Notices
Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Alternative to Einsteins theories

  1. #1 Alternative to Einsteins theories 
    Guest
    Ah yes...I think half of the readers that clicked here cringed before entering. To be frank, so did I. Well, I wrote this here in Pseudoscience since, given the nature of the statements, it probably should be considered as such. HAve fun reading (although I don't have mathematical calculations yet, it's all hypothesis).

    There are a few hypothetical "errors" in Einsteins theories. One is that as you move faster things slow down. Technically, as you move faster your perception will increase within the speed increased area and the speed of the atoms within your body and everything else will increase. Thus, instead of time AROUND you increasing, you have it slowing DOWN for as long as your perception remains in that insanely fast state. It's like on earth, if you could speed yourself up enough, your perception would increase to a higher rate and thus things around you would move slower.

    The problem with scientists and claiming to have launched "tests" to prove the theory that time moves faster as you do, is that so far, what I've read is that the numerical difference is so small it's small enough to be a joke. I think they're failing to factor in the clock inaccuracies. I mean, you can't have a perfect *EXACT* decimal match. The only way to accurately test it would be to build something that COULD go fast enough to make a difference, which with todays technology, I don't believe one could find that difference. Really, the only plausable way I see for it to even be possible is if you're already in the "past" technically, and matter moves insanely faster then originally thought. As such, the faster you move, you end up catching up to them (Hey, it is labeled pseudoscience. I'm just wildly speculating here).

    Still, the time travel aspect is possible in theory, I just don't really think that at the speeds currently acheivable you can ACCURATELY state the theory is correct or if Einsteins theory is correct.. I think the main issue here lies with the concept of space. Space itself, is quite possibly the very meaning of nothing. It has no mass, no matter, no existence, it's basically the absence of all things (unless there is some crazy theory I've yet to read). TIME, however, is a concept. It's the rate in which we preceive things to progress through their atomic decay and rate of change. Thus, I don't really believe you can combine the two concepts because they don't really act the same. Since space has no matter, or apparent mass (the matter does, space itself does not. Remove all the matter in the universe and you end up with nothing. Hence, space being nothing >.>) it would be logical to conclude that time does not behave like space, and thus space itself is outside of time since it has no atomic decay or progression.

    The only way I believe Einsteins theory would work was if space *WAS* connected to time as opposed to time just being the rate of atomic decay. However, so far, that doesn't SEEM to be the case. Another issue, is wormholes and black holes (which people actually take the name as being a literal hole). Now, with Einsteins theory, a black hole creates a "rip" or "tear" in spacetime (actually, to quote wikipedia, it folds it in on itself). Since this is the result, a literal "hole" is formed that sucks in matter from the folded point in spacetime and is compressed to infinitely small perportions. The issue with this lies in the fact that when you IGNORE spacetime, and the theory, it makes infinitely more sense for a star to become so massive that when it attempts to explode or implode, the center of it is already compressed to fairly high amounts and the gravity pulls BACK the expanding matter so quickly that the resulting compression supersizes the energy output and gravitational pull until a so much matter is pulled in that it's own light can't escape. In theory, a neutron star is a failed black hole because not enough matter was compressed quickly enough for the resulting gravitational force it be strong enough to pull it's own light back in.

    So far, when you ignore certain spacetime concepts, the reality of it appears much more logical. As opposed to being INFINITELY compressed and requiring INFINITE energy to escape, you could squash the numbers and have a reletively sane compression (although compared to everything else, REALLY MASSIVE), but still a very high energy output required to escape. Assuming nothing can travel faster than light, then yes it's impossible. But then, according to possible atomic acceleration, when you have a ship that can travel at such speeds WITHOUT falling appart from the gravitational forces, you would just need to increaset the speed past that of light. Light isn't a limiter to my knowledge, it's only a limiter on light itself and the particles that emit light. When you travel fast enough and the atoms within the speed increased area are increased enough, theoretically the light atoms will increase as well and break former "barriers" so that you can still preceive light in a sense. Although this is more of a hypothesis than a theory, since I have no mathematical evidence written by myself to back this up as it's mostly speculation about the behavior. So feel free to *HEAVILY* correct me if I'm wrong >.>.

    And I'd continue with other concepts of Einsteins theory, but I just know I'm probably going to be lynched for even PONDERING an alternative. That and I'm getting lazy so...yeah. Also: Eventually I'll come up with mathematical equations if it turns out my hypothetical reasoning is closer to accurate then it is now. If it even is accurate. Given my luck, I probably misunderstood the whole theory. Hahaha


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Alternative to Einsteins theories 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    The problem with scientists and claiming to have launched "tests" to prove the theory that time moves faster as you do, is that so far, what I've read is that the numerical difference is so small it's small enough to be a joke. I think they're failing to factor in the clock inaccuracies.
    You couldn't be more wrong than a senile armadillo claiming to be the Queen of England.

