Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: Arbitrageur

if the base of the machine is rising as much as the top your expansion excuse is utterly butterly moot. pl don't bring up such sheites again to mislead other posters. just admit you have lost and GR is indeed bunk

Whatever that silly theory (not really a theory) was called that you are backing, which is supposed to replace GR, it can't even produce newtons gravity can it?

In other words does it have an alternate way of showing all the mathematical laws that Newton came up with?
GR deals with curved space but it can reduce to flat space and give Newtonian gravity. So even if you don't believe in curved space-time it still can be used to show classical gravity.

So the idea that it's total "bunk" is already sketchy. But what about GR do you disagree with? I'm not asking to be directed to a video of a washing machine and a candle. I'm saying where did GR go wrong? Do you also disagree with Newtonian gravity?

Go here mate read this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

There isn't anything there that shows anything I asked about. All your examples are non-scientific misdirection. Like suggesting a gps manufacture doesn't use GR corrections in their software. No proof, but even if there were you aren't talking at all about GR in any meaningful way? Your best contribution is here-say?

I imagine you don't know anything about GR, gravity, it's replacement theory, but just enjoy the counter-culture aspects of going against a popular and well established theory.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: Arbitrageur

if the base of the machine is rising as much as the top your expansion excuse is utterly butterly moot. pl don't bring up such sheites again to mislead other posters. just admit you have lost and GR is indeed bunk

Whatever that silly theory (not really a theory) was called that you are backing, which is supposed to replace GR, it can't even produce newtons gravity can it?

In other words does it have an alternate way of showing all the mathematical laws that Newton came up with?
GR deals with curved space but it can reduce to flat space and give Newtonian gravity. So even if you don't believe in curved space-time it still can be used to show classical gravity.

So the idea that it's total "bunk" is already sketchy. But what about GR do you disagree with? I'm not asking to be directed to a video of a washing machine and a candle. I'm saying where did GR go wrong? Do you also disagree with Newtonian gravity?

Go here mate read this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

There isn't anything there that shows anything I asked about. All your examples are non-scientific misdirection. Like suggesting a gps manufacture doesn't use GR corrections in their software. No proof, but even if there were you aren't talking at all about GR in any meaningful way? Your best contribution is here-say?

I imagine you don't know anything about GR, gravity, it's replacement theory, but just enjoy the counter-culture aspects of going against a popular and well established theory.

so you didn't learn about how GR is wrong with the time aspect, did you? read chronaught and my posts in the thread again and again till it sinks in into your head .

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Length contraction is difficult to prove.

yes, but with muon decay it is clearly has been showed. One of two has to happen: muon has traveled shorter distance or time for muon was slower from our frame. Since we know muon life to be fixed number then 'time dilation' explanation is only option left logically, no?
Length contraction follows from SR conclusions, imo.
If time dilations is acknowledged, length contraction is a must attribute in entire Einstein vision of the universe and needs no separate proof.

A length contraction is required in both the Einstein theory of special relativity and its precursor, which was fleshed out by Lorentz. Both Fitzgerald and Lorentz are credited with the length contraction, and Larmor and Lorentz are credited with the time dilation. In the Lorentzian viewpoint there is a preferred frame. In that preferred frame, clocks and meter sticks have their correct values. In the Lorentz view, when clocks and meter sticks are accelerated into motion they run slow and shrink, respectively.

In the Einsteinian view, all reference frames are equivalent: rather than saying the clocks run slow and meter sticks shrink, space and time themselves change. What is a spatial separation in one frame becomes both a spatial and a temporal separation in all frames moving with respect to the first. This was a radical new way of thinking, and credit (or blame) resides with Einstein for fully developing this idea, although Poincare was actually the first to propose a relativity principle.

So does a muon entering earth's atmosphere really prove a length contraction? No! It is possible to show that the entire Lorentz transformation can be derived from a theory of time dilation alone. No length contraction is required. It is a bit tricky to do that, but it has been done. In that alternative theory, the muon undergoes time dilation alone, and that is enough to explain the results. Essentially the earth is very near to the preferred frame, and the muon is really a slowly running (and high velocity) clock. That is all you need to explain the result.

Once the Michelson Morley experiment is explained by node entrapment (with the mirrors enforcing nulls in the oscillating electric field - see my post in this thread above) there is no other experiment I am aware of that offers proof of a length contraction.

In my later years I have come to believe that a length contraction is likely to exist, but there is really no direct experimental evidence for it. I was thinking one could possibly accelerate projectiles in rail guns, and shoot a very short pulse laser across the moving projectiles and look at the shadow, but the technology isn't quite there yet as far as I know. Also important are tests on earth tides and a possible group velocity equivalent of the Michelson Morley test, but those tests would not be direct tests of a length contraction either. Due to the high velocity needed to directly test it, length contraction is very difficult to observe.

Time dilation on the other hand is seen in particle physics experiments pretty much every day.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


Last week I got tentative acceptance of my ECOFusion paper for publication in Physics Essays, but I needed to make several final edits, redo a figure, and do a careful checking of the paper prior to sending in the final version so I am a bit tardy on these responses.

In my experience when I've dug in deeper I usually find that not only have other physicists already thought of what I thought was my novel approach but they've already considered other approaches I didn't even think of.

My experience is quite different, and on some occasions it was very surprising to me. That idea about oscillations on a rubber band being analogous to an oscillating aether was something I thought should have been done before. It seemed so obvious. But over a two year period back around 1990 I did a very thorough lit search. The only thing close was by J.P. Wesley. I wrote to him, and he said that the Michelson Morley test was indeed a standing wave, but that he was not at all in agreement with my way of thinking on the matter. So as far as I know, no one went down that path. At least I could not find anyone who published on it. A reviewer at one of the journals I submitted to remarked how surprising it was that no one had proposed that idea in 85 years. I am still surprised about that one.

My derivation of that new relativistic QM equation also seemed obvious to me, and indeed the starting point was presented to me way back in grad school and even appears in Wikipedia. But I don't believe it was ever followed up on, because Klein Gordon took a different path with a relativistic covariant formalism. When I showed fellow students what I wanted to try back in the 80's, I was told that the approach couldn't be done. I was never sure why. I now believe it was because it violates relativity - but I now know that's OK if we follow Lorentz instead of Einstein. So really I probably should call it "a new high-velocity QM" instead of "a new relativistic QM". I used the word "relativistic" because it often connotes "high velocity", and it also connotes "Lorentz transformation". I had in mind the "relativistic" expression E2 = p2c2 + m2c4, but it is probably a mistake to call what I am doing "relativistic", and so I will correct this in the future.

My ABC Preon Model and my two component solid aether model are also things I could find no prior reference on. In each case, the rather violent opposition to my simple models seems to reinforce my belief that these are new. In each case I have gotten no scientific reason to reject them - just summary judgements based on defense of present dogma.

And so my experience is that there are many places where physics has not gone. Generally it has not done so because of some prejudice that the present way is the best way, and that we must build on the works of the giants to make further progress. We sometimes forget that the giants were humans too - and often very young ones!

I believe that work toward a theory of electrodynamics including finite sized particles may also be new. In many ways, there is a parallel to history with such a proposal. The ultraviolet catastrophe was solved by proposing that the number of oscillators dropped off at high energy. (Black body radiation also had "a problem at high energies". It was solved with a simple breakthrough proposal.) Presently, at least as far as I understand QED, a small finite size of the interacting particles would cut off the integrals at the high energy end of the spectrum. The problem of course is that relativity is a point-like theory, so to propose otherwise gets one rather deep into the doo doo.

I haven't seen any direct proof of length contraction so I'm not sure why you say "the entire physics community believes is fully proven", that's not my impression, though it's just an impression. It seems to me like they have considered both "indirect proof" along with all of the other tests of relativity which can be directly tested to make the inference that it's plausible or even likely that the length contraction part of relativity is also correct, but this falls short of direct proof.

It would be very pleasing to me if your impression is true. My impression has been that most physicists consider Einstein to be the all time greatest physicist by far, and that they believe that both the special and general theories of relativity are proven beyond all reasonable doubt. And with relativity proven, length contraction must also be true. Because if the length contraction is not correct, then neither is relativity. But if you are correct, that is excellent. Open minds are critical to the advance of science.

The politics of it all isn't helped - indeed it is hurt deeply - by so many cranks and crackpots claiming to disprove relativity with total nonsense. So if you do question the length contraction you get lumped in with those who don't even understand one or more of: basic measurement techniques; the experimental record; logic; or math. I reviewed one paper once where the author found that Einstein used x to mean one thing in one portion of his paper, and something else in a different spot, and the author then showed the inconsistency and claimed that Einstein was therefore wrong. The fact that some critics don't even understand the basic principle of abstraction and then think that they've disproven one of the great minds of all time is unfortunately all too common.

On the other hand, once you get to the edge of known science, any new idea appears kooky at first. So our job is to attempt to discern which new ideas really are kooky and which are meritorious enough for further investigation. And to do that each idea should be considered not against present dogma, but only against experiment, logic and mathematical rigor. And even there we can run into trouble, since Einstein and other greats changed what seemed logical, and experimental results often include assumptions that aren't obvious at first glance.

Multiverse question.

Is it possible that galaxies are really separate universes?

And the creation of said universes is the force behind inflation?

Coomba98

a reply to: delbertlarson

read my post above to know where GR is wrong

originally posted by: delbertlarson
It would be very pleasing to me if your impression is true. My impression has been that most physicists consider Einstein to be the all time greatest physicist by far, and that they believe that both the special and general theories of relativity are proven beyond all reasonable doubt. And with relativity proven, length contraction must also be true. Because if the length contraction is not correct, then neither is relativity. But if you are correct, that is excellent. Open minds are critical to the advance of science.

I've enjoyed listening to lectures and talks by theoretical physicist Nima Arkani Hamed. He seems to take nothing for granted theoretically but of course feels bound by experimental results in coming up with new ideas, which is a considerable limitation given the quantity of experiments already performed. He's not some crank, he works at the prestigious facility where Einstein used to work.

The politics of it all isn't helped - indeed it is hurt deeply - by so many cranks and crackpots claiming to disprove relativity with total nonsense. So if you do question the length contraction you get lumped in with those who don't even understand one or more of: basic measurement techniques; the experimental record; logic; or math.

I think it's already a given that relativity has the same problem as Newtonian mechanics, which is that both works in limited cases but break down in extreme cases. It takes more extreme conditions to break down relativity than Newtonian mechanics, but it still breaks down so I don't think you'll get much argument if you claim relativity is not the right model at high energies.

Until we see what the "right" model looks like at high energies it's hard to know exactly how it will work but just as Einstein had to make relativity work like Newtonian mechanics in the limited case, so too will the replacement for relativity have to explain all the experimental results seeming to confirm relativity in the limited case where it's been tested, at low to moderate energies. So saying relativity is wrong at the highest energies doesn't seem to be a problem, it's at lower energies where that type of claim seems to be contradicted by experiment at least showing results consistent with the predictions of relativity. In the end though those only show relativity is as "right" as Newtonian mechanics experiments showed that to be "right" for centuries, though now we know it's not quite right.

So I don't see Dr. Hamed or other theoretical physicists as being stuck on existing theories as much as being stuck with existing experiments (seeming to confirm those theories) and the difficulty of finding better ways to explain the experimental results. But they have no doubts there are serious problems with our current models. The big challenge is finding better models that don't have huge problems with existing experiments, according to Hamed.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: delbertlarson

read my post above to know where GR is wrong

Speaking of anti-relativity people that don't understand experiments, logic, or math...your claims fail on all three. You claim the base is rising in your video in spite of the absence of any indicator to show that, a failure in both experiment and logic, and you've never demonstrated an understanding of the non-linear thermal expansion math which explains the top surface of the machine rising. So delbertlarson is trying to make serious challenges against relativity while claimants such as yourself who seem to understand little of the scientific method are not helping the case for more serious claims.

originally posted by: coomba98
Multiverse question.

Is it possible that galaxies are really separate universes?And the creation of said universes is the force behind inflation?

No and no currently, but maybe a century ago the answer to the first question might have been "yes" when the word "universe" had a different meaning than it does today, when it was almost synonymous with the Milky Way:

Milky Way

In 1917, Heber Curtis had observed the nova S Andromedae within the Great Andromeda Nebula (Messier object 31). Searching the photographic record, he found 11 more novae. Curtis noticed that these novae were, on average, 10 magnitudes fainter than those that occurred within the Milky Way. As a result, he was able to come up with a distance estimate of 150,000 parsecs. He became a proponent of the "island universes" hypothesis, which held that the spiral nebulae were actually independent galaxies.

Here's a speed of light question that has always bothered me.

If you can't travel faster than the speed of light, how would the following work?

Could you get up to 99.99% and throw a ball ahead to reach over 100%? If not, what would happen to the ball?

Now, I know the argument about being perceived as going slower, but this would be your own observation, not a second or 3rd party.

(BTW, I'm assuming the "99.99% of the speed of light" as being possible for this question)

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Here's a speed of light question that has always bothered me.

If you can't travel faster than the speed of light, how would the following work?

Could you get up to 99.99% and throw a ball ahead to reach over 100%? If not, what would happen to the ball?

Now, I know the argument about being perceived as going slower, but this would be your own observation, not a second or 3rd party.

You haven't really thought this through because the scenario you describe requires a second party, then you say it's not the observation of a second party but that's what you are asking for. Actually three reference frames are needed to describe your scenario.

Observer A, the second party, sees you in frame B traveling at 99% the speed of light. If he doesn't then what is the basis for saying you're traveling at 99% the speed of light? In your own frame, you're always at rest, a point you seem to be missing because of the way your question is worded. The ball you throw is in frame C, at 99% the speed of light relative to you in frame B, so you simply see the ball moving at 99% the speed of light relative to you in frame B, if that's how fast you throw it.

So it's the second party observer, observer A that you're really asking about. How fast would observer A see the ball traveling? He will see it going faster than you in frame B traveling at 99% the speed of light, but he will never see it going faster than light no matter how fast B is moving or how fast B throws the ball, and yes it's because of time dilation as you suggest. The practical problem is that as you try to throw the ball at faster and faster speeds, it requires more and more energy such that as the speed approaches the speed of light the energy approaches infinity, and of course infinite energy is thought to not exist in our universe. We can get into the math if you want but that's the way it works out.

That's a variant of this fake spoof of Richard Feynman deducing faster than light light from moving headlights, and it has a similar answer, except both the observer in the car and the observer on the ground perceive light to be traveling at exactly the speed of light, the 65mph difference in frames being "offset" by time dilation. Light works differently than the speed of objects since light always travels at the speed of light, but time dilation affects both light and the apparent velocities of objects.

False:

a reply to: Arbitrageur

here mate read his post www.abovetopsecret.com...

while you are at it may as well read the entire thread and then tell me if GR is bunk or not

Can eddy currents ever be used for propulsion ? a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: Arbitrageur

here mate read his post www.abovetopsecret.com...

while you are at it may as well read the entire thread and then tell me if GR is bunk or not

I don't know what you mean by "his post", that links to your post and you're asking questions that show you don't understand general relativity, like "where do you put the frames for two clocks at different heights?" The answer should be obvious: one frame for the lower clock and another for the higher clock. Also unlike some of the other anti-relativity advocates, you don't present any alternate quantitative model to explain why the clocks run at different speeds or other aspects of observations which are consistent with relativity. Where's your alternate model? You apparently don't have one. Plenty of other anti-relativity theorists do have alternate models, though there are many and they often disagree with experiment and with each other.

originally posted by: Nemtaku
Can eddy currents ever be used for propulsion ? a reply to: Arbitrageur

Why do you ask? Currents can be used for propulsion as in maglev trains and some amusement park rides, but those aren't "eddy currents". Eddy currents are typically a lossy phenomenon better for braking than propulsion. I'm tempted to answer "no" but since I can't think of every possible design off the top of my head I'll be more cautious and say it doesn't seem likely and I'm not aware of any such designs. Instead of using eddy currents for braking which typically end up generating heat you can't use, regenerative braking is more efficient because the braking energy isn't converted to heat, it's put back into the electrical system where it can be re-used for propulsion, in applications like maglev trains.

A good application for eddy currents are power tools, when you want to use the eddy current losses to stop the tool's motion quickly. They are so small you're not typically concerned with those losses and regenerative braking wouldn't make sense like it does for maglev trains.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: delbertlarson

read my post above to know where GR is wrong

Your thread is the opposite of science. In science we ask: "why?" and "how?". In order to answer those questions, we must know the full details of everything we do. In your thread the key issue is not the candles and the micrometers, nor even what the observed motion is. The key question is: "what is inside the box?" We are never told. Instead we are to take it on faith that it is something new, miraculous, and wonderful that no one has ever seen before, and that some genius is just holding back the details. But science is the details! We are not told at all what is inside the box, and without that, any discussion is a total waste of time.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Here's a speed of light question that has always bothered me.

If you can't travel faster than the speed of light, how would the following work?

Could you get up to 99.99% and throw a ball ahead to reach over 100%? If not, what would happen to the ball?

Now, I know the argument about being perceived as going slower, but this would be your own observation, not a second or 3rd party.

(BTW, I'm assuming the "99.99% of the speed of light" as being possible for this question)

In relativity we have w = (u+v)/(1+[u/c][v/c]) where c is the speed of light, w the speed of the ball after you throw it, u how fast you throw the ball, and v is how fast you are moving. I am doing this analysis from a third frame, as implied by your question, even though that concept is a bit unclear within the question.

Example 1) If v is 99% of c, and u is c (for the case of a fast atom emitting a photon in its direction of motion) then w is 1.99c/(1+.99) = c. (No matter how fast a light source moves, the light it produces will travel at speed c.)

Example 2) If v is 99% of c, and u is 99% of c then w is 1.98c/(1+(.99*.99)) = (1.98/1.9801)c, which is less than c.

Even if you were to add the speed of light to the speed of light, you'd get (c+c)/2 = c.

I hope this helps.

In relativity both time and space change depending upon one's velocity, and since speed is length divided by time, when you change length and time you can get rather non-intuitive results. Relativity is not the easiest thing to get one's mind around.

a reply to: delbertlarson
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks both for your answers.

So to travel at 99.99% at the speed of light, you would, technically, need someone to observe you doing it to be able to measure it? Am I understanding that correctly?

If there was an instrument on a ship to measure the speed, would that slow down, keep speeding up or end up stabilising at a specific speed?

Also, the closer to the speed of light you get, the slower you appear to be going to an observer. At what speed would you start to look like you're slowing down? Or is that still a hypothesised speed as, obviously, we haven't been able to go that fast ourselves?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: delbertlarson
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks both for your answers.

So to travel at 99.99% at the speed of light, you would, technically, need someone to observe you doing it to be able to measure it? Am I understanding that correctly?

If there was an instrument on a ship to measure the speed, would that slow down, keep speeding up or end up stabilising at a specific speed?

Also, the closer to the speed of light you get, the slower you appear to be going to an observer. At what speed would you start to look like you're slowing down? Or is that still a hypothesised speed as, obviously, we haven't been able to go that fast ourselves?

In special relativity, everyone has their own velocity of zero. That is, your own velocity, relative to you is zero. So when you say you are traveling at 99.99% the speed of light, you must mean 99.99% of the speed of light relative to someone or something else. Presumably you mean relative to your velocity before you got into your spaceship and accelerated to its speed. Within your spaceship everything would look normal to you - your clocks would tick and tock as fast as before, and your yardsticks will appear to be the same length as before. However, someone that you left behind they would say your clocks are running slower and your yardsticks shrank in the direction of your motion. Inside your spaceship it would appear that you, your clocks and your yardsticks are moving at zero velocity, and it is the stars that are moving toward you or away from you. You would also tell those you left behind that their clocks appear to be running slow and their yardsticks have shrunk in the direction of their motion. Importantly, you will also disagree on what "simultaneous" means. Relativity is a relative theory. Every velocity is associated with its own "reference frame", and motion is relative - it is not absolute.

It can be quite confusing to the beginner, and even defy common sense. However, the part about clocks running slow has indeed been proven many times in the lab, and particle accelerators are designed using the Lorentz equations that are common to both the Einstein and Lorentz theories.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: delbertlarson
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks both for your answers.

So to travel at 99.99% at the speed of light, you would, technically, need someone to observe you doing it to be able to measure it? Am I understanding that correctly?

Not exactly, but the way you worded your earlier question you needed an observer to see how fast the ball was thrown. But outside the framework of that question, the only requirement to traveling a certain speed is that you do so relative to another reference frame. If an airplane flies over your head at 400mph relative to the reference frame of you and the ground you're standing on, it does so whether you observe it or not.

If there was an instrument on a ship to measure the speed, would that slow down, keep speeding up or end up stabilising at a specific speed?

Speed relative to what? In the case of the airplane, you probably have at least two different speed indicators, one relative to the ground and one relative to the air, aka ground speed and air speed, which won't be the same if the air is moving. In a spaceship going to the moon, there's no air to operate an airspeed indicator, or GPS to measure your speed relative to the ground, so you have to measure your speed relative to something else. If you're on the space ship looking at a clock on the spaceship it will always be at rest since you and the clock are in the same reference frame. It would take someone in another reference frame to observe the clock on that ship to say it was going slower.

Also, the closer to the speed of light you get, the slower you appear to be going to an observer. At what speed would you start to look like you're slowing down? Or is that still a hypothesised speed as, obviously, we haven't been able to go that fast ourselves?

As mentioned earlier, muons have a short lifespan which seems to get longer when we observe it due to time slowing down for the muons as they travel at relativistic velocities, so particles do travel at relativistic speeds in nature and in particle accelerators. Larger objects haven't traveled so fast that it's easy to measure, but the time slowing down can be measured with precision instruments. I think NIST was able to measure the difference in two optical clocks, one at rest and one traveling a few meters per second, in their lab, but it's very hard to measure and requires great precision in that example. Even for clocks in the GPS satellites going thousands of miles per hour, the time effects are measured in millionths of a second per day (microseconds).

Even at half the speed of light the dilation is only 15% so 100 seconds looks like 115 seconds to the external observer. At 90% the speed of light it's more significant where 100 seconds is like 229 seconds to an external observer. You can enter any speed you want and this relativity calculator site will automatically do the relativity math in delbertlarson's post:

www.1728.org...

a reply to: Arbitrageur
a reply to: delbertlarson

Yeah, I'm a layman when it comes to relativity. We all were once, right?

Thanks for your replies though. They have certainly helped me understand it a bit better.

And you're right, it is counter Common sense for someone who doesn't really understand it completely.

Thanks again though

a reply to: Arbitrageur

so you didn't understand why the higher clock is reading faster time, did you?
looks like its beyond you. nm

originally posted by: delbertlarson

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: delbertlarson

read my post above to know where GR is wrong

Your thread is the opposite of science. In science we ask: "why?" and "how?". In order to answer those questions, we must know the full details of everything we do. In your thread the key issue is not the candles and the micrometers, nor even what the observed motion is. The key question is: "what is inside the box?" We are never told. Instead we are to take it on faith that it is something new, miraculous, and wonderful that no one has ever seen before, and that some genius is just holding back the details. But science is the details! We are not told at all what is inside the box, and without that, any discussion is a total waste of time.

wts inside the machine cannot be revealed without license and nda
the video and associated papers is only a demonstration of results obtained and unveiling of completely new cutting edge science that will most likely result in rewriting most of our current physics books.