Problems w/ Lorentz Transformation(Transvaluation)

[RainmanTime]

Slowly but surely, I have been making a case for how existing physical theories are correct (to a given extent) yet incomplete. In another thread I have questioned (with no apparant disagreement or attempts to falsify my stance) the accuracy of 4-D Minkowski SpaceTime, claiming that there is evidence to suggest that SpaceTime is actually 6-D. In this thread I would like to question (and get comments on) another foundation of Relativity, namely the misnomered "Lorentz Transformation".

Here is a good link that explains some of the consistency problems inherent with the Lorentz Transvalulation:

Is Lorentz Transformation Correct?

Any thoughts?
RMT

 

[Einstein]

I think the lorentz transformations can be correct under limited controlled conditions. But 4-D Minkowski Spacetime does not describe existing observations. The Michelson-Morley experiment tends to suggest spacetime rotates with the earth. Yet a freely gimbled spinning gyroscope will line up it's spinning axis parallel with the earth's axis in a 24 hour period. An indication that the earth is spinning relative to another reference frame. We have multiple reference frames in existance that appear to be independant of each other. We don't get to choose these reference frames. They already exist. My question is "What defines these reference frames?"

The actual structure of space would have to include the multiple apparently independant reference frames. I haven't even included magnetic space. But a line of force is clearly 2-D. It doesn't extend into the third spatial dimension. That much has been very well documented. But there are three 2-D planes orthoganol to one another in normal 3-D space.

I do have some thoughts on time and mass that tend to tie together your idea that mass and time are vector quantities, even though both are considered scalar. Doesn't a scalar quantity changing in intensity do so in either a positive on negative direction? So if the magnitude of the scalar quantity is changing, it has direction. That would give it vector status.

Currently I have been exploring the mysterious Faraday riddle. My experimental mass model does shed some light on the riddle. And an interesting predictive outcome. In one of the spinning directions that the gyrocope spins within the uniform magnetic field, I predict that the mass of the gyro should decline.

 

[creedo299]

The mass you are accelerating in that frequency, Rains', is barrowed.

 

[RainmanTime]

Hi Einstein,

We have multiple reference frames in existance that appear to be independant of each other. We don't get to choose these reference frames. They already exist. My question is "What defines these reference frames?"

I agree. And this relates to one of the more important aspects of the mathematical argument presented in the link I provided above. Namely, that since the Lorentz transformation does not preserve magnitudes when performing the transform (as a proper transformation should), then the basis for time dilation as described in special relativity is in question. Einstein used "relative simultaneity" to argue that it was the observer's measurement apparatus that undergoes distortion, but it is clear that (due to general relativity itself) you could also claim that the source wave that the observer was measuring could have also undergone distortion (grossly related to the weak equivalence principle). But I like the way the author explained it on THIS PAGE:

"Electromagnetic phenomena (e.g., light waves) are endowed with the curious distinction of exhibiting a constant propagation velocity regardless of an observer's relative velocity. For this unique phenomenon to occur either the measuring instruments employed by the observer are distorted as a result of the observer's relative velocity or the light wave itself distorts, as a consequence of and in proportion to the observer's relative velocity. The special theory of relativity supposes the former, an alternative theory proposed herein, supposes the latter."

But a line of force is clearly 2-D. It doesn't extend into the third spatial dimension.

OTOH, one could point out that a "line of force" is a ficticious quantity in our observed 3-D universe. We replace the "real" force which does, indeed, act over more than just a line with a resultant force vector. IOW, the concept of a force acting along a line is a mathematical convenience as is the concept of a "center of gravity". Think of a pressure. It acts over a surface, but we can reduce it to an "equivalent" line of force acting through a central point.

But there are three 2-D planes orthoganol to one another in normal 3-D space.

Yes, I completely agree.

I do have some thoughts on time and mass that tend to tie together your idea that mass and time are vector quantities, even though both are considered scalar.

I'd like to explore these with you. As I always say, I think I have sound math for this concept (MassTime) that would be like a mirrored-opposite to the concept of SpaceTime.

Doesn't a scalar quantity changing in intensity do so in either a positive on negative direction? So if the magnitude of the scalar quantity is changing, it has direction. That would give it vector status.

I understand what you are implying, but the entire definition of "positive or negative" is with respect to an arbitrary reference point. But even that "rate of change" metric you are describing is not a true vector as it only has a 1-dimensional nature to it (i.e. + and - are relative measures of the same, single dimension).

The concept I am getting at when I say mass and time are vectors is much more direct. But for it to make sense we must generalize the concept of "vector" such that it is not exclusive to SPACE or spatial dimension. We must realize that both Mass and Time are, indeed, dimensional aspects of Energy. And each one has readily identifiable sub-dimensions which are triple orthogonal sets. The example for Mass is that we are aware, from chemistry and physics, that atoms are comprised of particles that have +, -, and neutral charges. So just like we break-down a spatial vector into "X, Y & Z" components, we could equally break down Mass (and we do) into its e-, p+, and n0 components. IOW, the total number of electrons in a specific isotope of a specific atom represents the negatively charged vector component of the overall vector that describes that Mass.

When you do the same thing with Time, and its sub-dimensions of Past, Present, Future there is an interesting result when you combine this with my theoretical equation for Information as a higher level metric of Energy: We find that INFORMATION (in the form of stories, photos, or movies) can describe three different "forms" of the past. The "simple past" is described by Information which relates an event as it actually happened. It would be like the line in the center of a light cone. Yet Information could also describe two other forms of the past: (1) Possible past (one that did NOT happen but which could have happened in accordance with our known laws of Energy) and (2) Impossible past (one that could NOT have happened as it violates our known laws of Energy).

This is just a verbal description of the underlying math which shows how Information can describe things outside the realm of possibility given our universal parameters. And it underlies the importance of information and its relationship to the observer in any formulation of a GUT.

RMT

 

[Einstein]

RMT

"Electromagnetic phenomena (e.g., light waves) are endowed with the curious distinction of exhibiting a constant propagation velocity regardless of an observer's relative velocity.

I think this statement is partly due to Einstein's insistance that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. So he developed some mathematics to support his claim. I just see it as a way to hold on to this magical number that makes Maxwells equations work. So it has always been my understanding that the mathematical community got together to make it so. Of course I happened to notice right from day one when the concept was presented to me that a doppler shifted light source could be described as also a faster or slower traveling light wave. But I never said anything about it till now. I've always just looked at the Lorentz transformation as a way to make the dimensions of length longer or shorter to hold on to the constant "C" So what I don't understand is why the big uproar over quantum tunneling? Don't those guys know how to adjust the observations with length adjusting formula so the constnat "C' can be held onto? And those of us that can actually visualize the truth are just supposed to keep their mouths shut.

OTOH, one could point out that a "line of force" is a ficticious quantity in our observed 3-D universe. We replace the "real" force which does, indeed, act over more than just a line with a resultant force vector. IOW, the concept of a force acting along a line is a mathematical convenience as is the concept of a "center of gravity". Think of a pressure. It acts over a surface, but we can reduce it to an "equivalent" line of force acting through a central point.

I pretty much understand the 2-D concept of the circular rings of magnetic force that emmanate from the electron at right angles to the direction that voltage acts upon the electron. But I am interested in deternining if those rings of force actually collapse inward toward the electron when the electron is returning to the ground state. Kind of like time running in reverse.

Doesn't a scalar quantity changing in intensity do so in either a positive on negative direction? So if the magnitude of the scalar quantity is changing, it has direction. That would give it vector status.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand what you are implying, but the entire definition of "positive or negative" is with respect to an arbitrary reference point. But even that "rate of change" metric you are describing is not a true vector as it only has a 1-dimensional nature to it (i.e. + and - are relative measures of the same, single dimension).

Yes, I see you want to combine all the dimensions into a composite metric. But before you can do that, the single dimension concept has to be thoroughly understood. Come up with a mathematical concept that allows length to expand and contract on a single plane. The reference point could be placed within the other orthoganol planes. I think mother nature gives clues as to how to do this.

Don't let me sway you from the method you wish to use to tie it all together. If your concept is cohesive enough, it may shed new light on something that may have been cast aside along the way.

This morning I do believe I may have visualized a closed loop type of operation for matter. But the concept requires a second type of mass to work. So now I have some interesting experiments to perform with a homopolar generator that I just happen to have lying around.

 

[RainmanTime]

Hi Einstein,

I pretty much understand the 2-D concept of the circular rings of magnetic force that emmanate from the electron at right angles to the direction that voltage acts upon the electron. But I am interested in deternining if those rings of force actually collapse inward toward the electron when the electron is returning to the ground state. Kind of like time running in reverse.

With no offense intended, this is where I think you might be fooling yourself. And I think the history of our scientific discoveries has shown this to be true. I'll try to explain why I believe this is true in my next response to your thoughts...

Yes, I see you want to combine all the dimensions into a composite metric. But before you can do that, the single dimension concept has to be thoroughly understood.

No. This is where I maintain that error will arise, and this is where the history of science has shown error. By trying to understand dynamics of 1-dimension, all past investigations have been erroneous because they have ignored cross-coupling effects across dimensions. The most obvious example of this is gyroscopic precession. If you attempt to explain the dynamics of a spinning object in 2-dimensions, you will clearly not take into account this third-dimensional dynamic effect. Furthermore, the scientific need to take into account the dynamics of ALL THREE geometric dimensions simultaneously is what gave rise to the vector and tensor concepts which form the basis of our known physics. We live within a 3-dimensional manifold, on this I believe we all agree. Moreoever, our sciences have taught us that we must consider all 3 dimensions of this manifold simultaneously, for if we try to reduce ANY physical phenomenon to a 2-D or 1-D problem, we have seen the errors that result. This is why electric current cannot be analyzed as a 1-D dynamic without "losing" the electromagnetic field effects induced by the current flow in the other two dimensions.

What you have touched upon here is at the very heart of my Massive SpaceTime theory. Namely, you cannot (accurately) analyze Mass, nor Space, nor even Time as an individual quantity. For if we attempt to do this, there will be inherent error in our resulting analysis. Rather, we must analyze the conglomerate MIXTURE of the three dimensions of Mass, Space, and Time as a single "field fabric" that I call Massive SpaceTime. In fact, the very statement made by the Heisenberg Uncertainy Principle is yet another foundation for what I am getting at: The more you try to measure one, individual quantum measurement, the greater the error in the opposite quantum measurement.

We are well-aware, from all our scientific investigations and experiments, that we live in a 3-D manifold universe that is founded upon propagation of 3-D, spherical fields. We have also learned about the errors we introduce by trying to decompose these natural sets of 3. So this is why I do not understand why a person of your obvious intellect would wish to take a step backwards, and try to decompose that part of nature which is inherently integrated? The whole truly is larger than the sum of its parts, and you cannot adequately explain any integrated system of energy by describing the aspects of its component parts.

Don't let me sway you from the method you wish to use to tie it all together. If your concept is cohesive enough, it may shed new light on something that may have been cast aside along the way.

And I do not wish to discourage your own investigations. I only seek to point out the obvious findings that have come from our history of science. It is questionable to analyze elements in any less than their natural groupings of threes.

This morning I do believe I may have visualized a closed loop type of operation for matter.

I do encourage your investigations into loop closures, and in a sense this is an area that I am also exploring in my research. For it is my belief that Einstein's general relativity is what "closed the loop" on Newtonian dynamics by demonstrating how Energy subsumes all aspects of Newtonian dynamics (of Force). What I am attempting to do is to "close the loop" on Einstein's physics by showing how Information subsumes and directs all aspects of the spherical waves of Energy that propagate and direct the motions of matter in our universe.

Keep us informed about your work!
RMT

 

[Einstein]

RMT

Yes, I see you want to combine all the dimensions into a composite metric. But before you can do that, the single dimension concept has to be thoroughly understood.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. This is where I maintain that error will arise, and this is where the history of science has shown error. By trying to understand dynamics of 1-dimension, all past investigations have been erroneous because they have ignored cross-coupling effects across dimensions. The most obvious example of this is gyroscopic precession. If you attempt to explain the dynamics of a spinning object in 2-dimensions, you will clearly not take into account this third-dimensional dynamic effect. Furthermore, the scientific need to take into account the dynamics of ALL THREE geometric dimensions simultaneously is what gave rise to the vector and tensor concepts which form the basis of our known physics. We live within a 3-dimensional manifold, on this I believe we all agree. Moreoever, our sciences have taught us that we must consider all 3 dimensions of this manifold simultaneously, for if we try to reduce ANY physical phenomenon to a 2-D or 1-D problem, we have seen the errors that result. This is why electric current cannot be analyzed as a 1-D dynamic without "losing" the electromagnetic field effects induced by the current flow in the other two dimensions

Actually I see this as a way to actually calculate with cetainty the nonlinear effects of the 3-D realm we reside within. But I wouldn't be surprised to find out that we are both just choosing independant paths that lead us down the path to a more thorough understanding. I have sort of separated out electric, magnetic, and mass all being orthoganol to each other, but on the whole contributing to the three dimensions of space. It is evident from observation that each one of those components can behave as one, two, or three dimensional constructs. As one dimension constructs, there appears to be an independant nature to each one of the three. But an electric field in two dimensional mode intersects orthogonally with a magnetic field. Two dimensional could just be the electric field of an electron moving in a circular path. Three dimensional behavior of the electric field appears to access a behavior very similar to gravity. I'm not calling it gravity because I have another more provocative model for gravity. But I know for a fact that stong electric field pulses declining in intensity cause normal objects to gravitate toward each other. The effect seems to be omnidirectional. Now I would like to say that I am going to couple a magnetic field that behaves the same way to produce the mass state. But the magnetic field configuration doesn't appear to couple with mass in a three dimensional manner like the electric field does. Could a two dimensional construct be given three diemsnional status if its magnitude is changing? The magnetic repulsion in my Lorentz force generator is clearly directional. So if I do couple this in a balanced state with the opposite pulling electric field produced with my tesla coil, I can only get a mass effect in one dimension. Now by example if the electric and magnetic fields can behave as three dimensional constructs, then it is reasonable to envision mass as also being able to behave three dimensionally.

