Jump to content
Science Forums

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Relativity'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General Science Forums
    • Popular Science and News
    • Biology
    • Chemistry
    • Earth and Climate Science
    • Computer Science and Technology
  • Physics / Math / Engineering
    • Physics and Mathematics
    • Astronomy and Space
    • Engineering and Applied Science
  • Social Science Forums
    • Philosophy Forums
    • Political Sciences
    • Music Studies
    • Linguistics
    • History Forum
    • Psychology
    • Sociology
    • Education and Pedagogy
  • Community Center
    • The Lounge
    • Forum Announcements

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation

  1. Does intuition violate- Relativity -causality QM -Collapsing the wave function without an as is presence Y/N
  2. Einstein's special theory of relativity is mathematically wrong but we find the effect of relativity is true i.e. time slow down due to velocity of frame or mass increases due to motion. This paper gives reason for that. This happen due to property of subspace as explain in chapter 3. This paper proves that Special theory of relativity is mathematically wrong. Effect of special theory of relativity is true in one direction that is due to the property of subspace as given in chapter 3. Space & vacuum are different. This concept solves the problem of dark matter, dark energy & big bang.
  3. This is the topic that is outside the bounds of standard science: it contains interesting and supported views based on Rational analysis and requires the use of deductive Logic. No wishy washy Math is required. Anyone is invited to add to this collection, its already quite big, but I've not posted what I've found so far. Relativists will have nothing new to contribute, their position is well understood, but rejected on the grounds that its all irrational nonsense.
  4. In my travels from forum to forum, I've met few people who even know what algebra is let alone how to use it. In high school, algebra was my worst subject but now I've learned to love math.. Before I start I must warn people: Warning: This thread contains simple math and may cause serious cranial distress. There that should frighten away almost everyone. So I'm going to construct a theory of relativity from first principles using only simple algebra. I'm not going to start with any of Einstein's assumptions or terminology but my one assumption will generate most of the same results as E
  5. This paper proves that Inertial frame of reference concept of Newton is wrong because that gives different result of same event & require some modification(chapter 1) & Einstein Special theory of relativity is also wrong because when object & observer move in different directions then relative mathematics gives some wrong results as applied force is different than acting force & direction of acceleration & force are different (chapter 1). I have proposed that space is different than vacuum & create a frame of reference. This solve the problem of dark energy (a
  6. Special Relativity states that all things exist relative to one another and so no true fixed points can exist or at the very least be found. I feel this can be contradicted when looking at space-time singularities. A space-time singularity being a point at which the gravitational pull becomes infinite (or pseudo-infinite), if this is true then wouldn't the fabric of space-time be fixed around that point, any movement of the singularity would then be directly expressed by the fabric of space-time and vice-versa. This would then be a "fixed-point", unfortunately this would only be useful if th
  7. If an observer is moving (at a high enough speed to be considered) between two light sources (at fixed distance), does the light from both sources reach the observer at the same speed? I am led to believe the answer is yes. Could someone either correct me or (even better if I'm right) explain the phenomenon?
  8. Can the Michelson Morley experiment be considered as proof that there is no cosmic aether? The experiment gave a null result. But it seems that it had a disproportionately negative effect on the concept of an aether. It seems to me that quite pre-determined assumptions were made as to how an aether behaves around a planet - like a flowing gas in a compressive atmosphere. How can we say that a cosmic aether would behave in a certain way and then declare it's non existence because certain expectations were not observed? There is a lot of space within an atom, what if the aether passes throug
  9. In 2006 I asked my first question on a physics forum. I couldn't understand the difference between a sound wave and a light wave as it pertained to relative velocity. Of course I got nothing but nasty, snarky, condescending, general and irrelevant answers from Wiki-like sources to my question which set the tone of my attitude towards physics forums to this day. I understood a source could not force a sound or light wave any faster through it's medium, the wave's velocity was always the same relative to its medium. Any velocity of the source or a receiver would manifest itself in the altered fr
  10. This theory give answer to many problems of physics like 1) Dark matter. 2) Accelerated expansion of world. 3) Dual nature of particle & wave. 4) Why matter is much more than anti-matter in world? 5) Theory beyond standard model of particle physics. 6) What is the space? etc etc http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0178
  11. I'd like to glean some important points out of a discussion that went bad to help people understand the unending debate between relativists and absolutists. Of course I'll only present my perspective cleaned up. There is a very subtle distinction between a preferred frame as an absolute frame and a preferred frame as one that is agreed to by all participants. This distinction only becomes important if there were only two inhabitants floating in space with stars way in the background. An absolutist would say, they could each measure their absolute speed with a high degree of accuracy by trian
  12. The relation between Einstein theory of relativity and photosynthesis E = MC^2 The speed of light determines the number of photons incident up on the dorsal surface of a green leaf in unit time. If the speed of light were ten percent of it's current value a plant would not get enough sunlight ( i.e. photons per unit time and it would not be able to perform photosynthesis ). So the speed of light is coupled with process of photosynthesis in green plants. agree or disagree ?
