Alternative to Special Relativity

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Prosoothus, Feb 1, 2003.

  1. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Where is your theory?
    You gave words and words and words. Youn never gave anything to test your "theory" except for words.
    Where is your theory?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tom2 Registered Senior Member

    I think you're still looking at it backwards. It does matter that time dilation and length contraction are consequences of SR. What SR doesn't "work without" is its premises, which I already stated. But if the premises are true, then the conclusions are also true.

    And as has been noted, you have not offered any way of quantifying that interaction via dynamical field equations.

    First off, you do not yet have a "theory". Your proposal here is still in the "not well defined new idea" stage. If you had a theory, then we could make some quantitative predictions from it.

    Second, your idea does not explain anything, because it is not testable. I could just as easily postulate that invisible elves are what cause massless particles to always move at the speed of light. A non-testable postulate is not an explanation, it is a label.

    Then why don't dumbells with unequal weights spontanesously accelerate?

    Why would that be? The EM interaction is much stronger than the gravitational interaction, and like charges have no problem coexisting on the same "side of the universe".

    How on Earth do you know that second part?

    That is, what can you say about the interaction of negative gravitational poles with detectors?

    Have you posted those calculations somewhere (sorry, I haven't read the entire thread).

    That measurement would falsify SR, but how would it imply that photons have gravitational dipoles?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Unfortunate choice of words. SR does not require them to be in the theory. The theory of special relativity is the two assumptions/postulates, all the rest is derived from that. One of the conclusions is time dilatation and length contraction, and another conclusion are the Lorentz transformations. They are consistent with eachother because it is a good theory, not because SR "requires" them to be in the game.

    What do you mean by a positive gravitational field ?

    The idea of acceleration photons by a difference in gravity they create themselves does not work. This is like pulling yourself to the speed of light, which is not possible since it violates the conservation of momentum.

    Okay, this is hypothetical and not directly supported by evidence, but acceptable as an hypothesis.

    Hrm, I think you jump to a conlusion quite rapidly here. For example, in the beginning of the universe (approximately a few minutes after the big bang) there was as much matter as antimatter in the entire universe (the temperature was high enough to keep a balance between matter, anti-matter and radiation). Some matter and antimatter attract (opposite charge), some repel (equal charge). Today in the universe we see only matter; there is no known section of the universe which consists entirely out of anti-matter.

    So to simply say that they split out is not necessarily true: it is more complicated than that.

    Ehm, I think they would because of expected velocity / measured velocity differences (repulsion = acceleration away = higher energies)

    I totally disagree. The speed of the earth relative to the aether due to the rotation around the sun would exactly be 30 m/s: the radius of the orbit is 150 million kilometers and it takes one year, do the math! And I can assure you that even the Michelson-Moreley experiment would have measured that difference... As a matter of fact, I remember doing the calculation in the course where we first talked about that experiment, and if I remember correctly, the MM-resolution was in the order of centimeters / second!!!

    Hrm, there are some problems here. First of all, the words "local" and "field" don't mix very well: fields are highly non-local

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Now, I know you mean that you have to look at each "position" of the photon, then look at the field strengths there and add those up. There's also a problem here because it is difficult to define the "position" of the photon and to measure the fields at that location.

    First of all, the photon is not useable as a frame of reference because it goes at the speed of light and hence has some problems with defining "where" and "when" (if you believe SR, then in the photons frame of reference everything is at zero distance and you can go anywhere in zero time -- if you look at the speed of light as a limiting procedure). Even if you do not take SR for granted, you can see from pure geometry that there is a problem there with incoming other photons.

    So in order to "measure" or properly define the "fields at the location of the photon" you would need another observer who can say "that is the location of the photon". Again, you know from SR that observers do not always agree on the position and time, but even leaving SR aside, you can see that this is already a bit problematic (requirement of additional observers who have nothing to do with the thought experiment). This makes it more difficult instead of easier.

    And finally, the "strength" of a field at a given point is also a bit dubious to talk about, because I assume you are using classical Newtonian gravitational fields, for which you know there is no absolute reference: you can add a constant to any potential energy and this will not change the motion of the particle. Hence, the "strength" of a field is a bit ill defined in your perspective (from the general relativistic view, there is no gravitational field to talk about, so there it fails completely).

    Just some thoughts...


  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member


    Does the invariance of the speed of light come first, and time dilation and length contraction are the consequences, or is it the other way around. It's like the chicken and the egg problem, but it doesn't matter which came first since without length contraction and time dilation, the principle of invariance of light, and therefore SR, can't be correct.

    You're right, but curved spacetime isn't testable either.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Because each dumbell is attracted by the local gravitational field at all sides equally. There is no way of arranging regular mass so that this doesn't happen.

    In the EM interaction, since opposite poles attract, it is this attraction that keeps the charges from seperating. Also, since in the EM interaction like poles repel, it is this repulsion that keeps like charges from clumping together.

    In an interaction in which like poles attract, and opposite poles repel, there is nothing to keep different poles mixed.

    Because Lethe says so.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . I once asked if particles with antigravitational fields were created in particle accelerators, would the detectors be able to measure their fields. Lethe responded by stating that there are no detectors in particle accelerators that are set up to measure them.

    You're right again, but if SR is correct, how would that imply that space is actually contracting?
  8. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member


    The gravitational field produced by what we would call "regular mass".

    It is not the difference in gravity that the photons produce that accelerate them to c, it is the interaction between the fields of the photons and the external gravitational field that the photons are passing through, that pushes the photons to c.

    You may be right. I was just giving a possibility.

    You probably meant that the speed of the Earth going around the Sun is 30 km/s, and not 30 m/s.

    You're right. If on the surface of the Earth, the strength of the Sun's gravitational field was equal to the strength of the Earth's gravitational field, then the speed of light on the surface of the Earth would be equal to c+-15 km/s, since 15 km/s is the halfway point between the speed of the Earth's gravitational field (in this case 0 km/s) and the Sun's gravitational field (in this case 30 km/s). As you can see, this high speed would easily be detected in the numerous aether detection experiments that were done over the years.

    However, the strength of the Sun's gravitational field on the surface of the Earth is NOT equal to the strength of the Earth's gravitational field on the surface of the Earth. It is in fact 1650 times weaker. So even though the gravitational field of the Sun is moving at 30 km/s relative to a photon on the surface of the Earth, it's effect on the photon is 1650 times weaker than the effect of the Earth's gravitational field on the very same photon. To get a rough approximation of the effect of the Sun's gravitational field on the photon, we could divide 30 km/s by 1650 which is equal to 18.18 m/s. Now, we take the halfway point between 0 (the speed of the Earth's gravitational field relative to the photon) and 18.18 (the adjusted speed of the Sun's gravitational field relative to the photon) and we get a value of 9.09 m/s. This means that the speed of light on the surface of the Earth, taking the Sun's and the Earth's gravity into consideration, would be close to the range of c-9.09 m/s to c+9.09 m/s. You'd have to agree with me that this small value is within the margin of error of all aether-detection devices ever created. After all, if you're trying to measure a speed of 30 km/s, would you even notice 9.09 m/s?
  9. nightwing darknight Registered Member

    hey Prosoothus
    you totally igonred my reply and replied to later answers of others
    cant find answers to my questions
  10. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Hey Prosoothus

    As I have allready asked and you decided to ignore my demand, I will ask again:

    Show me your gravitational fields equations, and how they reduce to Maxwell's equation for a gravitational dipole. Since this is what you say is happening

    As long as you all you say are only words, your "theory" is empty.
  11. Tom2 Registered Senior Member

    OK, fine. A negative result on either time dilation or length contraction would falsify relativity.

    But that is not the issue that you initially brought up. You said (and have been saying for some time) that SR is not economical in that it must assume that length contraction and time dilation occur in addition to the 2 postulates, and that is not true.

    That is not true.

    A thought experiment (that may one day be a real experiment) that could be done is to construct a rigid circle (as near perfect as can be constructed), and measure its diameter and circumference. If the ratio of the circumference to the diameter does not equal p, then that would be a confirmation that the local geometry of spacetime is not Euclidean. Since GR (unlike your idea) has field equations, we can calculate what that ratio should be, and compare it with the measurement.

    Real experiments can and have been done with to test the logical consequences of curved spacetime, such as the bending of light near a massive body. Could there be other explanations? Sure, but why not stick with GR until it predicts something wrong? Or until another theory comes along that matches those successful predictions of GR, as well as predicting things that GR can't predict?

    You think you have a competing theory, but you really don't. The mathematics that JamesR and 1100f keep asking you for are required.

    Then your statement in red is wrong, because a dumbell most definitely has a "non-uniform" gravitational field.

    Care to try again?

    OK, now this takes us into a new interesting question. The part above in red is not right. Like charges clump together all the time in the nucleus of atoms. You probably know that that is due to the attractive nuclear force, which overpowers the EM repulsion.

    If your "negative gravitational poles" were subject to the nuclear force, that force would have no problem overpowering the gravitational repulsion of unlike poles.

    So now the question is, are your negative gravitational poles immune to the nuclear force? If so, what makes you think so?

    And in that discussion, did you precisely define what you mean by "negative gravitational pole"? Because the definition that I infer from your definition of "gravitational dipole" is not clear at all.

    Based on that, I wouldn't even know how to begin to figure out if they could be detected. Once again, as JamesR and 1100f keep saying, there is simply no way to predict how these objects would behave without a mathematical theory.

    SR does not predict that space is contracting, it predicts that the length of objects contracts. This, of course, can be either proved or disproved by a suitable experiment.
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2004
  12. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Still waiting
  13. Zarkov Banned Banned

    >> In the case of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the reason that there were no inteference patterns

    I do not know if this matter has been referred to here before


    There is a result from experiments such as these.... it was called NUL because the shift was not as large as expected.


    the actual anisotrophic velocity result is in good agreement with the theoretical field spin of the Earth (7.91 km/sec) calculated using in Electrodynamic Spin Gravity Theory.

    see "Physics Without Einstein" in the Cosmological stream.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. Zarkov Banned Banned

    Just noted

    >> Does the invariance of the speed of light come first, and time dilation and length contraction are the consequences, or is it the other way around.

    Einstein assumed that the speed of light was constant, and the concocted remainder og GR was to explain this problem.
  15. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    The speed of light being a constant was not considered as a problem. It was considered as a property of light, at the begining, and later on, as a property of space-time.
  16. nightwing darknight Registered Member

    you guys
    aether belivers are incredible
    everything is agnaist you
    and your ever lasting phony execuse
    is why did anybody belive einstien
    he was a wierd german man from nowhere
    who never held a position in a university or college or research facility

    ill tell you why
    his theroy explained unexplainable phenomenas that didnt fit into the previous models

    you new and revised hocis pocus aether doesnt
    time after time
    assuption after assumtion

    one guy tells us that light flows through the gravity field which flows through the aether
    will if we cant see the aether effect why put it
    and come on youre trying to tell me that light wont be propagated in a place where gravatational fields dont exist
    of course youll say that everywhere there are gravataional fields
    even if thy are .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 in intensity
    ill abide
    but is it logical that thier intisity hasn't the least effect on light
    andf why gravatation
    why not electromagnetic fields
    why not a flowing ice cream melt fluid
    come on are you listinig to yourself

    second of all most of these theories are either mathless
    i dont know how can a self respecting theory have no math
    or the mass is fuzzy

    and it has no predections

    so come on give us a break
  17. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    nightwing darknight,

    From your first post in this thread I didn't get the impression that you wanted a serious debate. Instead it sounded like you wanted to "join the crowd" in support of relativity. Tom2 and Crisp both attacked my theory in a constructive way, and that is why I replied to their posts. On the contrary, here is one of your statements:

    If you really read this thread, like you claim you did, you would know that there is no aether in my theory.

    In the dynamic aether theory it is assumed that mass drags aether around, and the speed of light is only equal to c relative to this dynamic aether. My theory states that gravitational fields push photons to c. Aether has no effect on photons in my theory, and is therefore superfluous.
  18. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member


    My theory, for now, is still in its conceptual stage. I currently don't have the time, or the knowledge of math, to elevate my theory to the mathematical level. However, that doesn't mean that I can't give people something to think about. Who knows, someone might want to continue with my theory where I left off.
  19. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member


    But what would you use to measure the diameter and circumference that wouldn't curve with curved space-time?

    If my theory is valid, no amount of math can make it invalid. If my theory is invalid, no amount of math can make it valid. Just because my theory isn't mathematically complete, doesn't mean it's not true. I'm not publishing it in "Nature", I'm just posting it on sciforums.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Let me try to explain it in another way:

    All the atoms in the dumbells are composed of neutrons, protons, and electrons. These particles have uniform gravitational fields surrounding them. If they are placed in a uniform positive gravitational field, they won't move because they will be attracted by the field at all sides equally. No matter how many of these particles you combine, and regardless of what shape you form them into (like your dumbells), the sum of all of their gravitational fields will remain equal at all sides. This is why the dumbells will not accelerate. There would be no "potential difference" in the uniform gravitational field to cause acceleration.

    Now, if you had a particle that didn't have a uniform gravitational field surrounding it, but instead had a weaker, or an opposite, gravitational field on one side, it would accelerate due to the "potential difference" of the fields.

    I can honestly say, I have no idea.

    A negative gravitational pole would attract other negative gravitational poles, while repeling positive gravitational poles. A positive gravitational pole is what we would call "regular mass". A gravitational dipole would be like a magnet, one one side would be a positive gravitational field, while on the other side would be a negative gravitational field.

    I don't know how their fields could be detected either. Hypothetically, they would accelerate in a gravitational field, but wouldn't accelerate where gravitational fields aren't present. Unfortunately, I don't think an area of space exists where no gravitational fields exist (since I believe that gravity is a property of space).

    That's not true. We can place a magnet in a uniform magnetic field to get an example of how these particles would behave.

    You're wrong. According to relativity, not only will objects contract, but the space between them will contract as well. Length will contract in SR regardless of whether objects are present.
  20. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    nightwing darknight,

    Why would the intensity of the gravitational field have an effect on light. Let me remind you, it's not me, but the general scientific community that believes that photons have absolutely no mass. If a gravitational field is accelerating a particle with no mass, wouldn't the strength of the field be superfluous?

    I, on the other hand, believe that photons have a very small mass (inertial). This small mass would be accelerated to c almost instantly even in a weak gravitational field. If it would be almost instant in a weak gravitational field, how much faster would the acceleration be in a strong gravitational field? Could it even be measured?
  21. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member


    I just wanted to correct you, the MM experiment was nowhere as accurate as you're claiming it was. Here is a quote from Michelson and Morley:

    "...the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the earth's orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth. ... The experiment will therefore be repeated at intervals of three months, and thus all uncertainty will be avoided." (Michelson-Morley 1887)

    Unfortunately, they never did repeat the experiment.
  22. nightwing darknight Registered Member

    M&M experimet may have not been repeated by michelson and morley
    but it has since been repeated by others by modern devices
    and the results now are accurate enough in the order to tell that there is no eather flow effect

    even if photons have very small inertial masses
    how would the variance in the gravatational field have no effect on it
    and why then would its speed by constant if we are slightly moving in the gravatational field??

    and like if we are middle way between the sun and earth
    not middle way in distancei mean a place where both intensity of the grvatational field is the same
    to which gravatational field should we be static so we would we see the photons at C
    i mean if the 2 gravatational fields have the same initinsity why would one be special over the other

    i hope i changed my way
    now im seriously disscussing your hypothesis
    well it is a hypothesis not a theory yet
  23. Zarkov Banned Banned

    >> M&M experimet may have not been repeated by michelson and morley
    but it has since been repeated by others by modern devices
    and the results now are accurate enough in the order to tell that there is no eather flow effect

    *********************************Call for proof please.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *****************************************

    The Miller experiments, the most accurate ever, still showed a shift.

    Do you deny that space has local magnetic fields, planetary magnetic fields, interplanetary magnetic fields, intergalactic magnetic fields etc

    Do you deny that space contains plasma in motion, charged particles in motion,,,, more magnetic fields.

    The aether of magnetism is real.

Share This Page