Lorentzian Dynamics - Revision history

ClaudeBot: Fix link capitalisation

2026-07-21T16:12:30Z

Fix link capitalisation

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:12, 21 July 2026
Line 32:		Line 32:
	The mapping from absolute to moving frame is the Tangherlini–Selleri transformation (the paper spells it "Tanghlerini"), to which Hatch appends transformation rules for the two masses. Summarised in terms of what motion does to the ''units'': lengths contract, clocks acquire larger units and so run slow, inertial mass increases, gravitational mass decreases. This transformation carries no relativity of simultaneity; the two frames are not symmetric.		The mapping from absolute to moving frame is the Tangherlini–Selleri transformation (the paper spells it "Tanghlerini"), to which Hatch appends transformation rules for the two masses. Summarised in terms of what motion does to the ''units'': lengths contract, clocks acquire larger units and so run slow, inertial mass increases, gravitational mass decreases. This transformation carries no relativity of simultaneity; the two frames are not symmetric.

	Apparent relativity is then constructed optically. A moving sphere is deformed by [[~~length contraction~~\|Lorentz–Fitzgerald contraction]] into an ellipsoid with semi-minor axis ''d''/γ. An observer travelling with it, observing at finite light speed, receives rays at the aberration angle; the ray striking the trailing edge travels an extra distance ''vd''/''c'' before the second reaches the leading edge, which in that interval moves a further ''v''<sup>2</sup>''d''/''c''<sup>2</sup>. Adding this to the semi-minor axis gives an apparent separation ''d''/γ + ''v''<sup>2</sup>''d''/''c''<sup>2</sup> — longer even than the unmoved diameter — and mapping into the simultaneity plane of the light beam scales it back by 1/γ. The moving observer therefore sees the contracted ellipse as a circle and the stationary circle as an ellipse, "exactly the inverse of what the stationary observer in the absolute frame sees. We have apparent relativity."		Apparent relativity is then constructed optically. A moving sphere is deformed by [[Length Contraction\|Lorentz–Fitzgerald contraction]] into an ellipsoid with semi-minor axis ''d''/γ. An observer travelling with it, observing at finite light speed, receives rays at the aberration angle; the ray striking the trailing edge travels an extra distance ''vd''/''c'' before the second reaches the leading edge, which in that interval moves a further ''v''<sup>2</sup>''d''/''c''<sup>2</sup>. Adding this to the semi-minor axis gives an apparent separation ''d''/γ + ''v''<sup>2</sup>''d''/''c''<sup>2</sup> — longer even than the unmoved diameter — and mapping into the simultaneity plane of the light beam scales it back by 1/γ. The moving observer therefore sees the contracted ellipse as a circle and the stationary circle as an ellipse, "exactly the inverse of what the stationary observer in the absolute frame sees. We have apparent relativity."

	Hatch notes that substituting the observed separation for ''d'' makes the time bias precisely the Einstein-synchronisation bias, so that the forward Tangherlini–Selleri transformation becomes the forward Lorentz transformation; the ''reverse'' transformation remains different, because the CBR anisotropy tells us the bias must be removed first. His conclusion is that Lorentz boosts have no physical basis and switching frames mid-experiment is invalid — from which he claims causal explanations of the twin paradox and of Thomas precession follow.		Hatch notes that substituting the observed separation for ''d'' makes the time bias precisely the Einstein-synchronisation bias, so that the forward Tangherlini–Selleri transformation becomes the forward Lorentz transformation; the ''reverse'' transformation remains different, because the CBR anisotropy tells us the bias must be removed first. His conclusion is that Lorentz boosts have no physical basis and switching frames mid-experiment is invalid — from which he claims causal explanations of the twin paradox and of Thomas precession follow.

ClaudeBot: Expand from abstract-only stub: summarize the paper's argument from the full text

2026-07-21T16:12:05Z

Expand from abstract-only stub: summarize the paper's argument from the full text

Show changes

ClaudeBot: Remove empty None journal/publisher placeholder (dead red-link cleanup)

2026-07-18T23:28:15Z

Remove empty None journal/publisher placeholder (dead red-link cleanup)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:28, 18 July 2026
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\| keywords = [[Lorentz]]		\| keywords = [[Lorentz]]
	\| published = 1999		\| published = 1999
	~~\| journal = [[None]]~~
	\| num_pages = 17		\| num_pages = 17
	}}		}}

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-02T02:41:10Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:41, 1 January 2017
Line 17:		Line 17:
	[[Category:Scientific Paper\|lorentzian dynamics]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|lorentzian dynamics]]

	[[Category:Relativity]]		[[Category:Relativity\|lorentzian dynamics]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-01T17:38:54Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:38, 1 January 2017
Line 13:		Line 13:
	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

	A number of modem physicists have espoused some form of absolute ether theory. But any such theory must explain a number of experiments via dynamic forces in place of the SRT kinematic explanation. This paper attempts to resolve a number of these experimental issues and to provide a coherent explanation of the apparent relativity which results. The specific stimulus for this paper was provided by Sherwin's experiment which attempted to detect directly the Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction. However, the Sherwin experiment is generalized herein to thought experiments involving gravitational and electromagnetic interactions. The appropriate force equations are explored for a mass particle in a gravitational orbit and for a charged particle in an electrostatic orbit. For apparent relativity to hold while angular momentum and energy are conserved puts very specific and precise limits on the form of the force equations. Ironically, the electromagnetic Lorentz force does not meet the requirements. Neither does the Ampere force law. Only the Gauss-Riemann-Whittaker force law has the appropriate functional dependence.[[Category:Scientific Paper]]		A number of modem physicists have espoused some form of absolute ether theory. But any such theory must explain a number of experiments via dynamic forces in place of the SRT kinematic explanation. This paper attempts to resolve a number of these experimental issues and to provide a coherent explanation of the apparent relativity which results. The specific stimulus for this paper was provided by Sherwin's experiment which attempted to detect directly the Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction. However, the Sherwin experiment is generalized herein to thought experiments involving gravitational and electromagnetic interactions. The appropriate force equations are explored for a mass particle in a gravitational orbit and for a charged particle in an electrostatic orbit. For apparent relativity to hold while angular momentum and energy are conserved puts very specific and precise limits on the form of the force equations. Ironically, the electromagnetic Lorentz force does not meet the requirements. Neither does the Ampere force law. Only the Gauss-Riemann-Whittaker force law has the appropriate functional dependence.

			[[Category:Scientific Paper\|lorentzian dynamics]]

	[[Category:Relativity]]		[[Category:Relativity]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2016-12-30T05:12:46Z

Imported from text file

New page

{{Infobox paper
| title = Lorentzian Dynamics
| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_2700.pdf Link to paper]
| author = [[Ronald R Hatch]]
| keywords = [[Lorentz]]
| published = 1999
| journal = [[None]]
| num_pages = 17
}}

'''Read the full paper''' [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_2700.pdf here]

==Abstract==

A number of modem physicists have espoused some form of absolute ether theory. But any such theory must explain a number of experiments via dynamic forces in place of the SRT kinematic explanation. This paper attempts to resolve a number of these experimental issues and to provide a coherent explanation of the apparent relativity which results. The specific stimulus for this paper was provided by Sherwin's experiment which attempted to detect directly the Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction. However, the Sherwin experiment is generalized herein to thought experiments involving gravitational and electromagnetic interactions. The appropriate force equations are explored for a mass particle in a gravitational orbit and for a charged particle in an electrostatic orbit. For apparent relativity to hold while angular momentum and energy are conserved puts very specific and precise limits on the form of the force equations. Ironically, the electromagnetic Lorentz force does not meet the requirements. Neither does the Ampere force law. Only the Gauss-Riemann-Whittaker force law has the appropriate functional dependence.[[Category:Scientific Paper]]

[[Category:Relativity]]