Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Fussball on 28/11/2014 06:56:48

__

This type of mechanism was briefly alluded to by Maxwell in his Physical Lines of Force.
The concepts of lines of force was due to Faraday, not Maxwell.
I'll comment on your paper but certainly not all 119 pages of it. I'll do it in parts starting with the following:
Here e is roughly the total kinetic energy E_{k} as per classical mechanics, which is E_{k} = E_{t} + E_{r} where E_{t} is the translational kinetic energy and E_{r} is the rotational kinetic which also includes rotational inertia [aka moment of inertia].
The first objection I have is that the term Classical Mechanics includes special and general relativity. The second thing I object to is that E (i.e. your "e") is given by
E = K + E_{0}
where K = Kinetic energy and E = rest energy (i.e. the energy a body has when it is at rest.
It is not kinetic energy plus rotational energy. For the definition and the expression of kinetic energy in SR please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
Rest energy might include things like a electromagnetic energy (e.g. a charged capacitor), thermal energy, a compressed spring, etc. Rotational kinetic energy is not part of this. If E is the energy of a particle then a particle has no rotational energy. If the object is not a particle but is something like a rotating ball then that's referred to as rest energy. If its a moving rotating ball then its the sum of K + E_{0}. This is the nomenclature used in special and general relativity.
Next:
Looking at the full equation E = mc^{2} we can see that c^{2} is a constant [the speed of light] and m is the mass of an object. So the equation roughly translates to E = m. That is, energy is equal to mass. If you increase the energy of an object you also correspondingly increase its weight and therefore its mass and therefore its gravity without adding any new atoms into the mass, m.
Note: You may mean the same thing I do but I want to state what I mean and then go on to what you mean: E = mc^{2} is only E = m when one choose units, called God units, such that's true. However that does not mean that "energy is equal to mass" by any means. All it means is that if you add the amount of energy E to a body then its mass increases by the amount m = E. Mass and energy are defined differently. Loosely speaking (very loosely) energy is the ability to do work whereas mass is the measure of a bodies inertia. That implies that mass and energy are not the same thing and energy does not equal mass. They only have a numerical equality for certain purposes. And those purposes are not universally true since you were only speaking about the special case of a particle/body which is not subject to stress (in the case of a body with internal structure) and is in an inertial frame of reference. If either, or both, of those things are true then the quality no longer holds. One must then utilize the stressenergymomentum tensor to determine the mass and energy of a body.
Nexct:
For example, this equation [E = mc^{2} says: a sphere of mass m, spinning at a certain rpm [revolutions per minute] acquires rotational inertia [E_{r}] based on the spinning rate and therefore in Relativity this new rotational inertia [or rotational energy] of the spinning mass is directly interpreted as an increase in its weight. That is, if the mass weighed X units before the spinning, it now weighs more than X units while spinning, even though no new atoms have been added to this sphere of mass, m. This is the essence of E = mc^{2}.
If this is what you meant by mass equals energy then you are correct with the limitations I mentioned above.
Next:
But this is obviously not true in classical mechanics since energy and mass are clearly defined terms and there is absolutely no room for mixing up or for the interchangeability of these two definitions. In classical mechanics kinetic energy is kinetic energy. Mass is mass [that is a collection of particles or number of atoms].
Since relativity is part of classical mechanics please explain what you mean by this. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics and note that I've never in the last 35 years seen any source which uses classical mechanics to not include relativity.
More later.

PmbPhy, your detailed reply prompted me to let you know that I am an amateur science enthusiast. And I do not think that my work is error free, [which is one of the reasons I am on Internet forums]. But when I am shown wrong, I do modify my work suitably. So many thanks indeed for the detailed reply.
Those are very admirable traits and I compliment you on them. And you're very welcome.
And you are right that Faraday developed the concepts of Field lines, and not Maxwell. But the helical mechanism that I have used in my work to explain a Field Line, and its action, was first alluded to by Maxwell.
You do understand, don't you, that field lines don't actually exist, right? They are merely visual aids to help "see"' the field, in a manner of speaking of course.
I always thought of Relativity and QM as nonclassical.
That's a common misunderstanding. However, if you want to know what physicists mean by the term you have to keep what I said in mind.
For me Relativistic physics changed so many aspects of Newtonian definitions that it seemed nonNewtonian or Nonclassical to me. But I will reword my work. It was not my intention to change established nomenclature.
Actually there is hardly anything that relativity changed for Newton. The following are true in both Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics
Newton's First Law: The first law states that if the net force (the vector sum of all forces acting on an object) is zero, then the velocity of the object is constant.
Newton's Second Law: F = dp/dt where p = mv
Newton's Third Law: The third law states that all forces exist in pairs: if one object A exerts a force F_{A} on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force F_{B} on A, and the two forces are equal and opposite: F_{A} = −F_{B}. This always holds true when the forces are contact forces but fail to work in relativity when the forces are not contact forces. Sometimes it works in Newtonian physics when the forces are not contact forces.
Most people think that Newton was wrong because F = ma no longer holds in relativity. However that expression is not due to Newton but was due to Euler. The definition of force is F = dp/dt. That's how Newton defined it in his Principia.
What doesn't hold is the transformation between frames of reference. However in nonrelativistic mechanics that transformation was due to Galileo and not Newton.
Note: A good definition of mass, at least the one that Weyl used and which is always used in relativity, is the one where mass is defined so that mv is a conserved quantity. One then defines p = mv as momentum. Note that mass and velocity are defined before momentum so this is a logical, noncircular, definition.

Earlier we agreed that the mass of an object, in Relativity, [via e=m], can increase without new atoms being added to an object. To me this is a big departure from Newtonian physics.
First let me make the point that nowhere in that post did I say that relativity made no difference to mechanics. The impact of relativity was the alteration in space and time and that meant that instead of the Galilean transformation one uses the Lorentz transformation. This also means that mass is no longer a constant but is a function of speed.
You may not be aware of this but E = mc[sup2[/sup] was first derived before relativity was created. One doesn't actually require relativity to derive it so it isn't really a relativistic result. It's a very simple notion in fact. Think of a frame in which the body is at rest. Let it emit equal amounts of radiation in the opposite direction. Then the object's velocity won't change. The total amount of momentum in this frame of reference is zero but the total energy of the radiation is not zero. Now consider these events from a frame in which the body is moving slowly. From this frame we see the object emit radiation which means that it's energy content decreases. We know that in this frame the total momentum of the radiation is nonzero. Since momentum is conserved there must have been a decrease in momentum of the body. Since the momentum of the body is p = mv and v = constant then there must be a decrease in m, i.e. dm is nonzero. It can be shown through nonrelativistic calculations that dm = dE/c^{2}. This implies that E = mc^{2}. I don't know how to do this without relativity but I'm sure if you search the internet using Google you can find out how.
In any case E = mc^{2} is a result of a derivation using the laws of physics and not a law of physics itself.
Also, if the mass of an object increases, the object's gravity also increases, correspondingly.
That is not a relativistic effect but a Newtonian one. Einstein started off formulating his field equations with the assumption that mass is the source of gravity. What relativity brought to the table on this point is that mass is completely described by the stressenergymomentum tensor.
Is there unambiguous proof for this relativity phenomenon?
Nowhere in any science will you find unambiguous proof of anything. That's not what science can or has ever been able to do. See http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/what_is_science.pdf
I am looking for proof in the form of, a test mass, whose strength of gravity [or weight] increases without new atoms [or matter] being added into the object. The derivation of Einstein's field equations might help you. They're on my website at:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/einsteins_field_equations.htm

Pmbphy, I am aware of the 1905 paper and its title, "Does inertia of an object depend on its energy", where Einstein first derived his E = mc^{2}. I do mention this in my work. See Section 1.b.
Yes, know that. What I'm saying is that it was also derived before that paper by other physicists; i.e. Einstein was not the first one to derive/discover it. Poincare was the first to derive the expression rho = J/c^{2} where J is the energy density. This is simply the density form of E = mc^{2} so therefore it was Poincare who first derived it, without relativity, not Einstein.
Without relativity, the mass [or number of atoms] of an object remains unchanged no matter how fast it goes.
That is incorrect as I said above. If you'd like I can email the following article to you (or upload the following article to my website where you can download it); Did Einstein really discover "E = mc^{2}" by W.L. Fadner, Am. J. Phys., 56(2), Feb. (1988)
Abstract  In 1952, Herbert Ives claimed that Einstein's first development of E=mc^{2} was circular, and that he had not been the first to develop that equation. That allegation has been repeated in several more recent works. Earlier, Planck asserted that one of the postulates that Einstein had used in that development was not exact. Those claims and subsequent papers concerning them are examined herein. The surprisingly long history of the massenergy relation is summarized. In the context of this topic, it is argued that circularity is seldom a legitimate critique of scientific proposals. A simple refutation of Planck's claim is also included.
Here is a derivation of the massenergy relation E = mc^{2} by Einstein in which he doesn't use relativity, or at least can be done without any reference to special relativity.
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/einsteins_box.htm
Also, if the mass of an object increases, the object's gravity also increases, correspondingly.
That is not a relativistic effect but a Newtonian one. Einstein started off formulating his field equations with the assumption that mass is the source of gravity.[/quote]
In Newtonian physics, gravity of an object depends on the number of atoms [its mass] and not how fast the object is traveling. Therefore, where is the proof that Gravity of an object increases without the need for new atoms?
[/quote]
Here again you're looking for proof in a philosophical endeavor (i.e. science) in which proof is not part of it. I.e. nothing can be proved with physics so you won't be able to "prove" that the gravitational field of an object increase with speed. Right now it's all a well tested theory. Einstein's field equations were derived by Chandrashakar whose derivation is given here:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/einsteins_field_equations.htm
Here are a few examples:
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/gr/grav_moving_rod.htm
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_moving_sheet.htm
Thanks for the link; but I was looking for proof in the form of a celestial experiment/observation.
You won't find it because it hasn't been observed as of yet. However I don't see the reason you want such observations. Why is that? Since both SR and GR are both well tested theories and we know pretty much as fact how space and time behave under a change in the frame of reference from a stationary one to a moving one then we also know what the gravitational field is in a frame moving relative to the gravitating body. That's been calculated and published in the following paper:
Measuring the active gravitational mass of a moving object by D. W. Olson and R. C. Guarino, Am. J. Phys., 53(7), Jul. (1985) ( http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/53/7/10.1119/1.14280 )
Abstract  If a heavy object with rest mass M moves past you with a velocity comparable to the speed of light, you will be attracted gravitationally towards its path as though it had an increased mass. If the relativistic increase in active gravitational mass is measured by the transverse (and longitudinal) velocities which such a moving mass induces in test particles initially at rest near its path, then we find, with this definition, that M_{rel} = γ(1+β^{2})M. Therefore, in the ultrarelativistic limit, the active gravitational mass of a moving body, measured in this way, is not γM but is approximately 2γM.

I am not willing to buy the argument that the mass [or number of atoms or weight] of an object can increase without the addition of new matter [or atoms], unless an experiment proves this beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's a different story then. It has been proven that the mass of a particle depends on its speed (i.e. the magnitude of its velocity). This fact is observed every day around the world in every particle accelerator lab. For example: when a charged particle is accelerating in a cyclotron it moves in a manner which can only be explained as an increase in the value m in the relationship p = mv. See http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/cyclotron.htm Know that what is observed in the accelerator lab is consistent with the results of this derivation.
Tell me something. Why are you not "willing to buy" said argument? What is it that bothers you about it? I have a feeling that you don't understand just exactly why the mass increases. The mass increases because space and time is altered in relativity and the velocity of a particle is determined by measured of space and time. If you're really good at algebra then you should be able to follow the derivation on my website at:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/inertial_mass.htm
In any case, what you choose to "buy" or not is up to you.
However you don't seem to understand the fact that the strength of a gravitational field is determined by the magnitude of the acceleration of an object in the field. Those values get changed when the values of time and space measurements get changed by the field and the motion of the particle in the field. And we do know, from observations of experiments, that gravitational time dilation does occur because that prediction was tested by the Pound–Rebka experiment which was done at Harvard University. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
Until then, E=mc^{2} to me, is simply another one of Einstein's fantastic assertions.
I don't understand this comment. E=mc^{2} has been thoroughly tested in labs across the world every day for over a hundred years.
But I would love to see Planck's proof of how an atom [for example] can weigh heavier without the addition of new nucleons.
To see how a particle can be heavier when its moving then see the derivation I provided at:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/weight_moving_body.htm
Please email me the paper you referenced.
I'm sorry but I can't. You didn't send me your email address. If you want me to email you something then you'll have to send me your email address in PM.
I asked for [experimental] proof because if there were such proof, I would have needed to modify my work, because in my work the definition of mass, is essentially the number of atoms. Mass [weight/gravity] of an object can change only when new matter is added to this object. My understanding of mass, has experimental proof.
So all of this is due to your poor understanding of mass? I think I understand now.
What is this "experimental proof" of your understanding of mass?
Why would you not accept mathematical proof but experimental proof? Do you reject the two postulates that relativity is founded on? Why accept your own proof but not that derived by countless physicists over a hundred years based on two postulates that have been tested countless times?
What you should do is to learn exactly why we know that mass increases with speed rather than rejecting the notion because you've never learned why and are basing it on the false idea that the number of atoms remains the same. You do understand, don't you, that we know this is true even for electrons and not just atoms as a whole, right? I suggest that you study the material i gave you above and think about what I said and about how changes in time and space alter what we measure when it comes to velocity.

It just occurred to me how to measure the weight of a moving particle, such as an ion. What you do is create a uniform electric field in a direction opposite to that of the uniform gravitational field in the lab. The electric field will be pointing in the upwards direction since the gravitational field is in the downwards direction.
Note: The size of earth based laboratories are so small that the gravitational field inside the lab can be considered to be quite uniform and all the field lines pointing upwards and are all parallel in the lab.
Place a positive amount of charge q on the particle (i.e. if it's an atom then remove a few electrons). Then let the particle move in a direction parallel to the ground and thus perpendicular to the direction of the field. The electric field will exert a force on the particle in the direction opposite to the gravitational field. Adjust the magnitude of the electric field until the moving particle does not move up or down but only in the direction parallel to the ground. Then you'll find that
qE = gamma*m*g which means a moving particle weighs more than one at rest.

It just occurred to me how to measure the weight of a moving particle, such as an ion. What you do is create a uniform electric field in a direction opposite to that of the uniform gravitational field in the lab. The electric field will be pointing in the upwards direction since the gravitational field is in the downwards direction.
Note: The size of earth based laboratories are so small that the gravitational field inside the lab can be considered to be quite uniform and all the field lines pointing upwards and are all parallel in the lab.
Place a positive amount of charge q on the particle (i.e. if it's an atom then remove a few electrons). Then let the particle move in a direction parallel to the ground and thus perpendicular to the direction of the field. The electric field will exert a force on the particle in the direction opposite to the gravitational field. Adjust the magnitude of the electric field until the moving particle does not move up or down but only in the direction parallel to the ground. Then you'll find that
qE = gamma*m*g which means a moving particle weighs more than one at rest.
That is a very interesting idea.

That is a very interesting idea.
Thanks, Jeff. I appreciate the feedback. We're discussing this on my private forum. I look forward to when you start posting there. We need the support to get the forum going fluently.

Thanks, Jeff. I appreciate the feedback. We're discussing this on my private forum. I look forward to when you start posting there. We need the support to get the forum going fluently.
What's the forum, called?

