What I got out of that argument was
1. Beckmann had no idea what he was talking about, especially concerning
physics.
and
2. Galilean Electrodynamics was a creationist front.
Now, I have no idea if the above are true.
Point 1. I got from reading Beckmann's posts.
Point 2. come from other posts.
If this is not true, then Beckmann was the wrong
person to try to convince me of that fact.
Iain.
mitchell_dinowitz
My original posting on the thread I called "Super-Relativistic Dynamics"
concerning my paper with the same title is gone. It has now given rise to
three threads that attack Dr. Beckmann, debate his theories, and downgrade
the journal for which he is editor and publisher.
(I especially enjoyed :( the fellow who implied that Dr. Beckmann is a Nazi
for finding fault with Einstein's relativity. Poor Dr. Beckmann - that
double 'n' will get you every time. I think this fellow is going to be hard
pressed making this crap fly for Dinowitz)
Anyway, it has all been very interesting :( - but has had nothing to do
with my original posting. So here once again, for the benefit of those just
tuning in, is the abstract of the paper I entitled "Super-Relativistic
Dynamics." The paper is published in the Nov./Dec. 1991 issue of (may G-d
have mercy upon my soul for mentioning it) Galilean Electrodynamics.
"A new equation for mass is proposed in which motion relative to the
locally dominant gravitational fields is the critical factor in determining
changes in mass. According to this equation, a body at the Earth's surface,
moving at the velocity of light relative to the Earth's gravitational field
in the direction of, or opposite to, the Earth's orbital velocity about the
Sun, will have a mass 120,000 times it's rest mass. This is the minimum mass
a body at the Earth's surface can have when moving at the velocity of light
relative to the Earth's gravitational field. For an electron this mass
corresponds to an energy of 60 Gev. At energies beyond 60 Gev, under these
conditions, an electron will attain a velocity greater than light. Phase II
of the Large Electron Positron (LEP) accelerator should be capable of
imparting an energy of 100 Gev to an electron. However, it is predicted that
under these conditions, and utilizing the mass equation of Special Relativity
to operate, the LEP will fail to impart an energy of more than 60 Gev per
electron."
This paper is not a theory of gravitation or light propagation. I think there
are other threads where such discussions are more appropriate. The paper
proposes a new equation for mass which to my knowledge has not been proposed
by anyone before. The equation reduces to Einstein's under certain conditions -
but does make clear predictions that differ radically from Einstein under
other conditions. These conditions should manifest themselves in phase II
of the Large Electron Positron (LEP) accelerator scheduled for completion in
three years.
I again would like to thank all the people who have expressed an interest
in, and requested, the paper. If anyone tuning in now would like a copy
please send your mailing address (not e-mail) to mi...@pinet.aip.org or
mi...@aip.bitnet
Sincerely,
Steven Dinowitz
Matt Crawford
) > According to his dominant-mass theory, the speed of light must
) >be referred to the frame in which the object that produces the largest
) >m/r ratio is at rest.
Beckman:
) False. Go back in this discussion and find out for yourself without
) making everybody read the same things all over again. Or ask your buddy
) Matt Crawford what I answered to the same false claim.
Enlighten us, P.B. ... You *did* say m/r on the net, and I queried you
by email and you reaffirmed it. Then you retracted it when it was
pointed out that people don't fall out their windows into the sun.
But to date you haven't shown us whatever you claim the correct formula
is. Why not. WHY NOT?
) Crawford, incidentally, appears to be afraid to ask the following
) question in public and sent it by E-mail instead, ...
In order to save the net an article of no interest to them. How futile.
) >Will the "brochure" answer any of these questions or will it merely instruct
) >us to send some money somewhere?
) The brochure contains, among other things, a list of all papers (author,
) title, date, 1 - 2 sentences describing contents) published in Galilean
) Electrodynamics.
In other words, it does not answer any of our questions.
) That surely is as fair as can be to anybody genuinely
) interested within the limits of a brochure. And yes, it does tell you
) how to get vol.1 (1990) or vol.2 (1991) or subscribe to vol.3 (1992).
In other words, it tells us where to send our money. Even I, one of the
foremost Beckmann-detractors, have trouble believing that money is the
only reason you don't answer any quantitative questions about Beckmann-
science! So what's the real reason?
________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford ma...@oddjob.uchicago.edu
Jose Castejon-Amenedo
From what I have seen, I might be sticking my hand into a
wasps' nest, but my curiosity has been aroused by these heated
exchanges. So, could anybody possibly illuminate me about the tenets
of this so extremely controversial alternative theory? I have heard
about a book entitled "Einstein + 2" (I think), but it would take me
longer to get it than I will be staying around.
If possible include mathematics: my physical intuition is very
poor.
Loren Petrich
>In article <110...@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> lo...@tristan.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich) writes:
:: According to his dominant-mass theory, the speed of light must
::be referred to the frame in which the object that produces the largest
::m/r ratio is at rest.
: False. Go back in this discussion and find out for yourself without
:making everybody read the same things all over again. Or ask your buddy
:Matt Crawford what I answered to the same false claim.
But I thought I saw in this newsgroup that the "dominant mass"
is the one that makes the largest m/r ratio. And if that is not the
dominant mass, then what is???
If the formula I posted for the reference velocity (averaging
over m/r) is incorrect, then please tell us the correct one.
Petr Beckmann, if you are not willing to state your theories
in intelligible form, then why should you expect the rest of us to
take your theories seriously??? You'll NEVER make it to Stockholm
unless you make an understandable case for your views.
: That makes the rest of your inflated "Master Buster" babble irrelevant.
I can see that you don't enjoy seeing bad news...
I worked out the consequences of your "dominant mass" theory,
using your very own formula, and I found ... failure.
And let us not forget about precision tests of quantum field
theories afforded by particle-physics experiments, like the magnetic
moments of the electron and the muon. What is the Beckmannite
explanation for the success of Special Relativity there???
Peter Ung
>
>
>My original posting on the thread I called "Super-Relativistic Dynamics"
>concerning my paper with the same title is gone. It has now given rise to
>three threads that attack Dr. Beckmann, debate his theories, and downgrade
>the journal for which he is editor and publisher.
[stuff deleted for brevity]
I took the liberty to type up the abstract and article that
started this mud-slinging and name calling. Imho: the paper is fun to
read, the conclusion that is... this paper could perhap be another
episode in Star Trek. Personally, I don't see the physics in it. Than
again what do I know...
If there are typos or other mistake, it is probably mine.
--The content is appx. 23kb ..............
GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS Vol. 2 no. 6
Super-Relativistic Dynamics
By Steven Dinowitz
72 Townhouse East, Massapequa Park, NY 11762
A new equation for mass is proposed in which motion relative to
the locally dominant gravitational fields is the critical factor in
determining changes in mass. According to this equation, a body at
the Earth`s surface, moving at the velocity of light relative to the
Earth`s gravitational field in the direction of, or opposite to, the
Earth`s orbital velocity about the Sun, will have a mass 120,000
times it's rest mass. This is the minimum mass a body at the Earth's
surface can have when moving at the velocoty of light relative to
the Earth's gravitational field. For an electron this mass
corresponds to to an energy of 80 GeV. At energies beyond 60 GeV,
under these conditions, an electron will attain a velocity greater
than light. Phase II of the Large Electron Positron (LEP)
accelerator should be capable of imparting an energy of 00 GeV to an
electron. However, it is predicted that under these conditions, and
utilizing the mass equation of Special Relativity to operate, the
LEP will fail to impart an energy of more than 60 GeV per electron.
1. Super-Relativistic Mass Equation
This paper introduces a new equation for mass. Unlike Einstein's
equation for mass, which is base on motion relative to the observer,
the new equation is base on motion relative to the local
gravitational fields. The postulated mass dependence is
m = m_min ( sum g_x / sum g_x * alpha_x)
m_min * (g_1 + g_2 + g_3 + . . .)
(1.1) = -------------------------------------------
g_1*alpha_1 + g_2*alpha_2 + g3*apha_3 + ...
where
| sqrt(1 - (v_x/c)^2) for v_x .LE. c
alpha_x = <
| sqrt(1 - (c/v_x)^2) for v_x .GE. c
Here m is the mass of the body, m_min is its minimum mass (m_min
is the mass the body would have if it were at rest with respect to
all other bodies in the universe, also imagined stationary), g_x is
the gravitational acceleration produced by source x at the location
of the body, v_x is the velocity of the body relative to the
gravitational field of the source x, and c is a constant equal to
3.0 x 10^8 m/s. ( The constant c is equal to the velocity of light
as measured by an observer when both he and the source are at rest
relative to the Earth's gravitational field).
In the present paper, the reader is asked to regard (1.1) as an
initial, self-consistent assumption, the success of which is subject
to experiment. However, it does have a theoretical foundation, which
will be discussed in a paper on the propogation of light to be
submitted to this journal in the future.
The minimum mass m_min of a body as utilized in (1.1) is not a
readily known constant, as the body cannot be at rest relative to
all other bodies in the universe. However, m_min can be related to
the body's known rest mass m_0 via u_x, the velocity of the observer
with respect to the gravitational field of source x:
m_0 = m_min * (sum g_x / sum g_x * phi_x)
(1.2) m_min(g_1 + g_2 + g_3 + ...)
= -----------------------------------------
(g_x*phi_1 + g_2*phi_2 + g_3*phi_3 + ...)
where
| sqrt( - (u_x/c)^2) for u_x .LE. c
phi_x = <
| sqrt(1 - (c/u_x)^2) for u_x .GE. c
Here m_0 is the rest mass of the body (m_0 is the mass of the
body when it is at rest relative to the observer), g_x is the
gravitational acceleration produced by source x at the location of
the body, and c = 3.0 x 10^8 m/s.
It follows from (1.1) and (1.2) that
m = m_0 * (sum g_x * phi_x / sum g_x * alpha_x)
(1.3) m_0(g_1*phi_ + g_2*phi_2 + g_3*phi_3 + ...)
= ---------------------------------------------
g_1*alpha_1 + g_2*alpha_2 + g_3*alpha_3 + ...
The Super-Relativistic mass equation (1.3) requires that the
strenght of every gravitational field in the universe, as well as
the observer's relative velocity to every gravitational field, be
known in order to determine the exact mass of the body. Fortunately,
a very vlose approximation can be obtained by considering the
strenght of, and the observer's relative velocity to, just a limited
number of the strongest gravitational fields. The greater the number
of the strongest gravitational fields taken into consideration, the
better the approximation.
2. Super-Relativistic Mass Equation at the Earth's Surface
Consider an observer and a body at the Earth's surface, with
observer at rest and the body in motion, both relative to the
Earth's gravitational field.
