It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Two Errors In Relativity

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I decided to revisit the derivation of the equations of special relativity. In doing so I discovered the following two errors.

Error #1: In the derivation of the equation for mass as a function of velocity, they assumed the conservation of momentum for a special hypothetical relativistic situation.

It is well know that in relativistic situations such as the conversion of light into matter, momentum is not conserved. The particles created generally have way more momentum than that of the light that created them. So, why would anyone assume that momentum would be conserved in any relativistic situation????

Error #2: It is assumed the charge (Q) on a particle is a relativistically invariant quantity.

The charge Q on a particle like the mass m of the particle is a representation of part of the total energy of the particle. If mass energy part of a particle increases at relativistic speeds, why would anyone expect the Q (charge) energy part to remain constant??? It is more logical that the energies associated with Q and m would both increase at the same rate at relativistic speeds.

This is a classic case where two wrongs made a right. The measured ratio of charge to mass (Q/m) of a particle at relativistic speeds has been and is readily observed to change at a rate of sqr(1-V^2/C^2). This is consistent with error #1 (resulting with m changing at 1/sqr(1-V^2/C^2) ) and simultaneously error #2 (Q not changing at all). Because the experimental results for Q/m matched the theory, is has been assumed for over 100 years that there is no errors #1 and #2.

I am going to take a more pragmatic approach by first assuming that the energies associated with Q and m would indeed both increase at the same rate at relativistic speeds. And second, acknowledging that it has been proven with measurements that Q/m changes at a rate of sqr(1-V^2/C^2). If we include the fact that the energy associated with Q is a function of Q^2 meaning that the rate of change of Q will be equal to the square root of the rate of m, the only possible out come are the following equations.

m(at V)=m(at rest) / (1-V^2/C^2)

Q(at V)=Q(at rest) / sqr(1-V^2/C^2)

These equations will hence forth be know as Graysquirrel’s transforms.

Einstein formulated his theory of general relativity so that it would yield the same results as the theory of special relativity when applied to special conditions. Since special relativity has been modified with the Graysquirrel transforms, the theory of general relativity also needs to be modified.

This new Graysquirrel theory of general relativity in conjunction with Maxwell’s equations will allow for light donut particles to exist. A light donuts is a piece of light which has wrapped its self into a circle or donut where the E fields on the inside maintain a space time discontinuity which, not only keeps the light traveling in a circle but also freezes it in time. This donut, because of the space time discontinuity, will have a mass many time greater than the original piece of light, thus creating mass without any sort of god particle. This is a very simple explanation for matter. Something that has always been desired.

Also, the Graysquirrel theory of general relativity will (with the joy of many ATSers)predict the thrust from an EM drive. A thrust verified with experimental measurements.

edit on 2-4-2017 by graysquirrel because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Ok did a search on "Graysquirrel theory of general relativity", here are my results...


www.bing.com...

OK so went though several pages and found nothing related to your OP

Care to elaborate on this issue?
edit on 2-4-2017 by Kashai because: Content edit


Source please or where is your paper?


edit on 2-4-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Carry on..
edit on 2-4-2017 by Plotus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: graysquirrel
Nice work but excuse me if i dont check the calculus behind it for now....



will allow for light donut particles to exist

Could this also possibly explain the light wave /particle duality paradox??
I.e. a particle in donut (or torus?) of radius r ~ equating to wavelength r/?
??

edit on C2017vAmerica/ChicagoSun, 02 Apr 2017 20:22:48 -050030PM8America/Chicago4 by CovertAgenda because: spell



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
ditto
edit on 2-4-2017 by Plotus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I gave the member a star a flag for the OP but I also feel he or she needs.....



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Very cool OP.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: CovertAgenda

It very well could. I haven't given that concept enough thought to give you a definite opinion.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: graysquirrel
No stress... was just pondering out aloud.... Thanks for the thought candy this morning!!



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: graysquirrel

You dont explain why but you found nothing new that i can see special relativity has to be used to calculate momentum and mass. This goes into relativistic mechanics your trying to separate the two by saying well this isnt allowed in general relativity but you are ignoring special relativity which covers the conversion.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I just we had some form of anti-gravity to make my car lighter so it got 500 miles per gallon. Can you super smart guys kick the corporations in the balls for a change rather than making ever increasing sophisticated weapons of mass destruction for huge amounts of money.


edit on 2-4-2017 by dfnj2015 because: typos



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015


Actually we can build an anti-satellite missile with an atomic warhead.


So instead of a thousand missals fired from Russia hitting the USA we could send anti-missals that if they detonated around a cluster of MRV's or otherwise, the missals sent from Russia. China or otherwise would end up atomized prior to the technology, engaging a detonation.

Yes it would cause its own problems but.....




edit on 2-4-2017 by Kashai because: Added content

edit on 2-4-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: graysquirrel

There are no mistakes in the mathematics of relativity. Momentum is always conserved. I advise you to find something more useful to do with your time.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015


For consideration it is possible the United States of America could fire a weapon like this from an Aircraft.


AS well as Ships, Submarines and also Tanks.



Nuclear artillery is a subset of limited-yield tactical nuclear weapons, in particular those weapons that are launched from the ground at battlefield targets. Nuclear artillery is commonly associated with shells delivered by a cannon, but in a technical sense short-range artillery rockets or Tactical ballistic missiles are also included.

The development of nuclear artillery was part of a broad push by nuclear weapons countries to develop nuclear weapons which could be used tactically against enemy armies in the field (as opposed to strategic uses against cities, military bases, and heavy industry). Nuclear artillery was both developed and deployed by a small group of states, including the United States, the Soviet Union, and France. The United Kingdom planned and partially developed such weapon systems (the Blue Water missile and the Yellow Anvil artillery shell) but did not put these systems into production.
A second group of states has derivative association with nuclear artillery. These nations fielded artillery units trained and equipped to use nuclear weapons, but did not control the devices themselves. Instead, the devices were held by embedded custodial units of developing countries. These custodial units retained control of the nuclear weapons until they were released for use in a crisis. This second group has included such North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries as Belgium, West Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 2-4-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax


Myself I would advise the member who presented the OP that if they are discovering issues that have already been discovered on there own?


That is impressive


Another star for that reason.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: dfnj2015


Actually we can build an anti-satellite missile with an atomic warhead.


So instead of a thousand missals fired from Russia hitting the USA we could send anti-missals that if they detonated around a cluster of MRV's or otherwise, the missals sent from Russia. China or otherwise would end up atomized prior to the technology, engaging a detonation.

Yes it would cause its own problems but.....





The US has already designed, tested, and made them in the 50s, however those Warheads and Missiles have been long decommisioned.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: MuonToGluon


Last I checked, what your suggesting is not a part of reality with respect to the US nuclear arsenal?








By the way that weapon was fielded by the United States of America in 1953.

edit on 2-4-2017 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: MuonToGluon


Yes of course these programs were decommissioned (sarcasm).


Back in the 70's the USA completely stopped any research into miniaturizing atomic reactions (further sarcasm).
edit on 2-4-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 11:41 PM
link   


Conception of the neutron bomb is generally credited to Samuel T. Cohen of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who developed the concept in 1958.[14] Initial development was carried out as part of projects DOVE and STARLING, and an early device was tested underground in early 1962. Designs of a "weaponized" version were carried out in 1963.[15][16]
Development of two production designs for the Army's MGM-52 Lance short-range missile began in July 1964, the W63 at Livermore and the W64 at Los Alamos. Both entered Phase 3 testing in July 1964, and the W64 was cancelled in favor of the W63 in September 1964. The W63 was in turn cancelled in November 1965 in favor of the W70 (Mod 0), a conventional design.[15] By this time, the same concepts were being used to develop warheads for the Sprint missile, an anti-ballistic missile (ABM), with Livermore designing the W65 and Los Alamos the W66. Both entered Phase 3 testing in October 1965, but the W65 was cancelled in favor of the W66 in November 1968. Testing of the W66 was carried out in the late 1960s, and entered production in June 1974,[15] the first neutron bomb to do so. Approximately 120 were built, with about 70 of these being on active duty during 1975 and 1976 as part of the Safeguard Program. When that program was shut down they were placed in storage, and eventually decommissioned in the early 1980s.[15]


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Please reread the OP carefully.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join