The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?  (Read 736 times)

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« on: 17/10/2016 11:25:45 »
What is the basis of Einsteinís relativity?
  In my latest book ďRelativity and the Dot-wave TheoryĒ Chapter 1 ďConversion of mechanical units to electrical unitsĒ kilograms is replaced by coulomb meters per second. This enables us to write the electrical equation of the gravitational constant: Thus
G = 16 pi e Uo / (137.036)^3  meters^2 per coulomb second.
   At the same time a study of all the equations of universe leads to the relationships between meters and seconds.
 Meters/Seconds = Velocity =C
 Thus one important relationship between meters and seconds Is the speed of light C. this is a light speed C universe where C = 2.997E8 meters per second.
  The other important relationship which relates to Einsteinís space time is:
Meters x Seconds = Constant
  This equation is the basis of Einsteinís special relativity. Thus when an atom moves with velocity V, the ruler shrinks. Thus
 L = Lo [1-(V/C)^2]^0.5
T = To/[1-(V/C)^2]^0.5
   No matter what V is, the product  LT is:
LT = Lo To
   Thus the important property of space and time is that the ratio gives the speed of light C and the product is a constant.
   Let us look at mass:
Mi = Mo/[1-(V/C)^2]^0.5
  The inertial mass increases as the velocity increases. The question is where does this energy go? The answer is that it is stored in the time dimension.


 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
  • Thanked: 56 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #1 on: 17/10/2016 14:46:26 »
Jerrygg38

    There is no such thing as physical contraction with vector velocity. We can determine the visual relationship to the physical object geometrically and find the contracted view. It is a contracted view only. There is no physical contraction. If there were a physical contraction the Lorentz formula would be inaccurate. You need to understand where the Lorentz contraction came from mathematically. It's in the postulates of relativity that will allow contraction of visual length. It is the competition of the finite speed of light and the speed of the object. The object can slip through space without all of its reflection because light is not an infinite speed.

Let me show the simple explanation using half the speed of light. A pole with a length of 99 feet is moving towards a light source. The light source reaches the front of the pole. The pole moves 33 feet through space without a reflection. So all photons fall off at 66 feet. Unfortunately many scientists cannot disconnect their environmental understanding of light as infinite. The pole (at half the speed of light) and light going in the same direction will reflect 198 feet long.

The perpendicular observer of the pole being a light source from front to back by the Lorentz contraction will view 0.866025 length compared to at rest being 1.0. This is where we need relativity to give us the view which is different from the physical size. Because of the light being independent of the source at half the speed of light for the object, a perpendicular view is impossible. When the object is perpendicular to the observer the light is just leaving the object. The object moves forward and the light from the object is just now reaching the perpendicular plane 30 degrees behind the observer. This creates a perpendicular triangle of 30,60,90 degrees. It just so happens that cosine 30 = 0.866025 which is the Lorentz contraction.