  13. Are there experts on relativity on this forum? Will we be able to talk mathematically (and all I'm talking about is the basic algebra of spacetime diagrams)? Full disclosure: I've tried 3 forums, CR4, SPCF and the physicsforums and no luck. Burt Jordaan spent years tutoring me on the CR4 and SPCF forums but he's not happy with the direction I took so he stopped. I see no point in continuing on the CR4 or SPCF forums and almost 3 yrs ago I spent a day on the physicsforums and got permanently banned for discussing a personal theory. My fault, I didn't know what I was talking about. I know so muc
  14. The Unified Theory Of Relativity A unified description of acceleration that doesn't distinguish between straight geodesic worldlines in curved spacetime and curved worldlines in flat spacetime, thereby simplifying and unifying the special and the general theories of relativity. Summary Special relativity describes acceleration as objects following curved paths through flat spacetime while general relativity describes acceleration as objects following straight paths through flat space time but these are entirely interchangable and equivalent because the curvature of spacetime can only ever be
  15. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLj6DWzIvBi4PFDXCCV1bNhVUgDLTwVbFc
  16. The deeper you look into Special and General Relativity, the clearer you see that it's just one twisted mass of error. There's literately nothing that can be salvaged from the hypothesis. So where does that leave other branches of modern Science that are using these failed theories as a basis? Such as in Cosmology, we have deduced that the universe began from a Big Bang, but without Einstein's GR this would not be the assumption. Same with LIGO trying to detect "gravitational waves", this can't be what they were looking at, as there is no such thing as a "fabric of time-space". I
  17. My new book “Physics of the Non-Physical” is now available on Amazon: For those scientists and people with scientific background knowledge, I believe you may find that the science which you think you know has very significant gaps in what it actually knows. The two overarching paradigms of modern science, the theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics, are not able to account adequately for what we observe in our so-called physical realm, from the expanse of the universe to the point singularity of a black hole. The most glaring deficiency in our present science is the complete
  18. Carried on from the other topic. What doesn't happen to the orientation of light as it moves across a curved four dimensional surface: What does happen: Why time dilation stretches the wavelength of light as it moves across a curved four dimensional surface in the same way that relative velocity changes the orientation of objects:
  19. There is a special relationship between permittivity and permeability in the Sciama model that I am not aware that Sciama himself was aware of. There does exist in literature, a direct analogy of the gravitational permeability and permittivity. It is stated that [math]\epsilon_G = \frac{1}{4 \pi G}[/math] is the gravitational analogue of the vacuum permittivity [math]\epsilon[/math]. Gravitational waves have been experimentally varified to move at the speed of light - this is related in analogy (Sivaram, Sabatta) with electromagnetism [math]c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}[/math] and th
  20. Can I project my body energy into a ball of energy and pass it to another person??
  21. I had an exam today and in the exam a question was this, "A 50 year old tortoise jumps onto a rocket and goes to a distant planet 370 lightyears away, the rockets speed was 0.7c . If a tortoise lives 450 years in avarage, would he live till reaching the destination or not?" cruel question I know, but i calculated like this that relativity won't affect the tortoise and it'd take him (370)©/(0.7c)=528 years, so he won't survive. Is my process correct? because as i understand it, for the tortoise everything is normal. All my friends have answered using time dilation. So I am really confused. Plea
  22. General relativity breaks down at singularities, this is well known and not in dispute. It actually breaks down at the event horizon because it's effectively the same thing. The problems associated with black holes are not trivial and there's more than just the odd one or two, - http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/27224-can-you-answer-these-black-hole-questions. The Equivalences That Falsify General Relativity's Description Of Gravity These equivalences show that relativity is perfectly capable of describing all forms of macroscopic motion without any areas where the theory breaks down. You
  23. Good afternoon, or whatever. I came up with this about eight years ago so I think it's about time I actually checked if it works. There's only one spacial dimension (the one the object is moving in) to worry about in relativity and time is no different to space so you can derive time dilation and length contraction using two spacial dimensions. The four dimensions are at right angles to each other so if you draw a horizontal line and then draw another line the same length at an angle to it with 90 degrees representing the speed of light (so if you want to compare objects moving at half the s
  24. PHYSICS OF OPTICS AND TIME Any corrections, different point of view and criticism will be appreciated please. ABSTRACT: A brief proposition on the nature of light waves and how it affects the measurement of observers. Imagine a stationary observer who is at a distance D, away from a stationary source of light that emits a light signal at a constant period t, and let's assume that both parties are provided with a clock. If the source of light emits a light signal that travels away to the observer for a period of time t, both parties will agree that there is no change in the wavelength of
  25. Dr. Chris Nagel has been able to, by manipulating the knotted structure of matter with light, craft magnetized copper, transparent copper, iron harder than diamond, nickle you can shatter like glass with a hammer, and dozens of other elements with tailored properties. His patent claims underlying relativistic transformations: "Devices improve control by selection, inversion, fortification, uniformization and mapping background energy (including vacuum energy, dark energy and/or dark matter, grid or brane energy) and including electromagnetic energies in various forms and states of aggregatio
×
×
  • Create New...