Re: Joeblow "You can use math and logic to satisfy the concept of wormholes and white holes, but the reality is very different. " jeesh, what are comparing this to do you know the law of gravitation? I suppose so, then what has this to do with white holes etc. "So, first question is, what is light?" has nothing to do with SR it says light has a constant speed c which cannot be exceeded, that's it "What does light travel in? If its an Aether that Aether exists every where. This means it must have zero density, other wise you would feel it dragging on you." compare it to fluid crystals "How about this electricity and magnetism stuff. We can assume Maxwell is wrong, after all his theory led into Relativity." Maxwell's equations assumed the existence of an aether they haven't been changed so they still do "Mass, energy equivalenc forms a cornerstone of QM so we can throw out every thing we know about atoms, its based on Relativistic concepts." E=mc² predates Einstein "What is charge?" a property What is time? What is energy? All wrong questions. I think what you've just showed us is a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of what Einstein's theories stand for. It is much more about interpretation than naked facts. Dragging in technology is also irrelevant.
"This is due to the slowing down of time relative to the particle, just as Einstein's theories suggest." slowing down of time is the interpretation of it does that mean that time really slows down? Nope atomics clocks going at different at high speeds etc. are due to increase of kinetic energy see http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/kinetic/length.html for example before marmet wrote this paper, i had figured that out, just oversimplified now, what will be favored by occam's razor? I am not asking you for the 1000s of experiments that seem to support relativity I am asking for this small example: which one should be accepted taking occam's razor into account? a theory insisting that time is slowing etc. or the principle of mass-energy conservation in this case increase in kinetic energy? people, please stop being so irrational when discussing theories first of all there is the INTERPRETATION which can be very very different who said Einstein is useless? it's usefull, but there seem to be a growing body of evidence that things can be explained much more easily than relativity does Easier is Better.
Easier is better only if there is no loss in quality. But lets say you can explain the slowing of time (or lack thereof) using that link. What about the differences in length of an object when travelling at different speeds? Is there a simple explanation for this as well? What about the slowing of time just above a black hole's event horizon? If an object were to hover just above it, it would have no kinetic energy because it isn't moving. Yet, time still slows for the object due to the intense curvature around the black hole. Can this be explained simply as well?
Re: Re: Joeblow C'est mois, do you know General Relativity? Wormholes are otherwise called Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky Bridges and Wormholes are a result of the Schwarzschild metric being symmetric. The point that you totally missed is that the maths allows these exotic objects but that does not mean they have physical reality. Au contraire, it has everything to do with special relativity. Before Maxwell unfied electrical and magnetic forces into electromagnetism and explained light there was no description of what light was. I am using light as a generic descriptor for any EM wave. The problem, is you are not aware of it, is that Maxwells equations can not be easily transformed by the Galilean transform, pre-Relativistic phyics. Lorentz realised that the transforms worked if you made some wacky assumptions like time slows and length contracts at light speed. The γ correction in SR in other words. Einstein realised the physical signifinance of this. As Jame R points out his first paper was entitled "on the Electrodynamics of moving bodies". So, the nature of light and Einsteins theories are closely entwined. If Einstein is wrong, so is Lorentz. If Lorentz's transforms are wrong we are back to physics in the 1800's. Another point you and Joeblow totally missed. So, we know have to start again. As Maxwells equations do not work under a Galilean transform (which is well understood and time tested) and applying occams razor, Maxwell is likely wrong. So we know have to explain what is electricity, magnetism and light again. We have to find new theories that correctly explain these phenomen and work under the Galilean Transform. Alternatively, Lorentz and Einstein got it right other wise a lot of other physics is wrong (another point you have missed totally), physics used to build the technology of today So, I'm waiting, what is yours and Jowblows alternative to Maxwell that works with Galilean transforms and fully explains every experiment ever done in this field? Non Sequitor! You are evading the point, completely. Central to modern physics is the idea that light travels in no medium. It was largely thought to prior to the mid-1800's (funny it keeps coming back to this). Can you and Joeblow explain the results of Michelson and Morley without invoking an Aether. Do you really understand the significance of that experiment? Please expain to this sophont where in Maxwells equations there are terms for an Aether. Cite? Not at all. They are questions physics grappled with in the 1800's and where partially answered by the likes of Einstein, Heinsenberg, Born, Lorentz et al. If we are assuming these peoples theories are all wrong (as you are) you have to re-address the questions and come up with viable alternatives that also has to explain every experment ever done in the field since then. Can you? If not, put up or shut up. Oh. I don't think so. The interconnectedness of Physics and technology is quite strong. The behaviour of transistors was calculated from Quantum Mechanics, those transistors and modern IC's are a testament to QM. QM has a built in assumption that Einstein was right. If we drop Einstein we drop QM. Which means IC's are built with a flawed theory hence they should not work. GPS satellites have a relativistic correction built in. Atomic clocks use relativistic corrections. As I suspect you will ignore all this or make it irrelevant please show me where I am wrong? Hard examples, not hand waving. Equations, proofs, that sort if thing. The computer you are reading this on is a testament to the great work done in the early 1900's and alternative thinkers are simply sweeping it all away with out any knowledge of how things fit together.
