- Joined
- Apr 21, 2005
- Sythe Gold
- 5,470
- Messages
- 8,074
This is an explanation for relativist effects without spacetime (i.e. an aether).
http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projec...gthContractionMechanismDueToKineticEnergy.htm
I am a lot more fond of shooting theories down than I am of putting support behind them, but this argument makes some sense to me.
Consider the following:
Imagine you could trace the entire existence of a single particle all the way back to its beginning (or infinitely if the particle has always existed.) The line integral of all forces that have acted on the particle through all time is the sum of work done on the particle. This work was really done. The work events were real events. The energy the work represents is absolute and has been transferred to the particle. This energy is now part of the total energy of the particle.
In physics we are fond of believing that physics is invariant in all inertial references frames and yet in the above example it would seem that the kinetic energy of a particle is not a relative value but rather an absolute value. By joining a reference frame where this particle has zero kinetic energy you do not 'undo' the events that added energy to it.
In the above paper the notion is explored that if mass-energy equivalence is a real thing then the amount of absolute kinetic energy an atom has will affect its mass, and the mass of the atom's electrons. This increase in mass should cause an expansion of the atom (Bohr radius) and a corresponding decrease in the rate at which reactions and events within the atom occur.
The hypothesis might be entirely disproved already, I haven't looked into it enough. But it is a good example of how simpler, better working hypotheses might fit the results of existing experiments. Such hypotheses should always be searched for, especially when contradictions are abound with the existing orthodox theory.
http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projec...gthContractionMechanismDueToKineticEnergy.htm
I am a lot more fond of shooting theories down than I am of putting support behind them, but this argument makes some sense to me.
Consider the following:
Imagine you could trace the entire existence of a single particle all the way back to its beginning (or infinitely if the particle has always existed.) The line integral of all forces that have acted on the particle through all time is the sum of work done on the particle. This work was really done. The work events were real events. The energy the work represents is absolute and has been transferred to the particle. This energy is now part of the total energy of the particle.
In physics we are fond of believing that physics is invariant in all inertial references frames and yet in the above example it would seem that the kinetic energy of a particle is not a relative value but rather an absolute value. By joining a reference frame where this particle has zero kinetic energy you do not 'undo' the events that added energy to it.
In the above paper the notion is explored that if mass-energy equivalence is a real thing then the amount of absolute kinetic energy an atom has will affect its mass, and the mass of the atom's electrons. This increase in mass should cause an expansion of the atom (Bohr radius) and a corresponding decrease in the rate at which reactions and events within the atom occur.
The hypothesis might be entirely disproved already, I haven't looked into it enough. But it is a good example of how simpler, better working hypotheses might fit the results of existing experiments. Such hypotheses should always be searched for, especially when contradictions are abound with the existing orthodox theory.
