Alternative to Special Relativity

Re: Ahhh...

Acceleration - n. a change in velocity.
Energy density - n. energy per unit volume.

- Warren

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Warren

Thank you:

Effects of nuclear detonation:

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 accellerated to near light speed, resulting in a high energy density at specific coordinates in space, the following effects near the source of detonation occur:

1) Time dilation
2) Measureable tidal fluctuations in gravity
3) Exponential increases in the density of mass

Effects one and two are due in part to the high density electromagnetic field created during detonation. The warpage of space time produces the above effects most measureably during the peak of the explosion. Though ineffiecient in its current form, contolled nuclear reactions could produce the above effects to a fractional degree. Studies are being conducted to manipulate space-time through similar effects to power inter-stellar craft with "energy dense" drives to increase range and maximum speed.

True or False?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Warren

Didn't I already explain to you why this is all crap? Are you blind?

- Warren

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

warren

Time dilation is a result of space-time warpage. Gravity is directly affected by space-time warpage. If you are about to tell me I'm wrong, argue with JR.

It is a documented proof that nuclear detonation causes significant space-time warpage and time dilation due to the high EM levels and energy density near the source.

Why are you toying with me about this?
Or, were you unaware of it?

 

Re: warren

For the love of Pete, please try to learn the right terminology so I can at least follow you. You're right, gravitational time dilation is caused by strong curvature of space.

Gravity is another way to think about the curvature of space.

What? Why would I need to argue with JR about something clear as day?

Oh? Where is your documented proof? How exactly can any sort of explosion, be it chemical or nuclear, somehow CREATE ADDITIONAL MASS OR ENERGY? As I've said at least twice now, the sum of energy and mass is CONSTANT THROUGHOUT AN EXPLOSION. MASS IS CONVERTED TO ENERGY. The curvature of space is NOT CHANGED by an explosion.

You've got to be kidding me.

- Warren

 

chroot

Since you know it's coming..


True or False?

 

Re: chroot

<H1><B><I>FALSE!!!!</I></B></H1>

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- Warren

 

Hi Tom,

"Relativity, on the other hand, never bothers to explain why time dilation occurs."

It does...

Bye!

Crisp

 

chroot,

You've mentioned the twin paradox two or three times already on sciforums, but you still haven't explained it. If the explanation is so simple, share it with us.

After doing some thinking, I've found that the speed of an airplane through the Earth's atmosphere would not be sufficient to disprove the principle of invariance of light. As I demonstrated in the "Michelson-Morley Experiment" thread, if the airplane was travelling at 30,000 m/s (the speed of the Earth around the Sun) through the Earth's gravitational field, there would still only be a 4.8 degree phase difference between the two beams of light in the Michelson-Morley inferometer (although Crisp came up with a different number).

So, if a speed of 30,000 m/s will barely show interference patterns in the M-M apparatus, then the speed of an airplane will definitely not show any interference patterns. The best place to put the M-M apparatus to test my theory would be in the space shuttle. During re-entry the space shuttle travels at 20,000 km/h, which is about 1/5 of the speed of the Earth around the Sun. At 20,000 km/h, there would be a phase difference of less than 1 degree between the two beams of light in the M-M apparatus. Even though this phase difference would be detectable with todays equipment, scientists (pro-relativists) will probably just claim that the interference patterns are caused by the vibration, etc, of the shuttle and not because the speed of light is changing relative to the shuttle.

So, chroot, it appears that you are right. It will not be as easy to test my theory as I originally thought.

No, I'm saying the relativity and uncertainty are incompatable with logic.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Tom

 

Crisp,

As far as I know, relativity explains when time dilation occurs, but it doesn't explain why it occurs. If I'm wrong, please explain.

I see that you've been reading this thread, but you still didn't share your opinion about my theory. Do you think that it's possible that the omnidirectional speed of light is only c in the gravitational field that the light finds itself in at the moment?? Wouldn't this explain the lack of interference patterns in the Michelson-Morley experiment without having to introduce two new phenomena into physics (time dilation and length contraction)??

Tom

 

Why time dilation occurs

Time dilation occurs due to the relative speed of light, which is the limit of speed for all mass and energy. When matter approaches these speeds, the warpage of space-time has a profound effect on atomic structure. Analogous to the centrifugal force applied to a race car tire, which has an inherent limit of its ability to retain proper shape at increasing revolutions per second. When mass is traveling at significant fractions of c, space-time becomes warped, or compressed around the matter of which the object is made. This causes a change in the geometry of atomic structure.

Time-dilation is a term to describe the slowing of atomic cycles due to these effects.

 

Fluidity,

We already had a discussion about this on sciforums before (I believe it was before you came). There was a general consensus that relative mass increase does not result in an increase of gravitational mass. Since gravitational mass does not increase as an object moves faster, it is logical to assume that the space-time around the mass doesn't change either.

Tom

 

all...

Since gravitational mass does not increase as an object moves faster, it is logical to assume that the space-time around the mass doesn't change either.
<HR>
Changes in space-time directly affect gravity. Gravity is the result of changes in space-time. Time-dilation also occurs under intense gravity for the same reason it happens at significant fractions of c, and time-dilation occurs at speeds that are not a significant fraction of c and under slight changes in gravity; they simply are not measureable with our current technology.

You refute the very principles of general and special relativity if you ignore the effects motion has on gravity and time.

You further ignore the implicit connection between motion and space-time if you do not include the effects motion has on space-time and how these changes affect mass, therefore gravity.

I do not pretend to be a physicist, but I challenge any former discussions you, warren, or JR have had that deny a connection between motion(energy), gravity, and time. These are fundamental concepts that are not taken into consideration in Newtonian physics, hence the need for general and special relativity.

Lacking the credentials or even the math skills to define these principles places me in a very vulnerable position, even when I am absolutely correct in my understanding of these principles.
I would not take anything you read on this site, including what I have just described, as truth.

It is apparent to me that an individual's level of education is sometimes disproportionate to their ability to comprehend multiple dynamics in concert. I have seen this many times in the field of engineering. What is <i>actually</i> happening in a complicated process is not always tangible to the most educated engineer. It is the intuitive mind that senses what preliminary evidence often contradicts.

That said, never question the source of any thought that has the ability to teach.

 

Spend a little elbow grease learning for a change, Tom. It's worth it.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html

The space shuttle moves at 20,000 km/hr all the time in its orbit.

The earth moves around the sun at 30 km/sec; the Sun moves around the galaxy with another velocity I can't recall right now; the galaxy moves around the local group; etc. Why do you think that your additional 20,000 km/hr will make any difference when there is already so much more motion?

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick

- Warren

 

chroot,

My theory states that the speed of light is only dependent on the local gravititational field, and not on the speed of the gravitational field through space.

That means that the rotation of the Earth, revolution of the Earth around the Sun, revolution of the Sun around the galaxy, etc, won't affect light that is close to the surface of the Earth because light uses gravitational fields as a medium of travel, and not space.

Let me repeat an analogy I stated before:

Let's assume that you had a fish in a fishtank sitting on a table in your bedroom. Let's say that it takes your fish two seconds to swim from one side of the fishtank to the other.

Now, let's say that we put your fishtank in a very fast airplane. How long will it now take your fish to swim from one side of the tank to the other?? The answer is that it would take the same amount of time as if the tank was not moving. This is because the fish uses the water in the tank for propulsion, and not the air outside of the airplane. The fish doesn't care how fast the tank is flying through the air. The speed of the tank through the air has no influence on the fish.

Now take the above analogy and replace the air with space, the water with a gravitational field, and the fish with a photon. The photon is in a medium (gravitational field), which is in another medium (space). Since the photon uses the gravitational field as its medium, the speed of the gravitational field through space won't affect the photon. The omnidirectional speed of the photon will always, and only, be c in the gravitational field in which it finds itself in at any given moment, regardless of the speed of the gravitational field through space.

This would mean that the omnidirectional speed of light close to the surface of the Earth, relative to the surface of the Earth, would be c since the Earth drags its gravitational field around with it. Only if you were moving relative to the Earth's gravitational field, or any other gravitational field, would you observe that light was slowing down (or speeding up) in your frame of reference.

Tom

 

It seems to be that you just continue to add more and more and more conditions to your model. There are exceptions to every exception to every rule. And in the end it doesn't predict anything different than plain ol' vanilla relativity theory. What's the point?

- Warren

 

chroot,

There are no exceptions in my theory, and since my first post on this thread, I haven't added anything to my theory. I am just trying to explain it in different ways so that everyone can understand.

And it's a hell of a lot different than relativity. Relativity claims that the omnidirectional speed of light is equal to c in all frames of reference. My theory states that the omnidirectional speed of light is only c in the local gravitational field. So, unlike relativity, my theory states that if you move through a gravitational field, the omnidirectional speed of light WON'T be c in your frame of reference. This change in the speed of light in your frame of reference, will result in chemical reactions occurring at a slower rate, which will make it seem like time is slowing down (relative to an observer that is stationairy in the gravitational field).

Tom

 

This would lead to the conclusion that, in the absence of any measurable gravitational field, uniform straight-line motion would not result in time dilation?

It's really just a shame that relativistic effects require such high velocities to be observed... if we could just build a vehicle capable of showing a person what things look like at even 0.5c, there would be no more question. You don't understand the math, and that severely handicaps your critical thinking skills. I don't mean to sound condescending, but once you understand how it works, it's simple, beautiful, elegant, and dare I say obvious.

You just won't put down your conspiracy-theory guard long enough to allow yourself to understand it so deeply.

- Warren

 

chroot,

No. As I explained to James earlier in this thread, gravitational fields are everywhere. Even empty space has a gravitational field (even though it is very weak). So there is nowhere that light can go without there being a gravitational field present.

Tom

 

So you're effectively just exchanging the words 'space' and 'gravitational field.' What does this obfuscation buy us?

- Warren