This is *still* not making it to vortex. I am sending this copied to
Jack Smith in the hopes he can get it through.
Horace
On Jan 24, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote:
[snip huge amount of stuff]
I see some material I posted never made it to vortex. Oh well. Sorry
for typing "Keith" when I meant "Stephen A. Lawrence"! I hope
*this* makes it through!
I would like to sum up some things I said.
Jefimenko's work has much value because he shows how much of
relativity can be explained through retardation alone. However, some
things cannot be explained by retardation. One example is the twins
paradox, because the clocks of the twins can differ when they return
together, and thus all retardation effects are removed.
Effects called "real" here are effects which can not be fully
accounted for by retardation. The effects which remain when clocks
are brought back together are therefore real. Any changes in
appearance, and that includes locally observed forces, and thus
momenta, and energy, as well as images, that are brought back into
balance upon return to the initial condition, are due to retardation
effects, delays in the communication of conditions. Real effects are
cumulative upon cyclical motion. Retardation effects do not
accumulate upon cyclical motion.
Gravitational time dilation and time dilation due to acceleration are
indistinguishable according to Einstein's principle of equivalence.
If we drop a clock down a gravitational well and let it sit there,
the clock slows down. When we bring it back up and compare it to a
twin clock, the times do not match. Gravitational time dilation is
therefore a real effect. By the principle of equivalence,
acceleration time dilation is a real effect. These effects can not
account for all the "real" changes observed in the twins experiment.
Some of the time dilation is due to coasting for long periods, i.e.
might be said to be due to translating frames of reference. However,
we know that relativistic effects due to translating frames of
reference can be explained by retardation, thus these can not be the
explanation for the real residual time difference at the conclusion
of the twins experiment.
Mass is involved in all clocks currently in use. Mass experimentally
appears to change according to the relativistic rule m = m0 * gamma.
Such a change in mass can also explain real translational time
dilation due to the effect of mass on real clocks. It therefore
seems reasonable to consider such a change real. This is not
consistent with modern thinking regarding relativity, which
translates units via "metrics" for purposes of computational
convenience. Mass in the conventional spacetime metric is considered
invariant. (see page 246-251 of *Spacetime Physics* by Taylor and
Wheeler.) From this computational convenience flows a host of
nonintuitive and seemingly nonsensical physical notions about what is
real and what is not.
The laws of gravity and electromagnetism can be united into an
isomorphism (but permanently disunited as forces) simply by using
including a factor i = sqrt(-1) in the unit of mass charge, and
making a consistent selection of corresponding values for epsilon_0
and mu_0 as shown in Table 1 below.
Electric Gravitational
q m * i
E g
B K
J J_g
epsilon_0 epsilon_g_0 = 1.192602x10^9 kg s^2/m^3
mu_0 mu_g_0 = 9.329597x10^-27 m/kg
c c_g = c
Table 1: Gravity-electromagnetism Isomorphism
Correspondence Table
The derivation of this is described in
<http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GR-and-QM.pdf>.
All the laws and entities of EM under this isomorphism now have a one
to one correspondence with the laws of gravity, including magnetism,
relativistic effects, and quantum effects. Utilizing the
isomorphism, however, with the greatest consistency, apparently
requires some paradigm changes in modes of thinking and assumptions
regarding reality. For example, this isomorphism predicts,
requires, a new class of "real" relativistic effects, namely change
of apparent charge with velocity, and Coulombic time dilation.
How is it then that mass or time or any other "real" variable can
vary from one inertial frame to another and yet still be real? I
think the answer is that the values measured in an observers
reference frame are real to him, real in that frame, except for those
values observed in other frames and thus distorted by retardation.
What is real in one reference frame A is not real in another
reference frame B, but that does not prevent the observer in
reference frame B from excluding from his observations any
retardation effects and thus predicting what the real differences
would be in frasme A, or after moving from frame A to B or frame B
back to frame A. The availability of "real" energy and momenta can
vary between reference frames, and the ability to move between frames
in a cyclical fashion can permit use of this fact. Real energy
available in frame A but not Frame B, can be utilized for state
changes in Frame A, e.g. manufacturing structures, and translating to
Frame B where the energy for the state changes is not available.
This can result in a permanent and thus real change in state in frame
B. Any change in state that can be repeated, like clock differences,
can be accumulated by cyclical action. This includes then the
possibility of accumulation of real momentum or real energy by
cyclical actions.
The twin problem then, gives us a meaningful look at what is real and
what is not, both in physical law and in potentialities. It provides
an opportunity to question existing paradigms of thought and convention.
Horace Heffner