    The accuracy of the measuring devices and experimental processes are the cornerstone of any scientific investigation. Any scientist who failed to properly address these issues would be torn limb from limb, in the unlikelyt event his paper even made it to print.

    The test has been run and the predictions confirmed.

    "During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."
    J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972)

    Source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...iv/airtim.html
    Edit: the link seems no longer to be working. I shall post an alternative when I locate one.

    I applaud your perspicacity in placing this in the pseudoscience section. Welcome to The Science Forum, by the way.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    Also, it has been observed that as on object velocity increases, its mass increases. How would you explain this? There is also the problem of producing a corresponding theory for gravity.
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    what makes the mass increase? as the speed increase the kinetic energy of the object increases.
    E=MC²
    so then must the mass increase.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    Two problems with your idea. First of all, give me the equation for kenetic energy without relativity and tell me why it approaches infinity as v approaches c. Also, derive E=mc<sup>2</sup> without relatvity.
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Guest
    actually, foolish me, I forgot to mention the tests that they were conducted in SPACE. What I meant was those tests, as ones I've heard about never seemed very conclusive. On earth I can't really argue with the possibility that it has that effect, since earth is different from space in a number of aspects, I shouldn't really dare claim it wouldn't work on earth because I don't really know . The focus hear is if it works in SPACE conditions. If you could find a link concerning those tests, I'd be very thankful.

    Anyway, Zelos is correct, Einsteins theory of E=MC2 sort of explains it. Unless I'm missing something at the moment. I'm fairly tired, so please excuse that.

    And thanks for welcoming me. I would also like it if you were to comment on the rest of it, rather than just that one sector and a link. The more objectivity the better.

    Now for Vroomfondel's question: There's nothing wrong with applying E=MC2 with this current theory. Thus far, I've found no issue in it. I'm focusing on what I think might be an alternative to some of einsteins theories. To be honest, E=MC2 is pretty much a perfect equation, and works well with a number of theoretical instances. When a theory *CAN'T* use E=MC2, then you may have a problem. As for gravity, electromagnetics works pretty much fine. Although, again, it's not really refined enough to be used as a perfect example, since the UFT hasn't been perfectly implemented (From what I hear, anyway. I'll have to start reading more >.>).

    >>
    First of all, give me the equation for kenetic energy without relativity and tell me why it approaches infinity as v approaches c.
    <<

    You need an equation for Kenetic energy without relativity? Why? Kenetic energy works under farmiliar circomstances when you implement UFT, as they pretty much can go hand in hand. Unless I'm omitting part of the theory, if so, pinpoint it please. Now, another thing, I don't understand the last part enough to reply. Could you be more detailed in your...uh...command?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
    Two problems with your idea. First of all, give me the equation for kenetic energy without relativity and tell me why it approaches infinity as v approaches c. Also, derive E=mc<sup>2</sup> without relatvity.
    the real formula for kinetic energy is
    E=mc<sup>2</sup> ' total energy
    m=m<sub>0</sub>/sqr(1-v²/c²)
    E=m<sub>0</sub>c<sup>2</sup>(1/sqr(1-v²/c²) - 1) ' kinetic
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    I knew those formulas. What i meant to say was that if you are trying to disprove Relativity, you must show how your new theory predicts that formula. You cant really take things from a theory you are trying to disprove and assume them to be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    You need an equation for Kenetic energy without relativity? Why? Kenetic energy works under farmiliar circomstances when you implement UFT, as they pretty much can go hand in hand. Unless I'm omitting part of the theory, if so, pinpoint it please. Now, another thing, I don't understand the last part enough to reply. Could you be more detailed in your...uh...command?
    The equations that Zelos has posted represent total energy of a body at any speed. It seems to me that E=m0c2(1/sqr(1-v²/c²) - 1) doesnt work under familiar circumstances, considering the fact that one does usually take strolls at near-light speed.
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    actually, foolish me, I forgot to mention the tests that they were conducted in SPACE. What I meant was those tests, as ones I've heard about never seemed very conclusive. On earth I can't really argue with the possibility that it has that effect, since earth is different from space in a number of aspects,
    And what is so different about a sealed atomic clock just above the Earth's surface and a sealed atomic clock in SPACE? For the purposes of this discussion - none.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    Exactly my point.^^

    Einstein's Relativity predicts soooo many things soooo accurately that any new theory pretty much has to be an extremely small modification to Relatvity.
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Guest
    Again...what, exactly, is wrong with implementing part of einsteins theory into the one above? I don't see an issue with it. Just saying "but you CAN'T do it" doesn't work, because I'm NOT trying to disprove THAT area of the theory. I don't even know enough about physics to attempt it, nor do I believe I would, since it's pretty solid thus far.


