Special relativity from first principles

Dec 19, 2011 By Steve Nerlich, Universe Today
There's hope for us all if a mild-mannered patent office clerk can become Person Of The 20th Century.

Einstein’s explanation of special relativity, delivered in his 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies focuses on demolishing the idea of ‘absolute rest’, exemplified by the theoretical luminiferous aether. He achieved this very successfully, but many hearing that argument today are left puzzled as to why everything seems to depend upon the speed of light in a vacuum.

Since few people in the 21st century need convincing that the luminiferous aether does not exist, it is possible to come at the concept of special relativity in a different way and just through an exercise of logic deduce that the universe must have an absolute speed – and from there deduce as a logical consequence.

The argument goes like this:

1) There must be an absolute speed in any universe since speed is a measure of distance moved over time. Increasing your speed means you reduce your travel time between a distance A to B. At least theoretically you should be able to increase your speed up to the point where that travel time declines to zero – and whatever speed you are at when that happens will represent the universe’s absolute speed.

2) Now consider the principle of relativity. Einstein talked about trains and platforms to describe different inertial frame of references. So for example, you can measure someone throwing a ball forward at 10 km/hr on the platform. But put that someone on the train which is travelling at 60 km/hr and then the ball measurably moves forward at nearly 70 km/hr (relative to the platform).

3) Point 2 is a big problem for a universe that has an absolute speed (see Point 1). For example, if you had an instrument that projected something forward at the absolute speed of the universe and then put that instrument on the train – you would expect to be able to measure something moving at the absolute speed + 60 km/hr.

4) Einstein deduced that when you observe something moving at the absolute speed in a different frame of reference to your own, the components of speed (i.e. distance and time), must change in that other frame of reference to ensure that anything moving at the absolute speed can never be measured moving at a speed greater than the absolute speed.

Thus on the train, distances should contract and time should dilate (since time is the denominator of distance over time).

The effect of relative motion. Measurable time dilation is negligible on a train moving past a platform at 60 km/hr, but increases dramatically if that train acquires the capacity to approach the speed of light. Time (and distance) will change to ensure that light speed is always light speed, not light speed + the speed of the train.

And that’s it really. From there one can just look to the universe for examples of something that always moves at the same speed regardless of frame of reference. When you find that something, you will know that it must be moving at the absolute speed.

Einstein offers two examples in the opening paragraphs of On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies:

-- the electromagnetic output produced by the relative motion of a magnet and an induction coil is the same whether the magnet is moved or whether the coil is moved (a finding of James Clerk Maxwell‘s electromagnetic theory) and;

-- the failure to demonstrate that the motion of the Earth adds any additional speed to a light beam moving ahead of the Earth’s orbital trajectory (presumably an oblique reference to the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment).

In other words, electromagnetic radiation (i.e. light) demonstrated the very property that would be expected of something which moved at the absolute speed that it is possible to move in our universe.

The fact that light happens to move at the absolute speed of the universe is useful to know – since we can measure the speed of light and hence we can then assign a numerical value to the universe’s absolute speed (i.e. 300,000 km/sec), rather than just calling it c.

Explore further: Hide and seek: Sterile neutrinos remain elusive

More information: None! That was AWAT #100 – more than enough for anyone. Thanks for reading, even if it was just today. SN.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Doubly special relativity

Mar 21, 2011

General relativity, Einstein’s theory of gravity, gives us a useful basis for mathematically modeling the large scale universe – while quantum theory gives us a useful basis for modeling sub-atomic ...

Light speed

Oct 10, 2011

The recent news of neutrinos moving faster than light might have got everyone thinking about warp drive and all that, but really there is no need to imagine something that can move faster than 300,000 kilometres ...

Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension

Apr 25, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- The concept of time as a way to measure the duration of events is not only deeply intuitive, it also plays an important role in our mathematical descriptions of physical systems. For instance, ...