Einstein suggested only about 10% of the population could understand relativity. One big issue is we never view anything in the perpendicular with speed. It is always a angle smaller and a length through space longer. the vector angle reduces the visual perspective without the physical dimensions being affected.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #2 on: 17/10/2016 22:48:42 »
  What Einstein does is a mathematical understanding of space and time. And he has a time dimension that is very large. From a practical viewpoint, these things are not possible.Yet actual things do occur. When we get down to the atomic level, this is where the clock slows and the length shortens. So Einstein discovered from a big picture analysis that time and distance were reciprocals.
   On the large scale, the actual physical clock will mirror what happens at the atomic level. Thus Einsteins gets good results.
   Yes people don't understand Einstein very well but he produced many truths. However everything he says has engineering type answers at the atomic level.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
  • Thanked: 56 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #3 on: 18/10/2016 06:02:25 »
I believe in Relativity completely. Yes there is a mechanical cause for relativity. Why do electrons move? Answer that and mechanical engineering falls into place.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #4 on: 18/10/2016 15:21:15 »
I believe in Relativity completely. Yes there is a mechanical cause for relativity. Why do electrons move? Answer that and mechanical engineering falls into place. Said GoC
  Yes Einsteinís calculations are excellent. His predictions are also excellent. However I believe in conditional relativity which places the primary gravitational field as the platform. Light from the far stars leaves the stars relative to their galaxy gravitational field. It then travels to our galaxy. Relativity applies. Then it travels to our solar system relativity again applies. Finally it reaches our Earth and our predominate field. Most of the redshift was from the far galaxy to our galaxy. All along the way, the color of the light changes.
  Likewise two aircraft moving in opposite directions on a north south course will each have a slowing of their clocks relative to the Earth clock. However they will read exactly the same. The error of Einstein was not to consider the primary gravitational field. Thus the clock paradox is meaningless. Furthermore if you could go into pure outer space without a predominate gravitational field, the spaceship would explode. So the imaginary experiment of Einstein is invalid. Yet I agree that he produced great equations but he omitted the Doppler Components
Mass Forward = MoC/(C-V)
Mass Rear = MoC/(C+V)
Mi = Mo/[1-(V/C)^2]^0.5
  The error of Einstein was that his answer is the geometric mean of the frontal mass and the rearward mass. Yet the Doppler Components are old history and were kept away from the general population because they were stamped secret years ago.
  As far as why an electron moves, that is a question I never heard of. Of course I am not a physicist but an EE so there is a lot of physics that I do not know. The alternate question is why doesnít an electron move? How can you stop it? Everything in the universe is made from light speed C dot-waves. You cannot stop them. Even a dot-wave in a mass like state oscillates at the speed of light within its small radius. There is nothing in the universe that is not moving at light speed C. Stationary objects are internally oscillating at that speed. So how can you stop an electron?

 
The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
  • Thanked: 56 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #5 on: 18/10/2016 16:13:19 »
jerrygg38

Let me go backwards. [How do you stop an electron?] With an anti- electron destruction of spin state between positrons and negatrons.

[Mass Forward = MoC/(C-V)
Mass Rear = MoC/(C+V)
Mi = Mo/[1-(V/C)^2]^0.5]

This +/- issue is only on a spinning disk or sphere for the distance light has to travel. Light travels longer with the spin and shorter distance against the spin. Light speed remains the same.
Light is red shifted opposite of vector speed and blue shifted with vector speed.

[  Likewise two aircraft moving in opposite directions on a north south course will each have a slowing of their clocks relative to the Earth clock. However they will read exactly the same. The error of Einstein was not to consider the primary gravitational field. Thus the clock paradox is meaningless. Furthermore if you could go into pure outer space without a predominate gravitational field, the spaceship would explode. So the imaginary experiment of Einstein is invalid. Yet I agree that he produced great equations but he omitted the Doppler Components]

The red shift and blue shift are Doppler issues of expanded space and compressed space. What is the mechanical reason for a ship to blow up in space? There should be no space without gravity potential. Can you describe space with a lack of potential gravity? Making statements without reference to a physical process for explosion becomes a meaningless subjective statement. What is the physical process for explosion?

[Likewise two aircraft moving in opposite directions on a north south course will each have a slowing of their clocks relative to the Earth clock]

True GR vs. SR.

[The error of Einstein was not to consider the primary gravitational field. ]

That is considered with the claim there is no preferred frame. And clocks remain in synchronization in the north and south direction because the speed remains the same for each clock in the North South directions at sea level.

[Yes Einsteinís calculations are excellent. His predictions are also excellent. However I believe in conditional relativity which places the primary gravitational field as the platform. ]

There is a equivalency between SR and GR. They appear interchangeable in some cases.

[Light from the far stars leaves the stars relative to their galaxy gravitational field. It then travels to our galaxy. Relativity applies]

Yes most of the light is produced in the center where 75% of the stars are. They are Gravitationally red shifted from or perspective being 75% away from the center of our own galaxy. All galaxies should be red shifted by GR from our much less dilated position descried by relativity.

[Most of the redshift was from the far galaxy to our galaxy. All along the way, the color of the light changes.]

Either the light is fixed by SR or GR when produced or it is not. We know that the apparent size of the image changes by the inverse square of the distance. We do not know if the way we measure light affects red shift. Could the convex and concave collection of light cause red shift? Similar to a prism effect?


