TriggerGrinn

I get bothered that there is various ways to describe relativity and relativistic effects. both in logic and in mathamatics.

Would you not be met with a gamma ray strength frequency of electromagnetic radiation if you and another ship travled towards eachother at 0.4999 C? And would this not melt the front of your ship, let alone push you back, hold you back from accelerating?

I often wondered if the equations describing how much energy you need to accelerate an object had ever been interpreted differently. such as. Lets say acceleration stops at C. Why? Imagine for a moment using a special gun that can shoot particles at varible speeds. The fastest setting the gun has is C, why? cause thats the fastest speed, or the speed which light travels. Thus You need to turn up the energy on the gun the faster you want to shoot the particle. But if you use the fastest source there is to shoot it (light) that will be the end of acceleration relative toyou and the particle. Now if you shoot the particle at C you will never see it leave you, because the light will be doppler shifted to a degree of zero light frequency. And the particle will not detect the gun or anything behind it because all light will be so dramatically shifted. If two particles are shot at eachother near C they will observer effects equal to twice their velocity. Such as that if they were both shot at C form guns at rest they would cover distance at twice C, and the light would shift between them. Question, how far can light doppler shift for an observer in respect to the source and the obserer moving towards eachother near c? Theoretically wouldnt two objects traveling towards eachother at 0.5 C each, experience doppler effects equal to C? And if they increased their velocity, it would not be possible to have any greater effect on doppler. Which would make one assume that light does not always travel away from its source at C if the source is moving in the direction of light. (I understand this is not how SR explains it, but I remember I was wondering where this has been considered and shown)

From what I have read there is a slight difference. Light abberation will cause an object moving away from an observer to have a slower clock and an object moving towards an observer to have a faster clock. Where as nearing light speed Time dilation, refers to viewable clock slowing only.

Only a Misinterpretation I see that there is a misinterpratation of what the bible is intending. Think of it as: God said, your beauty shall not come only from outward dressings, but it will be your spirit that gives you your beauty, with or without your outward adornment. Women keep it in mind that you are a women with, or without adornments, and that is what gives you beauty in the eye of god. To consider yourself a measure of beauty by what you wear will deminish your self worth, and it is intending to mention that womens nature is the opitamy of the meaning of beauty. That the attraction men have for a women will come from their spirit of calmness and the spirit of a soft place to fall. That in the eye(view) of god it is the spirit of the woman that creates the woman as a woman, and not just the adornment that is generally seen in the eye of man. I gaurentee that if you explain this to your wife, you will get a) browny points and b) give her a sense of self understanding and relaxation. God said, FEAR NOT, be never anxious! and your wife is obviously anxious all the time whether or not shes keeping her bling bling down enough to coincide with the bible. The bible is intended to teach for things on the inside of us and rarely relates to the outwardness. Let your wife know that it is her nature that is most beautiful and how she atires herself is only the icing on the diamond that she is inside.

nope. I mean take it easy as in, see ya later, take care.

I just wondered how and if they could be connected. I suppose I shouldnt of added any of that. I've had a rough week, and I appologize for posting while I can't articulate my thoughts very clearly. Take it easy.

When we look at the lorentz, and the fact that we end up with two answers when using a square root. [math]\gamma (+)[/math] [math]\gamma (-)[/math] We see that we can re-express this equation as [math]\gamma = \frac {1}{\left (1- \frac {v^2}{c^2}\right )^{\,1/2}}[/math] and in doing so we arive at the proper expression of modeling the universe in mathamatics. We get an answer for 1 frame that is 1/2 of the whole system (1). The lorentz transformation as this; ..suggests there is null result for the one frame(in motion, due to the + and - result of a square root) or equal opposite dilations for each frame of the system[math]^b[/math]. However, the latter[math]^b[/math] does not appear to be the case. As we see the frame at rest[math]^a[/math] appears to remain constant, while the frame in motion[math]^b[/math] undergoes all the proposed dilations. Thus, the proper lorentz transformation should use the [math]^{\,1/2}[/math] that is, [math]\gamma = \frac {1}{\left (1- \frac {v^2}{c^2}\right )^{\,1/2}}[/math] with this we can see why [math]x^2[/math] [math]x^1[/math] [math]x^{\,0.5}[/math] or [math]x^{\,1/2}[/math] are the 3 functions of powers found in any one event. note [math]{\,1/2}[/math] is used to replace [math]\sqrt x [/math] For example; a position of a body in respect to an observer is written in this formulation. The observer is part of the system to develope the position. thus the position and the observer are infact two points on the graph. And through this system there is two sets of triangulation, in repsect to the position relative to each frame. As so we dicover each frame is 1/2 of the system. A simple explainaton of this; [math]+K_e = 1/2 \left (mv^2 \right )[/math] This is only 1/2 of the system in which momentum of each frame is involved in the interaction. So thus we do arrive with a negitive Ke for the object that is going to have 'work' applied to it [math]-K_e = 1/2 \left (mv^2 \right )[/math] Where we see, Kinetic energy total[math] K_{\,et} = mv^2[/math] The Kinetic energy total is of course a null result. That is the total energy does not change, but the state of energy of the system changes in and equal and opposite fashion. and as such supports discription of the universe being a closed system, where nothing is lost or destroyed, but only changes form.

I'm not running any posuedo science. I am in the beginning stages to formulating a geometry of space-time,

I understand your confusion. I can't elaborate on it too much right now. It simply a perspective of understanding fundamental basics. An event is change in time. It forms the universe. An event requries a minimum of two seperate frames. It can be force, motion, gravity, light etc, etc. two frames are a closed system. That is, the event that happens between them is happening to both of them at the same time, and it is inevitable. such as motion between two frames. A closed system aquires a measured constant. A geometrical perspective of this is a right triangle. The hypotinuse is the event. The two sides intersecting at the right angle are the square of the event, and the value of the event. such as force, energy. The right angled triangle has a constant relatoinship, in terms of length. that is, the sqrt of 2. how this applies is that there is an equal opposite value occuring for every 1 event. In the lorentz transformation for example; [math] \gamma =\frac {1}{ \sqrt{1- \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/math] the answer infact creates two equal but opposite gamma factors, that I understand is not considered. [math] \gamma (-) [/math] [math] \gamma (+)[/math] Or in otherwords -change in both frames -an equal value for each of the 2 sides of the right triangle (not the hypotenuse) -in which the hypotenuse is the event for each frame squared, [math]a^2 + b^2 = c^2[/math] That is, there is two frames, two hypenuses(events), two sides (normal two sides of a right triangle) One right triangle for each frame, but they share the same hypotenuse. This is a square, with two frames sharing one diagnal line through them, forming a one single event, for each frame. There is a point in which this shape can only come a point, or the universal constant C limit on change. Draw this in a 3 dimensional shape and you get a relationship that displays a simple geometric pentahedron.

There is an interesting paper written on relativity that I am going over recently. WHERE EINSTEIN Flawed Relativity to a small degree. http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html

Types of 'time' dilation. correct? Gravitational Time dilation -difference in geometry of space-time (ie, black hole is nearly frozen in time relative to us) Light abberation Time dilation -change in distance between clock and observer manipulates the rate at which a clock ticks. acceleratoin Time dilation nearing light speed Time dilation

I need to edit some of that later. ^

quantised relativity Using math you can write things in many different dimensions. This does not mean they exist, nor that the do not exist. A dimension is a thing that exists only in perception of our minds. According to all other things there is zero dimensions and infinite possisibilty. That is, for a quanta, and its frame of observation, that position is zero dimensional point of possibility to other frames of reference. The only place spacial conception exists is in a mind that has visual conceptability. All matter and energy simply obeys the constant of a frame/mind. Consider for a moment that C is C in a frame, not c^2, not c^3 or any other version of c. You can use c in many values depening on an equation you write but that does not change what one observes does it. Think for a moment about the law of c. It is constant no matter what inside a frame of observation. But what is c? it is energy that connects other frames. If you are not connected to another frame you have no space or time or dimension around you. Imagine being born blind and considering dimension. Imagine being a billard ball in space (a single frame with nothing in motion relative to this ball) You have no velocity, nor mass, nor kinetic energy. There is nothing connecting you, better yet just considering being a mind in a unvierse with nothing else in it. Since in a billiard ball there is motion of atomic particles there still exists forms of energy via actions a distance, non observable, so better to imagine a your percepted mind in a empty universe and understand all laws of physics collapse. You need two frames for something to happen. Things occur between a minimum of two frames, and any change in one of those two minimum frames affects each frame equally, and oppositely. If we consider [math]E = MC^2[/math] ; The energy inside of mass that you see in another frame, will be measured to be equal to the square of C because, it must overcome all the forces in which hold the atom together, this 'requires' energy and at the same time must transfer that energy at C towards you 'the other frame'. This does not mean you are capable to put to work the full value of the measured energy, the same way you can not make use of the full value of energy in moving objects. Kinetic Energy = [math]1/2 m v^2[/math] or [math]K_e = \frac{(mv)(mv)} {2m} = \frac {p^2}{2m}[/math] It requires #value energy to stop an object + #value energy to move an object, thus the Etotal is Kinetic Energy = [math]m v^2[/math] but you can only put 1/2 of any energy to work in one frame, because energy only exists because there is change between each frame, and the will always split that energy equally and oppositely, for a minimum of two frames. Therefore, an object that is at rest has energy equal to the energy of the moving object. The object that is at rest can be considered to have [math]-K_e[/math] and the object in motion can be considered to have [math]+K_e[/math]. The so called Negetive energy is inertia, and it will slow the moving object, or stop it. The positive energy is the energy that will add velocity to the stopped object. When these objects collide the always exchange and equal value of [math]-K_e[/math] &[math]+K_e[/math]. The equal opposite action/reaction etc. note that two frames disconnected or [math]\sqrt 2 [/math] form constant pythagoras constant, of 01.41 (pi= 03.141) that is 1.41 "X" plane, and 1.41 "Y" plane. A square root is two answers. Mathamically + and - , or geometrically 2dimensional plane, of x and y. That is the distance between two positions that are squared. Aka the distance corner to corner of a square is equal to length x 01.41 and that this constant applies to the fact that all physics are formed from constants, that expand from a minimum of two frames. This is drawn as a right trangle with equal length sides. and a hypotinuse = 01.41 * length C may infact expand out from this constant in some form or another but I have not yet looked into that. Where as pi is the constant that occurs for a given length arm rotated around a center point one full revolution. The distance the oustide of that length arm travels devided by the length of the arm * 2 = pi The reason for this is that a closed object like a trangle or a square, or a circle is a closed system, and an event in space is called a system. That event can only exist by a minimum of two frames which we call a closed system or apply to a shape. Shapes form from a closed system between frames.

As I see the only thing that can change time wise is the rate at which one ages. You do not change point in time line you live longer. The only thing that can alter a permanent aging is accelerations. Frames that are inertial, meaning under no acceleration, have syncronized clocks. Time also alters on view for things coming towards and away. Abberation of viewed time. The main thing that alters a clocks is if it gains mass. A clock with higher mass ticks slower, thus so does even the atmoic material, but it must be under an accleration. Another thing that can change the rate at which you age is gravity (difference in space curvatures). Search wikipedia for General Relativity.

haha I think I get what you mean on that.. tired right now.

I understand where you are coming from. But, one thing I try to consider when I wonder the same type of things like; How come I don't hear more about scientific study on what makes a force, mass, space, time, constant, etc etc, whatever it is you wonder about. When I wonder on things similar to that I consider that science is a job and needs funding and employment. You can not randomly persue anything you want and expect support. I am sure there is more people studying alternative theoretical ideas like you suggest than there are scientists studying under mainstream theory, but! Who is the scientist here? and who is getting paid? ahhh the politics how they seep into the cracks of everything. With that aside, I'd like to give you my own opinion. Imagine you were born blind, like every planet, and particle that exists in this universe. Tell me how you would describe space? and empty space for that matter? Then try to explain to me how you would describe space if you were born with vision? Remember everything you see is a mental perception printed out onto the screen of your mind. And all that you see is contained in your mind, and in fact does not relate to anything else in the universe. As far as everything else besides life could be concirned there is no space, nor a universe, no perceptions, just obidient quanta that acts in countless ways to different observers in many places at the same time.

a star is made of air (that is, matter, gas, etc etc) and it has gravity.

You would be better off flipping it upside down I think, yet if you can't calculate the input-output efficiency to see if its worth working on, then its a waste of your time. We can make alot of things spin for ever. Put it in space and spin it. But this doesnt mean that when you go to use it that its going to supply energy and continue spinning. Its good effort! but you'd be better off making something with high efficiency, with useful power output.

I've heard that in respect to certain theory space is curved. What you may think is a strait line is a curved line. Imagine to walk down a giant hallway that is so long it looks strait while that hallway is infact a circle. You will never get to the end of that hallway, nor will you be in a specific position. Like, half way, or beginning. If this being correct, there is no reason you can not assume that what you see in the distance night sky is infact the back side of your position. That is, A strait line that runs into itself over and over, and the distance between each loop is entirely dependent on the ratio or curvature of space and the considertation of the constant speed of light.

To scale Earth near the sun (see it at far right). Large earth is to add more perpsective to size.

A relatavistic permeability and a relativistic permittivity? [math](\varepsilon_r) (\mu_r)[/math] A similar concept is a C meter, as like you said the density. Say 1sec near a dense star for light is 10m. Then a second on earth for light is 100m. When you view 1 second of data from the dense star, it becomes 10seconds in the frame on earth. Mass is attracted to places of smaller C meters. This is a place where one observes less energy. So when an observer is posistioned in space near earth. The atomic material experiences space get shorter towards earth. As it does, it moves towards the earth without force, for it only observes space contract. A phantom observer sees that object move. In respect to a theory, not an opinion.

Not only what other people mentioned but, At speed of C wavelength is also gone. Wavelength of light, in relativistic doppler shift. If the observer and the source are moving directly away from each other with velocity [math]V[/math] , the observed frequency [math]f_o[/math] is different from the frequency of the source [math]f_e[/math] as If you go faster than light or even the speed of light There is no longer any frequencies in light. Shazaam.. thats gonna be a little f'd up. [math]f_o = \left (\sqrt {\frac {1-v/c}{1+v/c}}\right )f_e[/math] ^ [math]f_o = \left (\sqrt {\frac {1-C/c}{1+C/c}}\right )f_e[/math] ^ [math]f_o = \left (\sqrt {\frac {1-1}{1+1}}\right )f_e[/math] ^ [math]f_o = \left (\sqrt {\frac {0}{2}}\right )f_e[/math] ^ [math]f_o = \left (\sqrt {0}\right )f_e[/math] ^ [math]f_o = \left (0 \right )f_e[/math] ^ [math]f_o = 0[/math] Light might just turn to mass..and mass just might turn to light and that might just be a weird world. gif animation: abiration of light http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/XYCoordinates.gif In diagram 1, the blue point represents the observer. The x,y-plane is represented by yellow graph paper. As the observer accelerates, he sees the graph paper change colors. Also he sees the distortion of the x,y-grid due to the aberration of light. The black vertical line is the y-axis. The observer accelerates along the x-axis.

In relativity The light, or space-time you observe is seperate from all other frames, and soley constant to you.

Prediction of a method stimulating free energy or a form of cold fission This theory of relativity predicts a method to gather energy out of mass in a cold form. By cooling a specific gas the relativistic space contraction and matter expansions amongst atoms reduce so much that the effect of weak nuclear force, or chemical bonds is weakened, and eventually will reach null if the atoms can be put into zero acceleration form. Once the atoms are put into posistion rest from cooling this gas enough it is predicted it will become a condensed material of no weak nuclear force, and act as a frictionless fluid, aswell as a possible loss of its gravitational attraction to other mass, due also to losing dimension exchange of equal opposites. By enducing this material of atoms at rest with a magnetic field, the atoms velocity will not be affected by the field due to their stage in zero acceleration. However, this will cause the internal workings of the atom, the protons/nuetrons/quarks/electrons to experience relativistic effects of their space-time. At this time I am unsure to say whether they would experience spacial expansion or contraction. However as experiments have shown this can cause a bose-einstein condensate material to 'shrink'. What this should do is perform the same sort of act as a nuclear fission. In fission the theory predicts that space is contracted in the atoms view causing the atomic material to expand in volume and become unstable and split as it were into energy. The theory predicts that with proper apparatus a bose-einstein condensate material could be manipulated into assuming super spacial expansion, like blowing up the space between those atoms creating a massive potential energy. Relative to observing the material it would shrink, and with proper reduction of the magnetic field, that material should be capable to transform their mass into pure energy. As energy in this theory is desribed to be space. So the magnetic field causes the atoms to act as if they have been placed in a larger C-meter (spacial volume) and in doing so all quantum frames act as if time has sped up, or as if they have lost tempeature. When the magnetic field allows the space to contract their large C-meter gives all outside observes energy. That is, the events born in the super shrunk atoms are from a very large C-meter relative to themselves and as the traverse from there to outside frames of much smaller C-meter the energy is magnified, frequency increases, and time is observed to run faster, as the material is allowed to re-expand. The magnetic field requires energy, but, the amount of energy reduced from the manipulated atoms should be equivalent to [latex]E=MC^2[/latex]. Thus cold fusion, or free energy of sorts is produced. It should be possible to stabalize the atoms as to allow them not to lose all velocity relative to themselves. In the correct setup, a dynamic magnetic field should be possible to cause a pumping action out of the atoms, as to pump energy right out of space. In this theory energy is space, and mass is relativistic space changes. Mass is considered force, or that is when you measure it, it always becomes a force. A force is considered relativistic effects amongst a minimum of two atomic frames, it is observed as motion or velocity. Thus accelerating mass, creates force which directly affects its mass. Test data showing this effect: