Theory Of Relativity

[Aer'ki]

If I take the universe, and spin it around you while you are standing still and let go of a marble, it will still move away from you. Because accelerations are also relative. That's something you don't learn in school, and part of the reason why you aren't getting relativity.

Furthermore, nobody suggests manipulating space. General Relativity allows for manipulation of metric of space, which is exactly the same as having fields in said space. If you are ok with electric and magnetic fields, you should be ok with General Relativity "bending" space.

Aren't you tired of making arguments from ignorance yet? Read a book. A real book, not the kindergarten stuff you've been reading, apparently.

That is beyond stupid.

[Aer'ki]

No, we aren't: the ship's initial frame is the frame that it was in before it made any of those accelerations. That is why it is call the "initial" frame: it is the frame of reference that the ship was initially in.

In other words, imagine that the ship dropped a buoy before it first began its series of accelerations. The frame of reference of that buoy is what I have been calling the ship's "initial frame." There is nothing Aetheric about it, as the same can be done with any frame of reference.

What makes you think the at rest state when it dropped the buoy is the initial state? Again, you have to assume there is a base at rest state to begin with, hence the concept of aether.

Except that, as I already noted, this contradicts the observed photoelectric effect.

If a photon was made of smaller "energy particles," then in the photoelectric effect would not work the way that it does: each electron would be ejected when it had received enough energy to escape, not when the whole photon had been absorbed.

Not if it can only absorb a finite amount. Less would not absorb and be vented before more could be added to it.

[Quadhelix]

That is beyond stupid.

Would you care to elaborate?

In any case, to an extent, you are saying that the Universe is being spun around you any time you refer to a "centrifugal force": co-called "centrifugal forces" are actually just inertia in a rotating frame of reference. Thus, saying that you are "spinning the Universe around your self," it is somewhat of a metaphor.

What makes you think the at rest state when it dropped the buoy is the initial state? Again, you have to assume there is a base at rest state to begin with, hence the concept of aether.

It is not the "rest state," it is the initial state.

Not if it can only absorb a finite amount. Less would not absorb and be vented before more could be added to it.

Finite amount of what?

[Aer'ki]

Would you care to elaborate?

In any case, to an extent, you are saying that the Universe is being spun around you any time you refer to a "centrifugal force": co-called "centrifugal forces" are actually just inertia in a rotating frame of reference. Thus, saying that you are "spinning the Universe around your self," it is somewhat of a metaphor.

The universe can't spin around YOU nor can it spin at all. Reality isn't relative. And the fact that centrifugal force exists proves it so.

An object wants to travel in a straight line, thus a moving object forcibly being curved has an acceleration...such a thing proves rotational spin versus at rest state. The two are not a product of perspective.

It is not the "rest state," it is the initial state.

But by initial, you mean 0 speed, which I call 'at rest.'
Why can't a ship accelerate to .5 c then cut engines and establish a new frame of reference? Again, we're back to one base measurement for the universe, meaning Aether.

Finite amount of what?

Of energy to move the electron.

For example, if a standard photon contained 200 corpuscles in linear sequence(stream) and red light had 190(per unit of time) and blue had 210, then 190 hitting a certain electron at a certain shell wouldn't be enough to make it jump. That excess energy, in lieu of forcing a jump, wouldn't 'stick' and would be bled off, possibly in another stream of corpuscles.

However, if a blue streak hits with 210, it exactly matches the energy needed and is absorbed, making the electron jump.

This is why (possibly) it takes a certain frequency of light to make certain electrons jump. The reverse is true when they move back, when they expell an identical amount of energy in another corpuscle stream, i.e. a 'photon.'

[Quadhelix]

The universe can't spin around YOU nor can it spin at all. Reality isn't relative. And the fact that centrifugal force exists proves it so.

An object wants to travel in a straight line, thus a moving object forcibly being curved has an acceleration...such a thing proves rotational spin versus at rest state. The two are not a product of perspective.

Except that you can transform an accelerating frame of reference into a non-accelerating frame of reference by postulating the presence of a gravitational field of appropriate strength.

But by initial, you mean 0 speed, which I call 'at rest.'

Something is always at rest in its own frame of reference. In that case, your statement is tautology. The ship's initial frame of reference is at rest only relative to the ship and the buoy; once the ship starts accelerating, the ship's initial frame is at rest relative only to the buoy.

There is, however, nothing special about the ship's initial frame of reference, nor do I treat it as being special in any way. The only point is that the ship is unable to accelerate past c relative to its initial frame of reference. Since, as you pointed out, its initial frame of reference is somewhat arbitrary, this also shows that it cannot accelerate past c relative to any frame of reference.

Why can't a ship accelerate to .5 c then cut engines and establish a new frame of reference?

It can, as I said, velocities do not add linearly.


Let us say that the ship drops a buoy, Buoy 1, and then accelerates away from Buoy 1. Then, once the ship is traveling away from Buoy 1 (or Buoy 1 is traveling away from the ship) at 0.5c, the ship drops another buoy, Buoy 2.

