# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Possible cause of relativity?  (Read 2859 times)

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3927
• Thanked: 55 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #25 on: 16/12/2015 22:55:33 »
As a final word on vector spaces it is worth considering Mandelstam variables.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelstam_variables

Now what happens to particles scattering in the vicinity of an event horizon where we end up with entanglement? How then can remote 'action at a distance' be preserved when no information is available from within the horizon? How does this then relate to entropy? Interesting questions.

#### Phractality

• Hero Member
• Posts: 523
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #26 on: 17/12/2015 01:25:34 »
I attach a diagram that explains why I think it is possible (I emphasize possible) that particles spinning with a tangential velocity of C within the atom could cause not only relativity with exactly the same mathematics as Einstein's equation but also if the energy spins off at that rate in the photon, would also cause light to travel at C.

In my model, your "spinning particles with tangential velocity of C" are pairs of photons orbiting a common barycenter.

If the diameter of the particle is close to the wavelength of the photons, then the outer portion of each photon must be traveling faster then the inner portion; or maybe the two photons must be spaghettified due to warping space-time around the particle's horizon limit. Quantum weirdness, too.

Obviously, a force is required to hold two photons in orbit around one another. The force that I have described, in some other posts, is a non-linear force, strongly dependent on their wavelengths phase angles and the relative orientation of planes of polarity.

Consider such a particle in which each of its two photons has the same proper energy E and proper momentum p = ± E/c. (I insert the ± to call attention to the fact that c is a speed; it only becomes a velocity when coordinate axes are specified. The sign of the momentum is the sign of the velocity. If we choose an x-axis parallel to the path of one of the photons, it will be anti-parallel to the path of the other; so the momenta cancel.) In the particle's own rest frame, p = 0.)

In inertial frame F, The photons are orbiting in the xy-plane.

Their barycenter is moving slowly, along the x-axis with velocity v.

Let's freeze the particle for an instant with photon A moving in the +x direction, photon B in the -x direction.

At that instant, A is more energetic than B, and A has greater momentum than B. The sum of the momenta of the two photons is the momentum of the particle. (Since the momenta are opposite, they nearly cancel.)

p = p(A) + p(B)

I think it should be easy for a mathematician (which I'm not) to derive E = mc2 from these first principles alone. Whatever force holds a pair of photons in orbit is responsible for converting their energy to the proper mass of a particle. I have no idea whether this is compatible with the concept of a Higgs field or Higgs particle, though.

I'm 70.  :-\ My brain's math coprossessor went into retirement decades ago, but I'll give it a try. See if you can get there first. If I'm even partly right, we'll both be famous posthumously, since no one will believe us in this lifetime. Prove me wrong, please!  ^

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 351
• Thanked: 56 times
##### Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #27 on: 17/12/2015 14:25:52 »
E=c as propagation through space. E does not equal m other than the motion of electrons. What causes electrons to move? When you square c for the motion of electrons, the greater the mass, E seems to be reduced. Logic would suggest mass absorbs energy rather than being energy. It also suggests c is the energy state of space when you recognize the electron and photon are controlled to be constant in every frame. Our current understanding is mass being energy and controlling E. Quite possibly E controls mass and progression of time. Space time continuum.

#### dhjdhj

• Full Member
• Posts: 78
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #28 on: 18/12/2015 17:11:17 »
Great stuff my suggestion/argument is based entirely on the peculiar property of a spinning sphere. When I hit my golf ball and it spins the resultant velocity has two components. The tangential speed of the spinning ball and the forward velocity of the ball (not much in my case). The mean resultant velocity of the ball is always the same as the tangential velocity unless the forward velocity exceeds the tangential velocity. In which case the system breaks down. Now if the particles are spinning at C and the particle given a forward velocity then relativity occurs exactly as Einstein's equation. If it was possible to propel the particle at C or greater then atoms would break down and a mighty bang would happen. Einstein's mass equivalence equation drops out by simply adding up all the kinetic energy of the spinning particles and saying that is the energy that is trying to escape the atom. So there must be an equal amount of energy stopping this,so twice the KE and it comes to E=MC˛. The photon argument is another very interesting debate. It not only has to be shown as having a velocity of C, but must also have duality, be consistent with Rydberg, and behave as shown in a gravitational field by experiment. The argument can be extended to deal with those issues, but only if the original idea is possible. There are probably a million physicists out there one of whom would have thought of the concept and it will have been discarded. Now if it has been discarded because there is a flaw in the argument that's great. What is it? I am dying to know. If it has been ignored because it is just too crackpot. Then tell me why. But if the physics is correct and the only reason for dismissing it is that it disturbs the accepted order, the preference. Then why can't it at least be taken seriously as an alternative?

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 351
• Thanked: 56 times
##### Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #29 on: 18/12/2015 20:35:45 »
An alternative is considered a unnecessary complication by mainstream. I agree there is only spin and velocity as motion. A distribution of spinning points cold move electrons and be flexible for dilation of points. I have worked out a pattern that are like a string where electrons rotate around. Two dot lengths is one revolution around the virtual string. This would be why electrons move at a constant similar to the photon. Of course a photon would be a propagation wave on dots and not a virtual particle with its tail waving. You could never go faster than the spin of c. Because that is the limit of propagation energy.

