Alternative to Special Relativity

Newtonian or General?

"It is not correct to say "moving things have more mass." It is correct to say "moving things appear to have more mass to observers moving at high relative velocities."
<HR>
I know you won't believe this when I tell you, but I already understood the principles of time dilation, stretching, and the observation of mass at c. And, I know these effects occur to some extent at much smaller fractions of c.

I know the folks on the ship don't percieve a single difference.

Why would you think I didn't know that?

As for your statement above: If we percieve the object has more mass, what did we weigh it with? If we percieve the object very carefully, would that object appear to have a gravitational pull, since it is now so much more mass by our perception?

If I had an infinite number of one pound projectiles, and I could fire them at the speed of light, each projectile would have the proportionate mass of an object much heavier, as I percieve it. As these constantly streaming projectiles leave my gun streaming upward, if my perception of their mass is so largely different, would they also produce gravity? If not, what kind of conjecture is it to suggest we would percieve them as having more mass than they actually do? I understand that as an object increases in speed, it carries more kinetic of energy. But, this is Newtonian physics. Is this in any way related to general relativity? If so, why mention Newton's simple law of inertia in general relativity?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James,

You seem to have the impression that free space lacks a gravitational field. I believe that gravitational fields are everywhere, and even space has a small amount of gravity. So whether the Michelson-Morley apparatus is stationairy in the Earth's gravititational field or whether it is stationairy in the small gravitational fields of empty space itself, it will under both circumstances show no interference patterns (just as you indicated).

However, if you move the Michelson-Morley apparatus so that it is moving through the Earth's gravitational field, or if it is in outer space and you move it so that it is moving through the gravitational field of empty space, then the Michelson-Morley apparatus WILL show interference patterns.

According to my theory, a Michelson-Morley apparatus which is sitting on the surface of the Earth will show no interference patterns. However, if I put it in an airplane and I start flying through the Earth's atmosphere, the interference patterns that appear will be proportional to the speed that the airplane is moving through the Earth's gravitational field, and not through the aether as was assumed by Michelson, Morley, and a lot of other scientists.

To take it one step further, I'm also stating that wherever an atomic clock experiences time dilation, a Michelson-Morley apparatus in that same location would show interference patterns. Both time dilation and the interference patterns are the result of the slowing down (and speeding up) of light relative to an object which is moving through a gravitational field (no matter how small the field is).

Luckily, for me, my theory is very easy to prove. All you have to do is put the Michelson-Morley apparatus in a fast moving plane. I am 99.99 percent sure that if you did this, the M-M apparatus will show interference partterns.

I describe a gravitional field as an extension of a matter. The only difference, to me, between a gravitational field, and matter is that a gravitational field is a less dense form of matter. Space is the least dense form of matter. As you increase the density of space you get gravitational fields, and as you increase the density of gravitational fields, you get matter. So unlike the scientific community that believes that gravitational fields are actually curved space-time, or that gravitational fields are the result of the exchange of gravitons, I believe that gravitational fields are simply a less dense form of matter. So for example, I believe that when the Earth spins, it's gravitational field spins with it.

But regardless of whether my model of the gravitational field is right or wrong, I believe that gravitational fields do influence the speed of the light that is moving through them. And as I stated before, many, if not all, of the results from "relativistic" experiments can be explained by assuming that the omnidirectional speed of light is c only in the gravitational field that it is in at the moment.

Tom

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James and anyone else interested. I found this link today:

http://www.exosci.com/news/50.html

Here's a quote:

The only difference between my theory and the one shown in the link is that I believe that the Earth is dragging gravity around, but that it isn't dragging space or time. My theory also states that the omnidirectional speed of light is c in a gravitional field, and not in space (unless the gravitational field is stationairy relative to space).

If the link is right, and the Earth does drag space and time (or gravity in my case) around, doesn't that explain the lack of interference patterns in the Michelson-Morley experiment without having to introduce time dilation or length contraction???

Tom

 

James R,

Because the Earth's gravitational field, on the surface of the Earth, is stronger than the gravitational field of the Sun. Either

a) Light only obeys the strongest gravitational field.

or

B) Both the gravitational fields of the Earth and the Sun influence the light in the M-M experiment, but because the Sun's gravity is so much smaller than the Earth's gravity on the surface of the Earth, it's effects are very small on the M-M apparatus.

Tom

 

That's some of the most pathetic hand-waving I've ever seen, Tom. Even you should be above this.

- Warren

 

chroot,

My theory states that the omnidirectional speed of light is only c in the gravitational field that the light finds itself in at the moment. This speed of the light would be very easy to calculate if there was only one gravitational field in an an area at a single time. Unfortunately, as James pointed out, there can be 2, 3, or more gravitational fields in the same place at the same time.

When James asked me how light behaves in multiple gravitational fields, I stated two assumptions that I felt were the most logical ones. However, after reconsidering the two assumptions, I believe that the second one is the correct one. On the surface of the Earth, the light in Michelson-Morley apparatus will be influenced by both the Earth's and the Sun's gravitational fields, but since the Sun's gravitational field is 1650 times weaker than the Earth's gravitational field on the surface of the Earth, the affects of the Sun's gravitational field on the light in the M-M apparatus will be negligable (it will be within the margin of error).

If you feel that my logic is faulty, please share your opinion on how the speed of light would be influenced by multiple gravitational fields if the photon uses gravitational fields as its medium of travel.

Tom

 

Prosoothus,

By "gravitational field" do you mean "gravitational force"?

 

James,

Do you mean that there is no such thing as "gravitational field" or that "gravitational field" is not a factor when discussing Relativity?

In a previous thread titled "Black Holes Starve to Death", you seem to approve the following statement made by zanket:

"Yes, many books will tell you that gravity slows time. But that's misleading. It is acceleration within a gravitational field like that needed to avoid free fall, that slows time."

As you can tell, I'm confused by this term "gravitational field".

 

1119,

No. I believe that the gravitational force is the attractive force between two masses when their gravitational fields come in contact with each other. The gravitional field of an object is simply a less dense extension of the object itself. As you can see, I don't consider gravity to be a long-distance interaction.

Tom

 

Prosoothus,

Very interesting theory you have...

Perhaps if you tried working out the math for it people would take it more seriously. Einstein didnt just say hey i think there is length contraction and time dilation since light goes at a constant speed. He sat down and worked out the math for it. He published papers with this math. A lot of people may have had their doubts at first, but they couldnt argue against his math.

So come up with the equations that describe your theory then write a paper on it. Then scientists can do expirements to see if it works.

I intend to do research in many areaqs of physics. I find it all very exciting. Now I may not like or agree with some things, but I am not going to argue about it until I know the background behind the theory, including the math. For example, i dont like the probability nature of quantum mechanics. It annoys me. I think you should be able to get something better then that. So what, saying that does nothing. I could make up random theories for days on end to get around all this, but none of it has any practical value until i can make a real theory including the math. And I cant do that until I understand how the current conclusion came to be. Right now my understanding of the math involved in quantum mechanics is very limited. So I accept what they say and keep learning.

So its an interesting theory maybe, but its i little far-fetched. How would a gravitational field move a photon? Do more research maybe and dont bring up theories until you have something more to back them up. Why are you so intent on getting rid of relativity anyways? Is there some question it doesnt answer? If there is a problem with the theory then maybe you look for a new theory or a modified version of it. But if it isnt broken, dont fix it.

Michael

 

But...

Gravity is a long-range effect. What is long? What is short?

Pluto is pretty far from the Sun. Gravity waves travel for millions if not billions of light-years. I'd say gravity has a profound effect for very long distances.

I think 'gravitational field' is a misrepresentation in terminology. You'll notice most of these educated physicists like to stick to proper terms. Usually, there is a reason for that.

At a glimpse, fields are limited in scope, possessing definable characteristics. Gravity, on the other hand, is a bit like space-time. We shouldn't go off-the-wall and call space-time a super-fluid, because that term has clear definitions based on scientific evidence. In keeping, gravity is not a field, it is a property of mass (and/or energy).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

cephas1012,

My theory doesn't have any math. It simply states that the omnidirectional speed of light is only equal to c in the gravitational field that the light finds itself in at any given moment, regardless of the speed of the gravitional field through space (or aether).

The only math that would be necessary in my theory would be cases where multiple gravitational fields overlap each other. This math could be complex if the overlapping gravitational fields are approximately the same strength. Fortunately, in the case of light close to the surface of the Earth, the Earth's gravitational field is so strong compared to the other overlapping fields, that the other fields can be ignored when calculating the speed of the light relative to the Earth's gravitational field.

Since my theory doesn't have any math, what it does need is proof. I've found that the results from most, if not all, relativistic experiments are consistent with my theory. Even the twin paradox, which can't be explained by relativity, can easily be explained by my theory.

The ultimate and final way to test my theory would be to place a Michelson-Morley inferometer in a fast airplane. As the plane flys through the Earths gravitational field, I can bet, almost 100%, that the Michelson-Morley apparatus will show interference patterns. These interference patterns will prove, once and for all, that the omnidirectional speed of light is not c in all frames of reference. These interference patterns would also be the final nail in relativity's coffin, so I doubt that any pro-relativity scientists would ever attempt this experiment.

There are three fields of physics that are very counter-intuitive: Relativity, randomness, and uncertainty. These three branches contain the majority of the paradoxes in physics. Most scientists will tell you that they are only counter-intuitive, but I find them illogical.

For example, in relativity, how can space be contracted and not contracted at the same time?? I would assume that space has properties that are independent of any observer. How can these properties be altered simply because an moving observer is observing them?? How is space supposed to know that a moving observer is looking at it??

It would seem that length contraction and time dilation are only illusions, but if you ask the scientific community, half will tell you that they are, and the other half will tell you that they're not. The scientific community can't even agree. And then when you ask how and why length contraction and time dilation occur, relativists will avoid the question by saying that those phenomena are so fundamental that they can't be explained. Yea, right.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you take a close look at my theory, you will see that it explains why perceived time dilation occurs. Relativity, on the other hand, never bothers to explain why time dilation occurs.

Tom

 

Fluidity,

Well, it all depends on how you look at it. I consider the Sun's gravitational field as being part of the Sun. If you look at it that way, then Pluto is IN the Sun (just like part of the Sun is in Pluto). Since there is no distance between the Sun and Pluto, there is no reason to assume that gravity is a long distance interaction.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Tom

 

Then your theory is incapable of predicting anything, and is a complete waste of all our time.

Because it cannot make any quantitative predictions, your theory cannot be proved.

The twin paradox is easily explained by relativity. In fact, it's the sort of problem one tackles pretty early in the semester in a class on relativity. The fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean no one understands it.

But let me guess -- you're going to leave it as someone else's duty to do your experiment for you. Meanwhile, even before any results are obtained, you are sure of your model.

If anyone had any quantitative reason to believe that such a simple experiment were capable of immediately disproving relativity, scientists would be literally jumping to be the first to do it. Keep in mind scientists are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on very complex satellites to test the finest and most subtle relativistic effects like frame-dragging. If they only needed an airplane and a couple of lasers to disprove one of the dominant scientific theories of the last century, do you really think they'd resist doing it? Nobels would be flying!

Randomness and uncertainty are the same thing. You're attempting to say that relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible. You are wrong. While a quantum field description of gravity is forthcoming, special relativity is used regularly in quantum mechanical analysis.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Have you even TRIED to learn how relativity works? Some of the brightest minds on this site have babysat through it so many times, and what, you just ignore it?

That's because the term 'illusion' is not scientifically precise. Relativistic effects are an observational result of moving at high relative velocities. Period. If you'd like to think of the absolute rest-frame as being "real" and the moving observer's view as being an "illusion," you're welcome to. On the other hand, the observer's view is just as real as anyone else's.

I can explain to you how the Lorentz transformations are a derived result from both a geometrical interpretation of the Michelson-Morely experiment, an algebraic result of an analysis of Maxwell's equations, and a very simple result of the simple axiom that light travels the same speed for all observers. In over a hundred years of trying, using anything from airplanes to cosmic rays to particle accelerators, no one has ever found a situation where light does not travel at c.

And your theory rests upon another set of axioms, just like relativity. A set of axioms, that, unlike those of relativity, have no experimental justification. At some point every scientific theory can be boiled down to some axioms, and no one will ever be able to say more about those axioms than just "that's just the way the world is." Your theory included.

- Warren

 

Thanks for the reply, James.

 

Hmm...

If gravity is due to the warpage of space-time under conditions that fall into the reference of general relativity, where small (sub kilogram) amounts of mass are in a state of extremely high energy, i.e., causing time dilation and thereby warping space-time due to light-speed accelleration, measureable and significant gravitational forces could be produced.

True or False?

JR, I hope the terms above are correct.

 

Re: Hmm...

What?

Acceleration doesn't cause curvature; mass density and energy density do. And what exactly is a "state of extremely high energy?"

- Warren

 

Ahhh...

Acceleration doesn't cause curvature; mass density and energy density do. And what exactly is a "state of extremely high energy?"
<HR>
I'm making tired infant noises now.

If you can tell me the difference between "accelleration to light speed" and "energy density," seeing as how they are inexorably linked, I would appreciate it. Oh, I didn't do the math on, "state of extremely high energy." but, I would assume, correctly, that when mass is traveling at the speed of light, or in transformation from mass to energy, that it is in such a state.

The question was: True or False?