    To Ophiolite: Space and earth are fairly different. The pressure, the condition, the rate in which the atoms around it behave, etc. Even the clock itself, in theory, wont behave exactly the same. Although to what extent is anybodys guess, but I would still love those links you know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    You cant just take some of a theory and trash the rest. The theory is based off of axioms, and if you assume that any of the theory is wrong, you must assume that the axioms on which the theory is based are wrong. In the case of Special relativity, the only axioms are Galilean relativity and universiality of the speed of light. Thus, if you claim that any part of Relativity is wrong, you are claiming one of the above axioms is incorrect. If galilean relativity is wrong, then there is some problem with F=ma, since one can derive Galilean relatvity from F=ma. If you think the universiality of the speed of light is wrong, then different observers will see the same light wave move at different speeds, and ALL of relatvity is wrong. End of story.
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    You know, couldn't the same test be done by actually having something stand still. If I recall we are traveling at 30k + mph on earth. The satellites we orbit earth with are also (plus and minus). Why not just park something in space and a year later when the earth comes back around see how much difference in time there is. In theory the velocity the earth is moving at should show up in this theory.

    I for one feel that as velocity increases the forces at work cause a slowing of the atomic structure. This of course would not be confused with heat caused by friction in air. So in space traveling at very high velocities might cause slowing of atomic structure. The atoms are being shoved ever so slightly the more and more speed increases. Kind of like trying to walk in the wind. We assume we know all the laws of physics and all the properties that make up the universe. But, what if there is some binding "gel" that holds everything together. Trying to move through that "gel" at high speeds may cause strange effects. I'm not being serious on the ideas, just the general concept.

    No matter how you look at it, if "time" is changing in relation to velocity that directly translates in to changes in matter. So in the end finding out why this happens is more important then trying to figure out if a formula to show the effects is accurate. How can one really 100% know for sure unless they know the cause.

    I'm no expert on any of this, so I always like to hear the why not's rather then just "Not gonna happen"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    I'm no expert on any of this, so I always like to hear the why not's rather then just "Not gonna happen"
    You kinda do have to say that its just gonna happen. For instance, if string theory is correct, then we dont even know what matter is for sure. If we dont know what matter is how could one actually claim to understand how anything works? Take your computer for example. Our scientific knowledge is the equivelent of learning all about everything the computer can do. But no matter how well we learn how to operate a computer, we will never understand how it was built or even what it is made of. Equivalently, no matter how far we get with physical laws, we may never understand what everything really "is", or how it came to be here. Thus we simply content with learning how everything interacts.

    On the other hand, if you want the general idea about how SR works, just look at spacetime diagrams. If all the observers want to see the same light wave moving at the same speed, then all of the laws of SR become self evident through spacetime diagrams.
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,699
    Take your computer for example. Our scientific knowledge is the equivalent of learning all about everything the computer can do. But no matter how well we learn how to operate a computer, we will never understand how it was built or even what it is made of.
    Bad example, I actually fully understand the inner workings of a computer down to single gate on a CPU. Granted the technology changes constantly making what I know no longer applicable, the basic concepts are still the same. In the case of a computer we can know all there is to know. What we can't know is all the ways to apply what we know.

    When it comes to Physics we can't see all that there is, no matter how hard we try we just always appear to be missing some critical element. So we have to formulate theories on what could happen based on what we know has happen in other circumstances. In the end we are still just guessing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Take your computer for example. Our scientific knowledge is the equivalent of learning all about everything the computer can do. But no matter how well we learn how to operate a computer, we will never understand how it was built or even what it is made of.
    Bad example, I actually fully understand the inner workings of a computer down to single gate on a CPU.
    Sure. We all believe you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    I guess the basic concepts you know of can be be the basic properties of matter and energy, like the wave-particle duality, etc.
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    An outstanding, well established guess is TOTAL FIELD THEORY at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Guest
    I just thought of an example for all of you that may bring something to mind. Now, the example is as follows: The brain is what preceives time for the majority of sentient creatures. One can judge time depending on how fast the brain reacts to instances, or how slow it reacts. Hence if you were to have a very slow mental perception, time would appear to move quickly because your brain doesn't receive information quickly enough. Now the opposite happens, and you can see things others can't, or have lightning fast reflexes because your brain can preceive things quicker than most. The difference is normally in brain cells and energy that runs throughout the brain and nerves as well as most of the body.

