______________________________________________________________________________ | File Name : DUALVELO.ASC | Online Date : 05/09/95 | | Contributed by : InterNet | Dir Category : ENERGY | | From : KeelyNet BBS | DataLine : (214) 324-3501 | | A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences | | KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187 | | Voice/FAX : (214) 324-8741 InterNet - keelynet@ix.netcom.com | | WWW sites - http://www.eskimo.com/~billb & http://www.protree.com | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| The following hints at an unusual relativity theory which might have 'alternative' applications. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro, sci.edu,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.logic,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci. physics.computational.fluid-dynamics,sci.physics.electromag,sci. physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle,sci.research Path: news.cc.uch.gr!news.forth.gr!ecrc!Munich.Germany.EU.net!Germany.EU.net! EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!vergon From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) Subject: Re: The Farce of Physics Message-ID: Sender: vergon@netcom19.netcom.com Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) References: <3jgamd$op0@acasun.eckerd.edu> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 13:05:51 GMT Lines: 100 Xref: news.cc.uch.gr alt.philosophy.objectivism:4693 alt.sci.physics.new- theories:3257 sci.astro:58753 sci.edu:5093 sci.energy:23692 sci.engr:6106 sci.logic:7265 sci.misc:6052 sci.physics:76412 sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics:462 sci.physics .electromag:1360 sci.physics.fusion:13797 sci.physics.particle:829 sci.research:4892 Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Keywords: Cc: In article <3jgamd$op0@acasun.eckerd.edu>, Bryan Wallace wrote: > >This post is in reply to the Steve Carlip carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu 27 Feb 1995 >18:40:02 post in the Thread "The Farce of Physics" in the newsgroup >"sci.physics". > >Steve wrote: > >> ... In other words, we may not be able to compute the exact >>trajectory of a falling apple, but we can calculate the tension in the >>stem that holds it to the tree. ... > >Most physicists would argue that Einstein's General Relativity theory is >superior to Newtonian theory, yet it can't compute the trajectory of a >falling apple or the orbit of a spacecraft in the solar system and Newtonian >theory can. S. Chandrasekhar in his article titled "Einstein and general >relativity: Historical perspectives" (Am.J.Phys.,47(3),212-1979), wrote: > > ... On this account, it would have been entirely sufficient to generalize > the Newtonian theory to allow for such small departures which may arise > from the finiteness of the velocity of light since we expect the Newtonian > theory to be exact if the velocity of light could be considered as > infinite. ... > >R. A. Waldron in his article titled "Gravitational forces"(Speculations Sci. >Technol.,7,177-1984) wrote: > > That the anomaly in the precession of the planet Mercury could be > accounted for by a modification to Newton's law of gravitation has been > known for a long time. Einstein's general theory of relativity can, in > this respect, be expressed as a factor [1 + (3v^2/c^2)] in the > gravitational force law [22]. ... This is an interesting thread -- with an interesting twist. I published a book in 1976 [ modestly :-) ] entitled Relativity Beyond Einstein that contained my Dual Velocity Theory of Relativity. In it I maintained that a better relativity theory could be had by generalizing Newtonian mechanics (I termed it "creating a bridge between NM and relativistic mechanics"). Actually, in the beginning, I thought I was going to come up with something very different than Einstein's SR. As things went along I began to see that I was developing a parallel theory. Certain reviewers were telling me that I was saying the same thing in a different way. But when I finished there were certain differences. For example, in SR we have the concept of "relativistic mass" that creates quite a bit of controversy and "un-understanding" -- or *mis*understanding if you please, to wit: Momentum is given as P = gamma m, which is often written mv P = ---- R (R = Lorentz transformation) It is always assumed that R modifies m, creating the unexplainable -- often causing problems -- 'relativistic mass'. As an inherent part of my theory R modifies v (velocity), not m (mass). This gives us an INVARIANT mass. But what about the velocity? It is measured as v. The theory is based on Newtonian velocites with infinity as a limit -- BUT there are *two* velocites, the c+ velocity is foreshortened in observation and is measured as v. There is a *mechanical* explanation for this phenomenon. The theory also reveals a differing Doppler effect (see posting this newsgroup), a differing addition of velocities (also in this newsgroup) and a differing rate for time dilation (and compression). The latter dissipates the twins paradox. I could go on -- but then I'd be long winded. Just wanted to get my 2 cents in here. For a better world V.V. Model Maker A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. --- Max Planck Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. --- Einstein ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vanguard Note - Looking for more details on this theory. How intriguing, that mass does not change, just the speed at which the mass is moving, kind of a turbo boost once the Lorentz transformation kicks in. Could this be a key to how to generate the 'wormholes' so prevalent in sci-fi media today?..Jerry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------