3 Questions: Faster than light?

Sep 26, 2011

The news media were abuzz this week with reports of experiments conducted at the Gran Sasso particle detector complex in Italy, apparently showing subatomic particles called neutrinos had traveled from th ...

Astronomy without a telescope -- time freeze

Jan 24, 2011

There is a story told about traveling at the speed of light in which you are asked to imagine that you begin by standing in front of a big clock – like Big Ben. You realize that your current perception ...

Recommended for you

Hide and seek: Sterile neutrinos remain elusive

1 hour ago

The Daya Bay Collaboration, an international group of scientists studying the subtle transformations of subatomic particles called neutrinos, is publishing its first results on the search for a so-called ...

Novel approach to magnetic measurements atom-by-atom

5 hours ago

Having the possibility to measure magnetic properties of materials at atomic precision is one of the important goals of today's experimental physics. Such measurement technique would give engineers and physicists an ultimate ...

Scientists demonstrate Stokes drift principle

8 hours ago

In nature, waves – such as those in the ocean – begin as local oscillations in the water that spread out, ripple fashion, from their point of origin. But fans of Star Trek will recall a different sort of wave pattern: ...

User comments : 60

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Vendicar_Decarian
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2011
Worst article ever.
JIMBO
1 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2011
PhysOrg Must be gettin desperate !
First of all THE Person of the 20th Century was awarded to Einstein by Time Mag in `99 !!!
2ndly, PhysOrg should consult its own arxiv prior to running articles from weak mags like UT which make `amazing claims', that are actually well documented history
http://www.physor...100.html
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2011
Explain the physics of the universe from the point of view of a stationary observer on the Moon's Earth-side surface.
Vienna
1 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2011
The Michelson-Morley experiments led to additional experiments with Dayton Miller. Wikipedias says that "Miller worked on increasingly large experiments, culminating in one with a 32 m (effective) arm length at an installation at the Mount Wilson observatory."

Although referred to as "failed" experiments to demonstrate the concept of aether, the experiments actually make sense if you consider that the Earth is actually stationary in the universe. A supposedly ridiculous notion but theoretically possible when the entire universe's stars are taken into account as having a cumulative gravitational effect. Which has also been proven in other experiments.

And, a dense aether medium at Planck scale into which the entire universe is embedded also gives many other explanations to "mysteries". It can be shown that this medium which some theorists describe as superstrings accounts for the universe without the need for "dark matter".
dtyarbrough
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 19, 2011
Even if there were a speed that could get you from here to there in zero elapsed time, there is no reason to believe that light can accomplish that speed. That speed would be infinity. Do the math. If you travel one million miles in 0 seconds, by what stretch of the imagination does that correlate to 300,000 km/s?
Nanobanano
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 19, 2011
Even if there were a speed that could get you from here to there in zero elapsed time, there is no reason to believe that light can accomplish that speed. That speed would be infinity. Do the math. If you travel one million miles in 0 seconds, by what stretch of the imagination does that correlate to 300,000 km/s?


In the piece-wise defined, psuedo-vector space of relativity, distance equals zero when velocity equals "c" because of length contraction.

0 = sqrt(1 - (v^2/c^2)), when "v" = "c".

therefore, contrary to the popular understanding of Relativity, it does NOT take a year to travel a light-year at the speed of light.

Light crosses the entire universe instantaneously, because in the frame of reference of the photon, the distance is zero.

Similarly, a relativistic rocket ship does not require "billions of light years" to cross the universe.

It will actually cross the universe in as little as a few seconds.
Nanobanano
3 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2011
At 90% of the Speed of light, relative distance is reduced to 0.436 from 1.0.

At 99% of light speed, it becomes 0.141.

At 99.99% it becomes 0.0141..

Etc.

In Relativity theory, travel time approaches a horizontal assymptote of zero as velocity approaches c, because distance approaches zero as velocity approaches c.
dnatwork
5 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2011
dtyarbrough, for the photon traveling those million miles, no time will have passed. For observers in other (relatively stationary) frames of reference, the apparent speed is 300,000 km/sec.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2011
Doesn't the Sagnac Effect indicate that there is a preferred frame of reference? I thought this principle was used in today's gyroscopes and factored into finding positions by the GPS system.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2011
Worst article ever.

Who cares. It contains words like Einstein, relativity, aether - traffic of posters guaranteed.
dense aether medium ...gives many other explanations to "mysteries". ...this medium which some theorists describe as superstrings ...
You probably shouldn't confuse aether model with superstring theory. String theorists consider space-time empty and particles as a strings. The idea of stringy environment belongs rather into loop quantum gravity theory.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2011
Doesn't the Sagnac Effect indicate that there is a preferred frame of reference?
With respect to rotation only, such motion is non-inertial and it doesn't belong into realm of special relativity (which describes systems without inertial forces only). General relativity allows many things, which special relativity doesn't, for example the non-inertial reference frame, defined with gravity or centripetal force field.
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2011
demolishing the idea of absolute rest, exemplified by the theoretical luminiferous aether
Absolute rest would exist for longitudinal waves in aether, the spreading of which depends on the motion of aether in the same way, like the speed of sound depends on the speed of wind.

But the light waves are transverse (they're polarizable) and the speed of transverse waves doesn't depend on the (speed of) environment at all (after all, in the same way, like the speed of transverse waves in every particle environment).

The silly physicists just confused these two models together. After all, if aether model would be wrong, then Mr. Maxwell couldn't use it for derivation of his equations. But from Maxwell's equations (which are based on the transverse wave model) the constant speed of light follows clearly.

http://www.vttoth...otes/167

How is it possible, the same model can lead into such different predictions?
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2011
In better words: how is it possible, the luminiferous aether model, which leads into constant speed of light via Maxwell's equations has been allegedly disproved with Michelson-Morley experiment, which had lead into the same result? This is just the question for contemporary physicists.

Aether model is actually the only model, which enables to predict/derive the postulate of invariant speed of light from "first geometric principles" instead - the special relativity just conjectures it without any deeper reasoning.
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2011
The above question is even more intriguing, if we realize, just the Maxwell was, who originally proposed/predicted the aether drag effect, thus confusing whole later generations of both aetherists, both antiaetherists.

IMO this paradox could have two reasons. At first, Maxwell wasn't aware of the concept of the invariance of speed of light too well. This result was derived a way later with Einstein from Maxwell's equations.

At second, at the time of Maxwell only low energy radiowaves and visible light were considered as an electromagnetic waves. In sparse aether a threshold of wavelength must exist, above which the transverse waves are changing into longitudinal ones and the longitudinal waves suffer with aether drag apparently. Because Maxwell didn't know about energetic X-rays and gamma rays, he could believe quite well, the visible light could violate the transverse wave model already, because in his time the visible light represented the upper frequency limit for EM waves.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2011
You do not need the aether model to explain the apparent different light speeds in the Sagnac effect. All that is needed is to consider light waves as waves of the smallest particle emitted in the shortest time period possible. That explains why you cannot add or substract from the velocity of light.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2011
Doesn't the Sagnac Effect indicate that there is a preferred frame of reference?
With respect to rotation only, such motion is non-inertial and it doesn't belong into realm of special relativity (which describes systems without inertial forces only). General relativity allows many things, which special relativity doesn't, for example the non-inertial reference frame, defined with gravity or centripetal force field.