    So how could it be possible for time to move FASTER, if your atoms were to move FASTER? Wouldn't the energy produced from the rapid movement increase the output of energy within the speed-increased zone? If Einstein is correct, then mental perception doesn't increase at all no matter how quickly or how much energy the body is given because time is moving faster the faster you move. But this is disproven by simple observation (such as a child hyped up in massive amounts of sugar, their brains react INSANELY quick for the most part. Although, that isn't really too much of an atomic movement increase as much as an energy increase that FORCES the activity to increase). Thus, the more energy you feed into something, the faster it goes, and the higher its perception due to the massive amounts of energy received. I just can't see how Einstein can be correct on this one.

    As such, I request MORE INPUT! Haha, seriously, post some links about brain activity and energy. I don't THINK I'm wrong, but if I am, do point it out.

    As to the total field theory: Eh, I'll check it out. Comments on it later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    The atoms are not going slower or faster, or anything like that. The space-time in which the object exists is what is actually changing. time around a quickly moving observer slows down relative to stationary observers.
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
    The atoms are not going slower or faster, or anything like that. The space-time in which the object exists is what is actually changing.
    If atoms aren't going slower or faster, how do you explain increased rate of atomic decay depending on the energy charge of an object? Another thing, time is an observation of the rate of atomic decay. Life span is what is basically used to judge how long the majority of an object will last before it "dies" and becomes something else. Thus, time is used as a measurement of atomic decay to judge the WHEN of an object at any one point in time.

    I really don't see how you can say "space is what is actually changing" when it's just as easily observed that energy will interact with the object itself through kinetic movement or otherwise, and generate a faster acceleration rate. The UFT also explains gravitational attraction between two possible objects according to their overall energy output and atomic mass/movement/etc. As far as I can tell, you're offering no evidence to prove space is changing, either. Granted, I'm not providing sources, but that's what google is for! Hahahaha. Aside from that, I'm offering explanations as to how, you just offered "Oh well, this is what's happening" without the how.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
    time around a quickly moving observer slows down relative to stationary observers.
    okay, wait, this is just what above mentioned observations and hypothesis's disagrees with. And you're not exactly providing alternative evidence to them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    the photon gets speed C instantensely(spelled?)
    Actually, no it doesn't. There are still a time gap, and there are slight speed variations. One can slow down light, as well, which could mean according to experiment that the speed of light is variable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    what i have written is einsteinal physics
    sqr(1-(v/c)²) = 0 when v=c
    so when v -> c then 1/sqr(1-(v/c)²) goes to infinite. becuase 1/0=infinite
    thats why it cant be reached
    Excuse me...did you just use the bible to prove god? I'm well aware of the Einstein physics that go towards the "infinite" calculation. No need to refresh my memory. And since I've already stated in words so it's easily understandable how the opposing hypothesis disagrees. Since I'm still working on it, either could be right or wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    so it has nothing to do with the fact that C is finite, it has to do with that 1/sqr(1-(v/c)²) becomes infinite as we approce C, when we are at C it is infinite, and therefor it would have infinite energy.
    But it has everything to do with it. Instead of wasting my time typing it you can read a few faster-than-light things yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    This theory have been proven every singel freaking day since the first particle accelartor were created. no matter how much they drag those electrons they dont reach C and the more they drag the harder is it to get it even faster becuase it requires more and more energy and more and more force.
    Actually I beg to differ, take for example a black hole with enough energy to pull back in light before it can escape. In an Einstein theoretical universe, this shouldn't happen, since not even GRAVITY should move faster than C at any intensity. According to Einstein, energy = matter and matter = energy. Thus, if you use a Gravitron hypothesis (ether, much?) you're left with a serious problem. If you use Electromagnetism, you're left with the problem that enough energy is generated to apparently defy the supposed speed of light limit. Especially since matter around a black hole tends to speed up *faster than that of light*. A home made spacial particle accelerator! Whee!

    I should also mention that particle accelerators on earth will have the continual problem of being effected by gravity on earth while trying to speed up the particles, this would require more energy (though maybe or maybe not much). It's much like that test (which was performed on earth) to supposedly "prove" spacetime. The problem is that it failed to account for the curvature of earth (they apparently took the test assuming that space was curved, thus assuming Einstein was correct before testing) and the gravitational effects as well as the forces against the increasing plane speeds (Now if you'd have behaved and posted this in my thread like I asked, it wouldn't be off topic!) that would quite possibly effect the "atomic clock" that was on each plane, as well as temperature, humidity, etc. Earth effects, while possibly small, could very well make differences depending on the speed of movement relative to the planes. This is pretty proven due to the fact one clock *lost* time while another *gained* time, which defies relativity in general since the clocks should have *lost* time only. I should also add that the clocks were not mentioned to have been in an enclosed area to prevent Magnetic interferrance from the poles.

