GENIUS FORUMS

THE REVISED FORM OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY


Let one assume a new model with regard to Special Relativity,First, lets imagine an Einstien spacecraft circling around the earth at close to the speed of light and whose distance is 1000 miles from the surface of the planet,Now this particular spacecraft is equipped with an Atomic clock that has been sincronized with one on the surface sitting at the south pole.This said spacecraft will be traveling in a easterly to westerly direction so as to make a perfect circle around the Atomic Clock at the south pole.(Does this hypothetical experimental model beginning to look similar to an experiment that was done back in the 70's?) .Ok,Bear with me, Because I promise you this is gonna start to get interesting, And here it comes.This is the part where I mention that the spacecraft is equipped with a live TV camera pointing at a person on board sitting next to that clock I mentioned earlier.Now to make things equal, (because I like to give TWO halves to an EQUATION.kinda like action, reaction) We're gonna put a live camera next to the clock at the south pole with me sitting next to it .Ok now,Me and the person on the spacecraft have an ESTABLISHED line of live communication going on and we're just having a dandy old time shooting the shit back and forth, lol.Now according to the way Einstien's Special Relativity works out, Then at what point do I notice the person on the spacecraft beginning to slur in his speech,Or become like I'm watching a movie in slow motion,Or quite possibly become invisible,LMFAO.Ok,To be fair for the sake of science we also have to look at this model with a degree of relativity in mind so, Now we have to consider things from a different point of view.Funny, I was just thinking that myself!.Let us now turn our attention to the Invisible man on the spacecraft.Well...., HOLY SHIT!,Where did he go!,I cant seem to find him!.But that lousy Ass clock needs to go back to the repair shop.
-Gary W. Anderson

gmeatdaddy wrote:THE REVISED FORM OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY


Let one assume a new model with regard to Special Relativity,First, lets imagine an Einstien spacecraft circling around the earth at close to the speed of light and whose distance is 1000 miles from the surface of the planet,Now this particular spacecraft is equipped with an Atomic clock that has been sincronized with one on the surface sitting at the south pole.This said spacecraft will be traveling in a easterly to westerly direction so as to make a perfect circle around the Atomic Clock at the south pole.Does this hypothetical experimental model beginning to look similar to an experiment that was done back in the 70's? .Ok,Bear with me, Because I promise you this is gonna start to get interesting and here it comes.This is the part where I mention that the spacecraft is equipped with a live TV camera pointing at a person on board sitting next to that clock I mentioned earlier.Now to make things equal, (because I like to give TWO halves to an EQUATION.kinda like action, reaction). We're gonna put a live camera next to the clock at the south pole with me sitting next to it .Ok now,Me and the person on the spacecraft have an ESTABLISHED line of live communication going on and we're just having a dandy old time shooting the shit back and forth lol.Now according to the way Einstien's Special Relativity works out, Than at what point do I notice the person on the spacecraft beginning to slur in his speech,Or become like I'm watching a movie in slow motion,Or quite possibly become invisible,LMFAO.Ok,To be fair for the sake of science we also have to look at this model with a degree of relativity in mind so, Now we have to consider things from a different point of view.Funny I was just thinking that myself!.Let us now turn are attention to the Invisible man on the spacecraft.Well, HOLY SHIT!,Where did he go.I cant seem to find him!.But that lousy Ass clock needs to go back to the repair shop.
-Gary W. Anderson

There is a mistake in Einstein's theory of relativity concerning time travel. the atomic clocks on board the planes contained electrons. My model of electrons has them travelling through gates as they move along. The plasma in the gates that pushes the electrons along requires more power to push things at higher speeds than lower speeds. Because the Earth is spinning in one direction, faster than the other, the plasma in one direction is higher powered. This higher powered plasma will boost the electrons energy, and thus send the clocks out of sync. Not really time travel at all.

Hi Pincho Paxton, Thx for the reply.I hope you at least got a good laugh out of my perspective of special relativity as I dont believe in the theory with regard to Time contraction.I'm not sure if I agree with your theory but I'm not qualified to assess such with regard to equations and formula's.In any event you do have 1 possible theory and I would like to see what a so called qualified person would have to say about such.I just wanted to give a different point of view as I see it.-gmeatdaddy

If you think thast's mind-bending, try the Ladder paradox.

Almost all relativistic paradoxes stem from our attempts to import newtonian thinking into relativistic framework.

"Almost all relativistic paradoxes stem from our attempts to import newtonian thinking into relativistic framework." vicdan

"Almost all"?
I couldn't think of any that don't.

Thanks for the ladder paradox Victor.
Perhaps I a little bit don't get it.
It depends upon if the observer is climbing the ladder, or sweeping the garage?

But isn't the ladder paradox really just a mild Newtonian complication to the length compression that any physical entity undergoes at relativistic velocity? It happens to both ladder, and garage, according to the stationary observer.

The Newtonian twist is merely about whether the result would allow the ladder to fit in the garage, if the Einsteinian outcome could somehow then be rendered Newtonian / static (which of course, it can't).

post #2 pending:

Thought experiment:

Werner VonBlack decides he wants to build a rocket that will travel faster than the speed of light (SOL).

He has 200 lbs of super-duper rocket fuel, and designs two rockets, divides the fuel equally between them, and builds two rockets of exactly equal weight.

One is a single stage rocket.
The other is a 6 stage rocket.

Both models are designed to be launched from "zero G" vacuum of space.

Setting aside for the moment why neither one will reach SOL, which one will get closest? Why?

It's a tricky question because they blow up. I can't really give a good answer.

"I can't really give a good answer." Pin

Think "thrust to mass ratio".

vicdan wrote:If you think thast's mind-bending, try the Ladder paradox.

Almost all relativistic paradoxes stem from our attempts to import newtonian thinking into relativistic framework.

Hi VicDan,Interesting response to my question pertaining to MY model. eg.(THE LADDER PARADOX)ooohh!.Well,to be honest with you,I DONT claim to know every physics model out there and surely never have.I have only laid out a Model to try to understand exactly how each EVENT in this model would play out so to speak,And I get a response from you that has no answer to each event in MY model.Instead You show me a link to The Ladder Paradox which I have looked at by the way.So your Obviously looking for a response from me to see if I understand the ladder paradox.Ok, I do in a sense,It seems to me that your trying to fit 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag,But thats just MY opinion and I'm sorry if you dont understand or even like my response to YOUR question.I am just trying to get some STRAIGHTFORWARD answers to to each event that is happening in this model.Why is it that we tend to hide behind are PHYSICS MODELS like they are the 10 commandments of GOD is somehow puzzling to me.-gmeatdaddy

if you understand why the ladder paradox and its friends aren't paradoxes, you will understand the answer to your questions.

Hi VicDan ,I've been thinking a little more with regard to your paradox ladder theory and maybe i percieve this wrong but here goes nothing,the way I understand the paradox ladder theory is VELOCITY will infact shrink the mass and I can concieve of this having thought of this on a short trip to the store recently in my car.I'm beginning to see what you mean by the ladder paradox and I thank you for pointing that out to me,But there seems to be one problem with this.What happens after you reach a given speed with regard to the ladder now wanting to expand to its original form of mass SIZE.-gmeatdaddy

The real point here is that in relativity, there's no such thing as stopping simultaneously. Simultaneity is also relative. These paradoxes arise from notions like 'the whole ladder stopping at once', which is nonsensical in relativity -- at once from whose perspective?

If two spaceships pass each other by, they will each get shorter and more massive from each other's perspective. In our commonsensical Newtonian world, this is nonsense: how A be shorter than B, and B shorter than A, at the same time? in relativistic world, there is no such thing as 'shorter' -- there is only shorter as indicated by a measurement performed in a given frame of reference at a given point in time; and you have to do special transforms to correlate observations in one frame of reference with observations in another frame of reference.

Relativity requires you to give up thinking in commonsensical terms; not quite as much as quantum mechanics, but still quite a bit.

I can apply my snowflake model to the ladder parradox. Using my gate theory, the ladder will get shorter because it is moving between gates, and catching up with them like if you were in a queue of people, and you all pushed together. The garage however is not moving through any gates, and therefore remains the same size. the ladder would fit into the garage if you could swing it in fast enough, and then get damaged by its own reformation. My gates theory rarely lets me down when it comes to working things out, that is why I am pretty sure that the snowflake theory is very accurate. The theory of relativity therfore is not good enough to predict things properly all of the time.

Hey Pincho Paxton,Do you have any links to the snowflake theory that you can give me a link to, so I can read up a bit more about this.thx.-gmeatdaddy

"One is a single stage rocket.
The other is a 6 stage rocket.

Both models are designed to be launched from "zero G" vacuum of space.

Setting aside for the moment why neither one will reach SOL, which one will get closest? Why?" sear

For Newtonian reasons, the multi-stage rocket, or at least, the 6th stage of it, should reach the higher velocity; compared to its single-staged sister.

Why?
In that environment (~"zero G") rocket thrust works on mass. For the same amount of thrust (a given [see above]), & in that application, mass and velocity have an inverse correlation. The lower the mass, the higher the velocity.

It's worth noting however that even if any (every) stage of the rocket, if launched independently, would reach 90% SOL, that these velocities are not cumulative in the Newtonian sense. If it were, we might expect a final stage velocity of 540% SOL. But according to Einstein, it would never reach 100% SOL.

this has the smell of a nonsensical question.-gmeatdaddy

gmeatdaddy wrote:Hey Pincho Paxton,Do you have any links to the snowflake theory that you can give me a link to, so I can read up a bit more about this.thx.-gmeatdaddy

I'm afraid it's my own theory. And it's not accepted as science...yet.

Hi Pincho,Thats ok because the way I see it there are a couple of physics models that get violated in one section of science while the other section turns a blind eye or possibly are not informed of it.
-gmeatdaddy

vicdan wrote:The real point here is that in relativity, there's no such thing as stopping simultaneously. Simultaneity is also relative. These paradoxes arise from notions like 'the whole ladder stopping at once', which is nonsensical in relativity -- at once from whose perspective?

If two spaceships pass each other by, they will each get shorter and more massive from each other's perspective. In our commonsensical Newtonian world, this is nonsense: how A be shorter than B, and B shorter than A, at the same time? in relativistic world, there is no such thing as 'shorter' -- there is only shorter as indicated by a measurement performed in a given frame of reference at a given point in time; and you have to do special transforms to correlate observations in one frame of reference with observations in another frame of reference.

Relativity requires you to give up thinking in commonsensical terms; not quite as much as quantum mechanics, but still quite a bit.

Time dilation is the phenomenon whereby an observer finds that another's clock which is physically identical to their own is ticking at a slower rate as measured by their own clock. This is often taken to mean that time has "slowed down" for the other clock, but that is only true in the context of the observer's frame of reference. Locally (i.e., from the perspective of any observer within the same frame of reference, without reference to another frame of reference), time always passes at the same rate. The time dilation phenomenon applies to any process that manifests change over time.

I fnally found an answer to my main question.thx for the replies
p.s.How do you delete the subject? -gmeatdaddy

'We have broken speed of light'

By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 16/08/2007

A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time.

According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it would require an infinite amount of energy to propel an object at more than 186,000 miles per second.

However, Dr Gunter Nimtz and Dr Alfons Stahlhofen, of the University of Koblenz, say they may have breached a key tenet of that theory.

The pair say they have conducted an experiment in which microwave photons - energetic packets of light - travelled "instantaneously" between a pair of prisms that had been moved up to 3ft apart. ...

The scientists were investigating a phenomenon called quantum tunnelling, which allows sub-atomic particles to break apparently unbreakable laws.

Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: "For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.j ... eed116.xml

It's the only one I know of too Dr. Nimtz.

But how is even this case possible?

Does it indicate a flaw in Einstein's theory?
Or is there exception for objects smaller than a grapefruit?

sear wrote:

'We have broken speed of light'

By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 16/08/2007

A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time.

According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it would require an infinite amount of energy to propel an object at more than 186,000 miles per second.

However, Dr Gunter Nimtz and Dr Alfons Stahlhofen, of the University of Koblenz, say they may have breached a key tenet of that theory.

The pair say they have conducted an experiment in which microwave photons - energetic packets of light - travelled "instantaneously" between a pair of prisms that had been moved up to 3ft apart. ...

The scientists were investigating a phenomenon called quantum tunnelling, which allows sub-atomic particles to break apparently unbreakable laws.

Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: "For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.j ... eed116.xml

It's the only one I know of too Dr. Nimtz.

But how is even this case possible?

Does it indicate a flaw in Einstein's theory?
Or is there exception for objects smaller than a grapefruit?

It depends on what you call movement. I say that things are recreated in steps. Each atom, recreated in the next hexagon along. All that is happening here is that things are being recreated further apart than a single hexagon. It is a nice experiment, if only they knew what was happening, they might be better off.