We are well-aware, from all our scientific investigations and experiments, that we live in a 3-D manifold universe that is founded upon propagation of 3-D, spherical fields. We have also learned about the errors we introduce by trying to decompose these natural sets of 3. So this is why I do not understand why a person of your obvious intellect would wish to take a step backwards, and try to decompose that part of nature which is inherently integrated? The whole truly is larger than the sum of its parts, and you cannot adequately explain any integrated system of energy by describing the aspects of its component parts.

I do agree whole heartedly on this. But the key to the whole piece of pie is understanding how the component parts interact with each other. And there was a missing peice of the pie. The tesla coil experiment. Am I to believe that I am the only one to have discovered this? It wouldn't surprise me at all if I learned that this experimental information was available to all concerned over a hundred years ago. Of course that would suggest a coverup was initiated to conceal something. Whatever was concealed will eventually come to light.

I do encourage your investigations into loop closures, and in a sense this is an area that I am also exploring in my research. For it is my belief that Einstein's general relativity is what "closed the loop" on Newtonian dynamics by demonstrating how Energy subsumes all aspects of Newtonian dynamics (of Force). What I am attempting to do is to "close the loop" on Einstein's physics by showing how Information subsumes and directs all aspects of the spherical waves of Energy that propagate and direct the motions of matter in our universe.

I don't disagree at all with your endeavors. Although it is tantalizing to envision a way to tie it all together, I am more interested in alternate configurations of matter that may not occur naturally. I am intensely interested in this experimental mass model I have. This opens up doors to many many experiements. I realized that the balanced state has already been observed with the neodymium magnet and metal disk experiment. By balancing higher intensity fields I could conceivably construct a mass effect that may only occur on stars with high gravitational fields. But just recently it occurred to me that I might be able to create a similar mass effect using electric and magnetic field pulses that increase in intensity rather than decrease. That would be using an electric field that repels matter omnidirectionally and a magnetic Lorentz effect that produces a directional attraction field. These fields are not that easy to reproduce. Using a capacitor just gives declining pulses. I need an electronic component like the capacitor but opposite. I envision this second type of mass existing right along side normal mass without interaction. It would be 90 degrees out of phase with the other kind of mass. And this line of thought leads me to the Faraday riddle. Technically I agree that there should not be any electrical field induction. But there is an electric field induced when the disk is rotated through the magnetic field. So the thought occurred to me that what if the rotation of the disk coupled with the magnetic field could actually be upsetting the mass state? Only the voltage seems to be affected. The voltage either increases or decreases depending on the direction of rotation. In one of those directions mass would be unaffected. And I predict that in the other direction mass should decline. But I have two models for mass. If mother nature uses both kinds within matter then I may actually see an increase in mass instead depending on which type of mass is dominate within the metal I use as a conductor. So this is something that could have gone unnoticed. The direction of the electric field may not be the same for all conductors. I'll admit this may be a dead end. But my mind has already raced forward for an application if this idea pans out. There are two metals I am going to try using as a conductor with the Faraday configuration. One is Bismuth, and the other is Magnesium. You know, the ones that are reported to be in UFO crash debris. No one knows why those metals are used. I am just taking a stab at it to see if there is a power application here. If I do get opposing voltage directions using those two metals then it becomes apparent that by stacking multiple opposing layers of these metals, I may wind up with a high voltage high current generator. That would make it practical. Just remember there is no opposing kickback force in the rotation of the disk. I do believe DePalma has paved the way using this technology with liquid metal brush contacts. Of course I might use a simulated electronic rotation with the mass field generators I will soon develop. But initially just mechanical rotation motors will be used. Wish me luck. I'm going to spend some time on my metal lathe turning out a magnesium and bismuth disk to install in a model homopolar generator I just happen to have in my closet gathering dust. I just might be done with the experiment by the end of the weekend. Just think, a power supply for a future time machine project. A megawatt generator the size of a basketball just might be feasable.