Ghideon Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 2 hours ago, vanholten said: Sorry about that unclear c, it expands to the dashed line. Hello! I am trying to understand your idea in comparison to SR so I can give some comments. There are two "c" in the picture, which one extends to the dashed line? Maybe you can post an improved image? Maybe some text is lost in translation? I think "γ" is usually used for Lorentz factor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 4 hours ago, vanholten said: Why is that? The observer is subjected to a force resulting from observation, because he needs to receive light to make his observation. Calculate that force. Convince us that it can't be ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Ghideon said: Hello! I am trying to understand your idea in comparison to SR so I can give some comments. There are two "c" in the picture, which one extends to the dashed line? Maybe you can post an improved image? Maybe some text is lost in translation? I think "γ" is usually used for Lorentz factor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor Indeed, "γ" is the Lorentz factor.The rhombus connects the midpoints of the circles and the intersection point of these circles. All sides are c. The dashed line to the midpoint of the image is also c. I will upload another image, takes some time though. 46 minutes ago, Ghideon said: Hello! I am trying to understand your idea in comparison to SR so I can give some comments. There are two "c" in the picture, which one extends to the dashed line? Maybe you can post an improved image? Maybe some text is lost in translation? I think "γ" is usually used for Lorentz factor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor I uploaded the image. Edited October 28, 2018 by vanholten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 47 minutes ago, vanholten said: The rhombus connects the midpoints of the circles and the intersection point of these circles. Can you explain what the circles represent and what defines their intersection points? Or is it just the rhombus that is relevant? 47 minutes ago, vanholten said: All sides are c. The dashed line to the midpoint of the image is also c. That's not possible. The side and the line to the midpoint are the hypotenuse and one side of a right angle triangle. The hypotenuse is longer than both sides, so the line to the centre cannot be c. 3 hours ago, vanholten said: It pictures geometrical relations based on the constant c. Do you really mean constant or do you mean invariant? Because if you are saying that c is invariant, then you end up with SR - there is no other possibility. And if you are saying that c is not invariant, then experiment proves you wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 53 minutes ago, swansont said: Calculate that force. Convince us that it can't be ignored. I will work on it. 9 minutes ago, Strange said: That's not possible. The side and the line to the midpoint are the hypotenuse and one side of a right angle triangle. The hypotenuse is longer than both sides, so the line to the centre cannot be c. Take a look at the updated picture above. The line pointing downwards from the centre equals the radius of the circles. Of course it's c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 10 minutes ago, vanholten said: Take a look at the updated picture above. The line pointing downwards from the centre equals the radius of the circles. Of course it's c. Ah, I see. It extends beyond the intersection point. What is the significance or meaning of this line? In fact, perhaps you could explain the meaning of the circles as well? And the meaning of "f"? And "a"? And then show how you derive the Lorentz transform from this diagram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, Strange said: And then show how you derive the Lorentz transform from this diagram. f=√( c²-v²), f/v=√( c²-v²/v), c²=x, f/c=√(x-v²)/ √x, f/c= √ (1- (v²/x)), c/f=1/√(1-(v/c)²) The lorentz transformation is c/f. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) I'm trying to get this; first three statements from earlier posts. 3 hours ago, vanholten said: The lorentz-transformation γ= c/f The kinetic energy supplement is (γ-1)= a/f calculations regarding e=mc²( γ-1 ) should not result in (∞ -1) Combine with: 1 hour ago, vanholten said: Indeed, "γ" is the Lorentz factor Is this what you are trying to describe regarding "f"? Multiply Lorentz Factor by c? I'm not saying this makes sense in SR but it seems compatible with your picture. I have limited time but hopefully this is correct: And if the above interpretation of your idea is correct; for speeds "v" close to "c" the result is that the value "f" in your image gets close to zero. How is this compatible with the attempt at avoiding "(∞ -1)" for (γ-1)? x-posted with @vanholten Edited October 28, 2018 by Ghideon X-posted. Fixed broken image attachment 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 7 minutes ago, Ghideon said: And if the above interpretation of your idea is correct; for speeds "v" close to "c" the result is that the value "f" in your image gets close to zero. How is this compatible with the attempt at avoiding "(∞ -1)" for (γ-1)? Yes exactly, I derived it a bit differently and it took me much longer, haha. I will show you later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 8 minutes ago, vanholten said: f=√( c²-v²), f/v=√( c²-v²/v), c²=x, f/c=√(x-v²)/ √x, f/c= √ (1- (v²/x)), c/f=1/√(1-(v/c)²) The lorentz transformation is c/f. Thank you. This is just an algebraic re-arrangement of the usual relationships. It lacks the clarity of the usual format, so I'm not sure what the point is. How does this relate to your claims of a new theory and a "mechanism" for relativity? Why do you think these geometric relationships are better than those used in SR? You still haven't answered: What is the significance/meaning of the circles and their intersection points? What is "a"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 1 hour ago, vanholten said: f=√( c²-v²), f/v=√( c²-v²/v), Second equation is wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, swansont said: Second equation is wrong Thanks you are right..sorry it should be: f=√( c²-v²), f/c=√( c²-v²)/c, c²=x, f/c=√(x-v²)/ √x, f/c= √ (1- (v²/x)), c/f=1/√(1-(v/c)²) The lorentz transformation is c/f. Edited October 28, 2018 by vanholten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 29, 2018 Author Share Posted October 29, 2018 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 14 minutes ago, vanholten said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure And? I already said that photons exert a force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 29, 2018 Author Share Posted October 29, 2018 Yes you did, Einstein’s did and many many others. So what’s the speculation in this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 23 hours ago, Strange said: Thank you. This is just an algebraic re-arrangement of the usual relationships. It lacks the clarity of the usual format, so I'm not sure what the point is. How does this relate to your claims of a new theory and a "mechanism" for relativity? Why do you think these geometric relationships are better than those used in SR? You still haven't answered: What is the significance/meaning of the circles and their intersection points? What is "a"? Vanholten, are you willing to answer my questions now? Or is your theory still secret? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 22 hours ago, vanholten said: Yes exactly Ok! So we have: -Formulas that are algebraic re-arrangement of the usual Lorentz transformation -A picture with an alternative geometric representation of variables used in Lorentz transformation. I tried to google this one: On 2018-10-28 at 5:49 PM, vanholten said: The kinetic energy supplement No results found for "kinetic energy supplement". Can you explain what kinetic energy supplement is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 29, 2018 Author Share Posted October 29, 2018 7 minutes ago, Ghideon said: Ok! So we have: -Formulas that are algebraic re-arrangement of the usual Lorentz transformation -A picture with an alternative geometric representation of variables used in Lorentz transformation. I tried to google this one: No results found for "kinetic energy supplement". Can you explain what kinetic energy supplement is? https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Relativistic_kill_vehicle.html Didn’t find the right page right away, but this side explains it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 18 minutes ago, vanholten said: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Relativistic_kill_vehicle.html Didn’t find the right page right away, but this side explains it. Can you tell xplain the relevance of a science fiction idea to this thread? And can you answer my questions -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 29, 2018 Author Share Posted October 29, 2018 (edited) Here is wiki link to the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments. This also interesting regarding the datapoints.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann_experiments At 0,866c (γ-1) results in 1 The kinetic energy at 0,866c is e=mc²(1) 7 minutes ago, Strange said: Can you tell xplain the relevance of a science fiction idea to this thread? And can you answer my questions Science fiction, this thread is promoted to the Speculations forum. I will take another look at your questions. The theory is about simultaneity and the initiation of cosmic energy. There is quite a lot to it. In short: The derivation of energy relates to self assemblage of carbon atoms at nanoscale. These carbon atoms have regular shapes. As you now graphene exists of hexagons. C4 is a tetrahedral setup and C60 has the shape of a buckyball. An experiment revealed that buckyballs spontaneously popped up from a graphene sheet when the appropriate number of atoms was isolated. This jump into the third dimension, had another aspect. It’s surface expanded by including 12 pentagons. There were NASA speculations about the universe in the shape of a buckyball. Since SR is a geometrical theory, and carbon atoms have euclidian shapes they should meet at a certain point. Edited October 29, 2018 by vanholten double picture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 25 minutes ago, vanholten said: Here is wiki link to the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments. This also interesting regarding the datapoints.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann_experiments At 0,866c (γ-1) results in 1 The kinetic energy at 0,866c is e=mc²(1) Can you explain the relevance of this. 25 minutes ago, vanholten said: Science fiction, this thread is promoted to the Speculations forum. The first sentence of your link is: "A relativistic kinetic kill vehicle (RKKV) or relativistic bomb is a hypothetical weapon system sometimes found in science fiction." I didn't read much further. But perhaps you could EXPLAIN why it is relevant. Please stop just posting more information without explaining the reason for posting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 29, 2018 Author Share Posted October 29, 2018 (edited) I was busy doing it. Read above. Edited October 29, 2018 by vanholten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 33 minutes ago, vanholten said: An experiment revealed that buckyballs spontaneously popped up from a graphene sheet when the appropriate number of atoms was isolated. Please provide a reference. 33 minutes ago, vanholten said: There were NASA speculations about the universe in the shape of a buckyball. Please provide a reference. You provide references to things but don't explain the relevance. Then you make statements but don't provide any reference. Why? 35 minutes ago, vanholten said: Since SR is a geometrical theory, and carbon atoms have euclidian shapes they should meet at a certain point. That makes no sense. Just because they involve geometry doesn't mean they are connected. 36 minutes ago, vanholten said: The theory is about simultaneity and the initiation of cosmic energy. What is "cosmic energy"? If your next post doesn't either answer some questions or explain your theory, I will suggest the mods close this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 29, 2018 Author Share Posted October 29, 2018 (edited) I just asked the moderator to close this post myself. 1 hour ago, Ghideon said: Ok! So we have: -Formulas that are algebraic re-arrangement of the usual Lorentz transformation -A picture with an alternative geometric representation of variables used in Lorentz transformation. I tried to google this one: No results found for "kinetic energy supplement". Can you explain what kinetic energy supplement is? I am sorry about this, hope we can keep in contact. Edited October 29, 2018 by vanholten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 9 minutes ago, vanholten said: I am sorry about this, hope we can keep in contact. Why are so unwilling to answer questions and explain your idea? Are you not able to? Because you don't understand your own idea? 53 minutes ago, vanholten said: Here is wiki link to the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments. This also interesting regarding the datapoints.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann_experiments I was not aware of these experiments. Interesting early confirmation of SR. Not sure how it relates to your idea or this thread. And you aren't going to explain so ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts