In 20220315 post, for creating Vimanas Nextday, it was proposed to reduce constant energy of rest at constant full energy (or increase full energy and reduce energy of rest) of the Vimanas Nextday itself. It can be assumed that this assumption appeared at the beginning of the twenty-first century. This is wrong. You can make a mental effort and assume that this assumption could appear at the beginning of the twentieth century. This is also not so. This assumption could appear at the end of the nineteenth century, more precisely in 1892 (H. A. Lorentz, letter to Lord Rayleigh) and again later, in 1895. The Fitzgerald-Lorentz Deformation Hypothesis. All textbooks study the Lorentz transformation in the context of the study of Einstein`s the special theory of relativity (longitudinal contraction of the size of a moving body), but few cases of deformation of the size of a moving body proposed by the Hendrik Antoon Lorentz are not much mentioned.
1. D = – V^2/2C^2, E = 0 (Longitudinal Contraction)
2. D = 0, E = V^2/2C^2 (Transverse Expansion)
3. D = – V^2/4C^2, E = V^2/4C^2 (Longitudinal Contraction and Transverse Expansion)
So what these cases mean now. The first is traditional means of moving in space such as cars, jets, rockets … The second is Vimanas Nextday. The third is a mix of the first and second cases. The very device that was described by the Sir Arthur Charles Clarke first publiced in 1973, is Rama. In no way, using only one option of the three was the short sightedness of a truly brilliant scientist. The missing “ingredients” will be known much later, as well as their physical content. Schrödinger’s equation 1926, Dirac’s equation 1928, Zwicky`s article 1958. After the creation of Einstein`s the special theory of relativity, they were only interesting to a few historians of science, such as Harvey R Brown. Lorentz himself later did not return to the forgotten two cases. Is it good or is it bad for science, was it good or was it bad for humanity? I don’t know, I have no unequivocal answer. So there is