Well basically Lorentz is all about V^2 as you approach C but if the isotropy is broken as suggested by Casimir geometry or suppression then the square of the distance is trumped by the cube or fourth of 1/ the plate separation.-(A relativistic interpretation is supported by a 1996 paper, "Cavity QED"<http://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf> by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula which proposes an abrupt break in isotropy between Casimir plates and a 1999 paper "The Light Velocity Casimir Effect<http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9911/9911062.pdf>" by Tom Ostoma and Mike Trushyk which proposes the Casimir cavity as a relativistic environment where the velocity of light appears to increase relative to outside the cavity. It is also supported by a paper from Dr Carlos Calvet "Evidence for the Existence of 5 Real Spatial Dimensions in Quantum Vacuum"<http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-1/calvet-final.htm>. It is further evidenced by claims of modified radioactive decay rates in metal pores and powders of Casimir geometry.
In all cases above the normal Lorenntzian formulas fall apart, in fact the relationship becomes dynamic with change in Casimir geometry having far more effect on the isotropy then any gravitational effect... what we call isotropic is really just a very slow gradual change we call gravity - we always knew this din't exist below the planl scale with quantum foam and wormholes coming into play but what remains controversial is that these breaches in isotropy can be aggregated or segregated to manifest themselves in the physical world via Casimir geometry. Where we are accustomed to Lorentzian contraction on the single axis approaching C the contraction observed due to suppression would be symmetrical with no need for any spatial displacement. Fran From: David Jonsson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 9:48 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Homogeniety of space and the Lorentz transformations I was checking the derivation of the Lorentz transformation and it mentions that it relies on space being "homogeneous" or on "isotropy of the space". Why are these assumptions made? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#From_physical_principles And as far as I have read 1 or 2 or neither holds in the group method of deriving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#From_group_postulates 1. does not hold since two Lorentz transformation correspond to one rotation and one Lorentz transformation. 2. does not hold since Lorentz transformations are not associative I think it is a shortcoming to make preassumptions. David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