    I also question weather this "test" was actually performed. Since it was apparently conducted in a *HIGHLY* unscientific manner. I'm fairly certain I'm missing some factors as to how this completely *does not* prove relativity, but I'm too tired to bother with it anymore tonight.

    EDIT: and shouldn't the particles *slow down* rather than *speed up* as they near the speed of light according to relativity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    nope, it shouldnt, it keeps speed up becuase they keep adding momentum/energy to it, the increase gets less and less thoe

    Actually, no it doesn't. There are still a time gap, and there are slight speed variations. One can slow down light, as well, which could mean according to experiment that the speed of light is variable.
    not really, C is constant and photon is allways traveling at C, but in a medium the photon is bounced back and forth, like if it goes forward 2 m, then bounce back 1 meter, then bounce forward again in that rate we would see that speed of light in that medium is about 0,5C. but in reality it isnt, it just bounce back and forth. Dont you know that atoms/molecules are mostly empty? as in nothing is there, vacuum, then light have C speed.

    But it has everything to do with it. Instead of wasting my time typing it you can read a few faster-than-light things yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
    have read it, familiar with casmir effect?

    Actually I beg to differ, take for example a black hole with enough energy to pull back in light before it can escape. In an Einstein theoretical universe, this shouldn't happen, since not even GRAVITY should move faster than C at any intensity. According to Einstein, energy = matter and matter = energy. Thus, if you use a Gravitron hypothesis (ether, much?) you're left with a serious problem. If you use Electromagnetism, you're left with the problem that enough energy is generated to apparently defy the supposed speed of light limit. Especially since matter around a black hole tends to speed up *faster than that of light*. A home made spacial particle accelerator! Whee!
    here is it you who made a fatal flaw in your thinking, you think of gravity as a graviton, and gravity waves. Yes, thoes does move with C, but gravity is the bending of spacetime, at the event horizont of a blackhole spacetime is infinite bent and twisted, its like you take a piece of paper and cut a hole it in. Therefor everything that gets close is sucked in by the infinite curvation

    I should also mention that particle accelerators on earth will have the continual problem of being effected by gravity on earth while trying to speed up the particles, this would require more energy (though maybe or maybe not much). It's much like that test (which was performed on earth) to supposedly "prove" spacetime.
    space time curvation on earth is insignifican to this. Earth potensial energy isnt great enough to cause any major disturbans. Its like measuring the weight of a elephant and then be consered of a fly sitting on it becuase of the change of mass.earth mass is about 3*10<sup>-4</sup>% of suns mass, thats a tiny fraction. And also when this the test of the curvation of the sun was done the photon would have been bent insignifican becuase of earth tiny gravitational field.

    I also question weather this "test" was actually performed. Since it was apparently conducted in a *HIGHLY* unscientific manner. I'm fairly certain I'm missing some factors as to how this completely *does not* prove relativity, but I'm too tired to bother with it anymore tonight.
    it were, and if it werent scientificly done, well done that is, scientists wouldnt have accepted it and tested it once again someone, it was good enough and i guess it have been done again just to see if it were right.

    Einstein: 1
    Jeremyhfht: 0

    if you dont understand the fundamental bases of physics how can you then come with a idea like that and honestly think its right?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    nope, it shouldnt, it keeps speed up becuase they keep adding momentum/energy to it, the increase gets less and less thoe

    Actually, no it doesn't. There are still a time gap, and there are slight speed variations. One can slow down light, as well, which could mean according to experiment that the speed of light is variable.
    not really, C is constant and photon is allways traveling at C, but in a medium the photon is bounced back and forth, like if it goes forward 2 m, then bounce back 1 meter, then bounce forward again in that rate we would see that speed of light in that medium is about 0,5C. but in reality it isnt, it just bounce back and forth. Dont you know that atoms/molecules are mostly empty? as in nothing is there, vacuum, then light have C speed.

    But it has everything to do with it. Instead of wasting my time typing it you can read a few faster-than-light things yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
    have read it, familiar with casmir effect?

    Actually I beg to differ, take for example a black hole with enough energy to pull back in light before it can escape. In an Einstein theoretical universe, this shouldn't happen, since not even GRAVITY should move faster than C at any intensity. According to Einstein, energy = matter and matter = energy. Thus, if you use a Gravitron hypothesis (ether, much?) you're left with a serious problem. If you use Electromagnetism, you're left with the problem that enough energy is generated to apparently defy the supposed speed of light limit. Especially since matter around a black hole tends to speed up *faster than that of light*. A home made spacial particle accelerator! Whee!
    here is it you who made a fatal flaw in your thinking, you think of gravity as a graviton, and gravity waves. Yes, thoes does move with C, but gravity is the bending of spacetime, at the event horizont of a blackhole spacetime is infinite bent and twisted, its like you take a piece of paper and cut a hole it in. Therefor everything that gets close is sucked in by the infinite curvation

    I should also mention that particle accelerators on earth will have the continual problem of being effected by gravity on earth while trying to speed up the particles, this would require more energy (though maybe or maybe not much). It's much like that test (which was performed on earth) to supposedly "prove" spacetime.
    space time curvation on earth is insignifican to this. Earth potensial energy isnt great enough to cause any major disturbans. Its like measuring the weight of a elephant and then be consered of a fly sitting on it becuase of the change of mass.earth mass is about 3*10<sup>-4</sup>% of suns mass, thats a tiny fraction. And also when this the test of the curvation of the sun was done the photon would have been bent insignifican becuase of earth tiny gravitational field.

    I also question weather this "test" was actually performed. Since it was apparently conducted in a *HIGHLY* unscientific manner. I'm fairly certain I'm missing some factors as to how this completely *does not* prove relativity, but I'm too tired to bother with it anymore tonight.
    it were, and if it werent scientificly done, well done that is, scientists wouldnt have accepted it and tested it once again someone, it was good enough and i guess it have been done again just to see if it were right.

    Einstein: 1
    Jeremyhfht: 0

    if you dont understand the fundamental bases of physics how can you then come with a idea like that and honestly think its right?


    well said zelos

    jeremyhfht i think your major problem is accepting the energy=matter and vice versa, this is why you cant see the infinite energy needed to move an object to speed of light, if you can get that it would help everything click into place
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    if something reaches C, in normal space, it would have infinite mass and the universe would implode becuase of the infinite strong gravitation wave traveling throu the entire universe. creating a spacetime curvation of infinite magnitude everywhere it goes
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Guest
    A bunch of quotes by Zelos, and since /quote is rather...antifriendly for quoting multple parts of a post, I'll use easily visible quotes!

    >>
    not really, C is constant and photon is allways traveling at C, but in a medium the photon is bounced back and forth, like if it goes forward 2 m, then bounce back 1 meter, then bounce forward again in that rate we would see that speed of light in that medium is about 0,5C. but in reality it isnt, it just bounce back and forth. Dont you know that atoms/molecules are mostly empty? as in nothing is there, vacuum, then light have C speed.
    <<

    Links disprove you! http://www.msnbc.com/news/242698.asp?cp1=1

    >>
    have read it, familiar with casmir effect?
    <<

    Nope, reading up on it now

    >>
    here is it you who made a fatal flaw in your thinking, you think of gravity as a graviton, and gravity waves. Yes, thoes does move with C, but gravity is the bending of spacetime, at the event horizont of a blackhole spacetime is infinite bent and twisted, its like you take a piece of paper and cut a hole it in. Therefor everything that gets close is sucked in by the infinite curvation
    <<

    This is where *you* have made a *severe flaw* in your thinking. You presume Einstein is correct. And I think of gravity as Electromagnetism, I only presented gravitrons as one of the shitty gravity hypothesis's. And a piece of paper is *flat*, how can you use something flat to represent something curved? And I think you're just not reading my previous posts. There is quite a bit of evidence to support a black hole is a *star* with gravity strong enough that light cannot escape. And given the einstein theory of black holes, this proves the Big Bang *could not* happen, and if you claim it could using his physics then you claim black holes are nothing more than stars from which light cannot escape. But in caliming that, you don't follow Einstein.

    As for "cutting a hole in spacetime", if this is true, then where are the ends of the black holes? Or, better yet, where are wormholes? And furthermore, given how much energy would apparently be required to create this supposed "rip" wouldn't that reach energy levels of infinite in order to pull in something which is supposedly infinite? But in doing so, it defies the original basis of its own matter since the matters energy was finite (and disproves hawking radiation, since in order for that to work a black hole has to have a finite amount of energy. Unless you wish to claim that the universe gains matter). Also, a "hole" in spacetime would act vastly different from black holes observable today. Black holes exhibit similar behavioural patterns as stars do when they're pulling in matter. The same disc that circles around the star according to the stars gravitational pull and turning speed, for example. Now for a black hole to be a *rip* in spacetime, why would matter orbit it until it was pulled in? If it was a rip, there would be no orbitational effect similar to a star, it would just be sucked in from all sides. Also, f34r the electromagnetic output of black holes on each of the stars poles!
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1116235926.htm

    As you can see in the depicted image (I couldn't find an article specifically about it), the poles act similar to that of those on a star. And if you'll look on google, you'll find black holes apparently rotate their poles as a star does when it moves (and the earth). Depending on it's axis, of course. Now if it was a literal *hole* in spacetime, why would it have two poles? It should only have one, and the other one being at the other end of the black hole. Not two on each side of the star, er, I mean spacetime rip!

    >>
    space time curvation on earth is insignifican to this. Earth potensial energy isnt great enough to cause any major disturbans. Its like measuring the weight of a elephant and then be consered of a fly sitting on it becuase of the change of mass.earth mass is about 3*10<sup>-4</sup>% of suns mass, thats a tiny fraction. And also when this the test of the curvation of the sun was done the photon would have been bent insignifican becuase of earth tiny gravitational field.
    <<

    Now that's where you're almost on base. It can't create *major* disturbances, but last I checked, the clocks weren't majorly disturbed.

    >>
    it were, and if it werent scientificly done, well done that is, scientists wouldnt have accepted it and tested it once again someone, it was good enough and i guess it have been done again just to see if it were right.
    <<

    Right....

    >>
    Einstein: 1
    Jeremyhfht: 0
    <<
    Wow! I did not know it was a game! So nice to know you're actually viewing this as a possible learning experience instead of something so stupid as a sport! I respect Einstein, I'm just not agreeing with his theory. And for that I'm lynched? Is this the dark ages where "the earth is flat" or something? Oh wait, according to some, the earth is flat. Oh well damn! haha

    >>
    if you dont understand the fundamental bases of physics how can you then come with a idea like that and honestly think its right?
    <<

    Except, I do. I just don't make up radical calculations that my mathematics can't keep up with. Doesn't mean I don't understand the physics behind it. It's like some people who can read other languages, but can't speak them. And the problem with me thinking I'm *right* is that I don't, especially since it's *still a hypothesis*. If I thought I was *right* I'd say "OH LOOKIT HEREZ! AI HAV A FAKT! LOLZ!!!!". Look at it my way, if I'm wrong, then it helps prove Einstein is correct. If I'm not entirely wrong, it improves some aspect of physics eventually! I don't honestly care if I'm "right", I just care about improving.


    Quote by: captaincaveman (or as the cartoon goes, Captain CAAAVVVEEEMAN! *crash*)
    >>
    well said zelos

    jeremyhfht i think your major problem is accepting the energy=matter and vice versa, this is why you cant see the infinite energy needed to move an object to speed of light, if you can get that it would help everything click into place
    <<

    Someone wasn't reading! I mostly accept E=MC2. In fact, it could easily work *better* with an alternative theory, since it could explain black holes without the unneeded *rip* in spacetime that defies the *infinite energy* clause which *defies* e=mc2.

    Quote by Zelos:
    >>
    if something reaches C, in normal space, it would have infinite mass and the universe would implode becuase of the infinite strong gravitation wave traveling throu the entire universe. creating a spacetime curvation of infinite magnitude everywhere it goes
    <<

    Uh, Zelos, that just proves Black Holes can't exist according to spacetime. Since black holes *are of a higher magnitude than C* apparently. Since C requires infinite energy, a black hole has infinite gravitational pull, but on that scale the two would be forever locked in a speed vs. pull effect and nothing would get anywhere.

    In short, I wish people would stop using the bible to prove god. Anybody ever hear of Reference Points? (wiki it!) Ah well, I'm going to take a break from this so I can continue research a bit. At least this thread did what I wanted, more information! woo!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    nope, when it it standing still in a medium it is simply moving back 1 meter, then forth 1 meter for a very long time. once again,d ont you know atoms are mostly empty space? and in empty space C is constant

    This is where *you* have made a *severe flaw* in your thinking. You presume Einstein is correct. And I think of gravity as Electromagnetism, I only presented gravitrons as one of the shitty gravity hypothesis's. And a piece of paper is *flat*, how can you use something flat to represent something curved? And I think you're just not reading my previous posts. There is quite a bit of evidence to support a black hole is a *star* with gravity strong enough that light cannot escape. And given the einstein theory of black holes, this proves the Big Bang *could not* happen, and if you claim it could using his physics then you claim black holes are nothing more than stars from which light cannot escape. But in caliming that, you don't follow Einstein.
    EM? its 2 different forces. under normal conditions they arent the same, its only at extreme conditions they become indestingvishble (spell?)
    if you dont want paper take a rubber surface then that bends at the present of mas
    I dont see how GR and BH cant co-exist. BH is gravity where light cant escape, at the eventhorizont the Spacetime is curved to infinity. In that manner light cant escape the spacetime curvation
    why cant BB happen? We dont know how it were at the bigbang so there is yet no knowledge in BB that disproves GR in anyway. its acctualy so that GR proves BB.

