Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #360124 > unrolled thread

The Lorentz transformation and infinity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The Lorentz transformation and infinity John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 10:02 -0700
    The Lorentz transformation and infinity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-09 12:03 -0700
      Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 21:08 -0700
        Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-10 11:48 -0700
          Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 17:21 -0700
            Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-10 20:20 -0700
              Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-10 21:31 -0700
              Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 05:10 -0700
          Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 06:10 -0700
            Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-13 08:09 -0700
              Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 05:16 -0700
                Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-14 07:05 -0700
                  Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-14 09:39 -0700
                Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-14 07:24 -0700
                Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-16 07:03 -0700
                  Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-16 08:26 -0700
                    Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-16 12:23 -0700
                    Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-20 06:56 -0700
                      Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-20 07:32 -0700
    Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-09 21:56 -0500
      Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 22:26 -0700
      Re: The Lorentz transformation and infinity John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-10 17:17 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#360124 — The Lorentz transformation and infinity

Would like to make a small change to the Lorentz transformation in such a way that special relativity is still correct but a photon is not length contracted to zero. If this is possible then a reasonable argument can be made that a bell test for photon entanglement false.  The finer details of why can be seen in a post made to physics research group , "definition of a photon".

SR special relativity

LT Lorentz transformation

NP Newtonian physics

QE quantum entanglement

Photon rest mass is zero therefore force applied leads to speed infinity NP or and c after LT is applied for SR. Infinity and zero , there in is the rub. How to back off of zero and infinity by just a hair to have a 3 dimensional photon  but at the same time not trample on SR? SR is foundational therefore can not be bent , stapled or folded. All I am asking for is a fraction of a hair off infinity , surely this is not the same as gross bending or folding.

A hair off infinity? If I say the true rest mass of a photon is not zero but E=hv , E energy = h 6.626e-34 joules times v frequency. I will also say the force applied will always equal the energy of the photon to stay consistent with particle physics where photon energy is always subtracted from the source event to conserve energy. That is how the neutrino was found , I digress.

In order to complete NP we need to go forward in time a bit to Émilie du Châtelet who added Ek=1/2 mv^2 , kinetic energy = 1/2 mass times velocity^2. With this in place we may now proceed to connect NP with SR by Ek=1/2 mv^2 and e=mc^for the mass equivalence for NP speed of one red photon with rest mass of 3e-19 joules , 2.9 eV for those inclined and accelerating energy of 3e-19 joules. As mass and energy are the same Ek=1/2mv^2 becomes 3e-19 = 1/2 3e-19 v^2. How to solve for v for Mr red photon's velocity?? 

The answer to this is 1 / -9.22337203685478e+19 or 108.4^15 meters per second NP. You see the problem. This is a hair off infinity but the frigging photon is going backwards in time. What went wrong? 


It is the 1/2m in Ek=1/2 mv^2 that is screwing it up. Let us annihilate a +e -e pair so that momentum conservation laws are not an issue as there will be two photons leaving in opposite directions. This makes it Ek=mv^2 but half for each photon leading to 1/2(3e-19 = 3e-19 v^2). As our red photon rest mass and acceleration energy are the same we can simplify to 3e-19 = 3e-19 v^2 and just pretend it is a -e +e pair. How to solve for v for Mr red photon's velocity??  

According to 3^-19 =  3^-19 v^2 red photon velocity is square root of 1 ?? I checked 3 times with an on line algebra solver and it always comes out to square root of 1. This does not leave one with a warm feeling that a problem was solved. 

There is no point to this post. Just thinking out loud. On to lunch. Maybe that will be more productive.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#360134

Yeah ... I like your explanation. 
The kinetic energy of the vacuum. 
c

People keep saying "speed of light in a vacuum" over and over and over when it actually would be better to call it 

The kinetic energy of the vacuum 

http://astronomyonline.org/Science/Images/Mathematics/KineticEnergy.gif 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy 

1/2mv^2 
Of the V^2, v is distance over time. 
V^2 would become x * y * z* t 

t would be equal to c^2, Making mass the cause of time. 
In "the vacuum", two opposing rays of light would cancel the 1/2 of the (1/2mv^2) 