But the Sagnac Effect difference should show up in measurements of the measured velocity of light at the equator in the east and west directions. The measurements cannot be the same because of the rotation of the earth. If they were the same than the light would have to travel faster or slow in one direction than the other.
Callippo
1.2 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2011
to consider light waves as waves of the smallest particle emitted in the shortest time period possible
Dense aether model just explains, why such model is relevant. It's a field of nested density fluctuations and these fluctuations appear the smaller and atemporal, the higher energy density they represent. Dense aether model is not here just for explanation of Sagnac effect or special relativity - but for explanation/modeling of quantum mechanics too (and many other basic connections of observable reality). If you reduce the aether model to some particular aspects of its behavior, then you can indeed say, you don't require it in your further extrapolation anymore - but this is exactly the mistake, which prohibited Einstein to derive more general field theory. The reduction of reality is always connected with approximation and divergence from reality. You shouldn't really assume anything, if you want to formulate most general model of reality.
Pyle
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2011
Sorry Steve. This one was a bad one. Maybe not "worst ever", but a low for Mr. Nerlich.

From article:
Since few people in the 21st century need convincing that the luminiferous aether does not exist
Few people need convincing, but some are unconvincible. Right Zephir!

it is possible to come at the concept of special relativity in a different way and just through an exercise of logic deduce that the universe must have an absolute speed and from there deduce special relativity as a logical consequence.
More like, if you make the assumption that there is an absolute speed - from there you can deduce special relativity as a logical consequence. The initial "exercise of logic" is anything but. I guess it got us thinking though.
Callippo
1 / 5 (11) Dec 19, 2011
Few people need convincing, but some are unconvincible. Right Zephir!
Repetition is the mother of wisdom. Before five years the very same posts were downvoted from here by twenty points immediately and subsequently deleted from here by forum admins. At least some progress is visible by now. But the people, who hear whole their life, the aether model is BS are difficult to convince about the opposite, because this stance has become immanent part of their religion. Such people cannot be convinced with any arguments, because it just hardens their dismissive stance. It's sorta surface tension effect: the smaller the droplets are, the more obstinately they refuse to merge with the rest of fluid. Gradually the opponents of aether model will became the very same crackpots, like the proponents of it before years and the whole cycle will repeat again.
dtyarbrough
1 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2011
If distance shrinks to zero at the speed of light, then there's no where to go. What a waste of horsepower. You people don't even think about the questions, you just spit out precontrived answers.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2011
It can be shown that this medium which some theorists describe as superstrings accounts for the universe without the need for "dark matter".

So this medium accounts for gravitational lensing?
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2011
De Duillier/Le Sage theory considers, the vacuum is full of energy coming from all directions and the massive bodies are shielding it a bit. The vacuum therefore becomes less dense to energy around massive objects, which results to the concentration of both photons, both massive objects here.

http://en.wikiped...vitation

The curvature of light is interpreted like the curvature of space-time in general relativity, but gravity lens exhibit another hyperdimensional phenomena too, like the surface tension.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2011
De Duillier/Le Sage theory considers, the vacuum is full of energy coming from all directions and the massive bodies are shielding it a bit. The vacuum therefore becomes less dense to energy around massive objects, which results to the concentration of both photons, both massive objects here.
Pretty clever. Probably the best you could do as a particle physicist. Actually at that time I think he would be what we would consider a corpuscular physicist.
The curvature of light is interpreted like the curvature of space-time in general relativity, but gravity lens exhibit another hyperdimensional phenomena too, like the surface tension.
The curvature of light seems to be perfectly capable of explaining gravitational lensing unless I missed something.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2011
If distance shrinks to zero at the speed of light, then there's no where to go.
I thought time passage shrinks to zero at the speed of light.
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2011
The curvature of light seems to be perfectly capable of explaining gravitational lensing unless I missed something.
Curvature of space tends to behave like massive body or piece of jelly and it bounces from another curvatures of space-time. It's not just about passive lensing phenomena, but about dynamical force effects too.
barakn
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2011
Repetition is the mother of wisdom. Before five years the very same posts were downvoted from here by twenty points immediately and subsequently deleted from here by forum admins. At least some progress is visible by now.
We didn't realize the admins would let you respawn yourself under a new name repeatedly. Most people have given up. Lest you think this is slowly gaining acceptance of your "theory," consider that it has also been impossible to remove the pedophile with the persecution complex and trash theory about neutrons. It's merely a symptom of too many posters and too few admins.
nixnixnix
3 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2011
Point 1 is tautological. It assumes the existence of an absolute speed in order to prove the existence of the same.

It is perfectly logical to assume a universe in which space is absolute (even if it proves difficult to establish one's position or speed) and speed is unbounded and not at all linked to time dilation. From such a starting point, it is not possible to prove by logical deduction alone the existence of an absolute speed. The author is either pulling our leg or really truly stupid.
Argiod
1 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2011
Uncle Albert said "It's all relative." Relative to what, you might ask. Why, relative to your Point of View (i.e., relative to your inertial reference frame). Once you understand this, the concept of faster than light speed travel becomes obvious. And, no, he didn't say you couldn't travel FASTER than light; only that you couldn't travel AT the speed of light, without becoming pure energy. Pure energy, the one and only substance that exists, travels at the speed of light. What we perceive as 'matter' is merely energy travelling at light speed in orbit around the nucleus of atoms, thus giving the illusion of 'solid matter'; much the way a fan, if you have it running, is near impossible to put your finger through the blades. As you push nearer to the field in which the blades are moving, one blade after the other blocks your finger from penetrating the field. Thus electrons, moving at light speed, appear to form a force field through which it is difficult to penetrate, thus appear solid
Koen
1 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2011
See http://www.jewish...tein.htm

Mild mannered? Very bad mannered indeed. A. Einstein was the incorrigible zionist plagiarist of the century and that is my lasting and final opinion.
Koen
1 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2011
A. Einstein covered up the overwhelming experimental evidence of a variable speed of light in vacuum, please study the work and life of Dayton Miller, one of the finest American scientists in recorded history. Data analyst Robbert Shankland found that Miller´s data of variable vacuum light speed is statistically significant. Exposed to Einstein's political pressure, Shankland surrendered to the Lorentz/Poincare/Minkovski theory of "special relativity". Secondly, Newton´s gravity theory predicts correctly(!) the deflection of sun light during a solar eclipse, so there is not much reason to adopt Hilbert's GR. On top of that, dr. Santilli described the many theoretical inconsistencies of Hilbert's GR, etc ...
Koen
1 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2011
Albert Einstein covered up the overwhelming experimental evidence of a variable speed of light in vacuum, please study the work and life of Dayton Miller, one of the finest American scientists in recorded history. Data analyst Robbert Shankland found that Millers data of variable vacuum light speed is statistically significant. Exposed to Einstein's political pressure, Shankland surrendered to the Lorentz Poincare Minkovski theory of "special relativity".
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2011
"Time dilatation" in SR means only that velocity of material change i.e. rate of clocks slows down; not because time as a 4th dimension of space dilates - this is only a math model.
Time is not dimension of space so X4 is not t, X4 = ict and time t is the numerical sequence of material change, see more on http://physicsess...rized=no
rawa1
1 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2011
"Time dilatation" in SR means only that velocity of material change i.e. rate of clocks slows down; not because time as a 4th dimension of space dilates - this is only a math model.
When the object is moving through vacuum foam, it makes it more dense and undulating, in similar way like the soap foam, when it's being shaken. You can play with this behaviour on the Java applet here. http://www.aether...ndex.htm
This behaviour is easy to understand in two dimensions with using of water surface model. The moving object creates wake wave, which undulates and expands water surface a bit around object. It prolongs the path for another surface ripples, so that they're spreading more slowly around it. The dilatation of water surface is therefore the manifestation of another dimension perpendicular to spatial dimension (surface plane), i.e. like the temporal dimension. This model is consistent with deBroglie wave of quantum mechanics
rawa1
1 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2011
that velocity of material change i.e. rate of clocks slows down
In physics is nothing just "only". Every effect has its deeper physical origin. Therefore when the clocks suddenly slow down, then something must happen on the background. The dense aether model usually explains this reason in trivial way, but this reason must be always present here. Or we are facing the formation of something from nothing, i.e. creationist religious philosophy, which violates the determinism of logics.
rawa1
1 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2011
A. Einstein was the incorrigible zionist plagiarist of the century and that is my lasting and final opinion.
Every great spirit makes the same thing with ideas, like the rich people with money: it attracts the paths of ideas information spreading around itself like the rich people deflect and slow down the paths of money around itself. The same effect occurs with gravity: the massive object just arranges vacuum fluctuations around itself in such a way, they appear more dense here and such fluctuations are preferred for subsequent light spreading. It's because great spirit is able to collect and trap omnipresent ideas with higher effectiveness from its environment, so it represents the shielding object for them. Even the rich people are very good in shielding of money circulation - it enables them to become rich even more and faster. The dense aether model describes these synergies in geometrically similar way, as there is no conceptual difference.
rawa1
1 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2011
What the silly people are doing instead is sort of antimatter behaviour - they tend to ignore and refuse all these subliminal ideas - even at the case, when they could be useful for them. No wonder, such people concentrate about most of creative people like the dark matter around gravitating objects, because they represent the long distance shielding of ideas with surrounding society. In dense aether model the gravity is shielding effect of massive body and the dark matter is the result of shielding of this shielding with all surrounding massive objects in sight. I perceive the geometry of proponents of all revolutionary ideas and their opponents in the same way, like the gravity and dark matter (antimatter) effects of massive bodies. So I'm not surprised, Einstein attracted many opponents, who were upset just with the plagiarist traits of his personality - it's the geometric effect of every hyperdimensional particle environment, which the human society undeniably is too.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2011
Curvature of space tends to behave like massive body or piece of jelly and it bounces from another curvatures of space-time. It's not just about passive lensing phenomena, but about dynamical force effects too.
If dynamical forces are involved it seems like energy would be involved too. Where would this come from?
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2011
Where would this come from?
Actually just from general relativity, when its extended with mass-energy equivalence. In general relativity every curvature of space-time (metric tensor) has assigned the energy density distribution, which is equivalent to potential energy of gravitational field (so-called the stress energy tensor). Einstein stopped right here with his deduction, because it would make his theory implicit and too complex. But when we consider the energy of gravity field, we can attribute it some sparse mass distribution with using of the E=mc2 equation. Such sparse matter is behaving like so-called dark matter, it exhibits weak gravity field and it partially compensates the gravity field which created it originally. The energy of gravity field is behaving like the surface tension of gravitational lens and it manifests for example with deceleration and kick of black holes during their merging. http://www.physor...040.html
Praxiteles
not rated yet Dec 20, 2011
?? I can't contain myself. This is "science" writing?... In argument 1- "At least theoretically you should be able to increase your speed up to the point where that travel time declines to zero and whatever speed you are at when that happens will represent the universes absolute speed." I hate to hurt people's feelings, but this is beyond the pale. Dividing by zero will give- anything you like.
dtyarbrough
1 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2011
The inverse ratio of spin versus velocity of subatomic particles allows particles to attain near light speed without attaining infinite mass. In fact their overall energy remains constant. Spin creates magnetic fields that give the particles rest mass. Spin reduces as velocity increases. Gyroscopic spin of fast spining, somewhat stationary, particles creates poles that never point in any direction for long. This creates vibration between adjacent particles. In my article I show how this vibration creates inertia and gravity, and at the same time prevents gravity from ever compressing matter into a singularity. Black holes are simply fast spinning corpses of stars that have just enough spin to allow gravity to compress their atmosphere to the point where light can not escape. 90% of EMR can't even penitrate earth's atmosphere. Read http://www.scribd...universe
daphne_
not rated yet Dec 20, 2011
interesting article.
LarsKristensen
1 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2011
Light can not reach higher speeds than light, just as the sound can not get a speed greater than sound.

Particles, however, can get speeds greater than light speed, just as the jets can get speeds greater than sound.

Therefore, CERN scientists will one day discover a gamma ray burst, they had not expected. Then they will detect particles in the accelerator, which speeds greater than light, and they discover that the light barrier has been broken.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2011
Then they will detect particles in the accelerator, which speeds greater than light, and they discover that the light barrier has been broken.

They detected it already for neutrinos. Your prediction is postdiction.
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2011
Einstein's E = mc2 (mass is stored energy) revealed neutron repulsion in nuclear rest mass data shown on the front cover of this book:

www.amazon.com/Or...06465620

1975 data reported as evidence of super-heavy elements

www.omatumr.com/a...enon.pdf

Convinced Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg to organize the 1999 ACS Symposium, with the Cradle of the Nuclides on the front cover:

Since E = mc^2 and every nucleus is composed of Z
positively charged protons (P) and (A-Z) neutral neutrons (N):

1. Attractive forces between N and P
__ reduce the rest mass when Z /A ~0.5

2. Repulsive forces between N and N
__ increase the rest mass for Z/A <0.5

3. Repulsive forces between P and P
__ increase the rest mass for Z/A >0.5

That explains the ~265 Bohr-Wheeler mass parabolas.

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

Here are individual mass data points:

https://dl-web.dr...8949abdc
LarsKristensen
1 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2011
Then they will detect particles in the accelerator, which speeds greater than light, and they discover that the light barrier has been broken.

They detected it already for neutrinos. Your prediction is postdiction.


The neutrinos speed is measured outside the accelerators and a very heavy particle observable, in relation to such protons orbiting in an accelerator.

Neutrinos superluminal velocity is not fully confirmed and are still waiting for the factual documentation.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2011
The energy of gravity field is behaving like the surface tension of gravitational lens...
So gravity curves spacetime and these curves actually form surfaces. This is like saying isobars on a weather map form curved surfaces with reflections and surface tension and such. I just don't see it.

rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2011
It's actually quite simple to imagine it: the gravitational lens is behaving like blobs of more dense vacuum or like the layer of thin sparse jelly around massive objects. The more dense the object is, the more pronounced the surface gradient of gravity field is, until it will start to behave like surface of atmosphere of Earth (dark matter). This surface is behaving like elastic membrane or like surface of mercury droplets, which prohibits their merging. If the merging of black hole occurs, the surface energy of their gravity field is behaving like the catapult and it ejects the product of merging from its place with high speed.
Pyle
not rated yet Dec 22, 2011
It's actually quite simple to imagine it: *snip* blah blah blah

Actually no it isn't. You are wrong. It is not behaving like an elastic membrane. The observations we attribute to / lead us to Dark matter do not indicate it behaves like "the surface of atmosphere of Earth" (whatever the heck that means).
Surface energy of gravity field? Nonsense.
Behaving like catapult? No. Bad analogy.

Hawking radiation is the "realization" of virtual pairs. The virtual particles borrow energy from the black hole with one side being ejected from near the event horizon and the other being absorbed into the black hole.

I don't understand how you demonstrate such a firm grasp of all of this at times, yet still spout such inconsistent drivel like your last post. Go back and read what you wrote and try not to laugh.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2011
Actually no it isn't. You are wrong. It is not.. do not indicate it..Nonsense. No. Bad analogy. (..OT Hawking radiation trash follows...)
Isn't it interesting, the stronger proponent of mainstream physics the poster is, the poorer arguments is he using? One could say, the study of physics would educate the people into rational thinking and logical argumentation, but the apparent absence of high level logics in the contemporary formal math models makes these people actually a much worse arguers, than the common "crackpots".

You're actually arguing like some fanatic proponent of church or sect, don't you think? If you don't disagree with me in anything without reason, why to express it right here in such complicated way? The usage of downvoting button would be enough.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2011
One could say, the study of physics would educate the people into rational thinking and logical argumentation,

For example
it will start to behave like surface of atmosphere of Earth (dark matter)
Rational thinking and logical argumentation?
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2011
Dark mater is behaving like the sparse atmosphere of massive objects in many aspects. After all, it's composed mostly of neutrinos and heavier particles of antimatter. And the cold dark matter represents just the surface tension energy of space-time curvature. Because gravity field of every massive object is zero at the center, the highest space-time curvature is just above surface of massive object and it has bell shape profile with negative curvature of space-time here. The antiparticles and neutrinos are concentrating right there.

http://www.aether...ion3.gif
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2011
Dark mater is behaving like the sparse atmosphere of massive objects in many aspects. After all, it's composed mostly of neutrinos and heavier particles of antimatter.

So massive objects like the giant gas planets have a sparse atmosphere?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2011
Dark mater is behaving like the sparse atmosphere of massive objects in many aspects. After all, it's composed mostly of neutrinos and heavier particles of antimatter.
So massive objects like the giant gas planets have a sparse atmosphere?
Also don't forget all the MACHOs and WIMPs out there. Seems like you even find them hanging around our websites.
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2011
So massive objects like the giant gas planets have a sparse atmosphere?
IMO every massive object is surrounded with elevated concentration of neutrinos and some positrons. At the case of rotating objects it manifests with various flyby anomalies, http://en.wikiped...anomaly, Allais effect during mutual conjunctions http://en.wikiped...s_effect etc..
Also don't forget all the MACHOs and WIMPs out there
IMO they're formed with normal atom nuclei.
LarsKristensen
1 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2011
Gravity is a force similar to the electric and magnetic forces. Gravity also contains two chargings, like the two other forces.

One of the gravitational charging surrounding a particle, and the second gravitational charging radiates away from the particle.

When two gravitational charging are perpendicular to each other, they will attract each other.

The reason that light is deflected by the gravity field from the Sun, for example, is because light travels in a gravitational field, moving perpendicular to a different gravitational field.

Light wave motion in the gravitational field will most be able to get the speed of light 'c', precisely because the light wave motion happens in the gravitational field.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2011
Gravity is a force similar to the electric and magnetic forces. Gravity also contains two chargings, like the two other forces.
This is just a theory of yours and without testable predictions it's useless. In addition, the electric charges don't attract, when they're "perpendicular to each other", so that gravity isn't similar to the electric force even by your own idea.
LarsKristensen
1 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2011
When I say that gravity is similar to the electric and magnetic force, it is not because gravity behave exactly the same way as these forces. Just that gravity has two charging, like the two other forces, and therefore not a curvature of space, as Einstein has postulated.

It is certainly possible to make testable predictions about gravity, otherwise it would not be possible to calculate the planets circle the sun or an apple drop from a tree.

Of course, the electric force and gravity is not the same. The electric and the magnetic force is also not the same.

The electric and the magnetic force acts perpendicular to each other, therefore the force of gravity could easily have this effect in itself.

This will have the force of gravity on large scale to seem attractive, much more than repulsive. Should gravity work repulsive gravitational fields must be parallel and it happens only when the particles surfaces come close to each other's surfaces.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2011
Just that gravity has two charging, like the two other forces, and therefore not a curvature of space, as Einstein has postulated.
Grafity field equations can be formulated as a formal analogy of Maxwell's (and Navier Stokes) equations, but it doesn't mean, the curvature of space-time has no meaning there.

http://en.wikiped...agnetism
catlover
Dec 24, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Robert_Wells
not rated yet Dec 24, 2011
Einstein's E = mc2 (mass is stored energy) revealed neutron repulsion in nuclear rest mass data shown on the front cover of this book:

www.amazon.com/Or...06465620


$255.00 for that book. its official, i've decided, you have lost your mind. over the past year i've been teetering on what thoughts go through your head, now i understand its more like a demolition derby up there.

*sigh*
Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2011
therefore not a curvature of space, as Einstein has postulated.
Technically spacetime, but then I do quibble. Anyway Einstein got it wrong I guess.

It is certainly possible to make testable predictions about gravity,
So how did Einstein come out with the testable predictions?