 
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #6 on: 18/10/2016 21:22:28 »
GoC said: The red shift and blue shift are Doppler issues of expanded space and compressed space. What is the mechanical reason for a ship to blow up in space? There should be no space without gravity potential. Can you describe space with a lack of potential gravity? Making statements without reference to a physical process for explosion becomes a meaningless subjective statement. What is the physical process for explosion?
   Yes it is difficult to find some space without a degree of gravitational intensity. So how can a spaceship blow up in space. The problem is that there is a minimum value of gravity that enables things to exist. As the universe expands, a minimum will be reached where large structures cannot survive. They will self destruct. It will take a much lower value of gravity to destroy the protons but eventually they will perish. In the end only the primary dot-waves will exist and the universe will compress again. That is the most likely solution however one could argue that pre-electrons and pre-quarks survive and during compression the protons start to form. In any event the universe oscillates between various levels of dark matter and dark energy. This universe exists at the junction of these two forces.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
  • Thanked: 56 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #7 on: 19/10/2016 22:46:58 »
if the red shift is as I suspect there is no real expansion or compression. Gr is the more likely reason for red shift not SR expansion as main stream believes due to their operating beliefs. Their understanding only uses SR for red shift cause. Even with the gravitational lensing affect.

 
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #8 on: 20/10/2016 13:36:09 »
if the red shift is as I suspect there is no real expansion or compression. Gr is the more likely reason for red shift not SR expansion as main stream believes due to their operating beliefs. Their understanding only uses SR for red shift cause. Even with the gravitational lensing affect.
   Well although I look at the universe differently, the big bang in my Relativity and the Dot-wave Theory book did not occur at a zero point. It occurred on a spherical surface at a distance Ruo from an absolute center and a distance Ruo from an outer sphere. thus the universe was a sphere of radius 2Ru. The big bang explosion caused the sphere to expand from a small initial radius to a much larger radius. Yet it oscillates between a min and a max and not from zero to infinity. As the amount of dark energy increases to a critical amount, the ball of energy will start to shrink with dark energy turning into dark matter. I get 1088 billion years for the cycle time.
  So you may very well be correct that there are other reasons for the red shift. And for my variable constant chapter, the gravitational constant is smaller at big bang and larger as the universe expands. thus the oscillation of the universe is more complex then our simple math allows.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
  • Thanked: 56 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #9 on: 20/10/2016 14:03:54 »
jerrygg38

  I understand why you might think there is expansion but mechanically why do you suspect compression? increased red shift with distance could be a measuring effect of concave and convex wave collectors stretching light like a prism.

First the BB was from a center out and we had to find a center. Since 13.6 billion light years in the past had fully formed galaxies they changed the BB to we are on a surface of a balloon analogy. Light curves to look around the balloon surface. The BB happened all over and the center space for light is gone. That does not follow relativity. The BB should have been tossed. But many main stream scientists have built their carriers on the BB and could not give it up even for scientific logic.

You need to be strong enough to have your own logic and follow mechanics and not magic. The BB has lost its logic and we need to look closer.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #10 on: 21/10/2016 12:11:31 »
Jerry and GoC 10/21/16