Note that Buoy 1 and Buoy 2 are traveling away from one another at 0.5c. The ship then starts accelerating away from both. Once it is traveling away from Buoy 2 at 0.5c (in Buoy 2's frame of reference), the ship stops again. In Buoy 2's frame of reference, the ship and Buoy 1 are moving away from one another at 1c.

However, if we then transfer into Buoy 1's frame of reference or the ship's frame of reference, we find something different: Buoy 1 and the ship are moving away from one another at only 0.8c, not 1c.

Of energy to move the electron.

For example, if a standard photon contained 200 corpuscles in linear sequence(stream) and red light had 190(per unit of time) and blue had 210, then 190 hitting a certain electron at a certain shell wouldn't be enough to make it jump. That excess energy, in lieu of forcing a jump, wouldn't 'stick' and would be bled off, possibly in another stream of corpuscles.

However, if a blue streak hits with 210, it exactly matches the energy needed and is absorbed, making the electron jump.

This is why (possibly) it takes a certain frequency of light to make certain electrons jump. The reverse is true when they move back, when they expell an identical amount of energy in another corpuscle stream, i.e. a 'photon.'

This is not relevant to the Photoelectric Effect. In the Photoelectric Effect, the electron is permanently ejected from the atom.

It takes a certain amount of energy to eject an electron. However much energy is left over from the photon, that is how much energy the electron will have.

Using your example, again, let us say it takes 8.5 impacts worth of energy to eject an electron from an atom. Under your system, this means that, once an atom is hit by 9 impacts, the electron will be ejected and will have kinetic energy equivalent to 1/2 an impact. It doesn't matter how many "corpuscles" are in the photon, because the electron will always be ejected as soon as it has enough energy, and it will come away with an energy of 1/2 an impact, no matter how much total energy is stored in the photon as a whole.

However, this contradicts what we see. When a photon hits a metal atom, the energy of the ejected electron is dependent entirely on the energy of the photon. If it takes, for example, 5 eV of energy to eject the electron, and the photon has 103 eV of energy, the ejected electron will have a kinetic energy of 98 eV.

[Saquist]

Quadhelix,

I've read a few articles discrediting relativistic Mass, apparently it's been some debate as too whether this is creditable. It seems to me E=Mc^2 does describe relativistic mass because if light is a constant or anything close to a constant then obviously the mass IS increasing in a relative way. Isn't this the reason why there is a light speed limit and...further does not the equation describe the limit? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[Aragon101]

I really have nothing scientific to add to the conversation, other then i can understand what K2 and Quadhelix are saying, while Aer's arguments seem based more on convenience rather than scientific testing.

I knew about the particle accelerator tests and the planes and atomic clocks, that's enough for me (Whether that makes me ignorant or not is really up to you, i'm not up to spending 5-10 years to learn the hardcore physics like some of teh guys here)

To quote a Sci-fi "You do not wish to know anything, you wish only to speak. That which you know, you ignore, because it is inconvenient. That which you do not know, you invent."

On the above, I have yet to see an answer to K^2's question of "Anomalous Magnetic Moment".

Questioning and verifying is prudent, but that's exactly what scientists do isn't it? That's how a model or theory is tested right? it's got to be accurate a ridiculously high percentage of the time in order for it to be "established"?

[Aer'ki]

I really have nothing scientific to add to the conversation, other then i can understand what K2 and Quadhelix are saying, while Aer's arguments seem based more on convenience rather than scientific testing.

I knew about the particle accelerator tests and the planes and atomic clocks, that's enough for me (Whether that makes me ignorant or not is really up to you, i'm not up to spending 5-10 years to learn the hardcore physics like some of teh guys here)

To quote a Sci-fi "You do not wish to know anything, you wish only to speak. That which you know, you ignore, because it is inconvenient. That which you do not know, you invent."

On the above, I have yet to see an answer to K^2's question of "Anomalous Magnetic Moment".

Questioning and verifying is prudent, but that's exactly what scientists do isn't it? That's how a model or theory is tested right? it's got to be accurate a ridiculously high percentage of the time in order for it to be "established"?

That's exactly how I'd describe the Einstein devotees. The math, if you look close enough, is based off of many assumptions and violates basic logic on a continual basis. Large, complex equations and multiple caveats make it look complex and therefore not understandable to the average joe, but it is nothing more than a scientific con game.

Look through history for examples. Galilleo for example.
Also look at the influence the church had on what was 'allowed' to be believed. Many people fought the same way, discrediting their opposition who said that the Sun orbited the earth.

The parallels are shockingly similar.

[Aragon101]

That's exactly how I'd describe the Einstein devotees. The math, if you look close enough, is based off of many assumptions and violates basic logic on a continual basis. Large, complex equations and multiple caveats make it look complex and therefore not understandable to the average joe, but it is nothing more than a scientific con game.

Look through history for examples. Galilleo for example.
Also look at the influence the church had on what was 'allowed' to be believed. Many people fought the same way, discrediting their opposition who said that the Sun orbited the earth.

The parallels are shockingly similar.

A simple parallel is not a fact though. I'm not saying you're not allowed to believe what you believe, but don't ignore evidence that's in front of you.

I'm curious, you've obviously got alot of knowledge on teh subject. Are you studying physics in college?