PmbPhy, when a particle travels in a circular path, it experiences centrifugal forces, [or gforces] that causes the particle to become heavier than it really is. But this should not be interpreted as an increase in mass, because the number of nucleons in the particle still remain the same.
You can't seriously think that I'm as ignorant as what you just implied, can you? It seems that you don't know how a cyclotron works. The magnetic force F_{B} on the moving particle balances is the force that moves the particle in a circle and is a function of speed. E.g. For a charged particle moving in the xyplane in the presence of a uniform magnetic field B = Bk where B = constant in space and time. Then
F_{B} = qvB
The magnitude of the centripetal force is mv^{2}/R where R is the radius of the circle that the particle is moving in. These forces must be equal in magnitude. Therefore
qvB = mv^{2}/r
or
qRB = mv
The quantities that are known are q, v and B. The quantity that you measure in the lab is R. Therefore to determine the mass from this experiment you calculate it by
m = qRB/v
Do you now understand how mass is measured using a cyclotron? Using special relativity you can arrive at this same expression since mv^2/R is a relativistically correct expression. Experiment shows that m = m_{0}/sqrt(1  (v/c)^{2}) and this is the exact same result predicted by experiment since the m in mv^2/R equals m = m_{0}/sqrt(1  (v/c)^{2}). So your analysis is quite flawed and misguided. Please follow this derivation at:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/long_trans_mass.htm
which shows that if the acceleration of a particle is transverse to the direction of motion then the force in the particle is given by F = m_{0}/sqrt(1  (v/c)^{2}) a where a is the transverse acceleration.
Here's a Wikipedia explanation about the Operational and Gravitational definition of Weight. It appears that you might be using the Operational definition of Weight instead of the Gravitational one.
No. I'm using the definition of weight that every physicist uses and is given in any physics text which defines weight. Weight is merely the value of the gravitational force  period. To measure it you measure the force required to support the object in the gravitational field so that its vertical speed remains zero.
See The equivalence principle and the question of weight by Kenneth Nordtvedt Jr., Am. J. Phys., 43(3), Mar. (1975)
I'll email it to you.
I showed that the weight of a moving body at
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/weight_moving_body.htm
If you can't follow these derivations, and they are correct and flawless, then I suggest that you find another physicist who will verify them for you. E.g. go to you're local college and show them to a physicist who knows general relativity.
I am not sure I understand by what you mean here.
Sorry. That wasn't exactly what I meant. What I meant to say was that in order to measure the strength of a gravitational field you must place a test particle in the field and then measure the acceleration of the particle. That tells you the strength of the field.
In my work, I don't disagree that the vibrations or cycles in an atomic clock can slow down when the strength of gravity is increased in the vicinity of the clock. But my work does not consider this as proof of "Time" slowing down; ...
Then you don't understand time dilation. If you can't understand time dilation then I can't help you until you learn it. So that's what we'll do first.
The rate at which time flows is measured by a clock placed in the field (A pendulum clock is not a true clock because the planet that its on is part of the clock itself). So in order to measure the rate at which time flows you measure the rate at which clocks tick. And if you do an experiment in which the clocks used run at the same rate in an inertial frame of reference and are not affected by forces exerted upon it then the clocks are good clocks. Place them in a field and then compare them with clocks which are outside the field and you'll see that all of the clocks slow down by the same amount. And please don't ignore the fact that your biological clock, your brain functions, everything, slow down by the exact same amount because those too act as clocks.
Most amateurs don't fathom that the rate at which time flows is measured by clocks. If you want to understand relativity then you'll have to understand this very simply fact.
Please note that I didn't respond to this thread to teach you relativity. It's assumed that when someone posts a thread with a new theory that he understands physics, in this case it was assumed that you understood SR and GR. So if you go off and study SR and GR and resolve the misunderstandings I've just pointed out we'll continue. However it doesn't work like this because when someone comes to this forum with a new theory not understanding the old ones they reject how the old one works as a result of those misunderstandings and they're unable to learn the correct physics. So I won't continue with this unless I'm convinced you understand the physics. Please pick up an SR and a GR text and carefully study them. When I'm convinced you know SR and GR I'll continue, but not until then.
If you need help with the physics then go to the appropriate forum and ask for help.

What's the forum, called?
New England Physics  Amateur Forums
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/amateur_forum/index.php
It's not open to the public. Membership is by invitation only. Sorry.

The magnetic force F_{B} on the moving particle balances [is] the force that moves the particle in a circle and is a function of speed. The magnitude of the centripetal force is mv^{2}/R where R is the radius of the circle that the particle is moving in. These forces must be equal in magnitude.
qvB = mv^{2}/r
PmbPhy, thanks for your detailed reply. You are right that I am not entirely aware of the technical details of how a Cyclotron works or how the mass increase is measured. But I do understand the basic forces that are at work when a particle travels in a circular path at high speeds.
If I understand you correctly, the basic forces that a Particle experiences when it moves in a circular path are these: Centripetal forces, created by F_{B} and is a function of speed [determined by the electrical field in the accelerator] and a Centrifugal force, owing to the inertia of the particle.
It is this centrifugal force that causes the particle's weight to increase. It is this force that I was referring to in my earlier post. It's just inertia of the particle [which we know was redefined by Einstein as an effect arising from his medium/spacetime via distant stars]. I can't see why you think my analysis is flawed.
Edit: removed some content about reactive centrifugal forces.
Place them in a field and then compare them with clocks which are outside the field and you'll see that all of the clocks slow down by the same amount.
I don't disagree that an atomic clock's internal cycles or vibrations slow down when it is placed in a field. My work only interprets this data differently. But I do understand SR and GR's understanding of Time.
However it doesn't work like this because when someone comes to this forum with a new theory not understanding the old ones they reject how the old one works as a result of those misunderstandings and they're unable to learn the correct physics.
My work is in agreement with almost all experiments that support SR and GR. It's the interpretation of my work that is different.

New England Physics  Amateur Forums
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/amateur_forum/index.php
It's not open to the public. Membership is by invitation only. Sorry.
No problem.

It is this centrifugal force that causes the particle's weight to increase.
Nope. I already explained to you why that interpretation was wrong in my last post so why are you repeating it? Didn't you understand what I wrote? I showed you the derivation of the relationship between the variables in cyclotron motion and explained it to you. As such your interpretation is quite wrong. Do you seriously think that you're the only one in the earth to understand this and all the physicists in the world for the last 100 years were just ignorant of the physics to understand what they've concluded? The answer to that is No! Sorry.
Regarding your erroneous conclusion: first off, the concept of weight does not apply to this situation because weight is defined as the gravitational force on a body. Since the only force I spoke of was the magnetic force your assertion that the force on it was weight is incorrect. In the second place, the force that you're talking about, i.e. the centripetal force, i.e. the force which makes a particle follow a curved path, in this case a circle, and is directed toward the center of the circle that the particle is moving in. It's caused by the magnetic force acting on the particle and is normal to the particle's path. The magnitude of this force is F_{B} = qvB. By definition of force, F = dp/dt. Since the acceleration is transverse to the direction of motion it can be shown that F = m a_{t[/b] where at[/b] is the component of acceleration tangent to the path. For a derivation of this fact please seeSee http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/long_trans_mass.htmat[/b] is the centripetal acceleration which has the value a = v2/R where R is the radius of the osculating circle tangent to the path. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osculating_circleEquating these two expressions we haveqvB = mv2/Rwhich reduces tomv = qRBIn the derivation in the page I wrotehttp://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/long_trans_mass.htmthe value of m predicted is m = m0/sqrt(1  v2/c2). This is the value of m in that expression which is measured in the laboratory when the speed is relativistic. For nonrelativistic speeds m is a constant.Its your constant misunderstanding like this last post that indicates that I said you need to learn physics much better than you think you know it now. Please don't take this as me trying to be rude or insulting since that's certainly not my goal. When some comes to this forum claiming to have a new theory its assumed and implied that the know the physics well enough to know what it means. Clearly you're not at that level yet and shouldn't be making these assertions until you learn the physics. That's what the other physics sub forum is for. I don't come to this sub forum to teach or tutor physics and I have no intention of doing so. It's not my job to teach you physics. At most I'll help you understand the physics but will only do so from now on in the forum where people ask questions and will only answer questions that you ask rather than explain why your claims are wrong. You need to first recognize that you don't understand the physics. Until you do so and continue to make such erroneous claims about things you don't understand you'll be considered a crackpot.}

You seem confused about the nature of this forum. This is where people present "new" Theories.
Not at all. As I told another member this sub forum is for "new" theories whereas all other forums are for real science.
I know the purposes of all the sub forums here much better than you possibly do since I've been posting here for many years and you're merely a newbie who thinks he knows everything and that professional physicists couldn't have possibly have considered all the things he's claimed. The main forum itself is called The Naked Scientists forum with New Theories being a sub forum.
However it is you who are confused since you're now being quite rude which is a violation of the forum policy, a policy that you agreed to adhere to when you joined this forum. See:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0
Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.
You confuse me for one of your students in your school.
First of all, if I was a teacher rather than a theoretical physicist I wouldn't accept students who have such a poor understanding of the basics of science and the methodology and who refuse to learn them when the material is pointed out to like I did when I gave you the reference to:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/what_is_science.pdf
In my spare time I help amateur scientists, layman and students on forums like this and I also tutor. I only accept students who have a basic understanding of the methodology of science, which you're seriously lacking. One thing a physicist never does is ignore what's being said to them, never! You've constantly ignored everything that goes against what you've assumed to be true. If you have a new thread to challenge those concepts then you can't ignore them by any means. On the contrary, you have to take them seriously and address them. Something you haven't done. All you've done is take the valid derivation of the motion of a charged particle in a cyclotron and claim that its wrong.
The first thing you have to do in order to be taken seriously in physics is to demonstrate that you have a solid understanding of physics and the methodology used in physics. So far you severely lack in that area and are too arrogant to see or admit that so you'll remain that way and never be taken seriously. Anybody on this forum who knows what they're talking about will tell you the exact same thing. An important part of that is knowing that nothing can be "proved" in physics or any branch of science. The only proofs come in the form of math. When a physicists starts with the axioms of physics, which are assumed to be true for the sake of argument, he then uses the techniques of mathematics to arrive at a conclusion. That is the only kind of proof that you'll find in physics. One cannot actually prove the axioms to be correct. They can only be tested against experiment. When this is done with mass we get the results predicted by relativity. So mass increases with speed to the extent that anything can be proved in physics.
It's simple as a matter of fact. We take a charged particle and place it in a uniform electric field. The particle keeps accelerating so long as there is an electric field present. The only thing that changes is the magnitude of the acceleration and that decreases. The only way for the acceleration of a particle to decrease is for the mass to increase. This happens in particle accelerators and the engineers and physicists who design these accelerators must take this into account in order for them to work. Pick up a book on particle accelerators and learn about what you're claiming to be wrong.
Your assumption that things can be proved using physics is a common misconception, one that many many layman make. You can easily read about this at:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php
•MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.
CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.
See also:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/thescientificfundamentalist/200811/commonmisconceptionsaboutscienceiscientificproof
All science has the ability to do is formulate theories and compare them against what's observed in the laboratory
Another thing you did wrong was to confuse centripetal force with centrifugal force. The former is the force that causes a particle to move on a curved path while the later is an inertial force which only appears in noninertial rotating frames. Please learn the difference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force
A Centripetal force (from Latin centrum "center" and petere "to seek") is a force that makes a body follow a curved path. Its direction is always orthogonal to the velocity of the body and towards the fixed point of the instantaneous center of curvature of the path. Isaac Newton described it as "a force by which bodies are drawn or impelled, or in any way tend, towards a point as to a centre."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force
Centrifugal force (from Latin centrum, meaning "center", and fugere, meaning "to flee"[1][2]) is the apparent force that draws a rotating body away from the center of rotation. It is caused by the inertia of the body. In Newtonian mechanics, the term centrifugal force is used to refer to one of two distinct concepts: an inertial force (also called a "fictitious" force) observed in a noninertial reference frame, and also the equal and opposite reaction to a centripetal force.
One of your main problems is that you ignore everything that doesn't agree with your assumptions.
I've proven to you theoretically that mass is a function of speed and that this theory is demonstrated to be the same as what is observed in the lab. See:http://cas.web.cern.ch/cas/Holland/PDFlectures/Vretenar/Vretenar.pdf
When velocity approaches c, the mass of the particle increases with the velocity
m = m_{0}/sqrt(1v^{2}/c^{2})} = m_{0}gamma
See also: https://cas.web.cern.ch/cas/Baden/PDF/Relativity.pdf
I'm treating you like I would treat someone who posts the things you've said. As such, yes. I'm treating you like a student because that's the level of science that you've demonstrated. When you learn to answer questions asked to you then that might change. Until you refuse to address objections to your claims you'll be seen as a crackpot because that's the definition of a crackpot. I.e. in case you don't know what a crackpot is and why you have many of the signs of being a crackpot see:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
These are the ones that apply to you:
1) A 5 point starting credit.
Reason: Your tone and your arrogant belief that using math is not meaningful or useful.
2) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
Reason: Lack of understanding that the fact that relativistic mass is borne out by experiment and you comment "rhetorical mathematics" which means you don't understand the importance of math in physics. I.e. that math is said to be the language of physics because it states things quantitatively rather than having a lack of understanding of math and are only able to make qualitative statements which have very little use in physics.
5) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
Reason: You're inability to follow the derivation of the cyclotron equation and understand what it means and how to use it to demonstrate that mass is a function of speed.
14) 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
Reason: You claim to be redefining terms such as mass and weight so this one applies to you.
If you don't want to accept my definition of mass, gravity, inertia, centrifugal force, and weight, then don't comment on my work because you are wasting my time. And I really don't have the time to waste.
Oh! I see now. You wanted to come here and show everyone your socalled theory and then you get upset when anybody comments on it and points out your flaws. You should have added that in your original post because this forum is typically used to discuss things. If you only wanted to hang this up like wall paper in the hopes someone would admire it then you should have said so.
Note: This is a physics forum, not an art forum.
<snipped rubbish>

If you refuse to accept my definition of my mass/weight/inertia/gravity/field/centrifugal force, then I only have one thing to ask: Why do you post here?
Let me explain the problem with this statement. First off you never posted a definition of those terms in this thread and I'm certainly not going to read over a hundred pages of text written by someone who doesn't understand physics such as yourself. Just state your definitions.
People post in threads like this because they don't accept such definitions. You can't expect to write a paper and expect it to be accepted without people rejecting your definitions if they find problems with it. And one thing that you don't understand is that papers in which the author changes definitions because he doesn't like the real definitions is not a paper that anybody would want to accept as worth while.

As the velocity of a mass approaches the speed of light it requires more and more energy to accelerate it further. It will never actually reach light speed. The only way to explain this dramatic rise in force is that the mass has increased and the force required to move it becomes ever larger. I have gone through all this the hard way over the years by teaching myself and understanding the mathematics. You can't get round it. I have looked for ways that it may break down and found none. It is a lot better to take on board comments and throw everything away than stick to something that is in error. Over the years I have scrapped many ideas when they were shown to be wrong. This way you may be taken seriously and find cooperation when you need clarification on things that you don't quite understand.

You have no interest in alternative theories.
Not at all. What I don't have an interest in is people who try to pass of rubbish as valid science and then refuse to take criticism because they're so arrogant that they can't fathom the fact that they're wrong. I explained the errors in your claims and all you did was reject them using erroneous and illogical assertions and then started insulting me. Nobody in this forum is going to care about this thread since you started acting like that.

I explained the errors in your claims and all you did was reject them using erroneous and illogical assertions and then started insulting me.
I've been on alternative forums before and I have never come across anyone as phoney as you. It shocks me that you think of this as an insult. You need to ponder on this and stop wasting my time by posting in this thread. Do you not understand English?