galaxyblur

Ok well, my point is (and tell me if you disagree, obviously): -According to the Principle of Relativity, all laws of nature must be valid and nature must behave in the same way in ANY frame of reference. -Since the Conservation of Momentum fails in Relativity (not even looking at Special or General), it cannot be a law of nature. I'm not even TOUCHING Einsteinian Relativity... you took it there unnecessarily. C.o.Momentum fails long before that. If that law can't hold true in the simplest of examples when applied to Relativity, then its a relic of Newtonian Physics and cannot be used any further. If you can explain how momentum is conserved at any point in time in my example, be my guest. I think we're arguing the same thing. You're saying that momentum is only conserved under a certain set of rules and from certain frames. That's absolutely the case. But if its not ALWAYS true, then its useless in Relativity.

But relativity says that one could claim to be accelerating themselves, or that everything else is accelerating and you are static. Every frame is equally valid. So, by your logic, if we chose the Sun as our coordinate system (the solar system, in other words), all of the planets are now external? Maybe you're just repeating what you've heard and learned, but this makes no sense to me. Relatively speaking, there's no such thing as "external" or "internal". That's BS... taken this way, the only internal object is the object itself! How useless! What is meant by inertial frame is a frame that maintains a constant velocity, right? Well that's just once again IGNORING the acceleration, which IS relative, because everything is!

Measurements... from a frame of reference... I'm not sure what you mean by "force". The whole point of the conservation laws is to say that the total measurements of a system persist across any possible interaction, including collisions. It's only supposed to "fail" when an external force is involved. And remember, this was all first implied by Newton, who believed that we live in a universe with an absolute frame of reference. Yes, an inertial coordinate system... meaning an absolute one. But it still fails relativistically. Oh, right. Now I remember. This has nothing to do with my example. The author clearly states that conservation laws seemingly fail with curved spacetimes in General Relativity. And then he goes on to dig his way out of the paradox. My example doesn't even involve curvature/gravity/mass. Its much simpler than that. So, the question is, why didn't you read this before you posted it?

If velocity is relative, is not also acceleration? If you were measuring the gravitational attraction of two identical balls, you could equally say one was static and the other accelerating, vice versa, or that they both moved and met at some arbitrary point. Therefore, acceleration is a relative measure. You cannot have two reference frames for one object. Your coordinate origin should never change. If so, when do you decide the "new" frame starts? When the object has reached its full speed? Now you're basing your point of reference on the two stable systems, and ignoring acceleration all together! What happens in the "time" during the acceleration? I'm not here to debate semantics with you. I am now presenting my ideas. I understand that you can falsify a theory... perhaps my wording was incorrect. My point was that, accepted data may prove theories wrong, but never prove them right. This is why I continue. I will be the first one to admit that I'm wrong if it is shown to be the case... I've no other goal than the rest of us do. I'm not doing this for kicks, to help me sleep at night, or to make my mommy and daddy smile. If you had shown more interest in my ideas, maybe I would have shared them. You did notice that I shared them with the other posters, right? Instead, I was left defending myself and trying to establish credibility because apparently everyone is presumed an idiot. I'll admit, my first post was slightly pompous, but it was in jest. I will now refrain from humor. I'll assume you were addressing swansont, because that was the whole point of my argument. The sooner you stop assigning divine qualities like omniscience to Einstein and the like, the better off we'll all be. There is the possibility that they were wrong, right? Oh golly gee, Beave! Thanks for speaking to me like a 5 yr old again! You know what, I read that document already! But just for you, I'll read it again. But I do remember last time around, being completely unsatisfied with the explanation. The "artifacts" of a particular coordinate system? WTF does that mean? You mean the things that are there that we can't explain? Real physical effects? How can Einstein (don't know if that was his quote, but he-has/his-interpreters-have done this as well) in one breath, swear allegiance to the principle of relativity, and in the next, disregard it when convenient? I mean no disrespect to anyone. I'll be lucky to come up with one iota of what Einstein did for his time. And lucaspa, I mean no disrespect either. I'm sorry if you got the wrong vibe from me. I'm simply here to discuss these things I'm unclear about, and honestly, the whole reason for the "trustworthy" email thing was because I knew that trying to uproot some of these dogmatic standards in science would be an uphill battle. You may offer a rebuttal and I'll gladly read it and consider every point, but I will now refrain from any discussion that does not involve the analysis of the problem directly.

You would think, but actually no, that is not the case, at least from what I've deduced. Picture this: Two lone billiard balls in the emptiness of space. Let's make one the cue ball (white) and one the (1) ball (yellow). Let's also assume they weigh exactly the same. The scenario from an outside (absolute) perspective is: -The cue ball is traveling at 20km per hour; the (1) ball is at rest. -The cue ball collides with the (1) ball in a perfect, one-dimensional collision, completely transferring its velocity/energy to the (1) ball. -The cue ball is now at rest, and the (1) ball is now traveling at 20km per hour. Standard stuff, right? Momentum conserved. Ok, now try the frame of reference of the (1) ball: -the (1) ball sees the cue ball traveling towards it at 20km per hour. -the cue ball collides with the (1) ball, as before. -the (1) ball now sees the cue ball traveling away from it at 20km per hour. Again, momentum conserved. Now, let's add another ball, the (5) ball... orange. It lies at rest with the (1) ball, not touching, but beside it on a different plane than the collision occurs: -From the absolute frame of reference, momentum is still conserved, because the (5) ball never moves. -From the perspective of the (1) ball, its collision with the cue ball has caused the (5) ball to fly away from it at 20km per hour as well! Momentum, not conserved! Am I missing something here?

Right. So yes, we should always stay within one frame when working out a problem. But does this not have implications on collisions? Momentum? Total momentum of a system is not always conserved, unless you're in an external, absolute, frame of reference. That, to me, throws momentum COMPLETELY out the window; apart from classical mechanics, it is now totally useless. Same goes for "energy". So now, if we are to take Einstein's word as gospel, that energy is equivalent to mass, then what we're really talking about is relative velocity. How, then, do you equate mass to relative velocity with static objects?

Not referring to that at all. If you take the basic idea of Galileo's Relativity, how can you then define energy has something that matter "gains" and "loses"? Energy will not transform across different frames of reference. It should instead be referred to as "relative velocity", which seems more accurate, right?

Good points. Let the discussion begin! I have a lot of ideas and questions, but let's start with this: We all know that Principle of Relativity kind of destroys the traditional definition of "energy"... why then, is it still thought of in the same way? Shouldn't we replace this term with something like "relative velocity"?

That's not bad advice. Thanks. Only if you have a hypothesis, correct? I do not yet have one. Well I was hoping to build a trusting partnership... naive you think? I absolutely agree, but that wasn't what I meant. I'd gladly put down my argument if the data was irrefutable. But name me a modern theory that has irrefutable data one way or the other. If Einstein gave up when he first faced adversity, he'd of died a poor patent clerk. I have no solid theory yet, and never claimed to. Just ideas. I am NOT ready for a lecture hall, or even ready to write a paper. Don't be presumptuous about my knowledge of science and the way it works. You can accept data until you're blue in the face, but it will never PROVE your theory correct. It will only NOT prove it wrong. There is always room for a new idea, that may reach further than the previous one was able to. Thanks for the links... I will check them out. If I'm wasting YOUR time, then please move on to the next thread. If you are the town crier and speak for everyone, then you can ask me to leave, or simply let my thread die. That's fine. But somehow I doubt that is the case. Just because I am an amateur scientist does not give you the right to speak to me in a condescending tone. Some of the greatest minds in science came from non-scientific backgrounds, no?

that's a great suggestion, except that I can't just walk into a university and strike up a conversation, can I? I think you sound like you've heard this from other people before. Except that I specifically mentioned testing in my post that's awesome and very admirable work. Once again, you seem jaded. Forgive my comment about trustworthiness, but you know that ideas are stolen all the time, and although I'm not in this for money, someone else may be. And, if I were to call you stubborn, I believe I'm entitled to that. And you may call me stubborn. And we shall agree to disagree... nothing wrong with that? Pretty much, I'm not ready to get up in front of a lecture hall and talk about my ideas. I've spoken w/ my close friends, etc, but I need to take the next step and talk to some people who have experience and knowledge of the field. This is why I'm here... did I come to the wrong place? Is this a forum of close-minded book-readers who believe everything their professors taught them to be true? Or can you be open-minded? I haven't even shared my ideas yet and I already face ridicule simply based on the fact that I propose "new" ideas. Perhaps I came off a little to smug. I am not. But I digress... is there anyone who'd be willing to work on some "edgy" and maybe "fringe" proposals with me? For all I know, these ideas in my head could be common knowledge amongst physicists, and though I haven't read them anywhere else yet, that doesn't mean that's not the case. Yet I have no other way of finding out.

I just want some minds to exchange ideas with, over email or something like that.

Good evening all, I enjoy reading your forums very much. I am looking for a group of users who may be interested in doing some amateur research in Theoretical Physics.... kinda vague, I know. Basically, if you consider yourself more a philosopher than a physicist, enjoy a metaphysical approach, consider our current knowledge of the physical world to be full of useful information but WAY off the mark of a TOE, but are prepared to do some mathematical work and experimentation when we're ready, then you're what I'm looking for I want outside-of-the-box thinkers... I want a person who can take his nose out of a book and lift his finger off a calculator and use his capacity to think for himself. Some may laugh at this approach. I ask, what contribution have you made to modern science other than being a math-monkey? Haha, I mean not to offend But seriously, I'd be curious to know everyone's experience. I have some fresh ideas and I need some trustworthy people to discuss them with and develop even further. TOTALLY joking about the math-monkey thing, by the way.