A geometric understanding of Lorentz implies exactly what chris has stated. Or maybe I should have gone to school after all.Giorgio wrote:I actually was afraid that the answer could be that one.chrismb wrote:I've not mentioned anything about the sun. I don't think you've quite grasped what I'm saying - probably because of the enormity of what I'm saying.Giorgio wrote:If your answer is no, than how does the sun (and each sun of the universe) fit into your view of the universe?
I am saying that photons are stationary, and we, the sun, and all 'matter' is moving at c relative to the CoM of the universe. We move relative to the photons. The photons are the things which are stationary.
Mach Effect progress
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The linked experiment measures forces on the rails, specifically excluding the armature and breech. If the armature and breech experience equal and opposite forces, as I would expect from my understanding of the theory, the recoil is in the breech. Consistent with the described experiment.ladajo wrote: check Putnam 2009 out at:
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA514371
There is also another Thesis for Schroeder 2007 posted on DTIC. And one by Kathe in November 2000, titled Recoil Considerations for Railguns. Kathe thinks it is all hoo-hah. But Schroeder and Putnam seem to have demonstrated that it does not add up.
A geometric "interpretation" of Lorentz might imply what Chris is stating.MSimon wrote:A geometric understanding of Lorentz implies exactly what chris has stated. Or maybe I should have gone to school after all.Giorgio wrote:I actually was afraid that the answer could be that one.chrismb wrote:I've not mentioned anything about the sun. I don't think you've quite grasped what I'm saying - probably because of the enormity of what I'm saying.
I am saying that photons are stationary, and we, the sun, and all 'matter' is moving at c relative to the CoM of the universe. We move relative to the photons. The photons are the things which are stationary.
Anyhow, I still would like to know in Chris idea how the mass interacts with the fabric of space, be it a sun, a planet or a massive neutron star and.
I feel bound to answer questions on points I've made, though I think this is done now.... but 'fraid I don't really understand your question. I don't think there is, obviously, a 'fabric of space' that acts as some sort of inertial reaction 'framework', even if we go off towards the notion of an 'ether'. I have argued that there is an underlying geometric framework against which mass has a 'location', but the two 'interact' no more than does my body and a tape measure measuring my height, or my feet and the map which I am using to show me the way. The two are linked, but only virtually and not inertially. Please let me know if I misunderstood your point.Giorgio wrote:Anyhow, I still would like to know in Chris idea how the mass interacts with the fabric of space, be it a sun, a planet or a massive neutron star and.
I got it now, I tought you was implying that the photons was the result of the interaction of the moving mass against the fabbric of space. I think I have clear now what your point is. Yet I find it hard to imagine that the whole mass of the universe is moving at speed of light while photons are standing still like you are implying.
That's of course just my point of view, but I'll like to see a general framework of your theory once (or if) you'll make one.
That's of course just my point of view, but I'll like to see a general framework of your theory once (or if) you'll make one.
What about the Higgs field? Does it exist or not?chrismb wrote:I feel bound to answer questions on points I've made, though I think this is done now.... but 'fraid I don't really understand your question. I don't think there is, obviously, a 'fabric of space' that acts as some sort of inertial reaction 'framework', even if we go off towards the notion of an 'ether'. I have argued that there is an underlying geometric framework against which mass has a 'location', but the two 'interact' no more than does my body and a tape measure measuring my height, or my feet and the map which I am using to show me the way. The two are linked, but only virtually and not inertially. Please let me know if I misunderstood your point.Giorgio wrote:Anyhow, I still would like to know in Chris idea how the mass interacts with the fabric of space, be it a sun, a planet or a massive neutron star and.
A thought experiment: An astronaut is in interstellar space. He sees stars (Photons) in every direction. If photons are stationary then this would imply that the astronaut would have to be moving at the speed of light in every direction simultaneously. This cannot be true unless the astronaut is himself expanding at the speed of light which also cannot be true.MSimon wrote:A geometric understanding of Lorentz implies exactly what chris has stated. Or maybe I should have gone to school after all.Giorgio wrote:I actually was afraid that the answer could be that one.chrismb wrote:I've not mentioned anything about the sun. I don't think you've quite grasped what I'm saying - probably because of the enormity of what I'm saying.
I am saying that photons are stationary, and we, the sun, and all 'matter' is moving at c relative to the CoM of the universe. We move relative to the photons. The photons are the things which are stationary.
You're thinking in 3 dimensions. In my model, the photons are 5 dimensional, and our 3-D space is expanding into it. It makes no sense at all that the expansion centrum of the universe actually resides within it, because if it did then that'd say that space isn't expanding uniformly.GPecchia wrote:A thought experiment: An astronaut is in interstellar space. He sees stars (Photons) in every direction. If photons are stationary then this would imply that the astronaut would have to be moving at the speed of light in every direction simultaneously. This cannot be true unless the astronaut is himself expanding at the speed of light which also cannot be true.
Also, I see no reason to presume that space cannot expand at the speed of light. Quite the opposite, actually: If the universe is 4.3E17s in age (thus, [4.3E17].[c]m in size, then in each second so a length of 1m expands to (1+1/[4.3E17])m. This is an expansion rate at the speed of light, as averaged over the radius of the universe. The mass within that space doesn't "expand" though, for the reasons I have given in detail above. Instead, because there is no free energy to decrease the entropy that this would involve, so that is experienced as a force - gravity.
Ok, but if there is no counter force generated in the rails, how does it manifest in the breech? The work is done by the rails.hanelyp wrote:The linked experiment measures forces on the rails, specifically excluding the armature and breech. If the armature and breech experience equal and opposite forces, as I would expect from my understanding of the theory, the recoil is in the breech. Consistent with the described experiment.ladajo wrote: check Putnam 2009 out at:
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA514371
There is also another Thesis for Schroeder 2007 posted on DTIC. And one by Kathe in November 2000, titled Recoil Considerations for Railguns. Kathe thinks it is all hoo-hah. But Schroeder and Putnam seem to have demonstrated that it does not add up.
Magnetic pressure contained between the rails.ladajo wrote:Ok, but if there is no counter force generated in the rails, how does it manifest in the breech? The work is done by the rails.hanelyp wrote:The linked experiment measures forces on the rails, specifically excluding the armature and breech. If the armature and breech experience equal and opposite forces, as I would expect from my understanding of the theory, the recoil is in the breech. Consistent with the described experiment.ladajo wrote: check Putnam 2009 out at:
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA514371
There is also another Thesis for Schroeder 2007 posted on DTIC. And one by Kathe in November 2000, titled Recoil Considerations for Railguns. Kathe thinks it is all hoo-hah. But Schroeder and Putnam seem to have demonstrated that it does not add up.
I don't feel comfortable with the statement that your body does not react with the tape measure on two fronts. With special relativity, the body and tape measure interact in the sense that the maesuremant you get will depend on the relative velocityof these two objects. If the tape measure is flying past at near light speed, your measurement will be different. If both are in the same rest frame, they may not interact (in the sense of information exchange) but this is a special case.chrismb wrote:I feel bound to answer questions on points I've made, though I think this is done now.... but 'fraid I don't really understand your question. I don't think there is, obviously, a 'fabric of space' that acts as some sort of inertial reaction 'framework', even if we go off towards the notion of an 'ether'. I have argued that there is an underlying geometric framework against which mass has a 'location', but the two 'interact' no more than does my body and a tape measure measuring my height, or my feet and the map which I am using to show me the way. The two are linked, but only virtually and not inertially. Please let me know if I misunderstood your point.Giorgio wrote:Anyhow, I still would like to know in Chris idea how the mass interacts with the fabric of space, be it a sun, a planet or a massive neutron star and.
And, in quantum mechanics, one of the basic tenets is that you cannot make a measurement without perturbing the object you are measuring. How are these effects accommodated?
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
He doesn't mean the tape measure as a physical object.D Tibbets wrote:I don't feel comfortable with the statement that your body does not react with the tape measure on two fronts. With special relativity, the body and tape measure interact in the sense that the maesuremant you get will depend on the relative velocityof these two objects. (...)
The tape measure and the map are only an analogy to explain the notion of a (fixed) coordinate system, in a geometric, mathematical type.
Actual tape measures, maps, rulers and such are only manifestations of this (mathematical) reference coordinate system, and 'measuring' is only comparing the unknown object you want to measure with the known reference printed ON the tape measure.
Because we can.
That is what I'm trying to argue. In a fixed Newtonian system things can be considered absolute. But, is this idea compatible with the theory of special relativity? It's mentioned that this concept somehow accounts for gravity, but to be valid it has to hold up under both general relativity, and special relativity- either that or throw out a lot of physics that have been very successful at predicting events.Stoney3K wrote:He doesn't mean the tape measure as a physical object.D Tibbets wrote:I don't feel comfortable with the statement that your body does not react with the tape measure on two fronts. With special relativity, the body and tape measure interact in the sense that the maesuremant you get will depend on the relative velocityof these two objects. (...)
The tape measure and the map are only an analogy to explain the notion of a (fixed) coordinate system, in a geometric, mathematical type.
Actual tape measures, maps, rulers and such are only manifestations of this (mathematical) reference coordinate system, and 'measuring' is only comparing the unknown object you want to measure with the known reference printed ON the tape measure.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.