Jump to content
Science Forums # VictorMedvil

Members

3,714

117

## Everything posted by VictorMedvil

1. The interesting thing about this is the shortening and lengthening of telomeres is a chemical change, I don't think it was due to Einstein's Theory of Relativity that his telomeres experienced a chemical change as that would make a change of matter as result of time Dilation. However this is why the human body needs to be genetically engineered for Space Travel to remove the genetic side effects of being in zero G.
2. If you wanted more detail of the Quarks within the Proton you could graph the equation with the same set of coordinates including the quarks with the same result. For the Rest proton with quarks in finer detail. 9.9023511969154288921026543960449 * 1059 (+2/3/(dx + dy +dz),R/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) , (+2/3/(dx + dy +dz),B/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) , (-1/3/(dx +
3. Its not a force in the form that you are describing it doesn't make things gain motion, it only slows the motion of objects. It would be like saying a wire is a force because it has electrical resistance which is not true but Ralfcis has the proper idea.
4. You are talking about the normal force not friction or interia, that is something different that is the object's motion being redirected by a solid object. It doesn't accelerate the object it actually slows and moves in another direction even though you may barely notice it. If the object was being accelerated it would move faster rather the crash. Car crashing into a wall
5. I have decided to use this equation for a proton instead of the entire universe as it would be too much data to ever complete. (Universe Volumetric Planck State @ size of universe in radius) =(4/3)π((RUniverse/(tpC))3 (∇Charge,∇Color,∇flavour,∇gravity - ∇Dark Energy) RUniverse = RProton = 10-15 meters The Equation Yields a Planck State of 9.9023511969154288921026543960449 * 1059 (∇Charge,∇Color,∇flavour,∇gravity - ∇Dark Energy) So a Field with 9.9023511969154288921026543960449 * 1059 cubes that are a Planck length with states of (+1/(dx + dy +dz),R/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +d
6. Interia is just a resistance to movement like mass, however like friction is not necessarily a force as it does not cause things to accelerate but rather resists acceleration. It always opposes movement like friction, interia does. For Instance, If I have a object with a large rotational interia it will resist the movement to turn where as if it has a low interia it will not resist the turning motion as much just as with high friction and slow friction. They are not real forces but pseudo-forces that resist something based on conditions, if it were a real force it would cause acceleration of t
7. You know Ralfcis you aren't wrong but these equations are generally accepted more or less in SR with the 4 Velocity current in relativity. The only thing you have done differently is not use the Gamma function or Beta Function.
8. Done Moronium now, you can't change observed evidence and experimental data, my patience is lacking go play with ralfcis.
9. The CERN Protons don't travel faster than light even though Newtonian mechanics say they would travel at 130 times C.
10. Did you just not see me prove it with the particle accelerator example adding to what GAHD said.
11. I get what your saying but that is enough to prove relativity to me, that is all the matters about relativity in my opinion can you exceed the speed of light without exotic matter aka Negative Matter/Energy.
12. Bottom of page 6 Link = http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/35719-the-concept-of-mass/page-6
13. Exactly moronium spot on, thats why I wish you were right but it isn't the way the universe works.
14. The Proton in the particle accelerator at 8 Tev is what I am talking about, read the previous posts.
15. Does it matter I want to travel the stars, I don't care how.
16. What is required is for that particle to be traveling faster than the speed of light for time to be absolute, A goes to B goes to C , C back to A. Deductive reasoning, that particle moving relativistically thus time is relative too, sorry moronium I wish it wasn't so.
17. The reason for that is I was born during the era of Particle accelerators, all I have to do is see the results of the particle acceleration tests to know relativity exists and is correct. a proton moving at 8 Tev would be traveling a velocity of 39,152,702,738.591712017603119320395 Meters per second or 130 times the speed of light if relativity was incorrect during acceleration tests which is what Newtonian physics yields for velocity like I said if it were something that were wrong we would have already breached the light barrier.
18. Honestly, I don't know but as I said if there were no relative motion photons traveling opposite direction then another photon would be traveling at 2C, I have always used relativity to calculate such things so I don't really know, but from relativity they are just traveling both at C in their own frames of reference.
19. Yes, but technically if you were always in a state of rest and the rest of the universe would moving in that scenario it would be moving at 2C as velocity of the photon but the aether theory has been disproven which was the theory before relativity. Basically, that light moved in some directions faster than others due to the aether.
20. Well technically if you were moving at the speed of light in the oppose direction of a photon it would be traveling at 2C from your frame of reference but that isn't how it is viewed, if it were a Absolute Frame of Reference being yours.
21. I do because of Mass increase and energy increase of the system during acceleration, the variance of time and space, is equal to the Increase of mass and Energy in the system which is the Lorrentz Factor "Beta" which is the reason that Negative Energy/Mass will undo the effect at the same geometric amounts and densities. Trust me if I didn't need to introduce negative Energy-mass into the system to travel faster than light I wouldn't, if it were something I could change I would but that is how the universe works.
22. But see moronium here is the problem with that it has been tested and if particles could travel faster than light by just acceleration the CERN and Fermilab Particle accelerators would have already breached the Light Barrier at 8 Tev, thus Relativity must be correct it cannot be a linear increase in energy with velocity.
23. Exactly, you wouldn't need negative Energy or Negative Mass to travel faster than light theoretically. Basically if you can get something to travel faster than light without Negative Energy-mass it would destroy Relativity forever.
24. You could travel faster than the speed of light without doing a bunch of weird stuff to space would be the physical effect. I wouldn't be working on a Warp Drive or Wormhole Generator you could travel at as fast a speed through space as you wanted.
25. Yes but the other 3 frameworks QFT,GR, and SR do assume it is relative which there are four main frameworks Modern Physics is based off.
×

• #### Activity

• Leaderboard
×
• Create New...