This I all just speculation. But what makes the electrons move?

#### dhjdhj

• Full Member
• Posts: 78
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #30 on: 19/12/2015 12:25:44 »
great, electrons must move (orbit) otherwise there would be no centrifugal balance force to hold the atom together but what causes it to move is a good question. It must be some function of energy when introduced to form the atom in the first place. I don't know I'm reaching.

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 351
• Thanked: 56 times
##### Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #31 on: 19/12/2015 16:41:17 »
great, electrons must move (orbit) otherwise there would be no centrifugal balance force to hold the atom together but what causes it to move is a good question. It must be some function of energy when introduced to form the atom in the first place. I don't know I'm reaching.

Its not reaching, its called thinking for yourself. I suspect it is gravity that holds an atom together, even a lone one. Mass creates a dilation of space. This is observed as lensing in galaxies and time differences in GR frames. We have to think completely different about what we think we know. Rather than force observations to fit current theory we must allow observations to construct theory. Dilation of space where mass occupies space is a big observation. The dilation effects space by the inverse square of the distance. A mathematical interpretation of the observation. What we call gravity is also mathematically observed as the inverse square of the distance. Is that a coincidence? I think not. So we can look at the curve in two dimension or the dilation in three dimension as Einstein's cause of gravity. Still no mechanism yet for the dilation causing attraction.

What is being dilated? What we consider space is being dilated of course. Now we must consider, is space something or is it a void? This opens up a path where main stream choses a void and tosses away any material they had to construct Relativity.

Lets imagine another choice from the observation of c and combine it with the necessity of dark mass energy for the spinning disks of galaxies. So lets consider dark mass energy as the item being dilated by mass. Did the MMX rule out dark mass energy? No, the MMX suggested there was no stationary aether and I would agree. But we can indirectly observe there is a rotational flow of (lets call it) dark mass energy rotating with the galaxy disk as dilation different from flatter space outside of the galaxies with a threshold. When galaxies collide we can view the dilation move out (kinetic energy) and the solid material move towards the dilated space.

Dark mass energy, what do we know of space? First it is a constant c. We think of that motion as fast because relative to our synapsis it is very fast. We are just a chemical reaction defined by c. We can only view c indirectly as distance by time. But c is involved in our measure of distance and time relationship. The dilation in GR for mass dilates with space so the electrons move further out and light has to travel further by the same distance as the electron. So we measure the same speed of light in every frame but not the same distance. Space energy has a density locally that determines distances of space locally. Your ruler is smaller between galaxies than within galaxies.

Lets look at dilation with a single atom of hydrogen. Mass causes its own dilation of space by the inverse square of the distance in space. So the electron leaves the proton and travels out into space where the space becomes more dense. The electron is being pushed by c spin but the further from the proton the more dense the dark mass energy. It curves back on itself and returns to the proton at the same speed as the rest of the compact electrons within the proton where another electron is pushed out due to an imbalance in spin states of matter and anti-matter that creates mass. The creation of mass being fusion in suns. Fission is the return of mass to the energy state.

I have a pattern of c dark mass energy that would create a stable connection between matter and anti- matter by complimentary spin states within and out of the proton and neutron.

This is all speculation and should not be taken seriously by professional's in physics because you would be shunned within the community for taking the wrong path in space.

#### dhjdhj

• Full Member
• Posts: 78
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #32 on: 20/12/2015 19:46:51 »
I am a retired civil engineer who has taken to particle physics as a retirement hobby and so can question everything stupid or not. I have found it extremely difficult to find any physic professional to even ask questions of, much less suggest any alternatives. My conclusion is that the answer to the original question must be, that yes there could be other causes of relativity but you would have more chance of selling pornography to the arch bishop of Canterbury than sell any other theory than SF and GF to the physics community. That is until there is indisputable experimental evidence that, either there is a different cause for SF or GF works differently. I am thinking of starting another thread to discuss the physic mainstream's attitude to external ideas but I might be considered a Troll.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3927
• Thanked: 55 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #33 on: 20/12/2015 20:14:37 »
I can't understand this irresistible desire to question relativity. That is not the issue anyway.

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 351
• Thanked: 56 times
##### Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #34 on: 21/12/2015 14:51:23 »
I can't understand this irresistible desire to question relativity. That is not the issue anyway.

That is an assumption that is incorrect. I totally agree with relativity. For instance relativity does not explain contraction as either physical or visual because there is no cause for physical contraction. We only have postulates without a cause. Its all geometry following the postulates that makes relativity correct. Most mathematicians recognize formulas and want to stay in the box of math being the cause. No other explanation needed. Does energy come from mass? That is the main stream thinking. Observation of the photon suggests a different explanation. Light slows through a medium (refraction) than increases in its own medium again (space) unencumbered. Energy must be of space for electron flow to be what we observe as relativity. c being constant through space would have entropy if energy was not of space. We are trained to have others do our thinking for us out of respect for their intelligence. Just because something can be imagined does not make it so.
The most intelligent people are the easiest to fool. I am of lesser intelligence but follow the scientific method.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Possible cause of relativity?
« Reply #34 on: 21/12/2015 14:51:23 »

Login
Login with username, password and session length