    As for "cutting a hole in spacetime", if this is true, then where are the ends of the black holes? Or, better yet, where are wormholes? And furthermore, given how much energy would apparently be required to create this supposed "rip" wouldn't that reach energy levels of infinite in order to pull in something which is supposedly infinite?
    For a wormhole we need the curvation to be connected withsomething, if it isnt then there is no WH. the end of the BH? the end is at the eventhorizon. And the amount of energy that is required to create this rip in spacetime is finite, its only the curvation that is infinite becuase a BH have a infinite density. But a finite mass. Just becuase one is infintie isnt all infinite

    But in doing so, it defies the original basis of its own matter since the matters energy was finite (and disproves hawking radiation, since in order for that to work a black hole has to have a finite amount of energy. Unless you wish to claim that the universe gains matter).
    Infinite density, finite mass. Ring any bells? singularity have 0 volume, but X mass, what is X/0?

    Also, a "hole" in spacetime would act vastly different from black holes observable today. Black holes exhibit similar behavioural patterns as stars do when they're pulling in matter. The same disc that circles around the star according to the stars gravitational pull and turning speed, for example. Now for a black hole to be a *rip* in spacetime, why would matter orbit it until it was pulled in? If it was a rip, there would be no orbitational effect similar to a star, it would just be sucked in from all sides. Also, f34r the electromagnetic output of black holes on each of the stars poles!
    becuase outside the rip the spacetime is bent like normal under the influense of any other star, its just at the eventhorizon and clsoe to the singularity its a rip. not outside.

    Those yets are mass that in the exact point gets exacly the speed they need to escape. The interaction causes some of the atoms to gain enough speed to escape just before they are sucked in and voila we get 2 yets, its the only place where they are as furthest from the disc.

    As you can see in the depicted image (I couldn't find an article specifically about it), the poles act similar to that of those on a star. And if you'll look on google, you'll find black holes apparently rotate their poles as a star does when it moves (and the earth). Depending on it's axis, of course. Now if it was a literal *hole* in spacetime, why would it have two poles? It should only have one, and the other one being at the other end of the black hole. Not two on each side of the star, er, I mean spacetime rip!
    Even if the spacetime is ripped we never said that it loses its angular momentum. Even if the BH collapses and is created angular momentum needs to be conserved. And also we cant be sure they are the real poles, becuase those "poles" are effected by the disc and the "will" of bieng as far as possible from it

    Now that's where you're almost on base. It can't create *major* disturbances, but last I checked, the clocks weren't majorly disturbed.
    enough to be detecteble by the most exact clocks we have created

    Wow! I did not know it was a game! So nice to know you're actually viewing this as a possible learning experience instead of something so stupid as a sport! I respect Einstein, I'm just not agreeing with his theory. And for that I'm lynched? Is this the dark ages where "the earth is flat" or something? Oh wait, according to some, the earth is flat. Oh well damn! haha
    you are lynched becuase you come with a idea with no understanding of what you are trying to disprove

    Except, I do. I just don't make up radical calculations that my mathematics can't keep up with. Doesn't mean I don't understand the physics behind it. It's like some people who can read other languages, but can't speak them. And the problem with me thinking I'm *right* is that I don't, especially since it's *still a hypothesis*. If I thought I was *right* I'd say "OH LOOKIT HEREZ! AI HAV A FAKT! LOLZ!!!!". Look at it my way, if I'm wrong, then it helps prove Einstein is correct. If I'm not entirely wrong, it improves some aspect of physics eventually! I don't honestly care if I'm "right", I just care about improving.
    once you got a point, but come with a improvement based on data, facts, and math then plz

    Uh, Zelos, that just proves Black Holes can't exist according to spacetime. Since black holes *are of a higher magnitude than C* apparently. Since C requires infinite energy, a black hole has infinite gravitational pull, but on that scale the two would be forever locked in a speed vs. pull effect and nothing would get anywhere.
    its the speed C that required infinite energy, and becuase it cant be reached things are sucked into the black hole. The infinite pull is inside the eventhorizont, and dont you know all known laws of physics collapses inside the eventhorizont?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Guest
    Now, while it would be a great time for me to go about replying inch by inch to your "retorts", I find them not worth replying to specifically. Since previous posts cover the points regardless. Have fun, for I have surrendered. Hurray!

    EDIT: I also find it funny how every time people seem to resort to personal attacks. Is it just me, or does this only seem to happen when someone is backed into a corner? And it seems I've used one as well! Haha
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    another victory for real science
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •