What is the basis of Einstens relativity?

  • 31 Replies
  • 854 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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
  • ****
  • 447
    • 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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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
  • ****
  • 447
    • 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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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?


*

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 447
    • 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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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
  • ****
  • 447
    • 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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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
  • ****
  • 447
    • 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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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
  • ****
  • 447
    • 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.

*

Offline LB7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 57
  • S{isypi%Fd}g~$4@665<>7%Zdsksglltsiv
    • 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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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
  • ****
  • 447
    • 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.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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
  • ****
  • 447
    • 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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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
  • ****
  • 447
    • 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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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
  • ****
  • 447
    • 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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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.

*

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 447
    • 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.


*

Offline phyti

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 41
    • 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.
 

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #25 on: 31/10/2016 13:00:48 »
GoC #23
Explain the results of the MM experiment without physical length contraction.
  Einstein verses opponents
That was the initial argument between Einstein and his opponents long ago. He saw things from a mathematical perspective and others saw things from an engineering perspective. Who was right?
One thing important is that the gravitational field of the Earth acts to equalize the distortions of motion that would change the size and shape of objects as they moved with velocity v. In addition all variations of time and distance tend to be common mode. We look at a sphere and believe it to be perfectly round. We measure it and it appears perfectly round. But our measuring instruments and our eyes are just as distorted as the object being measured.
  When the light from the sun become part of the Earthís gravitational field, its velocity will be C relative to the Earth.  Prior to that the light speed was C relative to the sun.  The color changed to more blue if the earth was moving toward the sun or more red if the Earth was moving away from the sun.
  The MM experiment looked for differences of the photons. It proved to them that no ordinary Aether existed. It never proved whether an Aether moving at the speed of light C did not exist. Since the light reached the instrument at the speed of light C of the Earthís gravitational field, the MM experiment was really meaningless.
  So it really does not matter whether Einstein or his opponents were right or wrong since the experiment was totally invalid.
 

*

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 447
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #26 on: 31/10/2016 14:17:41 »
Quote
Explain the results of the MM experiment without physical length contraction.

      The speed of light is constant. Light is independent of the source. The two most important postulates of Relativity. Light is only a wave propagation and not a particle. The wave is on micro-particles of spin energy c. Space does not contract in SR but it expands in GR depending on the amount of mass. At sea level all clocks tick at the same rate. So the timing issue in every direction the length and tick rate are the same for the electron and photon wave. They are confounded to create a null result.

This does not mean the distance for light is the same in all directions only that they auto correct for distance in the c + v and c - v. Every direction and every angle is calibrated for the mirrors to reflect to the source auto correcting for rotation of the Earth. One distance is shorter and the return distance longer depending on orientation. In the North and south direction the distance is the same in each direction. A null result.

Jerrygg38 recognizes the measuring issues involved with alignment of light same as I do.

But my main focus is energy comes from space and not mass. c is a part of space while electrons are rotationally driven by c.

Any more questions?

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 175
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #27 on: 31/10/2016 22:47:23 »
Couldnt be the case that mass of an object is occuring from space, within the object, giving us the impression that the mass bellong to matter?
 The same couldnt be applied to dark mass, being the exposed product of the whole matter of a galaxy when observed at distance?

 I do acknowledge that your a realist man, and loyal to relativity and for this "mass cannot be from space"..
  I'm fine with that, but trying to visualize the mechanics, couldn't be the case that we are right only confused not about what mass is, but where it is originated, and when it is originated?
 What I have in mind, is that relativity may allowed mass being from space, if we "consider for a moment" that mass only occurs on the presence of atomic structure, how to know that the mass of a piece of rock, is not given to the rock by from the space within the atoms that forms that rock?

  How we know that mass is not space when it is "temporarily" not at C, due the presence of atomic structure?

I do not question relativity, no reasons for it, it's just what if our relativity is a misinterpreted version of the real one?

 The very reliability of relativity is the own prove that we misinterpreted something on it, if relativity cant and most likely isn't wrong, week than we must be "separating" one of its main factors from the true source...
 I also accept energy as being from space, much further everything as being once upon a time originated from it under certain circumstances...
 
