The Naked Scientists Forum
On the Lighter Side
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
02/09/2016 15:39:39 »
Relativity is the most important discovery in physics period. But Einstein left us with the question of mechanical design of Relativity. He was a realest in the sense that motion had a cause and spent the rest of his life dedicated to that cause. He never found one that he could accept.
We have to reverse engineer Relativity like any other product of a mechanical nature. The biggest hurtle to that approach is we cannot view the product directly only orthogonally can we measure the mechanical result. Itís like being able to measure the speed of a car but not knowing what is making the car move or why it moves in the first place. This forces one to guess at the engine without ever viewing an engine. Boyle and his followers gave up in the Copenhagen interpretation. Rather than continue to remain in the realest camp of something for something they remain to this day in the belief of something for nothing. We have many followers in the physics (mathematical) field and very few thinkers to put mechanics to physics. If Einstein could not do it how can anyone else hope to compete with his understanding? To that I say foundation of your imagination is of greatest importance. Do I believe I have the intelligence of Einstein? No, I have my own intelligence which is the knowledge accumulated in the years of my existence. By the way yes I exist both physically and mentally and as such, a realest. I will not follow the Copenhagen interpretation to allow me to question my existence as reality. Many physicists believe they cannot explain theoretical physics to the layman. To that I say itís because physicists do not really understand it themselves. Current physics say to the layman higher mathematics is needed, so the layman cannot understand physics. Measuring the speed of a body is not the same as understanding the mechanical reason for motion in the first place. Mathematics cannot prove a theory, only disprove one. The Copenhagen interpretation relieves physicists of the burden to explain motion in other than mathematical terms. Their credo is crunch equations and do not think. Motion then becomes a probability and not necessarily a reality. In the defense of current understanding it is the current lack of knowledge that allows our current view of physics in the same category as magic. As a realist I refuse to believe in the magic of probabilities as described by current physics. Logic remains in the mechanical realm for me.
I have a mechanical understanding of Relativity. This understanding is not shared by current physics. There is a difference in the meaning of words expressed by mechanics and magic. I will try to explain my understanding of Relativity without higher mathematics. Relativity is just ratios which can be expressed as math. But you are only left with ratios without a cause. Mathematics will never prove a theory it only has the ability to disprove one as I mentioned. Math can follow contradictory theories. Mechanics on the other hand is the reality factor based on a premise. Garbage in garbage out is the reality of logic.
Definition of terms are different for each theory but modern physics will not allow a different definition so it cannot move beyond its current magical understanding of contradictory results to logic. Any result that does not fit your theory will prove your theory wrong. The elegance of Einsteinís postulates of relativity is that it fits every experiment preformed to date. They are for special Relativity: ďThe laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.Ē Now measurement is a value, so we can claim no more than the measured value is always velocity c in a vacuum. We need to define the word frame. Frame in Special Relativity is your value of motion. This has no standard with which to determine ones velocity. We are rotating on the Earth, we are revolving around our sun, we are moving through our galaxy, our galaxy is moving through the universe and we do not really know if our universe is rotating or not. This is why the question in physics is always relative to what? Physicists always uses the ratio of one moving object to another for motion since everything is always in motion. We have no standard of a rest state. For measurement we chose one object being measured as if it were at rest and the other as the only one moving. Frame is your current motion in space (Special Relativity [SR]) or your position in a gravity well (General Relativity [GR]).
Now let us define time. We measure time by the use of clocks. Both mechanical clocks and those that use the speed of light as measurement in the same frame maintain synchronization. This proves the motion of the electron cycle (whatever youíre understanding) and the distance light travels have the same ratio in a vacuum of a frame. So the distance the electron travels and the distance light travels in a vacuum by Relativity is measured to be the same distance in every frame. If you have a curios mind would you not question the distance of measuring light if you are traveling at 10 mph vs. 10,000 mph? Logic would force you to take into account your difference in speed while moving? The logical answer is yes but current beliefs in physics would be no. From what I can determine from theoretical physics of math equations is a belief in increased speed causes a reduction of physical length defined by the Lorentz contraction. I will give you the formula: Sq. Rt. Of 1 Ė v^2/c^2. So a physical body is reduced in length the faster its speed. Why is not a concern of modern physics because magic is possible in modern physics. Modern physics teaches measurement is a physical state of a body between frames. I do not agree. The visual measurement contracts but not the physical body. The cause is geometry of motion vs. the finite speed of light. If light speed were infinite visual contraction would not appear. As you increase the value of c mathematically the Lorentz contraction decreases. This proves it is a visual contraction rather than a physical (magical) contraction. Our measure of time slows down with increased speed. Reaction time slows down due to increase in length vs. energy of c. Basically the travel distance for light and the electron travel distance has increased with the increase of speed. The electron and photon are confounded in every frame. So your measurement of the speed of light is the same in every frame. Geometry of the finite speed of light on a measuring stick will visually increase the length of the measuring stick. So you measure a longer distance for light to travel in a vacuum confounded with the longer distance the electron has to cycle through space. You measure the same distance with a slower clock tick cycle rate relative to your frame of referenceís measuring stick. Chemical reactions are slower with increase in frame speed. Since your aging is a time clock you age slower the faster the speed of your frame compared to another. Now that we have gone through some relative distances we can understand c being fundamental energy of motion and distance traveled in your relative time measurement. There is no reference to time other than fundamental energy of c. The more energy you use of c for speed the less energy you have available for the increase in speed. c energy is a fundamental limit. So now we can define what we mean when we use the word time. Time=motion=fundamental energy available to a frame.
All three terms are necessary to understand the mechanics of time vs. the magic of time. There is no such thing as time travel. There is no forward or backward of time only the motion allowed by fundamental energy. I say fundamental energy to separate c energy from physical resistance to fundamental energy we describe as physical work. Fundamental energy move electrons. Without fundamental energy all motion would stop and time would cease to exist. When we move electrons and atoms out of their rest state we cause resistance to fundamental energy. This is our definition of work in our physical world which is a resistance to fundamental energy.
Re: Mechanical Relativity
Reply #1 on:
02/09/2016 15:40:56 »
What is the mechanical form of fundamental energy? My guess is a grid structure of spin particles that move the electrons. Your understanding of logic will not allow that definition but we have to ask: What moves the electron? Cause and affect are the only reasons for mechanical reality. Why do modern physicists believe a photon to be a wave and a particle? To me a photon is a wave on grid particles with fundamental c. The lack of entropy is the fundamental energy we describe as time and motion. Electrons flow in a corkscrew motion. When forced into a new so called shell the corkscrew motion is different from the motion at rest and creates a wave on the energy grid. One of the forms we see is the light wave. Modern physics calls the photon a virtual particle indistinguishable from its background. In my definition light is a wave on particles and not a single virtual particle. Similar to our belief that all physical things are made up of atoms I believe the fundamental particle that everything comes from is the fundamental energy particle. Suns create a type of macro mass by compressing energy into electrons and electrons into atoms. The path of electrons (gear like) are matter and anti-matter in a stable form of complimentary spin. To stabilize anti-matter outside of the atom with magnetic fields is the height of a conduit creating what we describe as mechanical energy Resistance to fundamental motion as opposing spin states.
Special Relativity says there is nothing faster than light. If you consider the mechanical properties of spin c like the maximum motion than this is logical proof that c is the maximum mechanical speed available.
General Relativity has a different spin on the speed of light. Gravity in a sun approaches the gravitational speed of light by creating mass (electrons and atoms). Since it creates its own supply of hydrogen it never runs out of hydrogen. But as the sun ages higher elements are formed and the ratio changes between hydrogen and the higher elements to a red iron giant. If a sun starts out large enough eventually the gravitational pull will reach the speed of light. At that point energy can no longer keep atoms apart and the result is a compression of mass where the atoms are together in what we describe as a black hole. Itís not really a hole but a wall devoid of time motion fundamental energy. Sort of like an electron in a separate fractal universe. Our universe size difference goes from electron to black hole. Our galaxies are fundamental energy to the fractal electron black hole.
Special and General relativity have an equivalence principle. That is the energy equivalence of measured time which is related to distances being equally measured for time. In SR you travel through space causing an increase in length of your measuring stick. In GR there is a dilation of space caused by fundamental energy moving electrons. So the most dilated fundamental energy is in the center of mass. Since mass is devoid of energy of its own, work (fundamental energy) is needed to move its electrons. In moving the electrons fundamental energy is expanded and mass is attracted to the most expanded fundamental energy state. We describe this mechanics as gravity. The force of gravity is the inverse square of the distance in mass. Sorry for the math but it is necessary for the nonlinear force of attraction.
The wave spectrum, gravity, magnetism, weak and strong force are different properties caused by fundamental energy spin c.
Gravity- Dilation of fundamental energy and mass being attracted to more dilated space mass attracts mass.
Magnetism- The spin of fundamental energy north and south poles are merely rotation of clockwise going in and clockwise going out. Mirror image of either north to north or south to south will have opposite spins. North spin to south spin is the same direction.
The grid pattern causes a complimentary path inside a proton for the electrons to exist in a stable continuous corkscrew path. It is the complimentary spin that holds the proton or neutron together. What about the lone electron to the proton? Well that is gravity again. The proton sends an electron in more dilated space at fundamental c in a corkscrew motion. The total motion of the electron is always c but the distance traveled is always less than c due to the cork screw motion. The relative distance the electron travels is a marble to a football field (a black hole if the football field is full of marbles). At the distance of the goal posts (relative) fundamental energy becomes denser and less dilated by the inverse square of the distance again. Here is where the electron curves back towards the proton and enters to kick out another. There is no friction because the electron going in is the exact same speed as all other electrons.
This mechanical explanation given is consistent with Relativities measurements. That is all you can expect of a theory. Math follows a theory but does not prove a theory correct.
Theories come from observation. Letís take the red shift for example. There is a Special Relativity red shift and a General Relativity red shift. The first is from speed and the other gravity. Once again we have to conclude there is an equivalence between the two. Dilation of mass and the increased length of your measuring stick with speed, relative. Current accepted theory for the red shift in galaxies suggest Special Relativity as the cause. This makes their assessment that all galaxies are moving away from us and the foundation of the big bang. In one theory where mass came from nothing (magic) and existence began. This is a faith statement not a scientific method statement for the beginning of time. Current accepted definition of time is not known by main stream because time belongs to magic. The defined: Time = Motion = fundamental energy of grid spin would interpret red shift of galaxies as a combination of General and Special Relativity. Here is the logic. We are on the outskirts of our galaxy about 75% out from the center. 75% of the mass in a galaxy is in the center with the black hole. Much more dilation is in the center of the galaxy. For proof dilation exists, astronomers use galaxy dilation as lenses like a telescope to observe galaxies behind them. There is a defined threshold at the borders of galaxies that maintain the appearance of an aura around the galaxy which is observed. Many believe it to be Dark mass without being able to define Dark mass. They define Dark energy as the space between galaxies pushing them apart. This is because Michaelson and Morley proved there was no stationary Aether affecting the speed of light. Light at 90 degrees to the earthís rotation would cause light to have different velocities if there were a stationary Aether. I agree with that logic. But Main stream science took it one step further demanding that there is no substance beyond the basic mass we can measure. This experiment (MMX) did not eliminate a mass spin energy (we can call it Dark mass spin causing energy) below a size of detection because the design did not include it as a possibility for their experiment. Main streams insistence on light not having anything to impede its progress and now claiming dark mass and dark energy is a contradiction in their understanding. Now back to the explanation why galaxies may not be receding from us. Our dilation vs. the dilation in the center of our own galaxy would not have a defined aura so we just view our stars as General Relativity gravity red shift. But from our position in our own galaxy being 75% out with much less dilation we view the galaxies center of lightís more dilated position as red shifted as GR rather than SR. So every galaxy could be moving in any direction even towards us and be red shifted. The only way we can tell Andromeda is moving towards us is by the spiraling arms. The arms coming towards us are bluer shifted than the ones receding from us are red shifted. Remember when I stated a theory cannot have a contradiction and also be an accurate description of reality. All galaxies cannot be moving away from us and towards us at the same time. Something is wrong with the premise if a theory if it contradicts itself. All of the scientists working on the big bang will not let their theory go because of a lifetime of work on their magic. They will not allow it to be considered magic but rather beyond the normal intelligence of a person like me or you or any that would suggest another possibility. That is why I personally believe (faith on my part) science is controlled by the faithful.
Another example of main stream contradiction exists in the measurement of a gravity well. Main streams belief that there is nothing to impede light so it has no entropy is contradicted here. There is a measurement of blue shifted light as light falls down a gravity well and red shifted as it moves out of a gravity well. This in Special Relativity is a change in velocity of what main stream believes is a particle and a wave (that is also contradictory). The main postulate of Relativity is light is measured to be the same in a vacuum in every frame. Main stream considers the earth a frame of rotation. So you have to consider momentum increase and decrease as a violation of Relativity theory. If it were a dilation of dark mass energy (fundamental motion) than you could never accurately maintain cell length of a light frequency detector. As you descend a gravity well the cell length of the detector would increase the more it descended. The result would be a shorter frequency created higher in the gravity well and measured lower in the gravity well as blue shifted. The same in reverse, light created lower in a gravity well (more dilated space) measured higher (less dilated space) where the cell length is shorter would measure a red shift. This explanation of observation remains consistent with Relativity. The speed of light remains constant. Without dilation a theory has to include increase and decrease in the momentum of light which violates Relativity. Current science uses weasel words to carefully define a word meaning in order to disguise any contradiction.
An example is to define a photon as a virtual particle. Virtual as containing no mass and particle as being made of mass. By Relativity a photon has no mass by calculation and it has energy by observation of measurement. Having dark mass energy (fundamental spin motion of c in space) we do not need weasel words. The electron causes friction with space energy c to create a wave on c particles which are independent of mass so no particle is needed for mechanical transfer of energy. The virtual particle is represented in the wave moving through the fundamental sea of grid particles. The wave of particles is the virtual particle that causes main streams weasel word to not change their theory. To define a photon as both a particle and a wave is contradictory. With a particle moving at c the wave would have to move faster than c for the ripple difference in motion.
The dual slit experiment is a prime example of the reason for the Copenhagen interpretation of probability rather than mechanical reality. In the dual slit experiment scientists fire what they believe as the virtual particle (photon) at a flat board containing two slits. A particle should only be able to follow the path of one or the other slits causing only two detector lines. This is not what is observed. So the term probability is becomes the new weasel word rather than changing their theory of unobstructed path of a particle. An interference pattern emerges with more than the two lines detected. The interference pattern is many more lines than just two which have less hits than the main two. This is the main ingredient of magic acceptance. In a pond where two waves are created the same detection would result in the peaks and valleys of a detector. In other words the interference pattern would be the same as the physical pond waves. So unmistakably light must be a wave and because it can carry energy it must be a particle that is virtual devoid of mass. In water you can drop two pebbles and create two interference waves creating the same interference pattern. The pebbles stop becoming part of the wave but not the result of the wave. You cannot consider the wave as a virtual particle with a tail behind it. The wave and the particle are cause and affect two separate physical effects. Fundamental spin energy c is the water pervasive through the Universe. We are in a sea of energy that allows motion. What moves the electron? The electron cannot be fundamental energy if it is confounded with c. All mass has entropy to a lower energy state that one can described as gravity (the cause of gravity being entropy of a less dense energy state). Photons do not have entropy, all waves of space move at c. The only logical conclusion is fundamental energy comes from a constant sea of energy c that allows motion in the first place. When scientists fire electrons the same interference forms on a detector sheet in the dual slit experiments so they still claim a photon is a particle. Unfortunately what they continue to not understand is it is not an electron moving through space but the representative wave of the electron moving through space causing the interference pattern. This brings us to another part of Relativity postulates: Light being independent of the source.
Science currently believe in a perpendicular view while in motion. That view is invalid as you approach the speed of c. Current main stream science believes you are in the same frame with two trains side by side from a rest state to near the speed of light. While your clocks will remain synchronized on each train the view between each train will not remain a perpendicular view. The reason is light is independent of the source. Here is the interesting fact of two trains approaching the speed of light physically side by side. Each will view the other as behind while if it were possible to go the speed of light neither could view the other. Light has the velocity of c with vector components of up to 360 degrees. When you approach the speed of light with the two trains each train is catching up to a vector image. When reaching the vector of the sent image is coming from a position the train was in from the past. Perpendicular view was never possible possible. This creates a contracted view of the received image but not a physical contraction of length. Many in science today believe the length contraction is actually physical. They belong to the magic group of Copenhageners. Mainstream trains our physicists the mathematics of the Lorentz contraction. Letís use Ĺ the speed of light in what is taught as the Lorentz contraction. Simple math here: Sq. Rt. 1 - 1^2 / 2^2= Sq. Rt. 1 Ė ľ= Sq. Rt. 1 Ė 0.25= Sq. Rt. 0.75= 0.866025. Incidentally that is the tick rate of your clock vs. relative rest (0.866025 of a second at half the speed of light to one second at rest relative). But the view of your ruler actually increased by the inverse amount. The measurement increases the distance measured by the exact same amount your clocks tick rate slows. So the result is the same measurement of the speed of light in a vacuum. Itís only because no one teaches where the Lorentz contraction came from and that the belief you cannot measure the distances from one frame with the others frame. Many physicists believe contraction is physical as I mentioned. Letís look at Pythagoras and geometry. A ship going half the speed of light creates a rectangle with the direction of lights view not perpendicular. This of course is because light is independent of its source. The triangle of the image of view creates a 30, 60, 90 triangle. In trig. Cos 30 = 0.866025. So your view is contracted by 13.3075%. You can deduce the contraction is the angle of view perceived as 90 degrees but actually the image reaching you at 30 degrees with light being independent of the source. So the light has to travel a further vector in space than perpendicular while the arrow of light appears perpendicular. It is the hypotenuse rather than either leg of a right triangle for the distance an image appears to have traveled.