At the Earth's surface, the dominant gravitational field is that of
the Earth g_e, the second strongest gravitational field is that of
the Sun g_s, and the third strongest gravitational field is that of
the Moon g_m.
The gravitational fields of the other bodies such as the planet
and stars may be necglected in comparison, and at the Earth's
surface, The Super-Relativistic mass equation (1.3) can be written
as
m_0(g-e*phi_e + g_s*phi_s + g_m*phi_m + ...)
(2.1) m = ---------------------------------------------
g_e*alpha_e + g_s*alpha_s + g_m*alpha_m + ...
Since we are considering a body at the Earth's surface, the
gravitational acceleration due to the Earth at the location of the
body, g_e = 9.8 m/s^2 the gravitational acceleration due to the Sun
at the location of the body, g_s = 5.9 x 10%-3 m/s^2, the
gravitational acceleration due to the Moon at the location of the
body g_m = 3.2 x 10^-5 m/s^2.
since we are considering an observer at rest relative to the
Earth's gravitational field, u_e = 0, the velocity of the observer
relative to the Sun's gravitational field, u_s, is equal to the
Earth's orbital velocity about the Sun, v-sob = 3.0 x 10^4 m/s, and
the velocity of the observer relative to the Moon's gravitational
field is equal to the Moon's orbital velocity about the earth,
v_mob = 1.0 x 10^3 m/s. Thus phi_e = 1, phi-s = 1, phi_m <=> 1.
[Note <=> is approximately equal to sign, my notation] .
Under these conditions, and using this values, the numerator in
(2.1) is constant and is approximately equal to unity,
g_s * phi_s g_m * alpha_m
phi_e + ----------- + ------------- + ... = 1.000605 <=> 1.0
g_e g_e
The denominator in (2.1) is not constant, but has a maximum
value of 1.000605... <=> 1.0, when v_e = 0, and a minimum value of
g_s*alpha_s/g_e + g_m*alpha_m/g_e + ..., when v_e = c. With only a
small loss in accuracy, the denominator in equation (2.1) can be
approximated as shown by
g_s * alpha_s g_m * alpha_m
alpha_e = ------------- + ------------- + ... <=> alpha_e + theta
g_e g_e
Note that the approximation for the denominator in equation
(2.1) above becomes exact when v_e + c. The term theta in the
expression above is given by
g_s /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
theta = --- --| / 2*cos(beta_s v_sob) (v_sob)^2 \
g_e || abs | ------------------- + ----------- |
\| \ c c^2
g_m /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ --- --| / 2*cos(beta_m v_mob) (v_mob)^2 \
g_e || abs | ------------------- + ----------- |
\| \ c c^2
+ ... (v_e <=> c)
where beta_s is the angle between the Earth's orbital velocity about
the Sun, v_sob, and the velocity of the body relative to the Earth's
gravitational field, v_e; beta_m is the angle between the Moon's
orbital velocity about the Earth, v_mob, and the velocity of the
body relative to the Earth's gravitational field, v_e; and
c = 3.0 x 10^8 m/s. Thus under the condition notes, (2.) can be
greatly simplified and approximated as
(2.2) m = m_0 / (alpha_e + theta)
In the following, we will concentrate on the case when theta
attains it's maximum value, corresponding to a body at the Earth's
surface moving in the direction of (bets_s = 0 degree). oropposite
to (beta_s = 180 degrees), the Earth orbital velocity about the Sun.
[Note: the author used a degree symbol instead of the word 'degree`].
Under this condition, ang using g_e = 9.8 m/s^2, g_s = 5.9 x 10^-3 m/s^2,
g_m = 3.2 x 10^-5 m/s^2, v_sob = 3.0 x 10^4 m/s, v_mob = 1.0 x 10 ^3 m/s
(one may choose an arbitrary angle for beta_m), and c = 3.0 x 10^8 m/s,
one finds that theta = 8.5 x 10 ^-6.
It should be noted that choosing a different beta_s will result
in a different value for theta. Also as beta_s approaches 90.003,
the first term (involving the Sun) in the series for theta
approaches zero, and the second term (involving the Moon) then
becomes critical in determining theta.
3. Einstein's Equation
In (2.2) is alpha_e >> theta (using theta = 8.5 x 10^-6,
alpha_e = theta when v_e = 0.999999999964c) or if only the dominant
gravitational field (in this case the Earth's) is considered [1],
and v .LE. c,
m_0 m_0
(3.1) m = ------- + ---------------
alpha_e /~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\| 1- (v_e/c)^2
For an observer at rest in the Earth's gravitational field, the
velocity of the body relative to the field (v_e) is equal to the
velocity of the body relative to the observer (v). Therefore (3.1)
becomes identical to Einstein's equation for mass [2]
m_0
(3.2) m = ---------------
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\| 1- (v/c)^2
It follows that sublight momentum,
m_0 * v
(3.3) p = mv = --------------
/~~~~~~~~~~~~
\| 1 - (v/c)^2
and the sunloght kinetic energy,
/ v / v / \
( ( | 1 |
(3.4) E_k = | v dp = pv - | p dv = m_0 * c^2 | --------------- - 1 |
) ) | /~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
/ 0 / 0 \ \| 1 - (v/c)^2 /
and the total energy
m_0 * c^2
(3.5) E = m_0 * c^2 + E_k = --------------
/~~~~~~~~~~~~
\| 1 - (v/c)^2
Thus, Einstein's equation (3.2), (3.3), (3.4) and (3.5) will
hold to velovities near the velocity of light. However, as
velocities approaches 0.999999999964c, (alpha_e ---> theta),
Einstein's equations are nolonger valid.
4. Sublight Super-Relativistic Equation
Unlike Einstein's mass equation (3.2), which as memtion above is
not valid very close to the velocity of light, the Super-Relativistic
mass equation (2.2) hold at any velocity. In (2.2), when v_e .LE. c,
m_0 m_0
m <=> = --------------- = ----------------------
alpha_e + theta /~~~~~~~~~~~~
\| 1 - (v/c)^2 + theta
For an observer at rest relative to the Earth`s gravitational
field, the velocity relative to the Earth`s gravitational field
(v_e) is equal to the velocity of the body relative to the observer
(v). Therefore (2.2) can be written as
m_0
(4.1) m = ---------------------
/~~~~~~~~~~~~
\| 1 - (v/c)^2 + theta
It follows that sublight momentum
m_0 * v
(4.2) p = mv = ----------------------
/~~~~~~~~~~~~
\| 1 - (v/c)^2 + theta
and the sublight kinetic energy, the net energy required to
accelerate a body from rest to a given sublight velocity [5],
/ v / v
( (
(4.3) E_k = | v dp = pv - | p dv
) )
/ 0 / 0
/ ___________
| 1 + theta \/ 1- (v/c)^2
= m_0 * c^2 | -----------------------
| /~~~~~~~~~~~
\ \| 1 - (v/c)^2 + theta
/ \ \
| 1 + theta | |
+ theta * ln | ------------------------ - 1 | |
| /~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
\ \| 1 - (v/c)^2 + theta / /
and the total energy
(4.4) E = m_0 * c^2 + E_k
/ ___________
| 1 + theta \/ 1- (v/c)^2
= m_0 * c^2 | -----------------------
| /~~~~~~~~~~~
\ \| 1 - (v/c)^2 + theta
/ \ \
| 1 + theta | |
+ theta * ln | ------------------------ | |
| /~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
\ \| 1 - (v/c)^2 + theta / /
Note that in (4.4) we have approximately
/ \
| m_0 * c^2 |
E = m_0 * c^2 = | ----------------------- |
| /~~~~~~~~~~~ |
\ \| 1 - (v/c)^2 + theta /
Super-Relativistic equations (4.1), (4.2), (4.3), and (4.4)
hold up to and includeding the velocity of light. If theta = 0, the
equations become identical with Einstein's. Also, since
theta = 8.5 x^-6 (undercondition specified in section 2) the mass,
momentum, kinetic energy, and energy are all finite at the above
velocity,
m_0
(4.5) m = ----- at v = c
theta
m_0 * c
(4.6) p = m * v = ------- at v = c
theta
/ / \ \
| 1 | 1 + theta | |
(4.7) E_k = m_0 * c^2 | ----- + theta * ln | --------- | - 1 |
| theta | theta | |
\ \ / /
at v = c
/ / \ \
| 1 | 1 + theta | |
(4.8) E_k = m_0 * c^2 | ----- + theta * ln | --------- | |
| theta | theta | |
\ \ / /
m_0 * c^2
<=> --------- at v = c
theta
Thus, Super_relativistic mass equation predicts a mass increase
of 120,000 times the ret mass for a body at the Earth's surface with
a velocity relative to the Earth's gravitational field v_e = c, in
direction of, or opposition to, the Earth's orbital velocity about
the Sun. By the Super-Relativitic energy equation, an electron
moving relative to the Earth's gravitational field at v_e = c, in
direction of or opposite to the Earth's orbital velocity about the
Sun will have an energy of 60 GeV.
5. Faster than Light
Since acording to (2.2) the mass of an object is still finite at
v_e = c, velocities greater than c can be achieve by ordinary
particles. Special types of particles having "imaginary mass" and
"negative energy" [3] are not require.
6. Hyperlight Super-Relativistic Equation
In (2.2), when v_e .GE. c,
m_0 m_0
m <=> ---- = ----------------
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\| 1 - (c/v_e)^2 + theta
For an observer at rest relative to the Earth's gravitational
field, the velocity of the body relative to the same rest standard
(v_e) is equal to the velocity relative to the observer (v).
Therefore, (2.2) can be written as
m_0
(6.1) m = ---------------------
/~~~~~~~~~~~
\| 1 - (c/v)^2 + theta
It follows tha hyperlight momentum
m_0 * v
(6.2) p = mv = ---------------------
/~~~~~~~~~~~
\| 1 - (v/c)^2 + theta
and the hyper kinetic energy, the net energy require to accelerate a
body from rest to a given hyperlight velocity, that is, the energy
required to accelerate a body from rest to c as in (4.7), plus the
energy required to accelerate a body from c to a given hyperlight
velocity, equals
/ / \ \
| 1 | 1 + theta | |
E_k = m_0 * c^2 | ----- + theta * ln | --------- | - 1 |
| theta | theta | |
\ \ / /
/ v
(
+ pv - | p dv
)
/
Neglecting term in (theta)^2 and higher [5],
/
| 1 + (v/c)^2
(6.3) E_k <=> m_0 * c^2 | --------------------------
| 2( /~~~~~~~~~~~~ )
\ \| 1 - (c/v)^2 + theta
1 / v /~~~~~~~~~~~ \
- - ln | - + |(v/c)^2 - 1 | - 1
2 \ c \| /
/ \\
| (1 + theta) abs{sqrt[(v/c)^2 -1] - theta*v/c} ||
+ theta * ln | --------------------------------------------- ||
| (theta)^2 ||
\ //
and the total energy
/
| 1 + (v/c)^2
(6.4) E <=> m_0 * c^2 | --------------------------
| 2( /~~~~~~~~~~~~ )
\ \| 1 - (c/v)^2 + theta
1 / v /~~~~~~~~~~~ \
- - ln | - + |(v/c)^2 - 1 |
2 \ c \| /
/ \\
| (1 + theta) abs{sqrt[(v/c)^2 -1] - theta*v/c} ||
+ theta * ln | --------------------------------------------- ||
| (theta)^2 ||
\ //
It follows from (6.1) that with increasing hyperlight velocity
the mass of the object decreases, approaching its rest mass as the
velocity approaches infinity. Also, from (6.2), (6.3), and (6.4),
with increase hyperlight velocity, and total energy decrease from
their value at approximately c * sqrt(2), and then increase again,
approachig infinity as the velocity approaches infinity.
Note from (6.), (6.2), and (6.3) that if v >> c, then m <=> m_0,
p <=> m_0 * v, and E_k <=> m_0 * v^2 / 2, which are newton's
classical equation for mass, momentum, and kinetic energy.
7. Failure of the LEP-Phase II
The Large Electron Positron (LEP) accelerator at CERN [4] is the
most powerful electron/positron accelerator on earth. A great ring.
nearly 27 kilometers in circumference, the LEP can currently achieve
a maximum energy of 50 GeV per electron or positron. When the
central axis of the accelerator ring (the axis perpendicular to the
plane of the accelerator ring) is perpendicular to the Earth's
orbital velocity about the Sun, there will be points within the ring
where the electron or positron beams are moving in the direction of,
or opposite to, the Earth's orbital velocity about the Sun.
At energies below 60 GeV the accelerator will function as
expected. At energy greater than 60 GeV, according to
super-relativistic equations. particles moving in the direction of,
or opposite to, the Earth's orbital velocity about the Sun, will
suddenly begin to move faster than light, and their mass, momentum,
and energy will all suddenly begin to decrease.
The devices that produce the particles' acceleration, whose
timing is based on the assumption that particle veloities, no matter
how high their energies, cannot exceed the velocity of light, will
begin to fall out of phase with particle moving faster than light.
Also, the strenghts of the magnets that bend the path of the
particles is based on the assumption that particle momentum
continuously increase; but they will cause the hyperlight particles;
whose momentum suddenly begun to decrease, to impact the inner
acelerator wall.
Thus, according to the super-relativitic equations, when
particles are moving in the direction of, or opposite to, the
Earth's orbital velocity about the Sun, the LEP-Phase II will fail
to reach energies greater than 60 GeV.
However, with the super-relativistic mass equation programmed
into the devices that control the timing of the particles'
accelerator boosts, and into the devices that control the strenght
of the bendig magnets, the LEP-Phase II could (provided the devices
timing the particles' accelerator boosts can keep up) attain a beam
velocity of 600c. Such a beam could reach Alpha Centauri star system
in less than three days.
REFERENCES
[1] P. Beckman, Einstein Plus Two, Golem Press, Box 1342, Boulder
CO 80306 (1987).
[2] A. Einstein, "The Electrodynamics of moving Bodies," Annalen der
Physik, vol. 17, pp. 891 (1905).
[3] G. Feynberg, "Particles That Goes Faster than Light," Scientific
American, February 1970.
[4] "LEP, The World Biggest Acelerator, Is On The Air," Physics
Today, October 1989.
[5] G. Petit Bois, Tables of Indefinite Integrals, Dover Publ., New
York, 1961.
BECKMANN PETR
>What I got out of that argument was
>1. Beckmann had no idea what he was talking about, especially concerning
> physics.
A creationist front? Exquisitely absurd. Not only am I an opponent of
creationism (although my religious views are none of your business), but
how do you practice religion in a journal of mathematical physics???? Of
course, dragging in religion to cover up a lack of physical arguments is
something deja vu. Your spiritual forefathers attacked Einstein not over time
dilation, not over length contraction, not over the constant velocity of
light, but because he was a Jew.
Petr Beckmann
BECKMANN PETR
>Enlighten us, P.B. ... You *did* say m/r on the net, and I queried you
>by email and you reaffirmed it. Then you retracted it when it was
>pointed out that people don't fall out their windows into the sun.
E-mail to you, which you chose to make public triumphantly and I immediately
apologized for the mistake (should have been m/r^2) and retracted it.
Since then you have been harping on that one irrelevant oversight.
>But to date you haven't shown us whatever you claim the correct formula
>is. Why not. WHY NOT?
Oh yes, I have, and immediately after your great scientific feat of
discovering a trivial error. It should have been m/r^2, not m/r, as
I said immediately then. This may be mathematically too sophisticated for
you.
So let me help, because your limited imagination can probably grasp
no other non-Einsteinian concept than the ether. Although I think the ether
is an unnecessary and unmeasurable concept, my theory is in effect
virtually the same as that of a Michelson ether: an ether entrained by the
earth's translational motion, but not by its rotation.
Simple enough? In two years you have not been able to muster a shred of
evidence against this hypothesis, but have been harping on an irrelevant
and admitted minor error. You must be a truly brilliant physicist.
Your co-pitbulls have raised a single argument, that starlight
passing near a moving planet would be affected. The argument was shown
without merit due to the anisotropy of the equivalent "medium," in the
reference given.
So they and you continue with personal attacks on me, on the journal,
and everything else. Not a word about time dilation, Sagnac effect, or
anything else even vaguely reminiscent of physics.
I take it that you are bankrupt of physical arguments. No wonder you
have to resort to personal attacks and harp for two years on a stupid
mistake in an E-mail message.
Petr Beckmann
Greg Scott Hennessy
#In two years you have not been able to muster a shred of
#evidence against this hypothesis, but have been harping on an irrelevant
#and admitted minor error. You must be a truly brilliant physicist.
I note that in the last two years you have not presented a shred of
evidence *FOR* your hyphothesis either.
I'll leave it to each person to make their own opinion as to
Beckmann's brilliance.
Mark North
Yo, Petr,
I've read a few books. One of them was one of yours. Based on that I think I
know where Mr. Crawford is coming from.
Could be wrong though. Have a nice day.
Mark
Mark North
> What surprises me is that an issue is being made out of neutron stars
>and nobody has asked about such an elementary phenomenon as time dilation.
>How is it possible without the Lorentz transformation?
> OK, don't let me force it on you. If interested, ask.
Not interested. *YAWN*.
Mark
Have a nice day, Peter.
Matt Austern
> So here once again, for the benefit of those just tuning in, is the
> abstract of the paper I entitled "Super-Relativistic Dynamics."
> ...
> Phase II of the Large Electron Positron (LEP) accelerator should be
> capable of imparting an energy of 100 Gev to an electron. However,
> it is predicted that under these conditions, and utilizing the mass
> equation of Special Relativity to operate, the LEP will fail to
> impart an energy of more than 60 Gev per electron."
As far as I can tell, the assertion is that it is impossible for an
electron to have an energy of more than 60 GeV. This assertion has
already been disproven by the observation of high energy electron at
CDF.
--
Matthew Austern I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band of
(415) 644-2618 of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
ma...@physics.berkeley.edu taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
aus...@theorm.lbl.gov multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
aus...@lbl.bitnet me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
John Price
>Beckmann writes:
>#In two years you have not been able to muster a shred of
>#evidence against this hypothesis, but have been harping on an irrelevant
>#and admitted minor error. You must be a truly brilliant physicist.
>I note that in the last two years you have not presented a shred of
>evidence *FOR* your hyphothesis either.
I'm going to try and stay out of this argument for the most part, but I
think Greg raises a valid point here. The onus is on Beckmann to show
reasonable proof that his theories hold water.
A good start might be a reference to results of an experiment designed
*specifically* to distinguish between Beckmann's and Einstein's theories.
Until such results exist (and have been verified), further arguments on
either side are pretty pointless. So, Dr. Beckmann, the ball's in your
court.
John Price * * * * pr...@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu
Only Nixon could go to China.
--Ancient Vulcan Proverb
BECKMANN PETR
>I note that in the last two years you have not presented a shred of
>evidence *FOR* your hyphothesis either.
in the last two years: the Edwards effect, and time measurements by
synchronized satellites. Leave me your postal address and I will send you
a brochure.
>I'll leave it to each person to make their own opinion as to
>Beckmann's brilliance.
And I am sure each person is ecstatically grateful for your generous
permission.
Petr Beckmann
BECKMANN PETR
> But I thought I saw in this newsgroup that the "dominant mass"
>is the one that makes the largest m/r ratio. And if that is not the
>dominant mass, then what is???
> If the formula I posted for the reference velocity (averaging
>over m/r) is incorrect, then please tell us the correct one.
mine in private E-mail public, it should be m/r^2, not m/r, and ever since
the pitbulls have been harping triumphantly on this trivial oversight.
And I have repeated this at least twice now.
That is, the exponent in the denominator should not be one (thumb),
but two (thumb and index finger). Do not feel dejected, Master Buster,
over taking two years to absorb such sophisticated mathematics. Rome was
not built in a day.
Petr Beckmann
BECKMANN PETR
>I'm going to try and stay out of this argument for the most part, but I
>think Greg raises a valid point here. The onus is on Beckmann to show
>reasonable proof that his theories hold water.
1) The Edwards Effect
2) measurements by synchronized satellites
3) the appearance of the earth's rotation in the Brillet-Hall experi-
ment (1976), the only one of this type to (barely!) reach the required
precision (light velocity to better than 350 m/s).
Several experiments designed to test the very small differences have
been proposed, but few of them are feasible with present technology, and
the small remainder is unlikely to be funded.
However, may I remind you that experimental confirmation is not the
only (albeit the most important) criterion. There is also simplicity and
lack of contradictions, neither of which the Einstein theory satisfies.
Petr Beckmann
BECKMANN PETR
> From what I have seen, I might be sticking my hand into a
>wasps' nest, but my curiosity has been aroused by these heated
>exchanges. So, could anybody possibly illuminate me about the tenets
>of this so extremely controversial alternative theory? I have heard
>about a book entitled "Einstein + 2" (I think), but it would take me
>longer to get it than I will be staying around.
Thank you for asking instead of spitting venom.
The main points of "Einstein Plus Two" (Golem Press, Box 1342 Boulder,
CO 80306) are:
1) velocity of light is constant with respect to local gravitational
field, or (though I dislike the superfluous concept of an ether) the earth
is surrounded by a Michelson ether, entrained by its orbital motion, but
not by its rotation.
2) The velocities implicitly contained in Maxwell's equations makes them
valid when they are referred not to the observer, but to the local field
traversed by moving charges. It can then be derived from the Maxwell
equations without further assumptions that an electron "moving with
velocity v" has an average velocity v, about which its instantaneous
velocity fluctuates sinusoidally. The electron undergoing these natural
oscillations will not radiate, since calculation shows E and B in
quadrature, and the Poynting vector oscillating as the energy flow
fluctuates to and from the electron. The frequency of these oscillations
can be derived and turns out to be given by the de Broglie relation, which
hitherto has been ASSUMED without derivation. From here it is easy to
derive the Schroedinger equation, but the velocity oscillations necessarily
contradict the Einstein theory, since the velocity must be that with
respect to the field and not that with respect to any observer.
Petr Beckmann
mitchell_dinowitz
>
> As far as I can tell, the assertion is that it is impossible for an
> electron to have an energy of more than 60 GeV. This assertion has
> already been disproven by the observation of high energy electron at
> CDF.
> --
Of course it is possible for an electron to have an energy greater than
60 Gev. The equations in no way prohibit this. What they do say is that
under certain conditions an electron with energies greater than 60 Gev
will have a velocity greater than that of light.
Now let me ask a question. Do you know of any experiment conducted on
electrons with energies greater than 60 Gev where their velocity has been
determined directly by time of flight? If so, could you please provide me
with references. As far as I know, the velocity of electrons at these
energies are derived by Einstein's mass equation through data on radius
of path (r=p/qB) or by calorimeter (E=mc^2). Using Einstein's mass
equation to derive velocity will always produce values less than c.
I am also aware of cosmic rays with energies far greater than 60 Gev.
According to the superrel quations, mass increase is critically dependent on
the gravitational environment in which the particle experiences acceleration.
For example, a small flare from the Sun's surface and the particles would
require far more than 60 Gev to exceed c. Cosmic rays from neutron stars
or pulsars would require far more energy yet (you can plug
numbers into the superrel equations and you will see for yourself).
Extensive air showers (EAS) produced when primaries impact the atmosphere
of the Earth are a different story. I would not be surprised to find
hyperlight particles in those showers. However, these particles do not
have properties typically associated with "tachyons" (again see paper).
I seem to recall a paper in the journal "Nature" in the 70's which reported
positive results of FTL particles associated with EAS.
These results were later dismissed because other properties thought to be
associated with tachyons were not found. (I think it was Clay and Crouch).
Steven Dinowitz
Greg Scott Hennessy
#>I note that in the last two years you have not presented a shred of
#>evidence *FOR* your hyphothesis either.
Beckmann:
# Wrong again. There have been at least two experimental confirmations
#in the last two years: the Edwards effect, and time measurements by
#synchronized satellites. Leave me your postal address and I will send you
#a brochure.
I stand by my statement as being correct. You have alleged that two
other effects support your theory, but have not presented any evidence
for them, but offer a brochure which you admit does not answer the
questions, but rather tells me where to send money. Besides, my
address is in every post of mine.
Why don't you post these papers to the net, or place them in an
anoymous ftp area? I would be willing to assist in setting up such an
aress. Other authors have posted to the net material that was
published in Nature, for example.
Also, for your theory to be considered, it must make predictions in
all the areas that relativity does. I have twice asked specific
questions on what your theory predicts in certain cases, and neither
time received an answer. Classic GR experiments such as a Shapiro
measurements have not been addressed as of yet by your theory in this
medium. Nor have the Lense-Thirring effect, or the relativistic
corrections to the spectra of hydrogen atoms been discussed.
#>I'll leave it to each person to make their own opinion as to
#>Beckmann's brilliance.
# And I am sure each person is ecstatically grateful for your generous
#permission.
They are probably more grateful that I refrain from indulging in snide
comments. Perhaps you could be so kind?
ian redmount
>[Discussion of purported experimental disproofs of relativity deleted.]
>
> However, may I remind you that experimental confirmation is not the
>only (albeit the most important) criterion. There is also simplicity and
>lack of contradictions, neither of which the Einstein theory satisfies.
> Petr Beckmann
To this I must object, because nonspecialists read this group. Einstein's
special theory of relativity is extremely simple, based as it is on the
single hypothesis of the equivalence of inertial frames, plus classical
physics (which is not in dispute here). It is also entirely self-consistent,
basically because the Minkowski line element is Lorentz invariant.
Ian H. Redmount
BECKMANN PETR
>I stand by my statement as being correct. You have alleged that two
>other effects support your theory, but have not presented any evidence
>for them, but offer a brochure which you admit does not answer the
>questions, but rather tells me where to send money.
summaries. If you are willing to spend only taxpayers' money, you can
always get it through your library.
Your statement "you admit does not answer the questions, but rather
tells me where to send money" is the type of malicious distortion that
makes me very reluctant to answer any more of your pitbull postings.
I don't know what ftp is, and God forbid that somebody as inept as you
should instruct me. I have made the evidence available by reference, which
used to be the usual way in science. If you must have it spoon-fed all the
way down your throat, get somebody else to do it.
Petr Beckmann
Greg Scott Hennessy
# Your statement "you admit does not answer the questions, but rather
#tells me where to send money" is the type of malicious distortion that
#makes me very reluctant to answer any more of your pitbull postings.
How is this a distortion? You said in reply to Matt Crawford that the
brochure does not answer the questions, but is an order form.
I have politely asked at least four questions dealing with predictions
of your theory, and have not received an answer.
#I have made the evidence available by reference, which
#used to be the usual way in science.
Ever hear of reprints?
Steven Dinowitz was kind enough to send me a copy of his article,
which what published in Galilean Electrodynamics. He has been quite
polite in my dealings with him.
Whether you intend it or not, when you respond to requests for
information with a line, "Give me your address, and I'll send you a
brochure." you give the implication that you are more interested in
selling something than in discussing physics. I am trying to be as
polite as I possible, even though you have made four ad-hominem
statements against me, two in your last post alone. I don't know if
this is your intent, but it is how it appears to me, and to others.
Posting a copy of your papers would go a long way to easing this
distrust.
When I publish in the journals, *I* pay (page charges). When someone
requests a copy, I either send a reprint, or e-mail a copy. I have
even xeroxed a reprint to send to someone from the Soviet Union out of
my own pocket.
It should not be necessary for either me, or the library here at UVa
to obtain a subscription to your journal to find out the information.
I'll gladly send you whatever out of pocket expeses you occur, but in
this electronic age that should not be necessary. There is probably a
version *somewhere* that you could post to sci.physics so that
everyone could understand exactly what your theory does and does not
predict, and get down to discussing physics.
However, I am beginning to think that you would rather insult people
who disagree with you than to do something constructive.
Why don't you try to prove that I may be judging you too harshly?
Matt Crawford
) False. As far as I remember I wrote m/r nowhere else except in
) E-mail to you, ...
Your memory is incomplete. You said on usenet it was the dominant
source of gravitational potential energy. If that is something other
than m/r in Beckmann-science, you should have told us so.
) ...apologized for the mistake (should have been m/r^2) and retracted it.
) Since then you have been harping on that one irrelevant oversight.
Since then you *still* haven't answered the following question.
I sit at the origin of my own coordinate system. There are many objects
of masses m_i {i = 1, ..., N} at positions x_i with velocities v_i with
respect to me. What is my motion relative to the so-called "dominant
gravitational field" of Beckmann-science?
Please do one of 3 things for us, P.B. (1) Answer the question. (2)
Explain why Beckmann-science cannot answer that question. (3) Explain
why Beckmann-science can answer the question, but Petr Beckmann will not.
) >But to date you haven't shown us whatever you claim the correct formula
) >is. Why not. WHY NOT?
) Oh yes, I have, and immediately after your great scientific feat of
) discovering a trivial error. It should have been m/r^2, not m/r, as
) I said immediately then. This may be mathematically too sophisticated for
) you.
See above, dude.
) Simple enough? In two years you have not been able to muster a shred of
) evidence against this hypothesis, ...
You haven't shown us a shred of mathematical exposition of what your
hypothesis *is*.
________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford Astronomy & Astrophysics U of Chicago
Matt Crawford
) I don't know what ftp is, and God forbid that somebody as inept as you
) should instruct me. I have made the evidence available by reference, which
) used to be the usual way in science.
I have a sheaf of postcards here, each of which requests a copy of
something I have written. Each one elicits a copy of the requested
paper at no cost to the requester. That is *now* the usual way in
science.
) If you must have it spoon-fed all the
) way down your throat, get somebody else to do it.
This seems to give permission to anyone holding a copy of Beckman's book
or magazine to post or mail the contents. Is there anyone on the
internet who *has* a copy? (I've checked every university library whose
catalog I can reach and I don't find any of these things.)
If there is no such person, can Petr Beckmann at least tell us HOW MUCH
money it will cost us to get a few basic facts, such as the precise
definition of "dominant field"?
Iain Jameson
I never said you were a creationist. I suggest you read my post again.
The thing is, a number of criticisms were made about the journal
that did not seem to be refuted. I was quite prepared to assume that
the criticisms, eg a creationist front, were the result of mud slinging,
and side with the journal. That is, until I read Beckmanns' posts.
If the stuff he posted here was representative of the work that was
published in the journbal, then I'm inclined to believe that the
criticisms have some basis.
My apologies if you thought I accused you of being a creationist.
BTW, I don't have any spiritual forefathers.
Iain.
Jon J Thaler
>Of course it is possible for an electron to have an energy greater than
>60 Gev. The equations in no way prohibit this. What they do say is that
>under certain conditions an electron with energies greater than 60 Gev
>will have a velocity greater than that of light.
>Now let me ask a question. Do you know of any experiment conducted on
>electrons with energies greater than 60 Gev where their velocity has been
>determined directly by time of flight? If so, could you please provide me
>with references. As far as I know, the velocity of electrons at these
>energies are derived by Einstein's mass equation through data on radius
>of path (r=p/qB) or by calorimeter (E=mc^2). Using Einstein's mass
>equation to derive velocity will always produce values less than c.
Fermilab has (or used to have) a "tagged photon beam" which was produced
by a high energy (a few hundred GeV) electron beam. I am not familiar
with the technical details, but it *DID* have the two key ingrediants you
ask for, namely a long flight path (about a kilometer) and coincidence
requirements with other particles. I would guess (but, I admit, cannot
prove without more archive work than I care to do) that if the electrons
were travelling faster than c, the coincidence timing would have failed.
How much faster than c are you talking about?
Jon J Thaler
"The Radiation Bogey" (1980) Call number QCD2411.B4
I don't know if this is on the topic of current discussion, but I'll look
and report back to the group next week.
In article <1991Nov6.0...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, beck...@spot.Colorado.EDU
(BECKMANN PETR) says:
> While simplicity may be in the eye of the beholder, self-consistency
>or absence of contradictions is not. The Einstein theory, apart from such
>well known paradoxes as the twin paradox as the Ehrenfest paradox, has
>recently been shown to lead to at least two other paradoxes:
The twin paradox is only a paradox to those who do not understand the
difference betwen inertial and noninertial reference frames. It comes up
in sci.physics about once every three months. I don't know the other.
Please describe it.
> 1) Prof. Peshchevitskiy has shown that the discrete number of events
>(an integer) in one inertial frame may not agree with that number when
>viewed from another frame (Gal. El. Nov./Dec. 1991).
Since I and my library don't subscribe to Gal. El., I can't comment.
> 2) For non-collinear velocities v_1 and v_2, the STR composition
>of velocities fails to obey the commutative law. This was discovered
>in the 1920s and "fixed" by a procedure or effect called Thomas rotation.
I suggest that you read Jackson's electrodynamics book. Thomas precession
is not a "fix" imposed to solve a problem with the theory, but a *prediction*
of the theory. It successfully explains a factor of two problem with the
nonrelativistic calculation of the spin-orbit interaction. If your theory
dispenses with Thomas precession, then how does it accommodate the effect?
>In a recent issue of Galilean Electrodynamics, Prof. Mocanu has shown
>that while this may save commutativity and relativistic kinematics, it
>will fail to produce the correct invariants in electrodynamics.
Name one. In any case, why would one want to save commutativity? This is
your theoretical bias, but SR has no problem handling the noncommutativity
of Lorentz transformations in different directions.
Kurt Sonnenmoser
since I have to put certain things right (I made a false claim).
In article <17...@forty2.physik.unizh.ch> k...@forty2.physik.unizh.ch I wrote:
| Beckmann simply states here that if one adopts a non-relativistic point of
| view, light will spread anisotropically in every reference frame except
| in the preferred one.
In article <1991Oct30.2...@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
beck...@spot.Colorado.EDU (BECKMANN PETR) answers:
> You seem to have forgotten that we were talking about the interfaces
>between two media, ...
So we were talking about different things. I wanted to know why Beckmann
calls interplanetary space anisotropic and he essentially answers that
if one moves with respect to an isotropic medium, the medium becomes
anisotropic. (Of course, waves spread anisotropically with respect to an
observer moving relative to an isotropic medium. That was what I called
trivial.) An orthodox physicist would call a medium isotropic if in its
rest frame it looks the same in all directions. (One would not define
such a concept in a coordinate dependent way.)
>... namely one between a gravitational field moving through
>another, and that you said that that if this were so, we would see
>the stars hopping around in the sky.
Here I made a mistake. (Of course this does not make Beckmann's
assumptions about the propagation of light correct.) From the fact that
light is refracted at the boundary of regions belonging to different
dominating bodies, I erroneously concluded that an object that passes
through this boundary will appear to hop. In fact it's only the apparent
_velocity_ of the object that would be discontinuous, just like that of
a body continuously passing from below a water surface to the air above
it. This is clearly a testable prediction -- and in the end that's all
that counts.
To see that light will be refracted in such a Beckmann scenario,
consider the earth moving around the sun:
Let Beckmann give you the description of the boundary S of the region
where the earth's gravitational field dominates (= inner region).
Hopefully, S is a smooth surface , i.e. there is a well defined
tangent plane T(P) at each of its points P.
Now take a sinusoidal plane wave incident from the outer region with
wave vector k (in R^3) such that the wave length is small compared to
the radius of curvature of S. Now you take a close look at S such that
you may neglect its curvature. (The wave is assumed to be sinusoidal
just for simplicity, it's not essential.)
You are now essentially looking at a plane T (neglecting curvature)
moving at velocity v (in R^3) with respect to the solar system. It
separates the two regions: in the outer region the speed of light is c
(in all directions) with respect to the sun -- and Beckmann says "ONLY
with respect to the sun" -- and in the inner region it is c (again in
all directions) with respect to the earth.
Now take the earth's rest frame as your frame of reference and
express the incident wave in the outer region in these coordinates.
Here Beckmann tells you to take the Galilei- and not the Lorentz
transformation.
OK, lets G-transform sin(kx - omega t) by substituting x'-vt for x
(x'/x = coordinates with respect to the earth/sun) and notice that the
new form of the incident plane wave still has the wave vector k but a
different frequency omega', yielding an effective index of refraction
of 1/(1+n.beta) where n=k/|k| and beta=v/c, such that the speed of the
wave fronts becomes c+|v| if n is antiparallel to v and just c if n is
orthogonal to v, just as Beckmann stated. (I therefore assume that I
am still on his path.)
But now it's clear that there is (in general) refraction: the problem
is reduced to the usual textbook example of a wave passing from a
region with a refractive index n1 to one with a different one n2
(here n2=1).
Now why actually does Beckmann insist in talking about motion relative
to fields? Well, conceptually this is necessary in order to avoid having
to explain why the outer medium gives way to the inner one without any
resistance or induced turbulences. (We all have that feeling in our guts
that fields are somehow less material than rigid bodies.)
But he does not seem to care about the conceptual impossibility of
"motion with respect to fields". The only clear answer we got up until
now was that it is the same as motion with respect to the dominating
body (Dinowitz in article <1991Oct23.1...@pinet.aip.org>),
making the fields completely drop out of the game.
I abstain from concluding remarks, since Beckmann seems to interpret
any expressed opinion against his ideas as a personal attack.
Kurt
James Davis Nicoll
Pardon some no doubt foolish questions:
What is the 'benefit' of the Beckman model (ie; what
phenomena does it describe/predict more accurately)?
Can someone whose seen the 'guts' of the theory make
a guess as to the minimum necessary size of a file which contained
worthwhile introduction (ie; equations and all) to the theory?
Would Mr/Dr/Prof Beckman object to someone with an
optical scanner reading the contents of the minimum necessary work
needed to understand his model into a file readily accessable by people
on the net?
James Nicoll
BECKMANN PETR
>I must object, because nonspecialists read this group. Einstein's
>special theory of relativity is extremely simple, based as it is on the
>single hypothesis of the equivalence of inertial frames, plus classical
>physics (which is not in dispute here). It is also entirely self-consistent,
>basically because the Minkowski line element is Lorentz invariant.
or absence of contradictions is not. The Einstein theory, apart from such
well known paradoxes as the twin paradox as the Ehrenfest paradox, has
recently been shown to lead to at least two other paradoxes:
(an integer) in one inertial frame may not agree with that number when
viewed from another frame (Gal. El. Nov./Dec. 1991).
of velocities fails to obey the commutative law. This was discovered
in the 1920s and "fixed" by a procedure or effect called Thomas rotation.
that while this may save commutativity and relativistic kinematics, it
will fail to produce the correct invariants in electrodynamics.
John Price
>In article <45...@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> pr...@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu writes:
>>I'm going to try and stay out of this argument for the most part, but I
>>think Greg raises a valid point here. The onus is on Beckmann to show
>>reasonable proof that his theories hold water.
> See my answer to Hennessy:
That's all well and good, but "The Edwards Effect" isn't a reference. A
journal name and page number (so I could look it up...) would help.
Loren Petrich
>In article <1991Nov5.1...@uwm.edu> redm...@convex.csd.uwm.edu (ian redmount) writes:
::I must object, because nonspecialists read this group. Einstein's
::special theory of relativity is extremely simple, based as it is on the
::single hypothesis of the equivalence of inertial frames, plus classical
::physics (which is not in dispute here). It is also entirely self-consistent,
::basically because the Minkowski line element is Lorentz invariant.
Certainly true -- if one has the mathematical sophistication
to understand it, and certain sorts of people HATE mathematics.
: While simplicity may be in the eye of the beholder, self-consistency
:or absence of contradictions is not. The Einstein theory, apart from such
:well known paradoxes as the twin paradox as the Ehrenfest paradox, has
:recently been shown to lead to at least two other paradoxes:
: 1) Prof. Peshchevitskiy has shown that the discrete number of events
:(an integer) in one inertial frame may not agree with that number when
:viewed from another frame (Gal. El. Nov./Dec. 1991).
: 2) For non-collinear velocities v_1 and v_2, the STR composition
:of velocities fails to obey the commutative law. This was discovered
:in the 1920s and "fixed" by a procedure or effect called Thomas rotation.
:In a recent issue of Galilean Electrodynamics, Prof. Mocanu has shown
:that while this may save commutativity and relativistic kinematics, it
:will fail to produce the correct invariants in electrodynamics.
First off, the Twin Paradox has been experimentally observed
in the form of slowed-down decays of particles traveling near the
speed of light.
I don't recall what the Ehrenfest Paradox is.
I've never heard of Peshchevitskiy's Paradox (for lack of a
better name). Since _Galilean Electrodynamics_ is not a readily
available journal, could you please explain this paradox for all us
net.people?
And I ask the same of Mocanu's Paradox. My understanding is
that Maxwell's Equations _are_ well-behaved under SR, and that no such
paradox exists.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster: lo...@sunlight.llnl.gov
Since this nodename is not widely known, you may have to try:
BECKMANN PETR
>That's all well and good, but "The Edwards Effect" isn't a reference. A
>journal name and page number (so I could look it up...) would help.
[2] H.C. Hayden, Galil. Electr., vol.1, 33 (1990)
Petr Beckmann
Arnold Gill visiting astrophys phd std
> The evidence is presented in articles of which the brochure gives
>summaries. If you are willing to spend only taxpayers' money, you can
>always get it through your library.
OK, I can do that. What are the exact references to the articles
which (I believe) you have written? If I cannot find the journals,
can you mail me photocopies of the articles?
> I don't know what ftp is
ftp is the simplest thing around -- are you on a unix, VAX, PC, or
mainframe? The software for all of them is available. It is the
fastest and cheapest way to easily transfer files around, and you
don't have to do anything except copy the files onto a disk.
--
Arnold Gill --- astrophysician trainee in exile gi...@physics.ubc.ca
BECKMANN PETR
> First off, the Twin Paradox has been experimentally observed
>in the form of slowed-down decays of particles traveling near the
>speed of light.
alleged proof of time dilation. In fact no one has ever shown that the
slowing down of a clock, or in this case, the meson decay, is not due
to traversal of the gravitational field, and no one has ever shown that
the slowing is observed by only some, and not ALL, observers. What does
an observer riding with the mesons through the gravitational field observe?
No one knows.
> I've never heard of Peshchevitskiy's Paradox (for lack of a
>better name). Since _Galilean Electrodynamics_ is not a readily
>available journal, could you please explain this paradox for all us
>net.people?
> And I ask the same of Mocanu's Paradox.
I think that the explanations given in your own posting (quoting me)
are as much as can reasonably be expected in postings here. Beyond that,
you or your library will just have to make the effort to get the original
articles.
Petr Beckmann
BECKMANN PETR
> OK, I can do that. What are the exact references to the articles
> which (I believe) you have written? If I cannot find the journals,
> can you mail me photocopies of the articles?
can be obtained from individual authors. The only reprint of my own article
I now have readily available is one I wrote on the double-slit paradox 2
years ago, and if you will send me your postal address I will gladly send
you one.
BTW, Galilean Electrodynamics IS readily available. You can subscribe
for $25 per year as an individual (personal check), double that for
corporations, quadruple that for tax-subsidized organization. Box 251,
Boulder, CO 80306. If you have ever tried to get a fairly old article
from the USSR, then you will know what "not readily available" really
means. The past two volumes are also available. But don't expect me to
more than a brochure listing and briefly summarizing all published articles.
Most journals do not even do that.
Petr Beckmann
D
D
BECKMANN PETR
>In any case, why would one want to save commutativity? This is
>your theoretical bias, but SR has no problem handling the noncommutativity
>of Lorentz transformations in different directions.
require that a + b = b + a. For non-collinear directions the Einstein
vector composition of velocities makes v_1 + v_2 not equal to v_2 + v_1. The
result therefore depends on the summation order as the user has arbitrarily
determined. Some people have the theoretical bias that scientists should
OBSERVE nature, not decree it.
Petr Beckmann
BECKMANN PETR
> But now it's clear that there is (in general) refraction: the problem
> is reduced to the usual textbook example of a wave passing from a
> region with a refractive index n1 to one with a different one n2
> (here n2=1).
For the complete calculation see "Entrainment by non-refractive media,"
Galil. Electr., vol. 1, 32 (1990), and especially my answer to a critic
(with your argument) in correspondence, vol.1, 52 (1990).
Petr Beckmann
thomas.j.roberts
So observe nature:
1) take any small object, hold it in a specific position.
2) rotate it by 90-degrees around a vertical axis
3) then rotate it by 90-degrees around a horizontal axis
(any direction will do).
4) observe its final orientation.
5) now hold it as in (1) above.
6) rotate it by 90-degrees around the axis used in (3) above.
7) rotate it by 90-degrees around the axis used in (2) above.
8) observe its final orientation.
9) compare the results in (4) and (8) - are they identical?
Why not?
(Advanced exercise) In the above experiment, the axes were
fixed in space (i.e. with respect to the room, not the
object). Perform the experiment again, using axes fixed with
respect to the object. Do you obtain the same result when you
compare (4) and (8)? Do you obtain the same final orientations
of the object in the two experiments? Why not?
Clearly, nature can be non-commutative.
IT IS NOT "the theoretical bias of people since the stone age to
require that a + b = b + a" - THIS IS AN OBSERVATION OF NATURE
(MATHEMATICS) FOR REAL NUMBERS (and for many other objects of
mathematics). Your "analogy" of addition of real numbers is grossly
inappropriate for for the composition of operations (an operation
such as moving an object is grossly different from a real number,
even though a real number can be associated with it (e.g. speed) -
this is reflected by the fact that THREE numbers are commonly used to
represent a velocity).
In fact, the relationship between the non-commutativity
exhibited in the simple experiment above is FUNDAMENTALLY
related to the fact that the composition of velocities
is non-commutative in Special Relativity. Mathematically,
it is almost "happenstance" that composition of velocities in
Newtonian physics is commutative (surely fortunate, however,
for without it Newton's task would have been MUCH more difficult).
There are may aspects of nature where non-commutativity is an
essential part of the process. Why shouldn't composition of
velocities be among them? (In fact, the non-commutativity of the
Lorenz and Poincare' groups is well known; IT IS NOT A PROBLEM).
Tom Roberts
AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!ihlpl!tjrob TJ...@IHLPL.ATT.COM
BECKMANN PETR
>Since then you *still* haven't answered the following question.
>I sit at the origin of my own coordinate system. There are many objects
>of masses m_i {i = 1, ..., N} at positions x_i with velocities v_i with
>respect to me. What is my motion relative to the so-called "dominant
>gravitational field" of Beckmann-science?
by repetitious, trivial and often answered questions. I will now answer all
your questions for the last time and thereafter ask you not to burden the
network with your heckling. I have already stopped answering the
repetitious and unintelligent ramblings of your co-pitbull Hennessy.
The total force on test mass m at the origin is
\Gamma m \sum_i m_i / x_i^2. If for some i, say i=k, m_k/x_k^2 >> sum of
the remaining terms of sum_i, then this is the dominant field. The velocity
of a light pulse or an object (such as yourself, since you asked) with
respect to that field is ds/dt, where ds is a line element of the path in
Euclidian space (e.g., ds^2 = dr^2 + r^2 d\phi^2 -- with no ict
coordinate!) and dt is an element of time (undilated -- the slowing of
clocks is another matter, neither related, nor equivalent, to time
dilation).
>But to date you haven't shown us whatever you claim the correct formula
>is. Why not. WHY NOT?
Oh yes I have, many times. Above again for this trivial point,
especially for you, and for the last time.
>You haven't shown us a shred of mathematical exposition of what
your hypothesis *is*.
MATHEMATICALLY, it is contained in my book "Einstein Plus Two." A fair
summary of what one can say in a very condensed form has last been given two
days ago, including electron oscillations.
>I have a sheaf of postcards here, each of which requests a copy of
>something I have written. Each one elicits a copy of the requested
>paper at no cost to the requester. That is *now* the usual way in
>science.
This has ALWAYS been the usual way in science, newcomer. You may
request a copy of a paper from any author in GE, who will probably be glad
to send you one. The full address of each author appears with his article.
>can Petr Beckmann at least tell us HOW MUCH
>money it will cost us to get a few basic facts, such as the precise
>definition of "dominant field"?
It will cost you nothing to get the precise definition of "dominant
field," for it is once again given above. For the rest, **to answer your
question** (for I will doubtlessly be accused of advertising), Einstein
Plus Two is $40 (postpaid), Galilean Electrodynamics is $25/year, Box 251,
Boulder, CO 80306.
And now please let me answer people who are genuinely interested in the
fundamentals of physics, instead of wasting time by answering your
repetitious heckling.
Petr Beckmann
Richard Long
>
> Are you familliar with the Binary Pulsar? It is losing energy at the
> exact rate as predicted by GR, so I would submit that this is a case
> that GR supports, and your theory does not.
>
> I can get futher references, but Marty Rybka (I apologize if I am
> misspelling Martys' last name) used to be on the net, and he can speak
> much more knowledgeably than I can on this matter.
I would really like to see that reference for the Binary Pulsar losing energy
at a rate predicted by GR. How can that be? Wouldn't the vast bulk of the
rotational energy be lost by EM radiation and plasma, and not by graviational
radiation, unless they were very closely orbiting neutron stars or black holes,
in which case the energy lost by gravity waves would be substantial, but the
percentage loss due to EM radiation would still be very large, would it not?
How can any conclusions be drawn from such observations, and how can it match a
rate predicted by GR alone?
Richard Long: lo...@next1.acme.ucf.edu
Jon J Thaler
> DOC...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
>> In any case, why would one want to save commutativity? This is
>> your theoretical bias, but SR has no problem handling the noncommutativity
>> of Lorentz transformations in different directions.
> It has been the theoretical bias of people since the stone age to
> require that a + b = b + a. For non-collinear directions the Einstein
> vector composition of velocities makes v_1 + v_2 not equal to v_2 + v_1. The
> result therefore depends on the summation order as the user has arbitrarily
> determined. Some people have the theoretical bias that scientists should
> OBSERVE nature, not decree it.
Two points here:
The main argument of my post to which you are responding was to dispute
your contention that Thomas precession is a "fix" applied to SR. Shall I
take your lack of response as a retraction of this claim?
Your response above indicates again that you fail to distinguish between
assumptions of the theory and predictions of the theory. SR makes only
*ONE assumption, namely that the speed of light is the same for all
observers. If you know of others, please enlighten us. The
noncommutativity of the Lorentz transformation is not put in by decree
but is a prediction of the theory. The Thomas precession is one
observable test of that prediction.
As I posted, if you are going to give up Thomas precession, then you need
to explain the factor of two discrepancy between the magnetic moment of
the electron as measured by the Zeeman effect and as measured by the
spin-orbit fine structure. Conventional nonrelavistic kinematics cannot
accommodate this; what complications do you propose?
As for your comment that it has been the theoretical bias since the stone age
that a+b = b+a, this is simply not true. It has been known for a long time
that rotations about different axes do not commute. When one views the
Lorentz transformation as a rotation in 4-dimensional spacetime,
noncommutativity is natural, not a paradox. The order in which one
applies the transformations is not arbitrary, as you claim, but is determined
by the situation being analyzed. If you think otherwise, please give an
example of a phenomenon whose prediction by SR is ambiguous.
Jon J Thaler
> lo...@tristan.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich) writes:
>> First off, the Twin Paradox has been experimentally observed
>> in the form of slowed-down decays of particles traveling near the
>> speed of light.
> Has nothing to do with the twin paradox, but is offered as an
> alleged proof of time dilation. In fact no one has ever shown that the
> slowing down of a clock, or in this case, the meson decay, is not due
> to traversal of the gravitational field, and no one has ever shown that
> the slowing is observed by only some, and not ALL, observers. What does
> an observer riding with the mesons through the gravitational field observe?
> No one knows.
Two points:
* Presumably, in your theory the direction of motion with respect to the
gravitational field is significant. To be specific, the parallel and
perpendicular to components. If this is true, you have a problem,
because there are many relativistic systems with various orientations.
For example, electron microscopes tend to be vertical, as are cosmic
rays. Particle accelerators tend to be horizontal, although not
perfectly level (both SLAC and HERA have significant tilts). Does
your theory predict the same effect for all directions of motion?
* Your question "what does an observer riding with the mesons...observe?"
can be answered, if you accept that physical processes can serve as
surrogates for intelligent observers. There are innumerable measurements
that the processes which take place in a moving system do, in fact
proceed more slowly. Since everyone's clock is built up from such
processes, including our own internal clocks, I don't think that your
statement that "No one knows" is reasonable. Do you disbelieve the
photos returned from Jupiter because no human was on the spacecraft?
Greg Scott Hennessy
# And now please let me answer people who are genuinely interested in the
#fundamentals of physics, instead of wasting time by answering your
#repetitious heckling.
Fine. My questions still have not been answered.
1) What is the difference in wavelength of a gamma ray traveling east
with respect to your dominant field verses a gamma traveling west?
2) What is the difference in frequency of a gamma ray traveling east
with respect to your dominant field verses a gamma traveling west?
Since your theory has the speed of light different with the difference
in direction, at least one of the two quantities must change.
3) What does your theory predict for a Shapiro type experiment?
4) Does your theory predict an effect resembling the Lense-Thirring
effect?
5) What corrections to the spectra of hydrogen atoms does your theory
predict (analogous to the Lamb shift).
6) Does your theory predict an effect similar to the Thomson
precession.
If asking these questions are repetative, it is because I have not
received an answer.
Jon J Thaler
> I would really like to see that reference for the Binary Pulsar losing energy
> at a rate predicted by GR. How can that be? Wouldn't the vast bulk of the
> rotational energy be lost by EM radiation and plasma, and not by graviational
> radiation, unless they were very closely orbiting neutron stars or black
> holes, in which case the energy lost by gravity waves would be substantial,
> but the percentage loss due to EM radiation would still be very large, would
> it not? How can any conclusions be drawn from such observations, and how cann
> it match a rate predicted by GR alone?
Here are three recent papers by J. H. Taylor, the guy at Princeton who
has been studying this stuff.
STRONG FIELD TESTS OF RELATIVISTIC GRAVITY AND BINARY PULSARS.
By Thibault Damour (IHES, Bures & Meudon Observatory), J.H. Taylor
(Princeton U.), IHES-P-91-63, Sep 1991.
Submitted to Phys. Rev. D
THE COSMIC GRAVITATIONAL WAVE BACKGROUND: LIMITS FROM MILLISECOND
PULSAR TIMING.
By D.R. Stinebring, M.F. Ryba, J.H. Taylor (Princeton U.), R.W.
Romani (Princeton, Inst. Advanced Study), IASSNS-AST-90/9, Mar 1990.
Published in Phys.Rev.Lett.65:285-288,1990.
ON THE ORBITAL PERIOD CHANGE OF THE BINARY PULSAR PSR-1913+16.
By Thibault Damour (IHES, Bures & Meudon Observatory), J.H. Taylor
(Princeton U.), IHES/P/90/41, May 1990.
Submitted to Astro. Phys. J.
Steven J. Edwards
# beck...@spot.Colorado.EDU (BECKMANN PETR) says:
#
#> DOC...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
#>> In any case, why would one want to save commutativity? This is
#>> your theoretical bias, but SR has no problem handling the noncommutativity
#>> of Lorentz transformations in different directions.
#
#> It has been the theoretical bias of people since the stone age to
#> require that a + b = b + a. For non-collinear directions the Einstein
#> vector composition of velocities makes v_1 + v_2 not equal to v_2 + v_1. The
#> result therefore depends on the summation order as the user has arbitrarily
#> determined. Some people have the theoretical bias that scientists should
#> OBSERVE nature, not decree it.
#
# Two points here:
#
# The main argument of my post to which you are responding was to dispute
# your contention that Thomas precession is a "fix" applied to SR. Shall I
# take your lack of response as a retraction of this claim?
#
# Your response above indicates again that you fail to distinguish between
# assumptions of the theory and predictions of the theory. SR makes only
# *ONE assumption, namely that the speed of light is the same for all
# observers. If you know of others, please enlighten us. The
# noncommutativity of the Lorentz transformation is not put in by decree
# but is a prediction of the theory. The Thomas precession is one
# observable test of that prediction.
#
# [deletia]
My interpretation of Special Relativity is that there are
usually two (not one) explicit postulates:
1: The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers.
2: All inertial (unaccelerated) frames allow equally valid
observations (there is no preferred frame).
In Einstein's _Introduction to Relativity_, he refers to a
necessary assumption for GR that may be taken to apply to SR as well:
3: There is no preferred direction in space; the equations of
GR (SR) are valid regardless of spatial rotations and translations
(i.e, unlike wood, there is no "grain" in the spatial dimensions).
Given the above three plus the Pythagorean Theorem, all of SR
including multi-axis sequential Lorentz transformations can be
generated by a reasonably bright high school student. If someone
wants to take shots at SR, at least one of the above has to be
modified. Perhaps all of Dr. Beckmann's new ideas are only applicable
in accelerated fields, so we might be better off leaving SR out of the
discussion.
Based on what I've read on the net, I think that an EMag
correction to SR or GR is untenable. There is a pretty good treatment
of the SR/electrodynamics relationship in K+T+W's _Gravitation_, and I
don't see how that requires modification.
On the other hand, an investigation of new approaches to
relativity is welcome in that, even if incorrect, they may be able to
further verify or extend the Einstein theory. I see GR as having
three broad areas of research: behavior at singularities, interaction
with the other three forces (particularly at the Planck scale), and
cosmological problems with the large scale distribution of mass and
the resulting local effects. I would guess that Dr. Beckmann sees the
third area as being closest to his interest. Having only recently
joined this newsgroup, I have not yet seen much in the way of
experiments that would distinguish between GR and Dr. Beckmann's +2
theory. With all the data from Michelsen-Morley to particle
accelerators, there's a lot of weight to be moved.
[The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.]
== Steven J. Edwards Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
== (508) 294-3484 300 Concord Road MS 820A ==
== s...@xylos.ma30.bull.com Billerica, MA 01821 USA ==
"That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jefferson
BECKMANN PETR
>There are may aspects of nature where non-commutativity is an
>essential part of the process. Why shouldn't composition of
>velocities be among them?
But the order in which two velocities are to be composed is not determined
by nature, but by a human calculator. HE, and not nature, determines the
result by his arbitrary decision. Should a pilot decide in which of two
different places he will arrive by composing airspeed plus windspeed as
opposed to windspeed plus airspeed?
[However, the Mocanu paradox is not that the STR composition of
velocities is non-commutative; it is that Thomas rotation will lead to
the disruption of invariants in electromagnetics.]
Petr Beckmann
Matt Austern
> It has been the theoretical bias of people since the stone age to
> require that a + b = b + a. For non-collinear directions the Einstein
> vector composition of velocities makes v_1 + v_2 not equal to v_2 + v_1.
I don't know much about stone age mathematics, so I can't comment on
Beckmann's historical claim. However, it has been known for quite
some time that many mathematical operations (multiplication of
matrices, for example, and composition of functions) are
noncommunative.
Some noncommutative operations, in fact, are physicically important:
the composition of rotations is the simplest example. If R1 and R2
are two rotations, then R1 R2 and R2 R1 are, in general, not equal.
The mathematical way of saying this is that the rotation group, SO(3), is
nonabelian.
Why Beckmann thinks that Lorentz boosts ought to commute, I have no
idea. It seems natural to me that they ought not to commute, since
they are closely analogous to rotations. In fact, the most natural
way to think of this is to think about the group of Lorentz
transformations. Rotations are a special case of Lorentz
transformations, so it is obvious that the Lorentz group must be
nonabelian.
--
Matthew Austern I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band of
(415) 644-2618 of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
ma...@physics.berkeley.edu taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
aus...@theorm.lbl.gov multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
aus...@lbl.bitnet me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
BECKMANN PETR
>The
>noncommutativity of the Lorentz transformation is not put in by decree
>but is a prediction of the theory. The Thomas precession is one
>observable test of that prediction.
posting.
2) It is my understanding that Thomas precession has been experimentally
investigated by Thomas E. Phipp Jr. of the Naval Research Lab in the mid-70s,
and that he found no evidence for it. I do not know enough about these expe-
riments and refer you to his book "Heretical Verities," Classic Non-Fiction
Library, Box 962, Urbana, IL 61801.
Petr Beckmann
BECKMANN PETR
>* Presumably, in your theory the direction of motion with respect to the
> gravitational field is significant.
>* Your question "what does an observer riding with the mesons...observe?"
> can be answered, if you accept that physical processes can serve as
> surrogates for intelligent observers.
Of course I accept that. But you have completely misunderstood my
point.
I do not deny that clocks moving through a gravitational field run
more slowly, and you need not persuade me that any ongoing process is as
good as a clock. However, time dilation is an altogether different matter;
the difference is one of symmetry.
1) In the STR, two observers moving in different inertial frames
see THE OTHER guy's clock running slow.
2) In my theory ALL clocks moving through a gravitational field will
run slow, the slowing being governed by the factor or divisor
\sqrt{1 - \beta^2}. ALL observers will see the moving clocks running
slow, their rate independent of the velocity of the observer.
The difference between 1) and 2) cannot be established by mesons, or
Ives Stilwell, or Hafele-Keating, or any other experiment that I know
of; they all support BOTH hypotheses.
A hypothetical experiment would be one where the observer (not necessarily
a human, of course) would travel with the mesons through the gravitational
field. If he measures the normal rest-halflife of mesons, Einstein wins;
if he measures a slowed rate of decay, I win.
If you know of an experiment that can discriminate between 1) and 2)
above, please let us know.
Petr Beckmann
John Travis
applications? I'm working on an article about them. Thanks
john travis
jstr...@bu-pub.bu.edu
617-569-7419
Wayne A. Christopher
beck...@spot.Colorado.EDU (BECKMANN PETR) writes:
> A hypothetical experiment would be one where the observer (not necessarily
> a human, of course) would travel with the mesons through the gravitational
> field. If he measures the normal rest-halflife of mesons, Einstein wins;
> if he measures a slowed rate of decay, I win.
But how would he measure the half-life? Wouldn't his clock (and his
perceptions) be slowed down also?
As I understand your theory (I'm no physicist), time is slowed as a
function of gravitation. Wouldn't a valid experiment then be to fly a
clock around near the earth at 0.99c and see how much it has slowed
down, and then do the same thing in interstellar space, and see if
there is a difference? GR predicts some difference, as I understand
it, but the major effect should be SR in this case.
Wayne
Steinn Sigurdsson
>In article <1991Nov1.0...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>gs...@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Scott Hennessy) writes:
>> Are you familliar with the Binary Pulsar? It is losing energy at the
>> exact rate as predicted by GR, so I would submit that this is a case
>> that GR supports, and your theory does not.
>I would really like to see that reference for the Binary Pulsar losing energy
>at a rate predicted by GR. How can that be? Wouldn't the vast bulk of the
>rotational energy be lost by EM radiation and plasma, and not by graviational
>radiation, unless they were very closely orbiting neutron stars or black holes,
>in which case the energy lost by gravity waves would be substantial, but the
>percentage loss due to EM radiation would still be very large, would it not?
>How can any conclusions be drawn from such observations, and how can it match a
>rate predicted by GR alone?
The references are Taylor and Weisberg, ApJ _253_ (908) 1982 and ApJ _345_ (434) 1989
The energy loss is not rotational energy loss but the shrinkage of the
orbit of the pulsar. Recently Alex Wolszczan discovered another binary
pulsar whose orbital evolution also matches the GR prediction exactly.
Alex's pulsar is a somewhat cleaner system than the Hulse-Taylor pulsar
enabling more rapid and precise determination of the orbital evolution.
