Special Relativity: Alternatives?

[arkain101]

sebbysteiny:Nice theory arkain101.

 

Before I read it in great detail (which takes time), there was a preliminary point that I wanted to discuss.

 

It seems to me that fundamental to your theory certainly to explain my 'energy' paradox, is that when one frame shrinks, it can be viewed as the other frame expanding. And both actions requires an equal amount of energy.

 

However, frames have never been seen to expand in this way, only shrink.

 

The observer in my expriment will observe the Earth to shrink. The observer on Earth will observe the rocket shrinking. Nowhere is there any evidence of any measurable 'expansion'.

 

Please explain this expansion in more detail and whether you think you are relying on special relativity or providing an alternative to it. And if you are providing an alternative, perhaps you can explain why no such 'expansion' has ever been observed by any observer anywhere.

 

One example that seems related to spacial expansion is magnetic field. I recalled reading that SRT calculated that an object traveling C would appear to expand dimensionally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

 

In the meantime let me see what I can muster to check this thought.

One example is, as gravity causes space to contract between objects they observe radial expansion.

[arkain101]

The contraction is in the ratio:

Propose we took this equation and wrote:

 

[math](1+V^2/C^2)= (1-V^2/C^2)[/math]

 

is this mathamatically correct?

 

I propose things are square rooted and squared because they deal with one frames interests.

 

The above equation is to state no one thing can occur without two frames, thus for a fundamental equation it should be fully written to express two frames. Two frames, that reduce or factor down to a 1:1 relationship with no change. However when there is change amongst frames the change is in the form of, 1+ : 1- (equal opposites)

[IDMclean]

Question, as this all relates to velocity, energy, and mass. How would this all relate to say thermodynamics? Or electromagnetics?

 

Also why would matter expand or contract? Would it not be mass-energy that does that? or the volume of the body?

[arkain101]

Question, as this all relates to velocity, energy, and mass. How would this all relate to say thermodynamics? Or electromagnetics?

 

 

Its interesting, I happened to wonder about that last night. I tried doing some thought experiments and working with some equations.

 

As far as I come to conclude, for thermodynamics;

 

As you add energy or heat to a body of mass there is an overal random acceleration occuring in the whole of the mass.

 

That is, particles (matter) are under larger acceleration stages. This is like experiencing acceleration at rest, in random directions.

 

Respect to a frame under high acceleration space contracts in the dimension of motion.

 

If expansion is the equal opposite for the comparison reference frame, then overall, the material would expand in volume dimensionally.

 

Then we heat this material higher and higher. It goes from a solid and melts into a liquid form. In an enviroment free of gravity this material liquid would expand imensly and not sure what else? fly apart?

 

Eventually, at tempetures as hot as the sun, we get an electrically charged plasma and relativistic Magnetic Fieldsapearing from the relativistic effects of a moving electric field. The accelerations in this stage on the matter (frames) cause great space-time dilations.

 

That is where the logic points in this theory. As for its the this being correct, I do not know.

 

 

Also why would matter expand or contract? Would it not be mass-energy that does that? or the volume of the body?

 

For matter at rest the only material expansion is that in volume form.

 

For matter at extreme acceleration it is in the dimension of travel expansion.

 

If an observer takes off in a rocket and measures a planet to come closer from dimension contraction, then it is actually closer. Space has contracted, and so has the space that moving frame.

 

So an outside observer at rest has to also see an effect otherwise the distance/time comparisons will not add up between the two, developing an arival paradox. Thus, the object should grow equally in direction of travel equally to the contraction the moving frame observes.

 

At the quantum level there is a simularity to this effect. A miniscule particle that is moving fast may look stretched. If you try to measure its posistion you lose the ability to find its mass/momentum. If you try to measure its momentum you lose the ability to understand its size , if it is dimensionally stretched, which loses its posistion. similar concept, but I'd definatly have to study further to be sure. I am following this theories logic, quite blind in hopes to cut new trail.

[IDMclean]

Alright, how about absolute or near absolute zero temperatures? What about Bose-Einstein condensate?

 

I asked, in a picture I posted in my own thread, Relative Quantum Charge Dynamics, is it that Alice got bigger, or did the world get smaller?

[arkain101]

Alright, how about absolute or near absolute zero temperatures? What about Bose-Einstein condensate?

