A New Relativity is born, An Anti-Relativity

[nwaogu]

The below theories were developed by us when we saw something wrong with Einstein's Theories of Relativity.

 

we will like to tell you that when someone is on a moving vessel such as the earth or a rocket almost to that of the outwards moving galaxies,you will see the universe much more like it really is, but when you are stationary you will see that the universe tends to look constrasted in size.this is because the particles in the universe are all in constant high speed

the more things approach light's speed the more you tend to varnish into thin air because of the light isnt able to expose all parts of them every well as usual but when they deccelerate they will then be exposed very well as usual, this is due to the observer cant see all the parts of the moving object because of its high speed and therefore sums up the little seen as the new size of the object.

this means that missing mass appears little by little to us.

this is the GRAND theory of relativity.

 

ITS PREDICTIONS

 

1. It will be better to make observations of the space here on earth than in space with telescopes since we will be moving as earth is moving and the space will little or no be contracted in size.

 

2. If the Earth start moving at almost light's speed, two people standing together will find it hard to see each other as each other tends to varnish into thin air and this is because there is little or no light reaching earth and can be proved when an observer observing the almost light's speed moving earth tend to look smaller in size as the liitle he or she sees is sumed up as the new size of earth as light is not able to expose all its parts.

 

According to Einsteinian Relativity, gravity and speed slows time down as clocks ticks slowly.

 

Isn't clock a machine, The gravity might have simply made the clock heavier and thus the ticking hands and machineries inside the clock moves slowly as the battery can't move it due to its huge mass and thus it looses time.

That goes to atomic and LCD watches, the vibration might be smaller to make the watch to tell the time correctly as the atom or crystal gets heavier relatively.

 

Things moving at thereabout light's speed will cause more g-force that will make the clock inside it heavy to tell time accurately and as gravity reduces they tell time more better.

 

Speed might actually slow time as distance shrinks and time slows down but that doesn't go for gravity.

 

Lower gravity actually makes time slow down not stronger gravity. Since astronauts in space orbiting around earth feeling weightless due to less gravity but when they come back to earth, are few seconds younger.

This is because lower gravity makes time actually slow down.

This is the theory of time-speed.

A Part of Relativity.

 

Gravity don't slow time but clocks, because they are 2 independent quantities from each other.

Clocks where only used to measure time and that dont mean that if are inaccurate due to certain problems with the environment that time slows down.

No!

Strong Gravity slows down clocks because they add to their weight to make them massive to move or respond to the vibration (atomic and LCD Watches) or torque for Quartz watches just like a bar magnet attracts the hands of the clocks and cause them not to move.

So we dont say that strong magnet slows time and so that should go to gravity

In hour glass, the opposite happens.

Strong gravity makes the sand massive and thus they fall down to the lower glass faster and make time faster and proves our own theory correct that Lower gravity slows time and stronger gravity dont slow time.

 

If you accelerate 1 clock of the 2 identical clocks you have together, the one moving runs slow due to increase in mass than the stationary one but in hour glass, the one moving is more faster in telling time than the one stationary.

So clocks cant tell us if time truely slows down or not.

Only if the matter ages less or decay less can we believe that time slow down

 

cool huh?

[swansont]

Isn't clock a machine' date=' The gravity might have simply made the clock heavier and thus the ticking hands and machineries inside the clock moves slowly as the battery can't move it due to its huge mass and thus it looses time.

That goes to atomic and LCD watches, the vibration might be smaller to make the watch to tell the time correctly as the atom or crystal gets heavier relatively.[/quote']

 

But the effect is the same no matter what the specific oscillation mechanism. If it were a mechanic effect it should vary with different designs. In actuality, it all falls out of the speed of light being invariant in inertial frames of reference.

 

 

cool huh?

 

No, not really.

[starbug1]

I saw the title, "...an anti-relativity" and knew it was crackpot right away.

Everything's relative; anti-relativity is not.

 

Things moving at thereabout light's speed will cause more g-force that will make the clock inside it heavy to tell time accurately and as gravity reduces they tell time more better.

 

G-force does not affect the forward motion of the clock's velocity, and the down g-force is the same acting upon a stationary clock. Again, it's relative.

 

The below theories were developed by us when we saw something wrong with Einstein's Theories of Relativity.

 

Where did you find this? do you have any links.

[nwaogu]

astronauts who go to space and spend time there eg. 3 months orbiting the earth where there is zero-g or no gravity due to the proof of their weightlessness and there clocks are said to tick time faster than that on earth, when they return why do they come back few seconds younger than who stayed on the earth's surface where clocks tick slowly , when they are to age more than we here on earth.

Since strong gravity slows time as to you guys.

We guess this is a standing prove to our theory that lesser gravity truely slows time.

Einstein was wrong.

 

Huh?

 

In candle clocks, Gravity doesnt in any way affect it, only oxygen.Water clocks, in places of more gravity there is faster rate of telling time as gravity makes the water fall at higher rate to the groung proving us correct. In Sun dial, gravity too doesnt affect it.

So which one are we going to believe in.

 

Huh?

 

astronauts who go to space and spend time there eg. 3 months orbiting the earth where there is zero-g or no gravity due to the proof of their weightlessness and there clocks are said to tick time faster than that on earth, when they return why do they come back few seconds younger than who stayed on the earth's surface where clocks tick slowly , when they are to age more than we here on earth.

Since strong gravity slows time as to you guys.

We guess this is a standing prove to our theory that lesser gravity truely slows time.

Einstein was wrong.

 

Huh?

 

when Earth or any other matter in the universe approachs near light's speed.

According to Einstein, the Matter will look contracted although inside of the matter remains as light as before, because the light will approach the matter at equal speed.

 

Isn't that weird.

 

Wouldn't the gravity of earth increase as the mass increase and wouldn't the gravity affect the path at which the light are coming to strike on it when it starts approaching near light's speed.

Using the Spread-Sheet of Einstein, The earth will cause an immensed dip into the sheet which looks like its area of gravity.

The light will definitely fall into the great gravity of the earth and thus move inwards into its gravity and not strike the earth as usual and thus becomes darker and look contracted ( an observer looking at this will not see all part of Earth and sum up the ones seen as the new size of the object as our GRAND Theory of Relativity says which makes object approaching light's speed look more contracted as explained by the Fitzgerald-Lorentz Contraction and later becomes a flat disk before varnishing when little or no light is getting to it ) and may might strike on its moon or the man-made satellites if lucky enough.

 

This is The Theory of Gravity-Contraction

 

This is in conflict with Relativity, huhSeems like we made a mistake. We intended adding that it will seems to be little or no gravity no neccessaryly little or no gravity alone.

Any way, the idea is still correct.

the astronauts will still be feeling lesser gravity than we on earth since the higher you go the lesser the gravity on you and the more your clocks tick out time faster. So how do they come back few seconds younger than us on earth.

 

Hmm! it is time to think.

 

In the famous "Twin Paradox", when a twin leaves his twin behind and go for a journey at near-light-speed for quite a long period of time and comes back to find out that his twin has aged faster than he did.

 

This Paradox will prove us right.

 

A space shuttle is let's say 0.000001 (one-millionth), Earth's mass and when it goes into space, before it's gravity matches that of Earth's, it has to go 1000000 times Earth's orbiting velocity.

 

Isn't it

 

If say Earth's orbiting speed is 3 km per seconds (so small, we did it to make sure we arent wrong), the space shuttle has to move 3 million Km per seconds before its gravity matches that of earth

 

huh?

 

That is 10 times the speed of light and according to Relativity, no physical entity can go over or at light's speed (using your belief against you)

 

So the space shuttle's g-force cant reach earth's gravity and so the person in the shuttle will experience lesser gravity.

 

So the twin who will come back younger according to the twin paradox experienced lesser gravity while in space.

 

What a triumph for our theory as his time in space will run faster than that of his twin on earth and still he ages lesser.

 

The opposite occurs. Einstein was proved wrong with his theory.

What a shame.

 

We now proposed a new theory "if your clocks ticks faster than normal as seen on earth, you age slower than if you were on earth and vice-versa"

[nwaogu]

As sun do obsure the light coming from a near by star due to its gravity and make the star seem to be nearer to it than usual as far as the observer is concern so as the missing mass do to stars but this time more worse.

 

A star that is very far away from other galaxies and is may be the outermost in the universe, when it sends out light and this light maybe passes across a missing mass that has so much immense gravity, the light will be bent by the missing mass' gravity towards the missing mass and as such an observer near by might think the star is very close to the very inwards missing mass and as such think that the universe is much more smaller than it really is as the star doesnt any more appear outermost to him but instead a little bit inner.

 

What a contraction!.

[J'Dona]

astronauts who go to space and spend time there eg. 3 months orbiting the earth where there is zero-g or no gravity due to the proof of their weightlessness and there clocks are said to tick time faster than that on earth' date=' when they return why do they come back few seconds younger than who stayed on the earth's surface where clocks tick slowly , when they are to age more than we here on earth.

Since strong gravity slows time as to you guys.

