I hope I can follow up on this later. I was thinking about someting else. Are there any coordinate transformations for the Sagnac effect?
David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370 On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Roarty, Francis X < [email protected]> wrote: > 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**** > > ** ** >
