Physics Corrected: Part One. – Curt Weinstein
01-MAR-14
Additional References
9. Sacks, O. (2001) Uncle Tungsten Memories of a Chemical Boyhood. Konopf, Toronto & New York
Dalton had pressed the idea of atoms, even presenting models as wooden balls. But eighty years later, many did not yet believe this theory. In 1902, Osterwald in his inorganic chemistry book had written:
"Chemical processes occur in such a way
as if the substances were composed of atoms….
At best there follows from this the possibility they are in reality so:
not however, the certainty…. One must not be lead astray by the
agreement between picture and reality, and confound the two….
An hypothesis is only an aid in representation."
(ref 9, p 151) (Italics are in the original quote; underlining is mine.)
From above, “as if the substances were composed of atoms” is a strong clue to the existence of atoms. Although, as Osterwald had written, “One must not be lead astray by the agreement between picture and reality,” how far can you be lead astray? “Length contraction” in physics has presented a consistent picture of reality. Who would deny it (except for me)? And I only deny it because there are other ways to explain reality that don’t have that short coming -- my only trouble is that I don’t know what that short coming is, as yet.
Poincaré wrote in 1889 (ref #3 from last page):
Whether the ether exists or not matters little –
let us leave that to the metaphysicians;
what is essential for us is,
that everything happens as if it existed,
and that this hypothesis is found to be suitable
for the explanation of phenomena.
After all, have we any other reason for
believing in the existence of material objects?
That, too, is only a convenient hypothesis;
only, it will never cease to be so, while some day,
no doubt, the ether will be thrown aside as useless.
The underlined text is my additions to the 1889-quote from Poincaré, above.
The aether may seem useless to Poincaré, but I would venture that gravity is not useless to him; they are one. (me)
Professor Licer (ref 8, from last page) claims that Professor Einstein with the introduction of General Relativity created an aether out of gravity. I think the aether is gravity, no matter who said it first.
Therefore, the aether exists, and the aether is gravity. (me)
Although Professor Licer yet likes the Lorentz contraction, which is used in General Relativity, I prefer the Relativistic Bernoulli Effect to explain the same phenomena.
Presumably you know what length contraction is in Special (or General) Relativity. In brief, objects shrink in the direction of motion. Paired with length contraction is time dilation, which I will not talk about here. I figure if I kill one of the pair, the other dies too. If not, not.
Presumably you know what the Bernoulli Effect is. Fluids (e.g., water or gas, etc.) provide less force at right-angles to their group motion. Usually the fluids are bounded by some solid in the ordinary examples presented at low speeds.
The Relativistic Bernoulli Effect is my name for a Bernoulli Effect that seems to be happening for fast moving objects (without the need for some obvious solid boundary). OK, that was simple.
So, for the fast moving object, (1) does its length contract, or (2) does its interaction “contract”? That is, does it interact less well with its surround? And does the Bernoulli Effect have anything to do with the effect?
What is nice about the Relativistic Bernoulli Effect (RBE) is that it is obvious when it will interact less well with its surround. I’m not even sure if it matters whether it is moving or its surround is moving (now that’s relativity).
Hmm, as I recall, not only does the length contraction apply to the object, itself, but also to (or only to, as the case may be) the path of fast moving objects through space. I recall those items created in the upper atmosphere that reach ground because they decay slowly due to their great speed -- as far as I can tell, they didn’t shrink. Their path did shrink according to Einstein-relativity physics.
They really seem to be two different things (the object and its path), but if “you” don’t know what a length contraction is, you can get away with calling a path contraction the same thing. Not so? All right, it’s the time dilation along with the length (or path) contraction – too confusing, not interesting.
Fast moving things seem to interact less well with their temporary (as they pass through quickly) surround. If things can interact, then as you travel faster you reduce the time that things can interact. If you travel at c, presumably there is no time to interact at all (as per Einstein).
The Bernoulli Effect has been applied to sets of particles (a stream of water, for example). But the stream is just the combination of its constituents (if the stream shows the property, will the pebble show the property). (Here I talk of many “pebbles” – of water – making the “stream”.) We probably can conceive of a property of the stream that is not reflected in its “pebble.” But that’s not the point; the point is that the steam of pebbles acts as a pebble (more or less). I am suggesting that a pebble of water can show the Bernoulli Effect. If so, we can dump the length contraction and time dilation of fast stuff (or its surround) and instead employ the much simpler Relativistic Bernoulli Effect. Of course, the RBE may just be the BE.
Now is the proper time to resurrect Einstein’s falling elevator. In the doomed elevator are a man, George, and his flashlight. George has his flashlight on. It is pointed horizontally to the mirrored wall of the elevator. The light reflects and comes back to the flashlight. 1) But is its trip a distance to the wall and back, as seen in the elevator? 2) Or is its trip down, to the wall, further down, and back to the flashlight, as seen from the outside (it’s a half silvered elevator)? I know what I see from the outside – #2.
We know that light falls in a gravity field. So what’s the problem? The problem is that someone is going to say that George measures the time from flashlight to wall and back to flashlight to give him the value of c, with his shortened measurements of to the wall and back. I don’t think so. Does anybody want to ride in a falling elevator? (Actually, George is already dead; so we need a live volunteer.)
Because the light is falling, it has a blue shift, due to the falling. Just as light has a red shift as it moves away from mass, light has a blue shift as it moves towards a mass.
[Digression – makes one think about starlight. Is its red shift due to movement of the star away from earth, OR is the red shift due to climbing out of a gravity well? Could be both? Does sunlight have a red shift, and how would we know? OK, red shifts away from Sun and blue shifts towards Earth (Sun’s shift is larger – more gravity).]
Anyway, the blued light from the falling elevator tells us that the elevator is falling. It’s not a secret anymore, as it was with Special Relativity. (Well, it's blued from the outside; from the inside it's not blued -- at least not as much. I should look into this.)
General Relativity is strange because the light should be blue shifted as it falls. If so, the “gravity is space” of Einstein is wrong. So light traveling through gravity sounds good. Falling light gets “blue” shifted (shifted to higher energy as it is falling in a gravity well, gaining energy).
BTW, in the microphysics, they claim all sorts of nonsense, such as time flowing backwards. Couldn’t (a fast) gravity explain all?
01-MAR-14
Additional References
9. Sacks, O. (2001) Uncle Tungsten Memories of a Chemical Boyhood. Konopf, Toronto & New York
Dalton had pressed the idea of atoms, even presenting models as wooden balls. But eighty years later, many did not yet believe this theory. In 1902, Osterwald in his inorganic chemistry book had written:
"Chemical processes occur in such a way
as if the substances were composed of atoms….
At best there follows from this the possibility they are in reality so:
not however, the certainty…. One must not be lead astray by the
agreement between picture and reality, and confound the two….
An hypothesis is only an aid in representation."
(ref 9, p 151) (Italics are in the original quote; underlining is mine.)
From above, “as if the substances were composed of atoms” is a strong clue to the existence of atoms. Although, as Osterwald had written, “One must not be lead astray by the agreement between picture and reality,” how far can you be lead astray? “Length contraction” in physics has presented a consistent picture of reality. Who would deny it (except for me)? And I only deny it because there are other ways to explain reality that don’t have that short coming -- my only trouble is that I don’t know what that short coming is, as yet.
Poincaré wrote in 1889 (ref #3 from last page):
Whether the ether exists or not matters little –
let us leave that to the metaphysicians;
what is essential for us is,
that everything happens as if it existed,
and that this hypothesis is found to be suitable
for the explanation of phenomena.
After all, have we any other reason for
believing in the existence of material objects?
That, too, is only a convenient hypothesis;
only, it will never cease to be so, while some day,
no doubt, the ether will be thrown aside as useless.
The underlined text is my additions to the 1889-quote from Poincaré, above.
The aether may seem useless to Poincaré, but I would venture that gravity is not useless to him; they are one. (me)
Professor Licer (ref 8, from last page) claims that Professor Einstein with the introduction of General Relativity created an aether out of gravity. I think the aether is gravity, no matter who said it first.
Therefore, the aether exists, and the aether is gravity. (me)
Although Professor Licer yet likes the Lorentz contraction, which is used in General Relativity, I prefer the Relativistic Bernoulli Effect to explain the same phenomena.