 

I asked, in a picture I posted in my own thread, Relative Quantum Charge Dynamics, is it that Alice got bigger, or did the world get smaller?

 

 

Force: A product of equal opposite events happening between two or more frames. It is motion or it is force, but both are a product of energy between two frames.

 

Prediction of frictionless material:

In respect to the theory, as you cool a material (a gas in this case) lower and lower, the accelerations of each atom within the gas slows down. The material would be seen to visually contract. Eventually chemical bonds would lessen. This would be due to the lessening of spacial contraction between each atom in the gas. Eventually once the atoms had reached sufficient rest relative to eachother chemical bonds would be next to null and it would act as independent frictionless particles.

 

Prediction of gravity defying material:

The theory would say that the material would be capable to lose part of its its gravitational attraction. So much so that if the material were being experimented on a position located on the outside of the earth in respect to its rotation around the sun, the motion of the gas would dare to continue away from earth free of gravity. In this state each individual atom would be severly shrunken but still a functioning atom.

 

Prediction of influencing the material:

If one were to influence the zero state energy atoms with the correct magnetic field, you could cause the atomic material, that is, the atoms, to lose more their own internal velocities. This would be expected to happen from influncing a material with an expanded space-time(magnetism) resulting in their frame to experience spacial contraction. That is to make them act high velocity while they are at rest. This could cause an atom to reduce its size incredibly relative to us, and relative to the atom it would have assumed it had just seen the universe nearly collapse around them. For, an atom in super high acceleration can induce magentic field. If you take an atom at rest and induce it with expanded space of a magnetic field, that atom would experience as previously said spacial contraction, giving it false energy, or in a sense tricking the atom that it has gone near the light speed when it has not. The atom would shrink in volume. If the atom were to be released from this false velocity it would release a massive amount of energy.

[arkain101]

Theory supports geological theory (expanding earth). And the dinosaurs?

 

Expanding earth concepts.

 

This Relativity theory and a developing hypothesis has predicted earth would have been immensly larger than it is today in the distant past.

 

A larger earth is infact a less dense earth. This would create distance from the center of mass of the earth, and infact lessening its gravitational force. On top of that it would of had less mass. As time goes on debris in space builds up on earth. The measurment of mass is predictable, but not as significant in my opinion as the volume of earth for the effect of gravity.

 

The theory suggests it is physically possible for earth to change volume quite substantially.

 

A hot earth is an expanded soft earth, with greater g-force expansion due to its soft form. The idea that earth was smaller in the past would infact only increase its density and bring a walking life form much closer to the center of the earth. Which is the opposite effect dinosaurs required. If dinosaurs required less gravity, they would of need to reside on a larger diameter earth.

 

An ice age also would have greatly contracted the earth and made it much smaller. This would of directly changed the force of gravity over time for the surface material. Life forms would of needed to be small to continue survival at this stage for land. In water however, water density would also have increased. What affect this has on water life forms I am not one to say.

 

Today the earth may be once again expanding. Earth quakes may be direct result of this expansion.

[CraigD]

The contraction is in the ratio:

Propose we took this equation and wrote:

 

[math](1+V^2/C^2)= (1-V^2/C^2)[/math]

 

is this mathamatically correct?

[math]\left(1+\frac{V^2}{c^2}\right) = \left(1-\frac{V^2}{c^2}\right)[/math]

 

does not follow from

 

[math]ratio = \sqrt{1-\frac{V^2}{c^2}}[/math]

 

[math]\left(1+\frac{V^2}{c^2}\right) = \left(1-\frac{V^2}{c^2}\right)[/math] has no real non-zero solutions for [math]V[/math].

I propose things are square rooted and squared because they deal with one frames interests.

I don’t follow your reasoning.

 

[math]\frac1{\sqrt{1-\frac{V^2}{c^2}}}[/math], the Lorentz factor, is usually considered to be due to the equivalence principle of Special Relativity, and the Pythagorean theorem (A special case of which can be stated: for a right triangle with sides length A and B and hypotenuse length 1, [math]A=\sqrt{1-B^2}[/math] ), a consequence of locally Euclidean geometry.