GoC:  I understand why you might think there is expansion but mechanically why do you suspect compression? increased red shift with distance could be a measuring effect of concave and convex wave collectors stretching light like a prism.
Jerrygg: Many solutions are possible. Your concave/convex idea is new to me. I am on the big bang and little bang theory. However even that has possibilities. We could have had a big bang many cycles ago. After that we oscillate between min and max and it looks like the universe originated at the big bang 13.78 billion years ago. Of course with an exponential function this could have been quite a long time ago. The oscillation equation gives me 1088 billion years for the cycle time.
   I like the min/max solution where the universe gets small and the BB occurs then we expand. Your question is why the compression?
  The universe is a sphere a distance Ru from a center point which does not exist on the universe. Every point on the universe is part of a sphere of distance Ru. Thus the entire universe is a sphere or radius 2Ru. Our sphere has some thickness and Einstein calls it quasi spherical. Thus many explosions occurred upon the sphere which created the galaxies.
  The driving force is the dark matter/ dark energy world. Our universe is controlled by the photonic fields from R=0 to Ru and from Ru to 2Ru. We are the operating point where dark matter turns into dark energy and vice versa. At the present time as dark matter turns into more dark energy, the universe expands. This changes the gravitational constant and the external forces start to increase. A point is reach where a maximum pressure is produced and the universe will be compressed inward. I call this point the little bang. This is where the protons explode. This causes a huge amount of photonic energy which reaches toward R=0 and R=2Ru.
   We also have a problem with the next coexisting universe of light speed 2C. It is expanding as well and a point is reached where the explosion of the protons causes an interference pattern between the 2 universes and the entire chain of universes up toward light speed infinity.
  Once the protons explode the dark energy starts to convert into homogeneous dark matter which is my basic dot-waves. The gravitational constant dramatically increases and the external pressure on the surface of the universe starts to shrink it. We then head toward a big bang which occurs 544 billion years after the little bang.
   The cycle goes on forever. And if we define ourselves by our DNA code a copy of us will be reproduced forever. Thus whether we like it or not all of us physically are eternal. There most likely are hundreds or thousands of copies of us alive in the universe today. And for all eternity there will be billions of billions of copies of us forever.  Then we have to consider how many higher copies of us exist in the higher light speed universes. Multi light speed physics becomes very philosophical.
GoC: First the BB was from a center out and we had to find a center. Since 13.6 billion light years in the past had fully formed galaxies they changed the BB to we are on a surface of a balloon analogy. Light curves to look around the balloon surface. The BB happened all over and the center space for light is gone. That does not follow relativity. The BB should have been tossed. But many main stream scientists have built their carriers on the BB and could not give it up even for scientific logic.
Jerrygg: It is true that photons will curve around the surface of the universe. However the dot-waves do not follow the same rules as the physical universe. The physical universe is made up of huge numbers of dot-waves. The red photon is comprised of 6.242E32 bipolar dot-waves. So you look at the properties of huge numbers of dot-waves but our universe radiates dot-waves. These tiny energy photons reach toward the absolute center of the universe and toward the radius 2Ru. Thus we have a loss of energy within the physical universe and at the same time an increased pressure external to the universe.
  I agree that the BB occurs all over the surface when it is small but the little bang also occurs all over the universe when it is large.
  Yes it is unfortunate that main stream scientists have built their careers upon certain theories. I was a R&D design engineer and I like building things. Even at 78 this Dec, I like carpentry and painting and building things. The Dot-wave theory is my passion and hobby but I would not be happy as a physicist. It is fun to build things and get them working. I build universes as my hobby and it has cost me a lot of money and I never earned a penny profit on my books. But it is a fun hobby.
  Einsteinís relativity is very good within its limitations. It describes fairly well the universe from the point of view that what we see and measure is what we have. Yet this is only a partial view of the entire universe we live in.
GoC: You need to be strong enough to have your own logic and follow mechanics and not magic. The BB has lost its logic and we need to look closer.
Jerrygg: The problem is that it is necessary to look beyond the physical quasi spherical surface we live upon and understand multi-light-speed physics and the big picture of our existence. Years ago I did not appreciate Einsteinís relativity. Yet from the big picture he has advanced our thinking quite well. Anyway my latest book was only written in a few weeks and it usually takes me a year to find flaws and make changes to it. So far I am happy with it but every day I will mentally attack it to make improvements and correct deficiencies.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
  • Thanked: 56 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #11 on: 21/10/2016 14:55:35 »
jerrygg38,

   how does light reflect off of the surface of a thin sphere to always angle around no matter which direction we look? Relativity shows light to be straight except in gravity GR. The curve only bends around gravity. Your shell of the BB violates relativity. Science is protecting the BB at the expense of relativity. That is faith not science.

Do you understand how light created in a galaxy center red shifted by GR and not necessarily red shifted by SR would suggest a more steady state. Where we are in our own galaxy GR blue shifted in comparison is like a gravity well experiment.

But I am most interested in how the light always bends within the  thin surface sphere? I realize because you write books you have to help maintain the BB but no one is questioning it properly with relativity.

I am a simple person with average intelligence. Mechanics is my interest. The mechanics of relativity do not support us living in a shell universe where nothing exists from the center out. Fully formed galaxies 13.6 billion light years? BB is based on faith not science.
 

Online LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #12 on: 21/10/2016 20:55:39 »
Maybe the mass don't exist, the kinetic energy is a stored energy (like an electric capacitor), kinetic energy is a potential energy. And the relativity is simply a basic 'thing' in each particle that needs to turn around itself, if the speed limit is 'c' when a particle moves in translation, it needs more and more time to make its round when the velocity increases.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #13 on: 21/10/2016 21:15:04 »
jerrygg38,

   how does light reflect off of the surface of a thin sphere to always angle around no matter which direction we look? Relativity shows light to be straight except in gravity GR. The curve only bends around gravity. Your shell of the BB violates relativity. Science is protecting the BB at the expense of relativity. That is faith not science.

Do you understand how light created in a galaxy center red shifted by GR and not necessarily red shifted by SR would suggest a more steady state. Where we are in our own galaxy GR blue shifted in comparison is like a gravity well experiment.

But I am most interested in how the light always bends within the  thin surface sphere? I realize because you write books you have to help maintain the BB but no one is questioning it properly with relativity.

I am a simple person with average intelligence. Mechanics is my interest. The mechanics of relativity do not support us living in a shell universe where nothing exists from the center out. Fully formed galaxies 13.6 billion light years? BB is based on faith not science.
GoC and Jerrygg 10-21-16
GoC says:   how does light reflect off of the surface of a thin sphere to always angle around no matter which direction we look? Relativity shows light to be straight except in gravity GR. The curve only bends around gravity. Your shell of the BB violates relativity. Science is protecting the BB at the expense of relativity. That is faith not science.
Jerrygg: The sphere is not so thin. Einstein says on page 136 of his 1920 Relativity: ďOn the contrary the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi spherical.Ē
  From this the universe has thickness. My big bang occurs all along the surface and this produces something like the old childrenís toy ball with bumps all over.
GoC says: Do you understand how light created in a galaxy center red shifted by GR and not necessarily red shifted by SR would suggest a more steady state. Where we are in our own galaxy GR blue shifted in comparison is like a gravity well experiment.
Jerrygg:  If we take the ball and expand it by axial pressure at close to the speed of light C, the far stars will be moving away from us with what appears to be the speed of light C to the furthest stars. After that our vision blanks out and the furthest stars no long are in our universe as far as we are concerned.
So we can use the Doppler equation if we chose to. However we cannot use the increase of mass with velocity because from a higher perspective, the far stars are as stationary as we are. SR does not apply in this case. The fact that we are moving away from the absolute center does not matter. In general we are basically stationary. It is only our gravitational field that counts and any small contribution from all the other gravitational fields in the universe. However once you take the square of the distances, we are only concerned with our Earth, our Sun and the other planets, and the center of our galaxy. However the gravitational fields tend to equalize any distortions in time and length such that if the Earth is distorted so are our rulers and clocks and common mode we see no difference.
   GoC: But I am most interested in how the light always bends within the thin surface sphere? I realize because you write books you have to help maintain the BB but no one is questioning it properly with relativity.
Jerrygg: I do not have to maintain BB at all. It seems correct to me right now but my BB is not at a single point but on a surface sphere. Yet other possibilities exist. You raise some good questions and my mind is never closed. I can change the book next year with a new version. It used to cost me a lot of money to produce books but with Kindle and Create space a new book costs less than $100. I just put out Relativity and the first day I got some sales. And I do not have to care who is buying the books because t Amazon sends the money to my account. Years ago I had to put out $6000 for 1000 books and I always lost money. But for money since I retired I always worked part time as a handyman and made from $20 to $50 per hour. Writing books is pocket change but fixing toilets, painting, and electrical repairs pays well.
GoC: I am a simple person with average intelligence. Mechanics is my interest. The mechanics of relativity do not support us living in a shell universe where nothing exists from the center out. Fully formed galaxies 13.6 billion light years? BB is based on faith not science.
[/quote]
Jerrygg: The big bang predicted background radiation which was measured to be within the predictions. The astronomical data of the red shift with distance necessitated an expanding universe. The question is where the big bang took place. I cannot believe you can get the entire universe into a small point. I used to accept that but once I break Einsteinís equations into Doppler Components, it appears self-evident to me that the universe reaches a minimum size and then explodes. This is like a general gas law problem where a heated gas expands and then cools and then heats up and explodes again and again forever.
   If we have light on the surface losing energy per unit distance it will red shift even if the surface did not expand. However the lost energy will flow out beyond our physical universe toward the center and toward an outer sphere. We can then get a combination of big bang and what they called tired light.

 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #14 on: 21/10/2016 21:20:41 »
Maybe the mass don't exist, the kinetic energy is a stored energy (like an electric capacitor), kinetic energy is a potential energy. And the relativity is simply a basic 'thing' in each particle that needs to turn around itself, if the speed limit is 'c' when a particle moves in translation, it needs more and more time to make its round when the velocity increases.
  In general Mass = energy/C^2. So you can get rid of mass and call it stored energy. I like your analogy of needing more and more time to turn itself around. Thus a clock slows with velocity.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
  • Thanked: 56 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #15 on: 22/10/2016 13:52:53 »
jerrygg38,

   No, the background radiation did not match what was predicted. Scientists put in the fudge factors to match it after the noise of the universe was observed. You need to check the history correctly. There was a claim that certain factors were ignored with the first prediction. Conditions are readily accepted for the BB and challenges are ignored. Like your bumper walls for light. If the light path increases by the bumper walls than the universe would appear much larger than it is actually and the distance would not appear the same in every direction. if we view the universe perpendicular to the wall we would view ourselves. Are you thinking past your suggestion? Any way you think of the BB, light is not logical for what we observe with a BB.

   It is human nature to try to make limits for ourselves while our universe could be a grain of sand on someone's beach. I do not believe that necessarily but I do not limit myself when it comes to the universe. What you view is a maximum distance with our current photon collection devices.
 
The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #16 on: 23/10/2016 22:38:02 »
Yes there are many possible solutions, but I am interested in those that match my kilograms to coulomb meters per second conversion. I believe that only three units are necessary and that the universe is driven by a few simple algebraic equations. the big bang works for me but other solutions are possible as well. And I am happy to stick with Einstein and Hubble and Eddington.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
  • Thanked: 56 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #17 on: 24/10/2016 13:06:30 »
   Gravity does not affect light speed. Light is not attracted by gravity. The dilation of space affects light and curves light but the speed of light does not change because of the gravity of mass. Dilation creates a greater path for light but the speed of energy state remains constant. The increased distance takes longer to traverse but there is no change in E=c. Rotating electron motion of mass =c. So in the presence of mass E=mc^2 and without mass E=c. c= ~186,000 miles in a light second of space. Which is different distance for a measured light second where mass is involved. The distance will be different but the measurement in a vacuum will always be c. When the vacuum is less dense and dilated in the presence of mass the measuring stick mass is dilated proportionally to measure the same c in GR.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #18 on: 24/10/2016 13:34:30 »
GoC and Jerrygg 10-24-16
GoC says:Gravity does not affect light speed. Light is not attracted by gravity. The dilation of space affects light and curves light but the speed of light does not change because of the gravity of mass.
Jerrygg: The dilation of space is the changes to the gravitational field. Light travels upon the fields. So the cause of the bending of light around the sun is gravity. A high speed particle will bend around the sun and so will light. You have some magical thing called space that curves and bends light but I say that all there is in space is the gravitational fields and the electromagnetic fields. They make up space. So the way I look at it, gravity attracts light. The speed of the photon remains constant but the energy within the photon continually changes.
GoC says:  Dilation creates a greater path for light but the speed of energy state remains constant. The increased distance takes longer to traverse but there is no change in E=c.
Jerrygg: Canít figure out what you mean by this.
GoC:  Rotating electron motion of mass =c. So in the presence of mass E=mc^2 and without mass E=c. c= ~186,000 miles in a light second of space.
Jerrygg: Canít figure this out either.
GoC:  Which is different distance for a measured light second where mass is involved. The distance will be different but the measurement in a vacuum will always be c. When the vacuum is less dense and dilated in the presence of mass the measuring stick mass is dilated proportionally to measure the same c in GR.
Jerrygg: My engineering mind has trouble with what your words mean.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
  • Thanked: 56 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #19 on: 24/10/2016 18:24:56 »
Quote
Jerrygg: The dilation of space is the changes to the gravitational field. Light travels upon the fields. So the cause of the bending of light around the sun is gravity. A high speed particle will bend around the sun and so will light. You have some magical thing called space that curves and bends light but I say that all there is in space is the gravitational fields and the electromagnetic fields. They make up space. So the way I look at it, gravity attracts light. The speed of the photon remains constant but the energy within the photon continually changes.

Do you consider dilation magic? Yes the dilation field is gravity attraction as a gradient to the center of mass. But the dilated field is also the what a light wave is made of and the carrier of said light waves. A wave on c of c spin. gravity does not attract the c wave other than to refract the wave in higher dilation. Light created in a higher dilation is red shifted because of the electron jump is further in more dilated space. This follows the gravity well experiments and red shift. The red shift change in a gravity well is due to the energy dilation in the measuring device changing calibration. 700 nm would be 701 nm lower in the gravity well but read a standard as 700 nm. The measuring cell changes distances and is calibrated automatically for the local distance. That is the same reason we measure the same speed of light in every frame. distance of the measuring stick increases as the clock tick rate goes down. We measure a longer distance with a slower clock. That is the confounding of electron and photon wave.

Quote
GoC says:  Dilation creates a greater path for light but the speed of energy state remains constant. The increased distance takes longer to traverse but there is no change in E=c.
Jerrygg: Canít figure out what you mean by this.
GoC:  Rotating electron motion of mass =c. So in the presence of mass E=mc^2 and without mass E=c. c= ~186,000 miles in a light second of space.
Jerrygg: Canít figure this out either.

c is of space and not mass. c of space drive the electrons of mass.

Quote
GoC:  Which is different distance for a measured light second where mass is involved. The distance will be different but the measurement in a vacuum will always be c. When the vacuum is less dense and dilated in the presence of mass the measuring stick mass is dilated proportionally to measure the same c in GR.
Jerrygg: My engineering mind has trouble with what your words mean

Mass dilates space and the distance in more dilated space is a less dense energy state. Is there a word I used giving you trouble or the entire concept confusing? Basically the measuring stick increases while the electron path in the clock increases proportionately to measure the same speed of light in a vacuum. The clock with increased distance will have a slower tick cycle.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #20 on: 26/10/2016 22:29:21 »
GoC said:Mass dilates space and the distance in more dilated space is a less dense energy state. Is there a word I used giving you trouble or the entire concept confusing? Basically the measuring stick increases while the electron path in the clock increases proportionately to measure the same speed of light in a vacuum. The clock with increased distance will have a slower tick cycle.
  Every piece of mass has its own little gravitational field. As you add more mass the gravitational field gets more intense and space shrinks. The time clock on the other hand dilates (slows) as more mass is added to a particular point. It is confusing for sure. Read my discussions on the science forum as the scientists explained things to me since I was always confused on what Einstein meant until recently.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
  • Thanked: 56 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #21 on: 27/10/2016 14:21:08 »
Quote
Every piece of mass has its own little gravitational field.

The gravitational field is the dilation of space not the contraction of space. Main stream science is confused because of the Lorentz contraction of SR and equivalence in GR. You need to be consistent in relativity and your position is inconsistent with relativity.


Quote
As you add more mass the gravitational field gets more intense and space shrinks

There in lies your problem with relativity. Dilation is expansion and not contraction. Its an inability to disconnect the visual from one's understanding of logic. Mass and space are interlocked by volume. Space cannot shrink without mass shrinking with it in GR. If mass shrinks than your clock shrinks. This leads to a faster tick rate for your clock.

Quote
The time clock on the other hand dilates (slows) as more mass is added to a particular point. .

You are confusing expansion (dilation of space) with contraction. Einstein knew the difference but I suspect your professors could not distinguish the logic of the Lorentz contraction being visual. If you read Einstein's papers on the Lorentz contraction he understood the confusion and inability of others to understand. His explanation was not enough to convince others of the dilation in GR was the equivalence in SR but just in the measurement. When space expands mass expands with the space expansion. So your measurement of space distances shrink. This is because you measure a longer mile with a longer measuring stick. Light travels through the same length of space in every dilation of frame. Its the view of your measuring stick distance that you assign for special distances. I have shown why there is a SR longer view mathematically and a GR physical dilation (larger measuring stick) shrinking the view of special distances. The equivalence of SR and GR is the confounding of electron cycle to light speed in a vacuum.

Quote
It is confusing for sure.

I am not confused. I follow relativity correctly without changing the meaning of the terms used.

Quote
Read my discussions on the science forum as the scientists explained things to me since I was always confused on what Einstein meant until recently

Scientists who did not understand relativity explained their version of relativity. That was unlikely Einstein's version. You are still using rabbit hole explanations given to you. Science has moved away from the realest because of the lack of understanding in relativity. Your version is the negative to the real picture.

I can tell you when you are on a branch of the relativity tree of knowledge. Some of the limbs will follow math but not the equation for the tree itself. Main stream is on a limb and will never understand the mechanics of gravity, magnetism or the entire spectrum of c.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #22 on: 27/10/2016 14:49:30 »
   The science experts here are very knowledgeable. they appear to me to understand Einstein's work quite well. For myself my main interest is his equations which I turn into Doppler components. It was over 50 years ago that I first studied Einstein's equations in physics class. In 1981 I restudied it and compared the equations with the Einsteinian Doppler equations in the classified library. Yet I was not really that interested in relativity and general relativity.
  In my hands  is Relativity (The Special and General Theory) by Albert Einstein First published in 1920 and turned into pdf ebook by Jose Menendez. So I read Einstein's words and look at the experts and compare them.
  You have your own ideas which gives you an understanding of the universe in terms of your ideas. They make sense to you. But millions of physicists and scientists and mathematicians in the world agree with the scientists herein.
   For myself I am trying to add something on to Einstein's work. So first I must understand it and then add to it. But you are trying to reinterpret it and that is basically an impossible task.
 
The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
  • Thanked: 56 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #23 on: 27/10/2016 19:20:41 »
Quote
For myself I am trying to add something on to Einstein's work. So first I must understand it and then add to it. But you are trying to reinterpret it and that is basically an impossible task.

 There is the math than subjective interpretations. You and others believe it to be an impossible task. It is only because of the subjective interpretations that it is impossible. There is no such thing as a charge, there is only flow. Everything is already in relativity. Nothing needed. The gamma term in relativity is the dilation of space not the contraction of space. Follow the signs not others interpretations of there own logic. Follow the math correctly and there is a gaping hole in what modern science is teaching about relativity. Here is one of the biggest. The Lorentz contraction is a physical contraction. There is No reason for it to be physical. But the common scientific understanding is that it is physical. That is a subjective interpretation similar to the Earth is flat used to be a subjective interpretation.

Your Doppler issue is very important and will add something to how the angle of view is interpreted by the Lorentz contraction. The Doppler changes the angle of view for the perpendicular view of light. So yes you are on a path of importance. But not in main streams relativity model.

Quote
The science experts here are very knowledgeable. they appear to me to understand Einstein's work quite well.

Yes they are mathematicians and they understand the math very well. They are not engineers or mechanics. It takes an understanding of math and mechanics to create a car or the universe. Subjective opinion of follow the dots mathematicians are not restrained by logical reality of mechanics. They even believe electrons move without something moving them. That is  poor depth of mechanical understanding.

Quote
I restudied it and compared the equations with the Einsteinian Doppler equations in the classified library. Yet I was not really that interested in relativity and general relativity.

That's unfortunate because a proper understanding is needed. Ok, what is the material the Doppler is created from? Or do you believe in a magical virtual Doppler? Do you even ask that question? You have a good mind. Don't waste it following mathematicians subjective interpretations. Just the facts. The gamma term in relativity is dilation not contraction. What is the Doppler created from?

Quote
In my hands  is Relativity (The Special and General Theory) by Albert Einstein First published in 1920 and turned into pdf ebook by Jose Menendez. So I read Einstein's words and look at the experts and compare them.

Did you compare the gamma term with the experts?

Quote
You have your own ideas which gives you an understanding of the universe in terms of your ideas. They make sense to you. But millions of physicists and scientists and mathematicians in the world agree with the scientists herein

So physics is something on which we vote? Postulates form the mathematics but not the mechanics. I can create a mechanical condition to follow the observations of relativity. It may be correct or incorrect but it is not an impossible task as you describe. The scientists you follow have no mechanical understanding if they believe electrons move themselves by postulates. The photon and electron are confounded in relativity.

A mathematician cannot build a car on his own. They are different talents.

 
The following users thanked this post: Alex Siqueira

Offline phyti

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #24 on: 30/10/2016 18:00:35 »
GoC #23
Explain the results of the MM experiment without physical length contraction.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #24 on: 30/10/2016 18:00:35 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums