# relativity

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by apolo, Feb 17, 2003.

1. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104

ryans,

ANS: I guess we should all be glad that they didn't have you designing nukes. LOL with your knowledge of nuclear physics.

to hide all adverts.
3. ### ryansCome to see me about a dog heyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
995
I bet my knowledge of nuclear physics is better than your though Mac.

Explain to me please Mac, that if relativity is invalid, how your theory encompasses the mass energy relationship. Also, how are neutron capture cross sections affected by the failure of relativity.

to hide all adverts.
5. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
Relativity is only consistant if you first ignore the conditions of the test and my statement.
You didn't have enough initial conditions... that was the problem. You were relying on some form of FTL communication to tell times.

Upon return of the clocks for comparison clock C would need to be able to display (3) different times to satisfy three observers view of clock C when the test ended (which is when their clock stops in their view).

Those numbers you are listing are not for when all the clocks are returned to one point.

You have yet to show a contradiction... and yet again claim that you have. And none of this "you are too close minded to see it" bs. Every so called contradiction that you point out has been explained to you, and your retort is always that you still believe it to be wrong anyway.

to hide all adverts.
7. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
I don't know guys... I'm beginning to see MacM's point on this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

See... here's how I solved this problem:

First, we'll work in natural units (where c = h-bar = G = U).

We'll start with the Lorentzian, sqrt( 1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup> )

integral( sqrt( 1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup> ) ) = 1 + U, where U x ~ = G, where G is, of course, the Newtonian gravitational 3-vector.

Since G is orthogonal to both U and ~, we can calculate ~:

~ = sqrt( 1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup> ) x G = (m<sub>1</sub> * m<sub>2</sub>) * integral( C<sub>s</sub> d<font face=symbol>l</font> ),

where C<sub>s</sub> is, of course, the cones of sources trig.

Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, along with the WKB approximation and the gauge freedom present in the representation of C<sub>s</sub> on SU(3), we can dictate that

<font face=symbol>t</font><sub>c</sub> = <font face=symbol>s</font>T<sup>4</sup> = (m<sub>1</sub> * m<sub>2</sub>) * integral( C<sub>s</sub> d<font face=symbol>l</font> )

Therefore T = 4th root( m<sub>1</sub> * m<sub>2</sub> ) * G x L,

where L is the Lagrangian of Clock C.

After insertion into the Lorentz relativity condition, we find that Clock B is actually moving at 2.88c w.r.t. Clock C.

And thus Clock B reads, not 4.37 hours, but 4.24 hours.

MacM, I think you just might have something with UniKEF after all.....

- Warren

edit: Mac correctly showed me that the formula should be *, not +. The correction made the prediction change by 0.05 hours, or about 3 minutes. Sorry, Mac, you're right.

Last edited: May 23, 2003
8. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Interesting

ryans,

ANS: I might very loose that challenge. My education (and it was college level taught by degreed professors) on nuclear engineering was 40 years ago. Not only has this old brain forgotten some but I'm sure there has been some advances I am unaware of. However, nuclear engineering is not exactly the same as nuclear physics although there is appreciable overlap in subject matter.

My point was aimed at your absolutest view about Relativity.

I just envisioned if we had fair early arning of incoming and attempted to flee the GZ that you would invoke Relativity to show that the faster we fled the greater the mass, hence the yield of the bomb. Plus the faster we flee the closer we get to the GS because of Lorentz Contraction and finally due to time dilation the longer we would be subjected to the affects.

Ultimately you reach a point that your little 10KT bomb becomes a infinite mass universe doom machine of which you remain at GZ and are engulfed in its furry eternnaly.

Struck me funny that Relativity would become such a religous subject of Biblical faith in enternal hell. - hence the ryans nukes comment.

I don't want to get into another round of preaching UniKEF here but briefly in that view relavistic mass doesn't exist.

Just as an object in motion generates and orthogonal EM wave and its dimension contract in the vector of motion, the energy being applied becomes bifurcated orthogonally such that less and less of it is applied in the vector of motion.

The excess energy is stored in the fabric of time-space, simular to the field around a coil. As a consequence the energy transfer efficiency is decreasing, not the mass increasing as you get into relavistic accelerations.. At v = c energy transsfer efficiency will be "0" hence infinite energy is applied to space but not acceleration.

Upon deceleration this energy returns from space (like the field around a coil whien it collapses, or a flywheel affect which give the initial rest mass greater momentum than appears valid for its velocity making it appear its mass had increased.

The fact would be that there was no mass increase what-so-ever which accounts for the lack of enhanced gravity or objects becoming black holes at near v = c.

In this view ALL observations, All mathematics of energy vs velocity and All test data are preserved, yet there is no mass increase.

I have never seen barns cross-section associtated with relavistic velocity. It is associated with "thermal" velocity neutrons. Various moderatoers may be used to thermalize fast neutron to increase the barns value.

report | quote | edit | 05-22-03 at 08:40 AM

9. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Claims

Persol,

ANS: FTL was suggested late in the arguement but rejected since it has not and may not ever be achieved but my initial solution (for which the group said couldn't be achieved) was to simply rely upon relativity to stop the clocks.

ANS: But they are. If you stop viewing clock "C" when your clock is stopped by clock "C" those are the times, unless you also disagree with James R. that has agreed to this point.

And as such is what the observer A & B should expect clock C to read upon return. The addition of simultaneity and having clock C to run out to 10 hours in their view is subsequent to the donditions of the test. It makes Relativity mathematical consistant but still observationally invalid.

ANS: I would have to disagree on several points but will just address the one most important one here.

The fact that A & B see different time accumulate on clock C during their clocks run time during the test, yields a conflict with reality since we all agree that clock C, the controlling clock actually runs 10 hours. To say that that is not a contridiction is simply being stuborn and refusing to acknowledge that my initial arguement was valid at least in principle.

10. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Funny

chroot,

Funny ch. You shouldn't have used my screwed up formulation, you just might have snowed me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

11. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
First, we'll work in natural units (where c = h-bar = G = U).
I thought that using h=c=1 was a simplification which later required you to use conversion factors... since pi changes
You probably took care of this... I just don't see where

12. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
Awww man.... back to the drawing board.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- Warren

13. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Watching

chroot,

I see that I am going to have to watch you more closely from now on.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

14. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
Re: Watching

Why is that?

I updated my calculation, can you look at it again?

- Warren

Last edited: May 23, 2003
15. ### ryansCome to see me about a dog heyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
995
The cross-section is a function of the wavelength of the neutron, a purely QM phenonemon, this what is your relationship between energy of the neutron and its wavelength if relativity is invalid, and hence so is the relativistic formulation of energy?

16. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Amazed

chjroot,

ANS: Amazing how well you understand it all.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Actually you gave me a good laugh.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

17. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Not necessairly so.

ryans,

ANS: Granted their is a connection between wave and energy, hence the thermalization process and achieving the optimum barns cross-section.

However, the energy range is no where near relavistic proportions where any signifigant difference, much less failute of absorbtion and fission would occur. That is Newtonian principles of thermalization is more than adequate to achieve the process.

Do while (assuming it is valid) Relativity is involved to some minimal degree, its absence however would not stop the process.

As far as E=mc^2, I find the approximation adequate but no evidence of direct correlation to Relativity. And don't bother posting the derivations, I have seen them.

How do I explain? Well consider a 50 gallon barrel of beans, all perfectly identical. I want to know the number of beans in the barrel.

1 - I could just count them

2 - I could weigh one bean and divide the net weight of beans in the barrel and derive the same answer.

3 - I could calculate the density of a bean, compute the density of the barrels contents and get the same answer.

There are many many more ways to determine how many beans in the barrel. Mathematically they all provide the same answer.

E=mc^2 does not necessarily mean Mass to energy conversion is a Relavistic function. Or are you trying to tell us that as I posted above "Ryans nukes" will go from 10KT to a Zillion MT yield if it is just delivered at high enough velocity?

One last point.

1 - I know and accept you have a greater depth of education.

2 - My education was college level but that was 40 years ago. So not only may I be rusty in areas but things have changed since my days.

3 - In my day we were the elite. We developed the process and indeed members of our outfit gave their lives literally doing the basic research that you now read about and are so proud to know.

I am assuming you have heard of the SL-1. If not let me suggest you search it out and learn the story. (1961). That was us and frankly your attitude about who we were and who I am does piss me off. But I can deal with it so just have fun.

Last edited: May 23, 2003
18. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
Re: Amazed

Why do you keep laughing at me? I'm trying to understand your damn theory. Help me.

- Warren

19. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
If that were Genuine I would be Honored

chroot,

If that were a genuine solicitation I would be honored to have "Your Help".

My whole purpose coming here was not to piss off a bunch of people but to add some teeth to the concept.

But as you know it, nor I am in much of a position to be teaching to the better educated.

Maybe someday when I have gained an once of respect here and people are serious about considering alternatives, then maybe.

Meanwhile lets argue about somethingelse.:bugeye:

20. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
Re: If that were Genuine I would be Honored

Mac, it's genuine... what do you mean? I finally try and make sense of your theory, and you won't help me?
So wait, you won't teach me how to use your theory properly? I used it, but got 4.24 hours. You claim relativity gave 4.37 hours. I'm seeing that I need to do some thinking on the issue now. How would my solution of 4.24 hours, using UniKEF, affect the rest of the 3-clock problem?

- Warren

21. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Are We Going to Dance All Night

chroot,

Are we going to dance all night. Your post is babble and you know it. It has nothing to do with UniKEF and the miniscule extract you have taken from it has nothing to do with time dilation but gravity.

I know you think I am stupid but surely you don't think I am so stupid to not recognize the meaning of some of my own writtings.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There is no mathematics in UniKEF dealing with "Time-Dilation" only text and it is only suggestive and not stated as being physical reality but merely food for tought.

I'm really not that vain or gullible ch. Nice try though

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

22. ### chrootCrackpot killerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,350
Re: Are We Going to Dance All Night

Why, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black... psssssssh.

- Warren

23. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
30,862
MacM:

<i>2 - But the "Yes" answer to my question still means my original premis is valid. Real clocks cannot display the times expected by observers.</i>

Wrong. See my previous explanation.

<i>Recognizing that what A & B see are not real, that clock C is actually stopped at 10 hours and allowing clocks to run after their clock has stopped to make them read the real time is neither the question nor the answer.</i>

This answer abides absolutely by the terms of the test which you specified. You can't wriggle out of that. There is no way you can first make C the controlling clock and then pretend that either A or B is really in control. And there's no way you can impose some kind of absolute notion of simultaneity on a relativistic problem, as you keep trying to do.

<i>Relativity is only consistant if you first ignore the conditions of the test and my statement.</i>

Wrong. See my previous explanations.

<i>Upon return of the clocks for comparison clock C would need to be able to display (3) different times to satisfy three observers view of clock C when the test ended (which is when their clock stops in their view).</i>

This is annoying. You have simply ignored everything I have tried to teach you in this discussion and reverted back to your initial position. That's anti-intellectual.

<i>This may ultimately have nothing to do with mathematical consistancy but it darn sure has to do with Relativity being observationally invalid.</i>

You have given absolutely no indication that there is anything wrong with relativity. Your example has been totally explained using the theory of relativity. There are no contradictions or inconsistencies. To claim otherwise is to ignore everything I've said.

<i>To state that time is being dilated as a physical reality but to not address the fact that some observations of such time dilation is in fact only "Perception" and not physical reality to me invalidates the claims of Relativity.</i>

There is no meaningful physical distinction between perception and reality. Perception <b>is</b> reality for the observer.

<i>To say the least it makes it poorely articulated and defended.</i>

Well, thanks for nothing. I guess I'm wasting my time with you.

<i>It seems my primary (I started to say "only" but that would have been untrue) error here was to post in the first instance the words "Relativity Sucks and is invalid".</i>

No. Your errors have been pointed out time and again. Everybody reading this thread can see them except you.