Your main assumption is wrong. The main property of particles is not mass. Frankly, physics is struggling to answer these two basic questions, what is mass? what are particles? The Universe is truly a lot more complicated than we can realise. Simple assumptions like yours do not explain anything and completely ignore known facts. Long and short of it is tha nothing with mass travels at light speed. As Xelios points out, a fact that is verified thousands of times daily in particle accelerators and the detection of cosmic rays. See my response to C'est Moi for why this is decidely not a daft question. Prior to Maxwell it was assumed that travelled in a medium that had mass. Maxwells equations show no medium is required. But they do not work with pre-Relativistic physics. If we throw out relativity we have to go back to basics. For starters, you have to throw out Maxwells equations as they conflict with Newtonian physics. Which leads to the questions of what are light, electricity and magnetism. Friction and inertia always exists where there is matter acting on matter. Do you understand the difference between transmission of a wave and it's interaction with the medium through which it travels? Granted heat is generated by electrons in a conductor being captured and subsequently escaping their shells. Work is done, energy generated and heat produced. A superconductor is where, at sufficiently low temperatures, electrons form cooper pairs and flow unimpeded. It's a QM effect. It has little to do with the transmission of EM waves. My point, again missed, is that Relativity comes from kown problems with EM waves and Newtonian physics. Ignore one and you have to re-explain the other. Guess what, Einstein was not out to explain electricity and magnetism. That had been done. And yes, he only had a theory about gravity. (If we ignore the mass of work in QM theory he conributed to). Your point was? I'll say it again in case you are probably missing the very important point: The theory of electromagnetics, the unification of electricity and magnetism led directly to Relativity. It lies at the heart of what the Universe is and fundamental concepts of space and time. Light and Relativity are closely intertwined. Ignore Relativity and we go back to the beginning and have to ask what is electricity, magnetism, light, how light propagates and atoms behave. Can you? Can you make this work with only Newtonian Physics? Classic diversionary tatic, answer a question by asking one. I asked first, you answer. If you don't know what energy is you are hardly in a position to reformulate Physics. My definition is the rate of force acting over time dF/dt. A force being the acceleration you feel when in the presence of some field, such as electromagnetism and gravity. Fundamentally, it is the rate of work done. Non sequitor! Heisenberg, working on the German bomb, got it totally wrong. What does that prove? Nothing. Only that people make mistakes. They had no idea of the efficiency of the bomb. Hint, it was not 100%. Funnily, I can see the differences but I can also see how one concept leads to another and provides further evidence or proof of a concept. Can you? You can not formulate a theory of gravity without understanding the true nature of space, time and how light travels through it, first. To do this you need to first understand light and it's role. From these beginnings you rapidly get into QM then statistical thermodynamics, Astrophysics, modern chemistry, wave propagation, cosmology and so on. It's funny how so many advances where made once a few fundamental questions where looked at. Something you seem you think can be blithely ignored.
"What about the differences in length of an object when travelling at different speeds? Is there a simple explanation for this as well?" why don't you click with that mouse of yours on the link and read for yourself? "What about the slowing of time just above a black hole's event horizon?" may I remind you of the still hypothetical nature of black holes? okay?
Re: Re: Re: Joeblow "The interconnectedness of Physics and technology is quite strong." most technology in your house was invented by people who were considered being heretics technology doesn't require explanation if it works, it works "If we drop Einstein we drop QM." nope "GPS satellites have a relativistic correction built in. Atomic clocks use relativistic corrections." which as I said can be explained more easily
"E=mc² predates Einstein Cite? " study your history man are you one of those guys whose also unaware that the background radiation was predicted already in 1926 by Eddington who believed in a STATIC universe (he calculated a value of 3.2 K)?? "What is charge?" a property What is time? What is energy? All wrong questions. Not at all. They are questions physics grappled with in the 1800's and where partially answered by the likes of Einstein, Heinsenberg, Born, Lorentz et al." you must truly be a genius, are we of the same world? so you actually know WHAT time is, WHAT energy is (not what it DOES), etc.?? this man, is showing that you can't reason at all further discussion with you will only lead to going through the same stuff again you are seeing this in a whole different (wrong) way did you check out marmet's paper?
C'est moi Before this falls into ad hominens let me just say two things, Cite. Give me the exact details of who derived E=mc^2 before Einstein as per your claim. Avoiding and changing the issue does not cut it. Details matter, I have not read every paper ever written unlike your venal claims to know the absolute truth. Which part of 'partially explained' and the standard definition of energy did you not understand? funny is not, I give what I think is a reasonable explanation of energy, as asked, and all you can do is get sarcastic. Address the issues. If I am so wrong tell me where I am wrong. Simply saying I am wrong, and telling the others they are wrong, is not good enough. Precisely what part of my argument is wrong. What do you propose that is better? If your best answer is; study history, you can't argue with this man or read the kooks web page coached sarcastically then don't bother answering. I want specifics, details, something tangible that can be verified. You claim to have a Ph.D. you know the ropes. There are 4 things about the Spanish Inquisition.
"If you can't push an object to c because of it's mass, what about pulling it with gravity?? It wouldn't matter if you pushed or pulled, accelerating a massive particle to light speed requires infinite energy, which is why it can't be attained." I was wondering if anyone might be able to answer this question: Can a blackhole or super blackhole accelerate an object to c? As Xelios pointed out, the mass of the object would increase as it aproaches light speed. But according to Einstein, the gravitational field of the object would increase as well, so the force of the black hole on the object would also increase as the object gets faster and closer to the black hole. According to Einstein, the mass of the object would get larger until it is more massive then the black hole itself. The object would then actually swallow the black hole. Since this doesn't happen, I assume Einstein was wrong. Any feedback would be appreciated. Tom
The formula (derived from Pythagoras - and inconsistently assuming Euclidean geometry) is estimated mass = m0/square root of (1-v2/c2) The well-known series expansion approximation gives estimated mass = m0 (1 + v2/c2/2) or estimated mass.c2 = m0c2 + 1/2.m0v2 The expression 1/2.m0v2 is well known as the formula for kinetic energy; and it came to be accepted - following Poincaré, Burniston Brown says - that mc2 represented the 'potential energy' in some sense, since potential energy can be defined in terms of any starting-point. All this follows, for smallish v, only from the equation for the mass increase of an electron It might also be interesting to know that technologists generating, or trying to generate, nuclear energy, think in terms of nuclear rearrangement and do not use the formula usually attributed to Einstein. As for your definition of Energy ...: "the rate of force acting over time dF/dt." you have misdefined it another popular one is "energy is the capacity to work" these are obviously not identities! Well, energy can be changed in form and that is work. But energy is not the "capacity to change its own form", but is its own form, as can be seen. so it turns out that your defention is not saying WHAT energy is, rather what it is known to do is that so difficult to understand for you? apparently
let me present you an example which shows relativity is wrong: Cosmologists have chosen to ignore the observations of two astronomers of Villanova University in Pennsylvania. Edward Guinan and Frank Maloney proved Einstein wrong by drawing attention to the measured the rate of perihelion motion of the two stars forming the double star system DI Herculis. Einstein's theory required that their anomalous rate of advance of perihelion should be some 196 times faster than it is for planet Mercury. It was found to be only one seventh of the predicted amount for the classical and relativistic effects combined! Einstein's theory was wrong. A small additional component was also required from Newtonian gravitational theory, owing to the astrophysicist's assumption that the gaseous plasma constituting a star can be dragged by gravitational action of the other star in a binary pair. In the event, it was found that the observed rate of perihelion advance was so small as to rule out any prospect of Einstein's theory being of any relevance, but, surprisingly, the plasma drag was not in evidence either. Now, what might that prove? Well, if you know anything about electric and gravitational potentials in stars being in balance, you should understand that the action between matter in two stars in a binary system will conform with the same principle. In other words, there can be no gravitational drag effect adding to the perihelion advance. There can be no gravitational 'tide' effects if the star has a uniform mass density. In that context it reacts as if it were a homogeneous solid. The Guinan and Maloney observations, can be found on p. 23 of the August 29, 1985 issue of New Scientist. have a good read
I seem to get a different answer, estimated mass = em = m0 (1 + v2/c2/2) hence, em = m0 (1+2*v2/c2) or, em = m0 + m0 *2 * v2 / c2 => em * c2 = m0* c2 + 2*m0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SPOT THE ERROR em * c2 = m0* c2 + 2*m0*v2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But anyway, you have still not answered the very direct questions I am asking. Where am I wrong? You keep changing direction and dragging up different points to shift the direction of this argument. It was claimed Einstein was wrong and I posted a rebbutal of the point. No one has yet to address that. ============================================== Edited to add a SPOT THE ERROR ==============================================
Some one got this wrong. Your relativistic mass, to use the older term, increases. This does not mean your gravitational field increases. Think of it this way, by a simple question, how fast are we travelling? With respect to a distant galaxy we are travelling near light speed, so we are a black hole already. This is an obvious absurdity. The point is that all things are relative.