[Quadhelix]

The math, if you look close enough, is based off of many assumptions and violates basic logic on a continual basis.

Actually, Special Relativity is based off of 2 assumptions:
1. All non-accelerating frames of reference are equally valid (Newton's First Law)
2. A beam of light has the same speed in all frames of reference (this flows naturally from the first postulate and the fact that Emission Theory contradicts all physical evidence obtained).

Large, complex equations...

There is nothing large nor complex about the equations of Special Relativity.

Taking "u" as the velocity between two frames of reference:

gamma==1/Sqrt[1 - u^2/c^2]
x'=(x - u*t)*gamma
t'=(t - u*x/c^2)*gamma
v=(v' + u)/(1 + (v'*u/c^2))
p=gamma*m*v


Whether these equations are too complicated for the "average joe" is irrelevant to their accuracy.


By the way, I've raised several points here that you have neglected to address.

[Aer'ki]

Actually, Special Relativity is based off of 2 assumptions:
1. All non-accelerating frames of reference are equally valid (Newton's First Law)
2. A beam of light has the same speed in all frames of reference (this flows naturally from the first postulate and the fact that Emission Theory contradicts all physical evidence obtained).


There is nothing large nor complex about the equations of Special Relativity.

Taking "u" as the velocity between two frames of reference:

gamma==1/Sqrt[1 - u^2/c^2]
x'=(x - u*t)*gamma
t'=(t - u*x/c^2)*gamma
v=(v' + u)/(1 + (v'*u/c^2))
p=gamma*m*v


Whether these equations are too complicated for the "average joe" is irrelevant to their accuracy.


By the way, I've raised several points here that you have neglected to address.

To someone not in the field of physics, would those equations not seem complex?

A simple parallel is not a fact though. I'm not saying you're not allowed to believe what you believe, but don't ignore evidence that's in front of you.

I'm curious, you've obviously got alot of knowledge on teh subject. Are you studying physics in college?

Science isn't supposed to be about belief, but determining the truth. Theory is not supposed to be held as absolute, just a temporary working model.

As for my knowledge on the subject, part does come from college, the rest comes from varied other sources. I'm not as familiar with the subject as K2 is, but I understand the underlying principles, which is why I can spot inconsistencies. Same with math...I have a knack for understanding it rather than memorization.

The rest is simple logic.

[Quadhelix]

To someone not in the field of physics, would those equations not seem complex?

No more complex than the rocket equation, or the equations of thermodynamics.

Nevertheless, we have sent men to the Moon and have had working steam engines for well over a century, so clearly scientific equations are not necessarily wrong just because they are "complex."

which is why I can spot inconsistencies.

Except that you have failed to point out any inconsistencies.




I'll note again that you have not addressed the issues that I raised here.

[Aragon101]

To someone not in the field of physics, would those equations not seem complex?



Science isn't supposed to be about belief, but determining the truth. Theory is not supposed to be held as absolute, just a temporary working model.

As for my knowledge on the subject, part does come from college, the rest comes from varied other sources. I'm not as familiar with the subject as K2 is, but I understand the underlying principles, which is why I can spot inconsistencies. Same with math...I have a knack for understanding it rather than memorization.

The rest is simple logic.

It's easy to say that to people who don't know much about the subject (myself included). It's like a University Professor teaching a Grade 1 class. They'll understand the words (the simple ones) but not the context. Does that mean the University Professor is right? No. It simply means that he knows more, but not necessarily the correct facts. That's why i'm actually enjoying this whole discussion between you and K^2. It's very interesting to see the two sides, and as you put it, point and counterpoint.

I have yet to see you really say anything that K^2 and Quadhelix haven't been able to simply and concisely explain so that even laymen like me can understand somewhat. Yet they've countered every point you've made.

You have yet to answer some of their questions which have been sitting around for awhile now. Are you going to or should they just be tabled?

[Aewon]

Due to technical limitations, not due actual physical restraints.

Basically, aircraft that traveled near the speed of sound would start to experience severe turbulence that would eventually destroy the aircraft. The "sound barrier" was the result.

Traveling faster than light, however, allows time travel (or, perhaps more accurately, is time travel). If you allow time travel, that raises a whole host of questions that don't have evident answers.

Well, that was just a few years before they broke the speed barrier. I'd say we're still a few centuries away from breaking the light-barrier, probably more.

[K^2]

That's exactly how I'd describe the Einstein devotees. The math, if you look close enough, is based off of many assumptions and violates basic logic on a continual basis. Large, complex equations and multiple caveats make it look complex and therefore not understandable to the average joe, but it is nothing more than a scientific con game.

I understand these equations, and I use them in my work to produce scientific results that agree with what experimentalists arrive at. Just recently, I was computing current masses of up and down quarks as a function of their momentum within a meson. I was using relativistic equations in my computations. I got the curve that was within error bars of data points derrived through the experiment.

Are you saying that I'm also a con man? Making up lies just to confuse others and make them believe that relativity works when it doesn't? Because, clearly, if there is a great conspiracy here, I have to be part of it. I am part of the group that produces results that support the theory.