Presumably you know what length contraction is in Special (or General) Relativity. In brief, objects shrink in the direction of motion. Paired with length contraction is time dilation, which I will not talk about here. I figure if I kill one of the pair, the other dies too. If not, not.
Presumably you know what the Bernoulli Effect is. Fluids (e.g., water or gas, etc.) provide less force at right-angles to their group motion. Usually the fluids are bounded by some solid in the ordinary examples presented at low speeds.
The Relativistic Bernoulli Effect is my name for a Bernoulli Effect that seems to be happening for fast moving objects (without the need for some obvious solid boundary). OK, that was simple.
So, for the fast moving object, (1) does its length contract, or (2) does its interaction “contract”? That is, does it interact less well with its surround? And does the Bernoulli Effect have anything to do with the effect?
What is nice about the Relativistic Bernoulli Effect (RBE) is that it is obvious when it will interact less well with its surround. I’m not even sure if it matters whether it is moving or its surround is moving (now that’s relativity).
Hmm, as I recall, not only does the length contraction apply to the object, itself, but also to (or only to, as the case may be) the path of fast moving objects through space. I recall those items created in the upper atmosphere that reach ground because they decay slowly due to their great speed -- as far as I can tell, they didn’t shrink. Their path did shrink according to Einstein-relativity physics.
They really seem to be two different things (the object and its path), but if “you” don’t know what a length contraction is, you can get away with calling a path contraction the same thing. Not so? All right, it’s the time dilation along with the length (or path) contraction – too confusing, not interesting.
Fast moving things seem to interact less well with their temporary (as they pass through quickly) surround. If things can interact, then as you travel faster you reduce the time that things can interact. If you travel at c, presumably there is no time to interact at all (as per Einstein).
The Bernoulli Effect has been applied to sets of particles (a stream of water, for example). But the stream is just the combination of its constituents (if the stream shows the property, will the pebble show the property). (Here I talk of many “pebbles” – of water – making the “stream”.) We probably can conceive of a property of the stream that is not reflected in its “pebble.” But that’s not the point; the point is that the steam of pebbles acts as a pebble (more or less). I am suggesting that a pebble of water can show the Bernoulli Effect. If so, we can dump the length contraction and time dilation of fast stuff (or its surround) and instead employ the much simpler Relativistic Bernoulli Effect. Of course, the RBE may just be the BE.
Now is the proper time to resurrect Einstein’s falling elevator. In the doomed elevator are a man, George, and his flashlight. George has his flashlight on. It is pointed horizontally to the mirrored wall of the elevator. The light reflects and comes back to the flashlight. 1) But is its trip a distance to the wall and back, as seen in the elevator? 2) Or is its trip down, to the wall, further down, and back to the flashlight, as seen from the outside (it’s a half silvered elevator)? I know what I see from the outside – #2.
We know that light falls in a gravity field. So what’s the problem? The problem is that someone is going to say that George measures the time from flashlight to wall and back to flashlight to give him the value of c, with his shortened measurements of to the wall and back. I don’t think so. Does anybody want to ride in a falling elevator? (Actually, George is already dead; so we need a live volunteer.)
Because the light is falling, it has a blue shift, due to the falling. Just as light has a red shift as it moves away from mass, light has a blue shift as it moves towards a mass.
[Digression – makes one think about starlight. Is its red shift due to movement of the star away from earth, OR is the red shift due to climbing out of a gravity well? Could be both? Does sunlight have a red shift, and how would we know? OK, red shifts away from Sun and blue shifts towards Earth (Sun’s shift is larger – more gravity).]
Anyway, the blued light from the falling elevator tells us that the elevator is falling. It’s not a secret anymore, as it was with Special Relativity. (Well, it's blued from the outside; from the inside it's not blued -- at least not as much. I should look into this.)
General Relativity is strange because the light should be blue shifted as it falls. If so, the “gravity is space” of Einstein is wrong. So light traveling through gravity sounds good. Falling light gets “blue” shifted (shifted to higher energy as it is falling in a gravity well, gaining energy).
BTW, in the microphysics, they claim all sorts of nonsense, such as time flowing backwards. Couldn’t (a fast) gravity explain all?