The rotational spin-down is indeed thought to be from em losses,
esssentially a rotating dipole spinning down. However, for orbital evolution
em losses are negligible. The system is almost certainly a neutron star-neutron star
binary so effects due to stellar structure are negligible.
The results form the Hulse-taylor pulsar are considered adequate to rule
out almost all contenders to GR - I believe the only realistic alternative in the
limit probed is Brans-Dicke theory for values of \omega large enough to make it
virtually identical to GR in this limit.
| Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night |
| Lick Observatory,UCSC |I wished on them but they were only satellites |
| ste...@helios.ucsc |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? |
| "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 |
Matt Austern
> In article <1991Nov5.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> ma...@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) writes:
> >Since then you *still* haven't answered the following question.
> >I sit at the origin of my own coordinate system. There are many objects
> >of masses m_i {i = 1, ..., N} at positions x_i with velocities v_i with
> >respect to me. What is my motion relative to the so-called "dominant
> >gravitational field" of Beckmann-science?
> The total force on test mass m at the origin is
> \Gamma m \sum_i m_i / x_i^2. If for some i, say i=k, m_k/x_k^2 >> sum of
> the remaining terms of sum_i, then this is the dominant field. The velocity
> of a light pulse or an object (such as yourself, since you asked) with
> respect to that field is ds/dt, where ds is a line element of the path in
> Euclidian space
I'm afraid this is not an answer to Mr. Crawford's question. This is
an answer to a very special case: the case where the gravitational
field is produced by a finite number of point masses where m_i/r^2 is
much larger for one than for all others. It leaves many questions
unanswered. For example:
(1) What if the masses are, in fact, not point masses? It is
easy, for example, to detect deviations of the Earth's
gravitational field from 1/r^2. (Ask any oil prospector.)
(2) What if m_i/r_i^2 is comparable for two or more of the
point masses? This is clearly the case in many
situations.
(3) In fact, how large is "much larger"? Gravitational forces
from the Sun and the Moon produce dramatic effects on the
surface of the Earth; why are se supposed to neglect them
in this case?
(4) Usually, when someone says "consider the case where x >> y,"
I expect that what they are doing is presenting an
approximation which is valid in that regime. Most of the
time, in fact, I expect that they are giving the first one
or two terms in a Taylor series in (y/x). Is that the
case here? Is there some more complete form of the theory
that is valid in cases where one of the point masses does
not have a much larger value of m_i/r_i^2 than all the
others?
(5) In the special circumstances where this definition
applies, we are just talking about motion relative to the
point mass which has the largest value of m/r^2. Why call
it motion with respect to a field, when all it is is
motion with respect to some point?
BECKMANN PETR
>But how would he measure the half-life? Wouldn't his clock (and his
Yes, it would; however, the real point is in the (as)symmetry:
According to Einstein, an observer traveling with the mesons would see
the clocks on earth SLOWER than his own, because all that matters is the
velocity with respect to the observer; according to me, he would see them
FASTER than his own, because they would be traveling through the gravitational
field more slowly.
Petr Beckmann
BECKMANN PETR
> Usually, when someone says "consider the case where x >> y,"
> I expect that what they are doing is presenting an
> approximation which is valid in that regime. Most of the
> time, in fact, I expect that they are giving the first one
> or two terms in a Taylor series in (y/x). Is that the
> case here?
>Is there some more complete form of the theory
> that is valid in cases where one of the point masses does
> not have a much larger value of m_i/r_i^2 than all the
> others?
Only Mr. Dinowitz' development, which started the whole discussion here.
> In the special circumstances where this definition
> applies, we are just talking about motion relative to the
> point mass which has the largest value of m/r^2. Why call
> it motion with respect to a field, when all it is is
> motion with respect to some point?
Mainly because when the body represented by the point rotates,
the gravitational field does not rotate with it (as we know from the
Michelson-Gale experiment in 1924 and from the analogy of a magnet
rotating about its axis of symmetry). Referring to the field rather than
the body (let alone its equivalent point mass) makes things easier and
unambiguous. [Incidentally, the GRT explanation of the Sagnac effect
makes the same (hidden) assumption about the field not rotating with the
symmetrical body.]
Petr Beckmann
RIEMERS,BILL./PPE
>the gravitational environment in which the particle experiences acceleration.
>For example, a small flare from the Sun's surface and the particles would
You'll have to point out where this history dependance comes into your
equations. As near as I can tell the electron's velocity is only
dependant on where it is at the time it is observed.
Bill
Warren G. Anderson
In fact, if I understand prof. Beckmann's claim correctly (and if I do
I'd be obliged if he'd tell me so), a clock running in a plane flying
at a constant altitude (constant gravitational field strength) should
not exhibit time dilation. If this is the claim, then surely it has
already been falsified. Or is it simply the magnitude of the time
dilation that is related to the strength of the field?
--
########################## _`|'_ ##############################################
## Warren G. Anderson |o o| For hours he sank through the waves; At ##
## Dept. of Applied Math ( ^ ) last he saw the mud of the bottom. -Beowulf ##
## University of Waterloo /\-/\ (wgand...@violet.uwaterloo.ca) ##
thomas.j.roberts
> [discussion of commutativity deleted]
>
> My interpretation of Special Relativity is that there are
> usually two (not one) explicit postulates:
>
> 1: The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers.
>
> 2: All inertial (unaccelerated) frames allow equally valid
> observations (there is no preferred frame).
>
> In Einstein's _Introduction to Relativity_, he refers to a
> necessary assumption for GR that may be taken to apply to SR as well:
>
> 3: There is no preferred direction in space; the equations of
> GR (SR) are valid regardless of spatial rotations and translations
> (i.e, unlike wood, there is no "grain" in the spatial dimensions).
>
> Given the above three plus the Pythagorean Theorem, all of SR
> including multi-axis sequential Lorentz transformations can be
> generated by a reasonably bright high school student. If someone
> wants to take shots at SR, at least one of the above has to be
> modified. Perhaps all of Dr. Beckmann's new ideas are only applicable
> in accelerated fields, so we might be better off leaving SR out of the
> discussion.
Most criticisms of SR take issue with assumption (1) above. Indeed,
there seems no particularly compelling reason why it *MUST* be valid,
other than the multitude of observations supporting SR.
In fact, assumption (1) above IS NOT REQUIRED to derive Special
Relativity (SR). SR can be DERIVED from the following (to me more
obviously necessary) postulates:
1) when applying coordinate transformations, such transformations are
1-to-1 onto the two spaces (i.e. the two coordinate systems describe
the same underlying physical reality).
2) space is isotropic and homogeneous (i.e. there is no "preferred
direction" or "preferred position" in space).
3) there is no "preferred velocity" or "preferred coordinate system" -
all coordinate systems are equally valid, and only relative velocities
between coordinate systems are observable (but I only consider inertial
rectilinear coordinate systems).
4) the set of all coordinate transformations form a group.
Applying these 4 postulates to coordinate transformations among inertial
coordinate systems in 4-dimensional space-time allows one to prove that
only 3 possible groups of coordinate transformations satisfy the
postulates - Euclidean, Galillean, and Lorentz. Only the latter group
satisfies all of the relevant phenomena that have been observed.
One can then conclude that there is a limiting speed (but you would
need to add Maxwell's Equations to deduce that the limiting speed is
the same as the speed of electromagnetic waves).
I have written a derivation of SR based upon these postulates. It has
been posted to sci.physics several times, and is rather long. Mail a
request to me and I will mail it to you. If there is sufficient interest
I will re-post it.
Tom Roberts
att!ihlpl!tjrob TJ...@IHLPL.ATT.COM
Ranjan S Muttiah
>
>* Presumably, in your theory the direction of motion with respect to the
> gravitational field is significant. To be specific, the parallel and
> perpendicular to components. If this is true, you have a problem,
> because there are many relativistic systems with various orientations.
> For example, electron microscopes tend to be vertical, as are cosmic
> rays. Particle accelerators tend to be horizontal, although not
> perfectly level (both SLAC and HERA have significant tilts). Does
> your theory predict the same effect for all directions of motion?
This is one thing (among many :) that I don't understand about
Prof. Beckman's theory. How does he want to define direction if he wants
motion w.r.t a field ? The GE paper submitted here introduces a lorenz
contraction factor and has x direction on it but wrt to a field ? But
then I'm not a physicist (what do I know ? :) Perpendcular to the direction
of travel all lengths stay the same ... a phenomena very much observer
dependent. I thought that the M-M experiment ruled out any effects due to
travel (of the earth) wrt any preferred frame of reference such as the
gravitational center of the solar system.
Jon J Thaler
> 2) It is my understanding that Thomas precession has been experimentally
>investigated by Thomas E. Phipp Jr. of the Naval Research Lab in the mid-70s,
>and that he found no evidence for it. I do not know enough about these expe-
>riments and refer you to his book "Heretical Verities," Classic Non-Fiction
>Library, Box 962, Urbana, IL 61801.
I am not going to look up every crackpot publication. As I have stated now
twice (and to which you have not responded at all), the Thomas precession
needed to explain the factor of two difference between the g-factor of the
atomic electrons in the spin-orbit and Zeeman interactions. If you want
to throw this out, you must provide an alternative explanation.
This effect is one of the classical tests of the combination of relativity
and quantum mechanics. It is neither obscure nor hard to measure. If you
can't (or won't) respond, than I must conclude that your theory is half
baked, if that much.
Jon J Thaler
(BECKMANN PETR) says:
>
> I do not deny that clocks moving through a gravitational field run
> more slowly, and you need not persuade me that any ongoing process is as
> good as a clock. However, time dilation is an altogether different matter;
> the difference is one of symmetry.
> 1) In the STR, two observers moving in different inertial frames
> see THE OTHER guy's clock running slow.
> 2) In my theory ALL clocks moving through a gravitational field will
> run slow, the slowing being governed by the factor or divisor
> \sqrt{1 - \beta^2}. ALL observers will see the moving clocks running
> slow, their rate independent of the velocity of the observer.
> The difference between 1) and 2) cannot be established by mesons, or
> Ives Stilwell, or Hafele-Keating, or any other experiment that I know
> of; they all support BOTH hypotheses.
> a human, of course) would travel with the mesons through the gravitational
> field. If he measures the normal rest-halflife of mesons, Einstein wins;
> if he measures a slowed rate of decay, I win.
I think that you have a problem. The observer who is travelling with the
mesons wil have *HIS* clocks slowed as well, even in your theory, so the
difference between it and SR remains unobservable. What you want is an
thomas.j.roberts
"speed of light is constant in all reference frames" postulate.
After recieving 6 requests in 1 hour, I have posted it to
sci.physics. It's Subject line is:
Subject: A Physicist's Derivation of Special Relativity
Tom Roberts
att!ihlpl!tjrob TJ...@IHLPL.ATT.COM