[arkain101]

[math]\left(1+\frac{V^2}{c^2}\right) = \left(1-\frac{V^2}{c^2}\right)[/math] has no real non-zero solutions for [math]V[/math]

Quote:

I propose things are square rooted and squared because they deal with one frames interests.

 

I don’t follow your reasoning.

 

For example. You mentioned it does not solve for [math]V[/math].

 

Solving for a value of one frames interest is gernally what all physics is.

-Kintetic Energy, Potential Energy, E=MC^2, Velocity, etc.

 

These equations have interest in one frames interest. They calculate the value of one frame, from the interaction of two frames.

 

Principle, no ONE event can occur without a counterpart frame. That is velocity, energy, mass, gravity. All forces for example, they are products that occur from a minimum of two frames.

 

I propose things are square rooted and squared because they deal with one frames interests

 

So for example KE.

[math]KE=1/2(M*V^2)[/math]

>

[math]KE=(M*V) (M*V) / (M + M)[/math]

 

This solves for KE of one frame. But one frame never has KE unless you apply a secondary frame. This is relativity.

 

So we have what is collaboration equation. Not a solving equation but a predicting equation:

The delta change in one frame is equal and opposte to the other frame.

[math]-Delta (frame1) = +Delta(frame2) [/math]

The Change value is determined by formula of KE of frame of interest.

 

(Frame of interest, it has motion. What is lossed in this side is equall but oppositely gained in the other:

(frame 1) [math](-)KE=1/2(M*V^2) = (+)'KE=1/2('M*'V^2)[/math] (frame2)

 

This equation does not solve for one frame. It simply describes what happens. I am not very good at expressing it in math, but I am trying to show that if one frame of mass hits strait on to another frame of mass.

The operation that occurs will be energy lossed on one frame will be taken by the other frame. The velocities are determinable by other equations.

 

So if we unite those two sides we get a whole, product event. That whole product event is Force. Force did not exist untill the frames interacted.

 

Thus everything in the universe is predicted to behave this way in respect to this theory.

 

If you knew nothing of science and you wondered; What is energy? The equation would say, it is the equal yet opposite counterpart of some thing.

Thus you would be inclined to discover what that some thing is. What is opposite to something that measures to have No mass. Something with mass, thus matter/mass.

But how much energy? well you look at mass at rest and energy at C. Mass only moves in one dimension, and a minimum movement is to lose momentum in equal opposite directions. Using also other equations, one would be confident to say E=MC^2, under the understanding all 'things' have a relationship in the form of.

[math]-Delta (frame1) = +Delta(frame2) [/math]

and all relationships generate and event as a whole. We refer to these events as change, motion, or force.

 

 

so when I tried to use this:

[math]\left(1+\frac{V^2}{c^2}\right) = \left(1-\frac{V^2}{c^2}\right)[/math]

it is attempting to say

Observer rest: There is a positive(expansion) ratio change in matter dimension parrallel to motion = Observer acceleration: there is a negetive (contraction) ratio change in space dimension parrallel to motion

 

Equal change of opposites. matter = space

 

It attempts to say, if you measure change in one frame, you can directly predict the change in the other frame and what kind of change that will be relative to each other. The product of these two changes or frames is an event of motion and force.

 

Thus the equation to solve for force, may possibly never be an equation solving force for one side.

 

However, it is predicted, that force is explained to be an equation that expresses a change ratio of +1 : 1- for two frames. That change ratio as a whole of each frame developes conecption of force and motion and mass.

[arkain101]

Prediction of stimulating free energy

 

This theory of relativity predicts a method to gather energy out of mass in a cold form.

 

By cooling a specific gas the relativistic space contraction and matter expansions amongst atoms reduce so much that the effect of weak nuclear force, or chemical bonds is weakened, and eventually will reach null if the atoms can be put into zero acceleration form.

 

Once the atoms are put into posistion rest from cooling this gas enough it is predicted it will become a condensed material of no weak nuclear force, and act as a frictionless fluid, aswell as a possible loss of its gravitational attraction to other mass, due also to losing dimension exchange of equal opposites.

 

By enducing this material of atoms at rest with a magnetic field, the atoms velocity will not be affected by the field due to their stage in zero acceleration. However, this will cause the internal workings of the atom, the protons/nuetrons/quarks/electrons to experience relativistic effects of their space-time. At this time I am unsure to say whether they would experience spacial expansion or contraction. However as experiments have shown this can cause a bose-einstein condensate material to 'shrink'.

 

What this should do is perform the same sort of act as a nuclear fission. In fission the theory predicts that space is contracted in the atoms view causing the atomic material to expand in volume and become unstable and split as it were into energy.

 

The theory predicts that with proper apparatus a bose-einstein condensate material could be manipulated into assuming super spacial expansion, like blowing up the space between those atoms creating a massive potential energy. Relative to observing the material it would shrink, and with proper reduction of the magnetic field, that material should be capable to transform their mass into pure energy. As energy in this theory is desribed to be space.

 

So the magnetic field causes the atoms to act as if they have been placed in a larger C-meter (spacial volume) and in doing so all quantum frames act as if time has sped up, or as if they have lost tempeature. When the magnetic field allows the space to contract their large C-meter gives all outside observes energy. That is, the events born in the super shrunk atoms are from a very large C-meter relative to themselves and as the traverse from there to outside frames of much smaller C-meter the energy is magnified, frequency increases, and time is observed to run faster, as the material is allowed to re-expand. The magnetic field requires energy, but, the amount of energy reduced from the manipulated atoms should be equivalent to [math]E=MC^2[/math]. Thus cold fusion, or free energy of sorts is produced. It should be possible to stabalize the atoms as to allow them not to lose all velocity relative to themselves. In the correct setup, a dynamic magnetic field should be possible to cause a pumping action out of the atoms, as to pump energy right out of space.

 

In this theory energy is space, and mass is relativistic space changes. Mass is considered force, or that is when you measure it, it always becomes a force. A force is considered relativistic effects amongst a minimum of two atomic frames, it is observed as motion or velocity. Thus accelerating mass, creates force which directly affects its mass.

 

 

Test data showing this effect:

 

Further experimentation by the JILA team in 2000 uncovered a hitherto unknown property of Bose–Einstein condensate. Cornell, Wieman, and their coworkers originally used rubidium-87, an isotope whose atoms naturally repel each other making a more stable condensate. The JILA team instrumentation now had better control over the condensate so experimentation was made on naturally attracting atoms of another rubidium isotope, rubidium-85 (having negative atom-atom scattering length). Through a process called Feshbach resonance involving a sweep of the magnetic field causing spin flip collisions, the JILA researchers lowered the characteristic, discrete energies at which the rubidium atoms bond into molecules making their Rb-85 atoms repulsive and creating a stable condensate. The reversible flip from attraction to repulsion stems from quantum interference among condensate atoms which behave as waves.

 

When the scientists raised the magnetic field strength still further, the condensate suddenly reverted back to attraction, imploded and shrank beyond detection, and then exploded, blowing off about two-thirds of its 10,000 or so atoms. About half of the atoms in the condensate seemed to have disappeared from the experiment altogether, not being seen either in the cold remnant or the expanding gas cloud. Carl Wieman explained that under current atomic theory this characteristic of Bose–Einstein condensate could not be explained because the energy state of an atom near absolute zero should not be enough to cause an implosion

[IDMclean]

Umm, your using the classical Kinetic energy equation.

 

For the purposes of this theorem, it would seem important to address the one which matches. That is:

[math]K = mc^2 - \gamma mc^2[/math]

which replaces:

[math]K = \frac{1}{2}m\nu^2[/math]

 

in full it can be expressed as:

[math]K = mc^2 - \frac{mc^2}{\sqrt{1-\frac{\nu^2}{c^2}}}[/math]

 

Also I don't think you addressed CraigD's concerns. His mathematical ability is very good, so when it comes to talking equations, he is very good.

[arkain101]

Postulates of theory

 

 

a)No action can occur without a minimum of two frames of reference. We can call these frames; A and B. (if you include an observer C who is observing frame A and B, this is 3 frames)

 

:thumbs_doAll frames of refernce are places of observation. Observation with zero dimension as their present moment (now moment). This is, they are constrained to a present moment. A present moment of observation has no space. To assume a dimension is presuming future and distance, leaving the present of a frame.