Some one got this wrong. Your relativistic mass, to use the older term, increases. This does not mean your gravitational field increases. Think of it this way, by a simple question, how fast are we travelling? With respect to a distant galaxy we are travelling near light speed, so we are a black hole already. This is an obvious absurdity. The point is that all things are relative. Also, the gravitational force of an object depends on it's mass and distance. An object entering a black hole could not exceed the black hole's mass because in order for this to happen the black hole would need a larger gravitational pull than it's mass would allow. Much like absolute zero can't be reached because there is nothing colder than it to absorb energy from an object. You also seem to forget, Tom, that as the mass of a black hole increases so does the size of it's event horizon. The object would probably be inside the event horizon before it could accelerate to c (which isn't possible anyway). may I remind you of the still hypothetical nature of black holes? okay? Yes, black holes are still for the most part hypothetical. However, the effects of gravity on time are not. Can you answer the question? The Guinan and Maloney observations, can be found on p. 23 of the August 29, 1985 issue of New Scientist. have a good read Have these observations been tried by other scientists in different parts of the world? Have they been reproducable at all? If you are trying to disprove a theory that has given accurate and detailed results to many problems plaguing physics this century with a single observation made by two scientists 17 years ago I'd have to ask you to try a little harder.
"hence, em = m0 (1+2*v2/c2) " this step is wrong, can't put the 2 overthere just like that (it's: v2/c2) ------- 2 anyway, have you read the above? direct proof against general relativity further you have those so-called "paradoxes" (for example the clock paradox where relativity principle is in dispute with the Lorentz transformations) which are not paradoxes at all but real problems let me explain one of them: this time it is in statics: there is this lever with two equal arms at right angles and pivoted at the corner. It is kept in equilibrium by two equal forces producing equal and opposite couples. according to the Lorentz transformation equations referred to a system moving with respect to the lever system, the couples are no longer equal so the lever should be seen to rotate, which is, of course, absurd. Tolman tried to overcome this by saying that there was a flow of energy entering one lever arm and passing out through the pivot, just stopping the rotation! Overlooking the fact that energy is a metrical term and not anything physical there would presumably be some heating in the process which is not considered. Statics provides insuperable difficulties for the physical interpretation of Lorentz transformation equations and this part of mechanics is avoided in the textbooks – in fact, Einstein omits statics in his definition: “The purpose of mechanics is to describe how bodies change their position in space with time” i'm not avoiding anything, you rather are you're not even willing to read a paper which is available on the web concerning special relativity i would understand it if it was in some scientific magazine which you gotta go and search in a library at a uni, but all you have to do is click with your mouse on the link if wanna go search an article, search for this one: What is wrong with relativity by G. Burniston Brown in the BULLETIN of The Institute of Physics and the Physical Society, pp. 71-77, March 1967 the question is: would you be ready to accept any evidence against it? or have you last your heart to relativity? - Special Relativity is like smoking, no one likes it at first, is starts because of peer pressure, it is addictive, it is bad for you, and it is very hard to quit once you start
as for what should replace relativity I have no idea Marmet seems to be able to explain a whole lot of things with newtonian physics and quantum physics alone maybe it should be autodynamics http://www.autodynamics.org whatever it is that we humans say, nature will never reveal all her secrets we are always bounded to our perceptions we can never be sure of anything
I am not "addicted" to relativity. However I will not change my mind about one of the most important theories to have been discovered in physics because a few people think the idea of curved space is silly. If you present hard evidence that disproves relativity I will have no problem reassessing my views, until then relativity continues to provide accurate and correct answers to many problems in physics and conforms to the vast majority of observations. To claim it is completely wrong is extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.
"However I will not change my mind about one of the most important theories to have been discovered in physics because a few people think the idea of curved space is silly." i think i have said more than that the rest of what you say speaks for itself (and address the specific issues that i have raised)
"Have these observations been tried by other scientists in different parts of the world? Have they been reproducable at all? If you are trying to disprove a theory that has given accurate and detailed results to many problems plaguing physics this century with a single observation made by two scientists 17 years ago I'd have to ask you to try a little harder." do you think i am aware of all the observations over the past years? i happen to know about this one there might be more have heard many times that "all there needs to be is ONE experiment that contradicts relativity ... " what is this? oh and observations are not "reproduced", they are confirmed and it seems to me that New scientist is a good and reliable magazine, i have NO reason to believe that it is a wrong observation peer-review is succesfull in eleminating doubtful stuff if this is your answer, then consider it poor besides, as said before, these paradoxes in relativity are fundamental problems, they're not paradoxes at all
