1

New Theories / Re: Is Special Relativity reciprocal?

« on: Yesterday at 05:32:37 »

It's honestly difficult to understand what you are asking. Based on what you were saying in the other thread, I'm guessing that you are trying to say that the light beam will look like it's traveling at a different speed in a frame that is moving relative to the car than in the frame of the car itself. That's not the case. The speed of light is the same in both frames. The consequence of this is that the light beam is seen to hit the far side of the cart at different times in each frame. In the frame where the light beam has to travel further, it takes longer to traverse the distance and thus will take longer to reach its target. That's relativity of simultaneity.

2

New Theories / Re: SR frame dragging

« on: Yesterday at 00:03:13 »

The light moves up on the train car but it is 'dragged' to the right from platform point of view.

For the last time, what you are talking about is not frame-dragging. Did you even watch the video I posted?

Since you missed it the first time...

How do we solve this?

c^2 = (c/2)^2
c!=c

Did you not just read what I posted about putting this in the appropriate thread?

3

New Theories / Re: SR frame dragging

« on: 11/08/2020 23:47:42 »

OK, no frame dragging, no v^2.
c^2 = (c/2)^2
c!=c
How do you solve this?
Jano

Since you admit that you are no longer talking about frame-dragging, please put that in the appropriate thread ("Is relativity reciprocal?" seems like a good one).

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Would frame dragging cause the fabric of space to tear?

« on: 11/08/2020 23:12:34 »

The platform observer sees:

c^2 = (c/2)^2 + v^2

The y axis is not contracted but the light crosses the y direction at different speeds for different observers.
The light crosses the y direction at c for the train observer.
The light crosses the y direction at c/2 for the platform observer.

Here is a quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)#Explanation

While classical reasoning gives intuition for aberration, it leads to a number of physical paradoxes observable even at the classical level (see history). The theory of special relativity is required to correctly account for aberration. The relativistic explanation is very similar to the classical one however, and in both theories aberration may be understood as a case of addition of velocities. While classical reasoning gives intuition for aberration, it leads to a number of physical paradoxes observable even at the classical level (see history). The theory of special relativity is required to correctly account for aberration. The relativistic explanation is very similar to the classical one however, and in both theories aberration may be understood as a case of addition of velocities.

The last sentence: "... in both theories aberration may be understood as a case of addition of velocities."
Why the classical addition of the velocities and the NOT relativity addition???
c^2 = (c/2)^2 + v^2
Why do we consider 90 degrees from the train frame in the platform frame?
Why do we mix frames?
If we do not acknowledge the frame dragging then we do not have 90 degrees.
We do not have a classical addition of the velocities.
If we say that frame dragging does not happen then we need to take out v^2 from the velocity addition and we would get c!=c.
Jano

For the last time, what you are talking about is not frame-dragging. Did you even watch the video I posted?

5

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity?

« on: 11/08/2020 23:09:09 »

It is a field present on the surfaces of the masses, definitely, not all the masses. 

Can you give an example of a mass that has been confirmed to not have gravity?

What's frustrating is that you have consistently refused to learn. Your last post brings up things that you have brought up in the past multiple times and that have been adequately explained. Why you won't accept those explanations is beyond me. Having new ideas is one thing, but stubbornly hanging on to new ideas that contradict existing evidence is something else altogether...

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Would frame dragging cause the fabric of space to tear?

« on: 11/08/2020 22:11:55 »

When motion in the first frame affects the motions (conclusions about the motion) in the other frame.

No, that is not frame-dragging. This is what frame-dragging is:

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Would frame dragging cause the fabric of space to tear?

« on: 11/08/2020 20:34:08 »

The red arrow up stays 90 degree up in the train frame because it is dragged with the train frame from the platform point of view.
This is the fact.

What do you think frame dragging is, exactly?

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Would frame dragging cause the fabric of space to tear?

« on: 11/08/2020 07:41:00 »

Frame dragging is part of the Special Relativity.

No, frame dragging is a part of general relativity.

The platform observer at x=0cs, t=0s sends a light across, the blue arrow up, 90 degree up at the top part of the figure.
The train observer at x'=0cs', t'=0s' sends a light across, the red arrow up, 90 degree up at the top part of the figure.
This happens when they are aligned, x=x'=0 and t=t'=0.
Now frame dragging happens.
The red arrow up is frame dragged across the platform frame.
The red arrow up appears straight up for the train observer but as the blue arrow to the right from the platform x=0cs origin position.
The blue arrow up is frame dragged across the train frame in the reciprocal way.
The blue arrow up appears straight up for the platform observer but as the red arrow to the left from the train x'=0cs' origin position.
Simple, right?
Jano

Why are you bringing this up here?

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Would frame dragging cause the fabric of space to tear?

« on: 10/08/2020 21:02:17 »

I saw an animation of frame dragging. Seems to me that in such a situation space would eventually tear?

Thankfully, no. I'm not entirely sure what it would mean for space to tear. What would be in the gaps between torn space? More space?

It might be better to think of frame dragging as the swirling of a liquid. No tearing involved. However, even the liquid analogy has its short-comings. A stationary object in a swirling liquid will feel a force pushing it in the direction of the flow. Such is not true of frame-dragging. An object will only feel a force from frame-dragging if it's moving relative to the central object that is rotating (akin to how magnetic induction works).

10

Just Chat! / Re: Any fish lovers?

« on: 10/08/2020 20:52:46 »

There's a restaurant not far from my parents' house that has great fried catfish. I'm also rather fond of baked salmon.

11

New Theories / Re: The Weak Force does not Exist

« on: 10/08/2020 20:40:40 »

The mu-minus binds with a muon antineutrino to form a pi-minus that does feel the strong force.

1) The negative pion is composed of a quark and antiquark, not a muon and antineutrino.
2) There is no known force that can bind a muon to an antineutrino. Electromagnetism won't work because the antineutrino is neutral. The strong force won't work because neither particle feels the strong force. Gravity won't work because it's far too weak on that scale. The weak force won't work because it doesn't form bound states (and you can't invoke it anyway because you are denying its existence).
3) You are still ignoring the fact that the muon, by itself, decays. I'm not talking about a pion. The muon does not interact with the strong force and thus you cannot invoke it as a mechanism for its decay.

12

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity?

« on: 09/08/2020 23:07:54 »

Undoubtedly, it is clear that Gravity is not due to masses

Not clear at all, actually.

13

New Theories / Re: The Weak Force does not Exist

« on: 09/08/2020 15:07:32 »

Space is at rest relative to the proton. Relativistic mass makes more real little circles (see figure above) as far as space is concerned. The rest frame of the proton is irrelevant for space.

Sounds like you are contradicting relativity.

In my model the Higgs is made of a Riemann sphere with left out events of spacetime - I can conceive of what ordinary physics cannot.

Now all you need to do is demonstrate that with experimental evidence.

The muon also decays by the strong force

It doesn't even interact with the strong nuclear force, so that doesn't work.

They detected a photon with mass.

No, they didn't. The photon is stable, whereas the Z boson is not. The photon is associated with the electromagnetic interaction, whereas the Z boson is not (it is associated with neutrino interactions, which have no charge).

14

New Theories / Re: Is Special Relativity reciprocal?

« on: 09/08/2020 02:38:33 »

But they do understand the basic rules of maths which the physicists are breaking.

What rules are being broken?

It is indeed trivial, and yet the physicists get the wrong answer from it because they impose what they want to be true on the experiment and reject what it actually tells them.

Sounds like you are saying that there was an experiment that produced results at odds with relativity. When was that experiment performed? By who? What about the results falsified relativity?

15

New Theories / Re: The Weak Force does not Exist

« on: 08/08/2020 17:13:51 »

The Higgs's parts can certainly come into existence inside a relativistic proton.

Except, as I pointed out, in the reference frame of someone who is keeping pace with the proton, the proton isn't moving (and therefore isn't relativistic). A proton cannot contain parts of a Higgs in one frame and not in another. Not to mention that the Higgs is a fundamental particle. It isn't, to the best of our knowledge, made of anything simpler than itself.

I may be wrong, but I showed that neutron decay can happen by the Strong Nuclear Force.

And what about decay of the muon, which doesn't interact with the strong nuclear force?

The Z boson was predicted to exist as a means of explaining the properties of the weak nuclear force. Then the Z boson was actually detected in 1983. That's strong evidence that the weak nuclear force exists.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do planets rule our destiny?

« on: 07/08/2020 20:28:06 »

So I think to myself, in what other ways are we connected that we still have no idea about.

If we literally have no idea about it then we can't even speculate on it.

Are our thoughts, intentions and desires also connected to the same system?

Only in the sense that those things are affected by the occurrences in our lives. If I see a shooting star, it might influence me to do research on shooting stars and eventually become an astronomer one day. If you are claiming the opposite (that our thoughts or intentions can affect a shooting star) then you're going to have to pony up some serious evidence for it.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do planets rule our destiny?

« on: 07/08/2020 17:46:33 »

And perhaps this will be the new discovery of the 21st century.
How change in the atoms of our will has an effect on our planet.

Why is there any reason to think that it will be?

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: I rate 'many worlds' people together with flat-earthers. Am I wrong?

« on: 07/08/2020 17:40:38 »

After reading Einstein saying he had disproved the aether and then proved it

Citation needed.

19

New Theories / Re: The Weak Force does not Exist

« on: 07/08/2020 17:34:29 »

The Higgs mass could start to exist in a relativistic proton.

You missed this part:

You can't say that a Higgs suddenly pops into existence inside of a proton when you give it sufficient relativistic mass by speeding it up. This is, in part, because velocity is relative. To another particle traveling at the same velocity as the proton, the proton will appear at rest and therefore have a mass of only 938 MeV. Two different reference frames can disagree on velocity and kinetic energy, but they cannot disagree on the physical consequences of that difference (in other words, a Higgs cannot be inside of a proton in one reference frame but not another).

They can be mistaken that it is due to the Weak Force.

Then show where they made their mistake.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: I rate 'many worlds' people together with flat-earthers. Am I wrong?

« on: 06/08/2020 23:08:13 »

But then again so seems most of relativity, wormholes, pretty much all of theoretical physics, they just seem to be chasing there tail.

At least relativity has a massive amount of experimental evidence supporting it.