 

c)All forces are products of two or more frames (a minimum of two frames interacting), but not an entity in of itself or not its own source. (frames being the same types previously mentioned). The source of the a force and all forces is a frame such as an atom experiencing spacial contraction in the direction of the counterpart reference frame. From afar this is observed as a force, when two frames observe space contract between them. For example; magnets. They may have the atomic accelerations in alignment. This rapid occilaton of observing space contract and expand causes a macroscopic observation of a distorted field (lines of force). Two south poles experience that of spacial expansion between them thus they will never naturally remain together, and the same for two north poles. Opposite poles however, observe space to contract between them, thus from afar they appear to have a 'force' driving them together.

 

d)All particles of material or, of mass, are simply frames of observation with titles (titles ie; electron, quark). (no fundamental particle) that observe relativistic effects within their present moment observation. These relativistic effects cause them to have posistion adjustment (force and movement) from spacial contractions, expansions that occur in their frames. Also, matter expansions and contractions that also occur in their frames as observations of other frames.

 

e)All actions between two frames observing eachother are equal and opposite events relative to each observer (All measureable events have an equal and opposite counterpart). This is, to consider a minimum of two frames; Frame A observering frame B, frame B observing frame A.

Example;

-If frame A experiences time to speed up around it, frame B will see frame A's time slow down in equal ratio.

 

 

f)As in Special relativity - The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. In other words, there are no privileged inertial frames of reference.

 

g)Invariance of c - The speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant © which is independent of the motion of the light source.

 

 

___This thread is large and disorganized so I thought I would layout the principles or postulates of this theory, to help get things on track. In short time I will be opening a new thread distinctly about this theory of relativity. This should give readers a chance to understand and follow along.

[arkain101]

Theory refering to Dark Energy, and the measurement of the universe expanding.

 

reply to article: Hubble finds evidence of dark energy

 

 

 

This theory of relativity predicts that dark energy is a concept that is rightly argued by the observation of space expanding.

The equal and opposite counterpart of space expanding is matter or, observable matter contracting, which is also rightly arguable.

 

Example. If one observes by means of light, that the universe and it's material bodies are increasing distance between eachother, they may conclude space is expanding. Also, we will express why it appears to accelerate.

 

Imagine for a moment a very very large trampoline that is flat (the trampoline is going to be consideredmassless to avoid itself from sagging). It is for example, A square kilometer in size.

 

Then it begins to rain millions of tiny balls of mercury (diameter 1cm). centimeter. These mercury balls are affected by earths gravity, and the trampoline is not.

 

The balls imediatly settle into a indentation into the trampoline and assume rest time point (t1). So we have a massive number of round balls of mercury with a diameter of a centimeter. The space between each ball bearing is 10cm. (these balls of mercury are sagging deep into the stretchy tramp, but we must assume the tramp never loses its over all flatness).

 

An observer from one of the mercury balls would look and conclud that the universe was very clustered, and very little space.

 

As time passes one ball joins an indentaion of another ball. At moment of (t2), on average every ball bearing is united with a partner forming a volume(volume2) and an observer on the new ball concludes space between each ball has increased (size X). While the space doubles? the volume of each ball unites into a size of which is 25% larger.

radius 5 = vol 524

Vol 524 x 2 = 1048

volume 1048 = radius 6.3

see sphere volume: Spheres Calculator

 

Time 3. On average every ball of volume 2 has united with another volume 2 into the size of volume 3 (which is 4 balls of diameter 1cm into 1 ball) and space has again been observed to increase.

 

The ratio here is greater space expansion for there is of mercury volume expansion. This results in an acceleration of space expansion.

 

Eventually we have large ball shaped objects of mercury seperated by massive distances. Each of these puddles will eventually merge together at times. However, when they do merge, they will carry such mass combined with velocity that they will merge and explode into several puddles of various volume. As galaxies do.

 

The theory here directly says that obsevations of the incredibly distance past will create a point of time where the universe was condensing creating an expansion of space, at a ratio larger in expansion of space than there is of volume increasement of matter.

[arkain101]

Space versus Volume

 

 

Showing a comparison between changes in space and volume:

 

 

We start with a cube:

The cube has 10cm length * 10cm height * 10cm width

 

We place in one sphere with diameter 2.67cm and volume [math]10cm^3[/math] inside the box. Then we add volumes of spheres together; as in water dropplets that merge as one.

 

The below is: box width (x axis) minus sphere diameter(d#).

 

(x)10cm - 2.67cm(d1) = 7.33cm total distance from walls x axis for volume [math]10cm^3[/math]

 

add another 2.67cm diameter sphere

10cm - 3.37cm = 6.63cm total distance from walls x axis for volume [math]20cm^3[/math]

 

add one more 2.67cm diameter spheres

10cm - 3.86 cm = 6.14cm total distance from walls x axis for volume [math]30cm^3[/math]

 

add one more 2.67cm diameter spheres

10cm - 4.24cm = 5.76cm total distance from walls x axis for volume [math]40cm^3[/math]

 

add one more 2.67cm diameter spheres

10cm - 4.57cm = 5.43cm total distance from walls x axis for volume [math]50cm^3[/math]

 

As we see the volume increases as expected but, the axis space does not increase the same way. They change by different ratio's.

 

The following is, the distance total to the walls, relative to the diameter of the sphere, as we added [math]10cm^3[/math] spheres.

 

7.33cm to 6.63cm to 6.14cm to 5.76cm to 5.43

>

7.33cm - 0.7 = 6.63cm - 0.49 = 6.14cm - 0.38 = 5.76 - 0.33 = 5.43

>

0.7 , 0.49, 0.38, 0.33

>

0.7/0.49=0.7

0.38 / 0.49 =0.77

0.38 / 0.33 = 0.86

 

We see the distance of, in this case axis "x, changes by a different ratio than volume. This difference is that distances increase faster than does volume.

 

There are ratios here that can be calculated but it is something I would need help to calculate.

 

Volume increases at a constant ratio. That is, if you add [math]1cm^3[/math] to a given volume you gain [math]1cm^3[/math] to the total.

 

Conclusion:

 

This concludes that space increases differently than volume. The result of this is that, space or distance between posistions (of 1D one axis), changes at a different ratio than does the volume of bodies.

 

This is supporting the fact space will be observed to acclerate in expansion as matter collects and form individual bodies.

 

*If this ratio is correctly calculated, it should predict an accurate value of expansion of the universe, in relation to the observed average volume of matter, for a given observed zone.

 

 

Note: postulates

*The distance between positions in of object in space is in the form of 1 dimension axis (this being velocity).

 

*However, things that act at rest relative to eachother, will observe any relativistic effects in the form of 3 spacial dimensions.

 

*Frames in motion relative to eachother, will observe 1d relativistic effects (one axis),

[arkain101]

An interesting bit of equations seen at: Particle in a Box

 

 

[math]\frac {1}{2}mv^2 = \frac {(m1 v) (m1' v)}{m1 + m1'} = \frac {p^2}{2m} = \frac {n^2 h^2}{8mL^2} = En[/math]

 

1. The energies are quantized and can be characterized by a quantum number n

2. The energy cannot be exactly zero.

3. The smaller the confinement, the larger the energy required.

 

If a particle is confined into a rectangular volume, the same kind of process can be applied to a three-dimensional "particle in a box", and the same kind of energy contribution is made from each dimension. The energies for a three-dimensional box are

 

 

 

 

Interesting because ;

[math]\frac {(m1 v) (m1' v)}{m1 + m1'}[/math] is a description of kinetic energy being a product of two frames, not just a moving frame. Two things of mass.

[arkain101]

possible confirmation of theory prediction.

 

prediction:

*Strong and weak nuclear force is the effect of frames in a nucleus contracting space relative to eachother causing inevitable action of continuous contraction while in relativistic velocities.

 

 

experimental data:

 

By studying the frictional forces acting on an atomic force microscope (AFM) tip drawn across a glass surface, researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have demonstrated for the first time that the formation of these capillaries is thermally activated. Their study suggests that it may be possible to reduce the adhesion between surfaces by reducing temperatures and putting nanoscale surfaces into motion before the water bridges have time to form.

article

[houserichichi]

Rather than rummaging through however many thousands of words have been written, could you please write (in as few words as humanly possible) what the explicit differences between your theory and special relativity are? Perhaps if we shave off all the excess mumbojumbo then some math could be written to either support or refute your ideas. No examples, just pointform differences between SR and yours.

 

For instance, write

 

1a. SR says this.

1b. My theory, however, says this other thing.

 

2a. SR says this.

2b. My theory, however, says this other thing.

 

etc etc etc.