 Couldn't be mass the product resultant of the electron and photon correlation of spinning C, happening and existing within a field of expanding linear C?
 If mass causes space to dilate itself, do not know if is "possible", but always sounded logic to me that:
  "Mass is the dilatation of space"

 Considering a sum of many aleatory information, I do look at documentaries, posts, pictures and I do get to the conclusion that dark matter is "mass exposed", For this I consider observe a galaxy no different than observing a big shattered iron sphere that is spinning around a center, the distance and the curvature of light it provides me from its distance and scale, is the only difference from me observing a shattered iron sphere lied on the ground in front of me...
 Not so simple to put in words as toughs, but in the most simple resume: Dark matter is mass being left behind as matter and particles spin around a black hole. Sort f stop the motion of the galaxy or slow it down and dark matter effects will be reduced....


"Mass=/=Dilatation"
 GOC, you seem to be the right person to think about and come up with an answer:
"Dilatation of space time in function of a "massive" object = Einstein Relativity!
Now:
""Object" in function of space time mass" = Relativity?

*

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 447
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #28 on: 01/11/2016 03:26:41 »
Quote
Couldnt be the case that mass of an object is occuring from space, within the object, giving us the impression that the mass bellong to matter?
 The same couldnt be applied to dark mass, being the exposed product of the whole matter of a galaxy when observed at distance?

 I do acknowledge that your a realist man, and loyal to relativity and for this "mass cannot be from space"..
  I'm fine with that, but trying to visualize the mechanics, couldn't be the case that we are right only confused not about what mass is, but where it is originated, and when it is originated?
 What I have in mind, is that relativity may allowed mass being from space, if we "consider for a moment" that mass only occurs on the presence of atomic structure, how to know that the mass of a piece of rock, is not given to the rock by from the space within the atoms that forms that rock?

  How we know that mass is not space when it is "temporarily" not at C, due the presence of atomic structure?

   Of course macro mass comes from space micro mass. Fusion in suns create atoms from space itself. Macro mass is compressed and frozen micro mass energy. Suns never run out of hydrogen because they produce hydrogen until the higher elements produced, smother the fusion process.

Quote
I do not question relativity, no reasons for it, it's just what if our relativity is a misinterpreted version of the real one?

The postulates naturally produce the math of observations predicted by the postulates. We are only missing the mechanical interpretation of the math. The subjective opinions of main stream is less than stellar. Their model is space as a void. This leaves nothing to work with. They say field but what is their field made from? What transfers information? what causes electrons to move?

Quote
The very reliability of relativity is the own prove that we misinterpreted something on it, if relativity cant and most likely isn't wrong, week than we must be "separating" one of its main factors from the true source...

I agree and believe the source of energy is from space c and not mass.

Quote
Couldn't be mass the product resultant of the electron and photon correlation of spinning C, happening and existing within a field of expanding linear C?
 If mass causes space to dilate itself, do not know if is "possible", but always sounded logic to me that:
  "Mass is the dilatation of space"

Yes, space is spinning particles at c. Electrons rotate on a vector path. The electron jump creates a friction pattern that propagates at c spherically through space. Higher dilation creates a longer jump and a red shifted light compared to a lower dilated space electron smaller jump.

Black holes are void of the energy of time. The dilation of energy is acute near a black hole. Light bends around one and never into one for reflection. Its not that light cannot escape a black hole, it's that light cannot reach the black hole to reflect the light.

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 175
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #29 on: 01/11/2016 13:02:53 »
When someone theorizes about dark matter as an example, and state:
 "We can't observe it, but we do observe its effects, because the dilatation of space time"

 Always, sounded logical for me that it was too weirdo concept, although as far they advance into the idea more correct it seems to be...
 Something should not be able to be wrong and correct at the same frame...

 For so I'm wondering that "the effects they do observe", they are on themselves the cause...
 Sounds controversial cause we consider dilatation of space time and mass two different concepts, although when we temporarily consider a misinterpretation of factors on the correct relativity...
 It seems to allowed mass and energy both being from space, the dilatation not being in function of a "massive object" that have "mass" on its own, but instead dilatation of space time being "mass"... Seems rational the misinterpretation cause "mass" wouldn't occur without the presence of matter...

 Thing about an ordinary particle, that particle spinning at C because and in function of a linear field of expanding C (that as spectrum is mass less), although the particles spinning force the linear expansion to contract itself in function of the particle, as a point of reference, but not space contracting against the particle, instead spining C contantly contracting itself towards the particle, much as you describled a black hole...

 What I want you to consider is in a simple resume: Think about Einstein's sheet, example:
 Now consider that the "dilatation of the sheet" is on itself "the mass of the object".
Any object micro mass, macro mass, dark mass, wherever, any mass being resultant of the same source, space... Try introduce mass on the equation E=MC2, but for this considering that dilatation itself is the mass of something we may consider massive as a planet for example, possible?
 Something like "E=MC2"  M(for dilatation), maybe rearranging it too, I would like, but I do not posses the knowledge to it...

 Object mas would be provident from micro mass, and dark matter, would be the exterior mass of the collection of objects on the area, but nonetheless the same mass for all of them...
 You see, I'm wondering the mass of a particle or atom not different from the one of the planet. Planets mass as being the same as dark matter from the point of view of an observer that is existing on the surface of a particle, would seems the same effects, that something is holding the planet together, and the same applies for galaxies I wonder...

 Imagine that the dilatation on that sheet example, is "production of mass", mass being a general spherical deceleration of the expanding C of the field...
 I guess I could say, C trying to keep expanding linear but this time with a point of reference, so linear expanding around matter resulting in gravity?
 If gravity is the same as acceleration, light is accelerating linear along with expanding C, on the case of a planet as point of reference, the constant C remains only slowing down the acceleration towards the virtual center of the "dilatation/mass"...
 I'm not trying to fight or discuss with "our" relativity, I just trying to visualize the electron mechanics, and doing so the logical answer is "dilatation of space time in function of an object, is the mass of that very object", being it a planet or a particle, the only difference is the acceleration in function of the "constant C"... Increase the constant acceleration of C and one would have planets that are spinning as fast as electrons, black hole as what you described, or something spinning almost fast as one...

 What I have in mind isn't mass from space, not as something that space would be required to create, more like mass being what we call dilatation...
  Not sure neither, but if we find meanings to relate mass/dilatation as ever being the same "proportional" constant, than theoretically, mass, would be able to be from space, this without have ever violated or diverged much from Einsteins relativity...
 I visualize this scenario, but I have no meanings to check if it is possible...

 If is true, and I agree that the center of planets should be a point of less dilatation, I see the inner core as being composed by sipping energy, with almost no density and for so almost no weight, much as photons or electrons, only traped in there by the lack of space within the atomic structure of the outer layers, resulting on a slower transmission(time). I do believe that this is represented on your formulas by the slower clock...
 What I mean by that, is imaging the planet as a sphere with a virtual cut right on the middle,(the plate) from inside out the center, this center would be acting as a point of reference for scaling gravity. Form weaker one at the center, to a more strong as the "sphere" extends from it...
 There would remain general gravity on the exterior (micro gravity) provident from the heliosphere where the planet is existing within the plate. Micro gravity would be in a first look a weaker one, but when in fact is so strong and covers a area so vast that being of our magnitude wouldn't be able to feel all its force due our size. At least when compared to the normal "weight" we do feel on the surface, that would be just a simple miss interpretation of forces, most likely in function of the absence of the weight of the hydrosphere itself, eluding us that gravity is strong at earths surface than the one on space...

 What I see from all this possibilities is that "the horizontal plate" of planets and stars, is something as "redistribution/deflection" of "proportional mass". Starting from the zero at the very center, and expanding towards the poles, pushing "potential mass", and by this I mean "dilatation" of the linear C on the exterior, repelling it mainly from the poles and being expanded back towards the center, as gravity can't expand back towards the center of the mass using the poles, it will try to find the path of least friction, sliding around the planet from north and south, once there it would find itself on the middle (equator), and from that point on it will result on a point of reference, starting from the center, but this time flowing on a spiral configuration, that is given by the horizontal plate...
 Not suggesting that the space around the planet would split into pieces, and also not ignoring that the moon and the earth are relating with magnetism, maybe yes, maybe not...
  But looking back as the sheet example, moon would be orbiting the planet at the middle of the sheet. in fact I look at that example self aware that there are in fact two sheets, up and down, and the earth itself never "fell" into space fabric dilatation it, instead the presence of the "planet "floating" in the middle of them, between the two sheets, will force expanding C to try to curve against the center of itself, this deceleration of expanding C will than set C into the sipping C configuration, the same that spins the particles. This will cause not compression or universe pushing the planet, but instead C expanding itself towards the planet, as it can't penetrate to the core of a spherical object it will constantly keep trying virtually for ever...
  The horizontal plate, of any object planet or sun, in my view is the area of "least potential mass" any object can receive, a preferred place where inevitable objects will lock themselves as the planet is for the sun, or be locked on it, as the moon is for the earth.
 Depending only on with of them causes the bigger dilatation, or from my speculation, with of them posses "the higher potential mass"... Earth as more particles, thus it has more potential mass when in comparison to the moon, and so earths receives "causes" more mass than our moon...

 Is more speculation than a theory, its based on toughts, maybe you can think about it, for you have the proper knoledge, as the most shor visualisation I can simple describle my idea of space time dilatation as a positive fluctuation, like this:

 "Einsteins massive object fell into the sheet causing a negative fluctuation(dilatation of space time"
"I took the same example, my massive object isn't massive on its own, it has yet not center or point of reference for that. Now I also put the object over the sheet, the sheet indeed blended, but this without the object have ever fell from the middle of the sheet. infarct two sheets, north and south, up and down one could say, both of them producing two positive fluctuations. Wherever is on the exterior of the center of the fluctuations(plate) will be gradually pushed back to that point, not by space, space does not push or pull, but by "mass/dilatation". mass attracting mass, for mass isn't from the object alone, "proportional mass" is given to any object at any given moment...
 What happens is that any object that is "receiving mass"(causing dilatation), will be always guided into a free fall towards the point of least "proportional mass", the plate, for the same reason everything on the planets surface, is constantly attempting to falls towards the center.
 Seems to be our "proportional mass" trying to move towards the point of least dilatation(mass) in this case the center of the planet)...
  I'm wondering that two objects(massive) on space never have attracted themselves one towards the other, instead, that the "proportional mass" of both objects will always try to seek the point of lower potential one for the other. Its hard to explain, the bound remains due atomic forces, but the two objects that seemed have "pulled" one the other, where simple carried by their potential mass trying to ding the center of the given mass... In other words space, was trying, as always to conserve energy, from our point of view would look like the two objects where important, the main reasons of the attraction, I wondering the are were simple the catalizator for mass, a meaning too, looks like that from space-time perspective, it did not give anything for the presence or reason why mass was being formed, it simple was constantly trying to go back to expanding C, and on this attempts of conserving energy, what where two distinguish masses where joined into one...

 Try to ignore part of the speculation, I agree with you we do not need another relativity, we do need understand the mechanics...
 For this reason try to think about this: "Dilatation of space time has being mass all along, and mass the dilatation"   The "magical" forces holding galaxies together, detectable only by their effects on gravity, has being "mass all along". The effect on gravity of dark matter, the prove of the non existence of dark matter, for the effects are the cause, mass...
 Not like inside a object or around an given atoms, but as a galaxy as being no different than watching a super massive collection of rocks sipping around a center observable from a great distance, along us to "literally" watch the force that holds everything together, dark matter and its effect on gravity, not being something else from what we know, but the effects on gravity being on itself the what call "dark matter", mass...

 I'll stick with your good judgement as always, for Einsteins relativity explanation is the only one, so far, that provides observation, I'm just questioning the meanings of his interpretations, in order to achieve the same result...
« Last Edit: 02/11/2016 03:42:46 by Alex Siqueira »

*

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 447
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #30 on: 02/11/2016 15:29:01 »
     Space has to have a structure pervasive throughout the universe or no dark mass dark energy. If there is no DME than electron motion is magic. Since I am a realest and do not believe in magic that structure has to be uniform. This is because we have the same results in any direction we chose. This at first glance appears to be the old Aether. While the minds of the past had gotten that far and tested their theory correctly they did not test for the extra dimension of a spin state. Einstein claimed correctly that we could not assign motion to space. Motion would invalidate Relativity but spin does not invalidate Relativity. Spin c is actually the cause of Relativity. it is much easier to wrap your mind around magic being the cause of electron motion than particle spin at c. Something else is causing the particle spin like fractal galaxies in our universe are spinning. That is beyond most of man's ability to consider. We want everything in its own box. Size dimension up and down where our own galaxy is a mere speck of energy is quite challenging to the mind.

  E=MC^2 is very important but we need to understand that relationship properly. You cannot add to it only understand what it really means. E=c in space, c moves electrons in mass so E= c space + c mass, E=MC^2.

Now lets discuss dilation. Einstein's representation of gravity is two dimensional where dilation is three dimensional (and the cause of gravity). A gradient from the center outward like onion rings toward the surface but a complete gradient not sections. Light curves around trying to stay in the less dilated space it was traveling in. The light sphere get cut in two directions around a massive body creating a dip in the lights intensity of the vector line of that sphere.

Now equivalency of GR and SR will be challenging to comprehend. I will explain it but you have to hold four concepts in your mind simultaneously. Currently the main stream understanding is of contraction with velocity in SR. You contract and the distance between A and B becomes longer. This violates Relativity.
1. GR dilation is physical increase in mass.
2. GR dilation is a physical decrease in space energy c. Energy density is less. Spin particles move further apart and mass expands relative to the dilation. Electrons travel further causing the expansion.
3. SR dilation is a visual increase in the length of your measuring stick not a physical increase.
4. SR clock tick rate reduction is due to removing energy from space by vector motion. The electrons are cycling at rest the tick rate is faster. Vector motion in space adds the vector motion to the cycling motion to = c combined motion. Tick rate slows, c remains constant.

   The design is amazing and relativity is the key to geometry equivalence. It is in this equivalence of GR and SR that the beauty of Relativity is visualized in understanding. Once you can hold all four concepts I can begin to explain the mechanics of equivalence. It was in these four principles I worked hard to understand, that I conceived the mechanical Relativity. Gravity and acceleration have nothing to do with clock speed. Your inertial SR view and GR dilation are the equivalence representing c as a constant.

Let's look at examples of equivalence between SR and GR:

1. On the surface of the Earth the clocks tick faster than the gravitational center of the Earth because of physical dilation of energy ( spin particles further apart electrons traveling further at c per cycle). GR.

2. Out in space (in a space ship) the same distance from the sun and starting at the same rotational speed around the sun (as the Earth), will take in the dilation effect of the sun for a starting point being the same as the Earth. Now instantaneous 32 feet /s/s and decelerating to an inertial speed in ~ 8,000 feet with the reduction being linear your tick rate on your clock would be the same as the center of the Earth. First the ratio of your mass of the space ship to the mass of the Earth has to be subtracted which is insignificant but important for precision. I am only going for accurate understanding not precise numbers.

  Now what causes the equivalence in tick rate? The dilation distance in energy spin particles is exactly the same ratio as the vector velocity increase in distance the electron traveled per cycle to equal total c. The distance through space the electron traveled is the same at c. Electron rotational motion and vector motion is always c. There are three dimensions to the electron motion. Rotation through space at relative rest (never really at rest) and vector motion through space as a limit of total c spin.

The finite speed of light in SR causes the lengthening of view. Light travels forward and backward at two different distances with vector speed. The easy example of half the speed of light will show the reflected light going forward takes twice the length visually and 66.6...% of the length to return while 33.3...% goes through space on the return trip without reflection. So we have a total of 2.66...% /2 = 1.33...% of length. But that still leaves about 0.166...% not reflected because the total was 33.3..% in one direction. Our result is 1.25 % longer visually than at relative rest visually. It is the motion through space without the reflection of light that causes the visual contraction for the observer at rest. Its not physical!!!!

I hope I have explained it in a way that is understandable.

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 175
    • View Profile
Re: What is the basis of Einstens relativity?
« Reply #31 on: 02/11/2016 17:21:34 »
I'll go along with your explanation, since most of it has being proved...
 I confess I do not quite consider all this numbers when relating them with space, but once again, that's all my fault...
  I wasn't truly considering a physical interaction on all that frame, more like something that could be described as the formation of a 4 dimension, a horizon, by the existence of an object that is receiving proportional mass from C...
 Make sense to dis-consider a universe that works homogeneously without structures, but since the beginning, and this is for intuition, my universe has never being a expanding field without reference, nor originated from a big-bang explosion...
 It starts as a whole primordial star, along with many others, much like our stars at present but exponentially more massive, (not indeed more massive than now, but proportional to the smaller expanding universe)...
 This field witch we call universe for me is nothing different from a hyper massive galaxy that extends much beyond our line of sight, but nonetheless working around a certain "something", rupture, black hole, wherever it is (or was) it operates the same way stars does, producing a fourth dimension, witch would be the same as a horizontal plate, from this was born the perception of a flat universe since the beginning, or even a expanding towards infinity...
  I do not believe we can find proofs for that, sticking with relativity all the time, cause for me relativity is correct for describing this universe, (a horizontal disk where all those galaxies are orbiting, nothing different from a planet to a sun), for me relativity is able to explain the behavior of the observable universe, even if we split the same thing in two different concepts...

 it's hard to put in words, for me this horizontal spiral disk were everything we know exists is indeed at C, I just believe that our interpretations of C are the same, but I do agree with you on the spinning C and your ideas about the electron...
 It's just that when considering all the galaxies as early planets that when supernova as the field was keeping expanding, resulting in the same super massive stars, on the same "new scale", only on a different proportional...
 How to explain that our entire visible universe is existing within a incomprehensible horizontal plate that is determining the sipping C, and at the same time the expansion of the field is determining the linear expansion of C on space...
  When I refer to up and down, north and south, was just point of reference for set the location of this 4D, this horizon, that every object that is able to receive mass posses, is not like a physical interaction with space time, shattering it into structures, more like exactly what we call as dilatation of space, being in fact the same event that attributes mass to something existing within this field of C, the friction, the reduction on C, by the existence of atomic structure and particles, as being both the source of the spinning and also providing to the object itself "proportional mass"...

 Take Einsteins sheet and turn it into a fluid like substance without directions or point of reference, it is simple flowing there, now you have many particles existing on this sheet their existence start to reduce C and forcing the particles to spin "space spinning the particles, not particles themselves on their own", those particles also start to receive "potential mass" simple by reducing C, the same source of the spin is the cataliztor for mass, their property of cause friction on this flow...
 "potential mass" of any particle happening in space, will always try to converge into a single point, as the particles starts to collide and keep bounding one with the other.
 If enough of them (proportional to C) are gathered together they start to behave like a single particle, in this case a planet or moon...
 The planet is receiving treatment as it was a particle, but only this is happening in function of the particles themselves, micro mass/macro mass the same in different scale...
 This horizon I'm suggesting we wouldn't be able to noticed it, but surely the particles would, for they are sipping faster than we are, and C is still constant...
 A black hole would be a good example, not what formed him, but his behavior, there you can see a direct interaction of a inner core with the spinning C itself, the same thing as any planet or sun, but without the necessity of a crost or gas to conserve or necessity to burn...
 What I'm suggesting is that we are at this moment, existing inside the horizontal plate of a much immeasurable object that will be there, visible,  in 13,7 billion years from now. If the instruments are keeping evolving we may be able to glimpse it form now...
 There is a few information I'm wondering, specialty that roar they have being detected, for me that is the friction of the whole universal plate, the one we are considering the expanding universe...

 It all deepens how do we Interpret a galaxy, resembles a spiral, but that for me is just the visible sight of the 4 dimension produced in that case by the BH at the center, it is his proportion that is stimulating the proportional mass that for it's turn defines the proportional mass of any particle existing within that galaxy. We do observe a spiral configuration only because only because matter is always gathered at the horizon, I do wonder that form the universe perspective, each galaxy is in fact a spherical structure, we do pay to much attention to the plate for we can usually only care about what we can observe, this including myself...

 If is not clear, this are thoughts, my official first consideration is always relativity, without speculation over it, once I observe how correct it seems to be and the fact that it did not explained everything yet, I intentionally start to not deny but reconstruct the same point of view using different approaches...
  As for the general motion of the electron, "magic" sounds a god term, for we still can't observe further enough in order to visualize the emptiness that surrounds our universe...
 There will be a point if we lear how to travel and observe from light years from earth, if we aim the scope in the right direction, there will be only empty space, no galaxy, only more ordinary space. But before that we will start to observe, many "intercalated supervoids" along with other galaxies...
 I accept that relativity was first based on a static and infinite one, that was disproved due the proved expansion, despise accepting this and going along with it so far, I do believe that Einstein was partially correct about the infinite static space, not stationary, but as the way he describe...
 And that when they accepted the expansion, they set a limitation on the genius, from that point he had to split his main ideas into two different scientific worlds, resulting in GR and SR, witch I do believe further in our future, will reveal that where in fact both the same, and Einstein will be proven correct, even without knowing that...