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/Pw-GjR9sZVQ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360179

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 3:04:00 PM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Yeah ... I like your explanation. 
> The kinetic energy of the vacuum. 
> c
> 
> People keep saying "speed of light in a vacuum" over and over and over when it actually would be better to call it 
> 
> The kinetic energy of the vacuum 
> 
> http://astronomyonline.org/Science/Images/Mathematics/KineticEnergy.gif 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy 
> 
> 1/2mv^2 
> Of the V^2, v is distance over time. 
> V^2 would become x * y * z* t 
> 
> t would be equal to c^2, Making mass the cause of time. 
> In "the vacuum", two opposing rays of light would cancel the 1/2 of the (1/2mv^2) 
> 
> https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/Pw-GjR9sZVQ

Thanks Fuller but where in this is my hair off infinity?

I am starting to lean towards ( 1/h bar)^.5 = 97e+15 as v^2 is looking suspiciously close to 1 / h bar = .94825379e+34 and v^2 = 1.175e+34
in solution A.

Lets take this puppy for a run.

Any photon or particle accelerated by it own energy will have a Newtonian velocity of (1/h bar)^.5 , 97e+15 meters per second.

I am going to recalculate later this week with Ek=1/2mv^2 for red green and blue photons with greater care to see if (1/h bar)^.5 , 97e+15 meters per second pans out.    

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360241

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-5, John Heath wrote:
> On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 3:04:00 PM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Yeah ... I like your explanation. 
> > The kinetic energy of the vacuum. 
> > c
> > 
> > People keep saying "speed of light in a vacuum" over and over and over when it actually would be better to call it 
> > 
> > The kinetic energy of the vacuum 
> > 
> > http://astronomyonline.org/Science/Images/Mathematics/KineticEnergy.gif 
> > 
> > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy 
> > 
> > 1/2mv^2 
> > Of the V^2, v is distance over time. 
> > V^2 would become x * y * z* t 
> > 
> > t would be equal to c^2, Making mass the cause of time. 
> > In "the vacuum", two opposing rays of light would cancel the 1/2 of the (1/2mv^2) 
> > 
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/Pw-GjR9sZVQ
> 
> Thanks Fuller but where in this is my hair off infinity?
> 
> I am starting to lean towards ( 1/h bar)^.5 = 97e+15 as v^2 is looking suspiciously close to 1 / h bar = .94825379e+34 and v^2 = 1.175e+34
> in solution A.
> 
> Lets take this puppy for a run.
> 
> Any photon or particle accelerated by it own energy will have a Newtonian velocity of (1/h bar)^.5 , 97e+15 meters per second.
> 
> I am going to recalculate later this week with Ek=1/2mv^2 for red green and blue photons with greater care to see if (1/h bar)^.5 , 97e+15 meters per second pans out.

I don't think Space Time is what you think it is,
The Hair off infinity you are looking for is probably equal to the current "Time dilation * the Space Dilation"  of our Space time.

The Volume of Space time M^3 * T is probably a Product of Dilation caused by Mass

People seem to point to your large non-infinite number being 10^80

(1/10^-39)^2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360287

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 1:48:11 PM UTC-5, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-5, John Heath wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 3:04:00 PM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > Yeah ... I like your explanation. 
> > > The kinetic energy of the vacuum. 
> > > c
> > > 
> > > People keep saying "speed of light in a vacuum" over and over and over when it actually would be better to call it 
> > > 
> > > The kinetic energy of the vacuum 
> > > 
> > > http://astronomyonline.org/Science/Images/Mathematics/KineticEnergy.gif 
> > > 
> > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy 
> > > 
> > > 1/2mv^2 
> > > Of the V^2, v is distance over time. 
> > > V^2 would become x * y * z* t 
> > > 
> > > t would be equal to c^2, Making mass the cause of time. 
> > > In "the vacuum", two opposing rays of light would cancel the 1/2 of the (1/2mv^2) 
> > > 
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/Pw-GjR9sZVQ
> > 
> > Thanks Fuller but where in this is my hair off infinity?
> > 
> > I am starting to lean towards ( 1/h bar)^.5 = 97e+15 as v^2 is looking suspiciously close to 1 / h bar = .94825379e+34 and v^2 = 1.175e+34
> > in solution A.
> > 
> > Lets take this puppy for a run.
> > 
> > Any photon or particle accelerated by it own energy will have a Newtonian velocity of (1/h bar)^.5 , 97e+15 meters per second.
> > 
> > I am going to recalculate later this week with Ek=1/2mv^2 for red green and blue photons with greater care to see if (1/h bar)^.5 , 97e+15 meters per second pans out.
> 
> I don't think Space Time is what you think it is,
> The Hair off infinity you are looking for is probably equal to the current "Time dilation * the Space Dilation"  of our Space time.
> 
> The Volume of Space time M^3 * T is probably a Product of Dilation caused by Mass
> 
> People seem to point to your large non-infinite number being 10^80
> 
> (1/10^-39)^2

"Hair off infinity"- it's catchy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360297

Q = (2/3) / 0.666659  = 1.0000115
http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/Gabriel_LaFreniere/sa_Lorentz_files/lorentz03.gif

1= (2/3) / Q 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360300

1/(11/480/pi) = 137.08767
137.03599 / 137.08767 = 0.999623015

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360577

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 11:20:15 PM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Q = (2/3) / 0.666659  = 1.0000115
> http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/Gabriel_LaFreniere/sa_Lorentz_files/lorentz03.gif
> 
> 1= (2/3) / Q

Nice link. You can trust a Russian site to be down to earth minus the fluff. 

http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/index_en.htm

and 

http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/

For the front door.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360316

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 2:48:11 PM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-5, John Heath wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 3:04:00 PM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > Yeah ... I like your explanation. 
> > > The kinetic energy of the vacuum. 
> > > c
> > > 
> > > People keep saying "speed of light in a vacuum" over and over and over when it actually would be better to call it 
> > > 
> > > The kinetic energy of the vacuum 
> > > 
> > > http://astronomyonline.org/Science/Images/Mathematics/KineticEnergy.gif 
> > > 
> > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy 
> > > 
> > > 1/2mv^2 
> > > Of the V^2, v is distance over time. 
> > > V^2 would become x * y * z* t 
> > > 
> > > t would be equal to c^2, Making mass the cause of time. 
> > > In "the vacuum", two opposing rays of light would cancel the 1/2 of the (1/2mv^2) 
> > > 
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/Pw-GjR9sZVQ
> > 
> > Thanks Fuller but where in this is my hair off infinity?
> > 
> > I am starting to lean towards ( 1/h bar)^.5 = 97e+15 as v^2 is looking suspiciously close to 1 / h bar = .94825379e+34 and v^2 = 1.175e+34
> > in solution A.
> > 
> > Lets take this puppy for a run.
> > 
> > Any photon or particle accelerated by it own energy will have a Newtonian velocity of (1/h bar)^.5 , 97e+15 meters per second.
> > 
> > I am going to recalculate later this week with Ek=1/2mv^2 for red green and blue photons with greater care to see if (1/h bar)^.5 , 97e+15 meters per second pans out.
> 
> I don't think Space Time is what you think it is,
> The Hair off infinity you are looking for is probably equal to the current "Time dilation * the Space Dilation"  of our Space time.
> 
> The Volume of Space time M^3 * T is probably a Product of Dilation caused by Mass
> 
> People seem to point to your large non-infinite number being 10^80
> 
> (1/10^-39)^2

We are on the same page. Time dilation is caused by change in effective mass or relative inertia. I would add the relative elasticity of space as well. By adding this we are foundational to classical wave theory. Both Newtonian and classical wave theory must be well and alive for a new theory to proceed forwards with confidence of a sound foundation.

The hair off infinity should by an ugly number being dimensionless , part of a bigger picture such as c or h . 10^80 is as clean as a whistle and seems to be related to the human condition of ten toes and ten fingers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360614

{The hair off infinity should by an ugly number being dimensionless , part of a bigger picture such as c or h . 10^80 is as clean as a whistle and seems to be related to the human condition of ten toes and ten fingers. }

I wasn't meaning to imply it was a (round, pretty number). 
Just a ratio. 
Like the (strong force / gravity) which is just 1/gravity^2. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360698

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 11:09:38 AM UTC-4, fuller...@hotmail.com wrote:
> {The hair off infinity should by an ugly number being dimensionless , part of a bigger picture such as c or h . 10^80 is as clean as a whistle and seems to be related to the human condition of ten toes and ten fingers. }
> 
> I wasn't meaning to imply it was a (round, pretty number). 
> Just a ratio. 
> Like the (strong force / gravity) which is just 1/gravity^2.


I see ,, the ratio of the two. In any event I keep running into infinity or square root of -1 from the first message in this thread. Not sure what to make of the connection between infinity and -1. Found a video that says the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fGoins7q3s

This is your back yard. What do you think of this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360711

Hi John
I think the problem that is creating the infinities with the Lorentz transform is they are considering a "singularity" as an object with no surface area when they should be considering it with the surface area of one, A mathematical singularity instead of a spatial  singularity
This is creating a problem with the square root of negative one and the numbers which balloon up to infinity and creating Superliminal speeds
The numbers would probably be prettier if space was considered as angular momentum and time was considered rotation orthogonally to the first rotation. 

Mathematics might not like the square root of -1, but it seems the universe doesn't really seem to care. 

When the singularity is spatially pushed down below (1), time starts going backwards. 
Spatially, space time never reaches zero 

The Lorentz transform calculates a hyperbola 
It is a hyperbolic calculator. 
Not an ellipse calculator 

http://xahlee.info/surface/hyperbolic-paraboloid/hyperbolic-paraboloid.png

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360737

15 * 2 = 30  

(376.7303146)/(4*π*2*3*5)*300000000
(376.7303146)/(4*π*{30})*300000000

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360715

(1/(1/(1.9375 -1)-1)) or (1/(1/15 +1) +1)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360998

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/ltrans.html#c2

(4pi - 2)/4pi   0.840845 v of c

(360/11)/32.7705 = 0.99868090874
1 - 0.840845 = 1/(2pi)

 360 / 11 = 32.72727272. 
Steradian = 32.7705...

1/(1 - 0.9993402)  =1515.61

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361005

0.666658 koide 

V of c 0.999987499921874
LC = 1/200
TD & RM = 200
V of c 0.999987499921874 * (2/3)

5 * 2 = 10

0.005 * 200 = 1 

5 * 200000 = 10^6 weak nuclear force. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361020

sqrt ((1/2 + 1/3)^2 - (1/2)^2) = 2/3

http://scienceblogs.de/mathlog/files/2014/06/acp-1223.jpg

1 2 3 6 11 18 27 38 51

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361371

376.730313461/(((11^2 + 4^2) * 11)/4) = 0.999947746

(((11^2 + 4^2) * 11)/4) = 376.75

(((137) * 11)/4) = 376.75

LC = 0.999947746

V of 0.010222781887496585 * c

3064712.91 m / s

137/0.999947746^5 = 137.035799

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361374

Looks like a sphere being held open by being suspended from an exterior Platonic solid 
Mr Heath's "little bit less than infinity" is prolly the difference in curvature between the two. 


http://i61.tinypic.com/2hd0cug.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360174

On 8/9/15 8/9/15   12:02 PM, John Heath wrote:
> Would like to make a small change to the Lorentz transformation in such a way
> that special relativity is still correct but a photon is not length
> contracted to zero.

This is not necessary: While one cannot really ascribe a "length" to a photon, 
one can ascribe a coherence length to the photons in a light beam -- it is 
always nonzero. Note that light pulses are clearly not "length contracted to 
zero" -- it seems to me your naive notion expressed above would apply to that, too.

This is essentially impossible: Any change to the Lorentz transform would either 
prevent them from forming a group, or would prevent them from applying between 
inertial frames.

	There is  a way around this -- look up "double special relativity".


BTW if you "say" the rest mass of a photon is hf/c^2, results are wildly in 
conflict with experiments. And the neutrino was not found "this way".


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web