We guess this is a standing prove to our theory that lesser gravity truely slows time.[/quote']Astronauts do experience gravity though: at an altitude of a few hundred kilometres (the domain of all manned space-flight today), gravity is about 95% that of the Earth's surface. They simply move perpendicular to the Earth's surface so fast that as they "fall" they miss the ground, to oversimplify somewhat. If there were no gravity, and no force pulling on them, then why are the astronauts moving in an orbit instead of a straight line?

 

Also, if it were zero-gravity and yet a higher but finite rate of passage of time as you say, for the reasons you give, then to be consistant with your previous examples of objects disappearing to nothing by Lorentz contraction, the length would presumably have to be non-zero as well; alternatively, the time would need to be infinite. (In Special Relativity these changes are of course described by the term gamma, (1 - u²/c²)^-1/2, which you are familiar with.) If you are using different terms for changes in both mass, time, and length then I expect you can provide equations, and demostrate how these are consistant with experimental data which currently agrees with relativity.

 

In candle clocks, Gravity doesnt in any way affect it, only oxygen.Water clocks, in places of more gravity there is faster rate of telling time as gravity makes the water fall at higher rate to the groung proving us correct. In Sun dial, gravity too doesnt affect it.

So which one are we going to believe in.

Actually, hot air rises depending on gravity. On spacecraft, where gravity is not zero but where the surrounding environment is in free-fall with the candle, candle flames are extremely dim and spread in all directions.

 

A space shuttle is let's say 0.000001 (one-millionth), Earth's mass and when it goes into space, before it's gravity matches that of Earth's, it has to go 1000000 times Earth's orbiting velocity.

A space shuttle has far, far less than a millionth of the Earth's mass, but let's say this is true for the sake of argument. But what is this about its gravity? What you've described above is the speed at which the shuttle would need to move for its momentum to match that of the Earth's—and only assuming that momentum increased linearly with velocity, which is incorrect at high speeds due to relativity.

 

If say Earth's orbiting speed is 3 km per seconds (so small, we did it to make sure we arent wrong), the space shuttle has to move 3 million Km per seconds before its gravity matches that of earth

The Earth orbits at about 30 kms^-1, actually. At any rate, the Sun we orbit moves as well, and so does the galaxy we are in. In fact, there's no reason to think that the Earth doesn't move incredibly quickly like any other body in the universe; we certainly aren't stationary.

 

That is 10 times the speed of light and according to Relativity, no physical entity can go over or at light's speed (using your belief against you)

In what you must consider to be a deadly coup de grâce, you are really only demonstrating here that you consider this topic to involve beliefs, rather than science. What you have said does no damage to the predictive accuracy of relativity because the argument itself was a strawman.

 

So the twin who will come back younger according to the twin paradox experienced lesser gravity while in space.

 

What a triumph for our theory as his time in space will run faster than that of his twin on earth and still he ages lesser.

 

The opposite occurs. Einstein was proved wrong with his theory.

What a shame.

 

We now proposed a new theory "if your clocks ticks faster than normal as seen on earth, you age slower than if you were on earth and vice-versa"

So you are saying that time passes more quickly for objects which are moving at higher speeds? This is demonstrably false: the presence of clocks (atomic clocks, which are less subject to physical effects than entirely mechanical clocks) on fast-moving aircraft, spacecraft, and satellites have determined this many times, and this is described very well by relativity.

[amrit]

nwaogu: Speed might actually slow time as distance shrinks and time slows down but that doesn't go for gravity.

 

Lower gravity actually makes time slow down not stronger gravity. Since astronauts in space orbiting around earth feeling weightless due to less gravity but when they come back to earth, are few seconds younger.

This is because lower gravity makes time actually slow down.

This is the theory of time-speed.

A Part of Relativity.

 

Amrit: Gravitational force is the result of density D of space. The speed of physical time (motion) depends on the density D.

The idea that space could have a granular structure and density has about 15 years. Space should be build up out of quanta of space (QS) of the size of Planck. When I came across this idea, it came to my mind that granular structure of space is deeply related with its geometry, lets say with the curvedness of space. More space is curved, more space is dense. Round distribution of QS around the mass is making space round. I was thinking for a long time how to put this idea in math form and one beautiful day it came into my mind: density of space D is in relation with mass m according to the formula:

 

D = m x G

 

D is density of the object its centre

M is a mass of the object

G here is gravitational constant.

 

In every formula of physics m can be changed with D/G.

 

Formula for gravitational force Fg between two objects, r is the distance between the centre of the objects

Fg = (D1 x D2) (r square x G)

 

Formula for gravitational acceleration g, where r is the radius of the planet (star)

 

g = D/ r on square

 

……all other formula can be develop in this way

 

They show clearly that Fg, a, time dilatation, kinetic energy, light bending ……..depends on the density of space D

 

see more: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4321

 

yours, amrit

[nwaogu]

The nature of the Black hole can be explained by the theory of Gravity-Contraction.

 

As the black hole has one of the immersed gravity ever known, all the light’s passing near-by will be sucked into its gravity and none will be left to expose it to the naked eyes and that is why it is called the “Black” hole as it can’t be seen.

This is what happens to earth when it approaches near light’s speed.

It can’t be seen even if you are also traveling at near light’s speed.

Its gravity becomes so dense not necessarily like the black hole as explained by our theory of Gravity-Contraction, but dense that light can still fall on it and expose it but not so much.

 

Thanks

Dominic and Donatus Nwaogu

DDNPMF Nigeria

[[Tycho?]]

Why do so many people think they can outsmart the smartest people of the last 100 years with no physics education at all? Seriously. Its like saying you could beat up Mike Tyson. No you can't you idiot, what the hell are you thinking?

[Connor]

you don't understand much about... relativity... do you?

 

All these cases that "contradict" Eintstein's theories... were predicted by Einstein's theories...

 

Where did you get these ideas about his relativity?

[nwaogu]

hay wait a minute Mr. fast guy.

who told you that a space shuttles mass is actually one-millionth the mass of earth.

we just wrote that to make the mass so big.

a true space shuttle should have a mass of lets say 0.000000000001 (one-trillionth earth mass) and before that shuttle matches earth's mass it will need more than light's speed ©.

even at one-millionth it was 0.943, talk-less of one-trillionth.

Got it?

[J'Dona]

Well, yes ... and it really didn't matter anyway, which is why I said "let's say this is true for the sake of argument," i.e. I was ignoring the point so that I could just consider your argument. You were still considering its momentum, though, for reasons I can't understand as you had been talking about gravity. Can you explain what you were doing there?

 

Why do you say it would need "more than light's speed" to reach the Earth's mass, though? You know that the mass of an object tends to infinity as the speed tends to c, and from what I can work out an object with a millionth the Earth's mass would need to travel at about 0.9999999999995c to match it.

 

Edit: Embarrassing grammatical error

[swansont]

hay wait a minute Mr. fast guy.

who told you that a space shuttles mass is actually one-millionth the mass of earth.

we just wrote that to make the mass so big.

a true space shuttle should have a mass of lets say 0.000000000001 (one-trillionth earth mass) and before that shuttle matches earth's mass it will need more than light's speed ©.

even at one-millionth it was 0.943' date=' talk-less of one-trillionth.

Got it?[/quote']

 

To paraphrase Charles Babbage: I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement.

 

You need to understand relativity before you can hope to critique it.

[nwaogu]

You may one day understand our reasons why we said all we said

[Tom Mattson]

0.9999999999995c is nothing but c to us' date=' but you dont see that.

[/quote']

 

You are wrong. An object moving with speed 0.9999999999995c is equivalent to a frame that is at rest, via a Lorentz transformation. The same cannot be said of an object moving with speed c.

 

it might be 299,999 KM/secs and just needing only 1 km to reach light's speed.

if something cant get to light's speed, it will be increasingly difficult for it to get to 0.9999999999995c which is almost c itself.

 

Yes, the principle of diminishing returns does apply. So?

[nwaogu]

Some of the books we published have been delected especailly those saying gravity dont slow time.

this is to make sure we arent just saying something we arent very sure of.

 

As there arent enough proves to our claims.

[nwaogu]

......

[Jacques]

Who are "we" . Are you part of a group ?

I don't see proof I just see claims

[Tom Mattson]

As there arent enough proves to our claims.

 

When you formulate an intelligible claim, then the community here will decide for themselves whether or not it has merit. But as long as you continue to spout the same mental sewage your claims are at best undecidable.

[Severian]

So can you correctly predict the perhelion of Mercury?

[insane_alien]

does he even knowwhat a perihelion is?

[nwaogu]

when Earth or any other matter in the universe approachs near light's speed.

According to Einstein' date=' the Matter will look contracted although inside of the matter remains as light as before, because the light will approach the matter at equal speed.

 

Isn't that weird.

 

Wouldn't the gravity of earth increase as the mass increase and wouldn't the gravity affect the path at which the light are coming to strike on it when it starts approaching near light's speed.

Using the Spread-Sheet of Einstein, The earth will cause an immensed dip into the sheet which looks like its area of gravity.

The light will definitely fall into the great gravity of the earth and thus move inwards into its gravity and not strike the earth as usual and thus becomes darker and look contracted ( an observer looking at this will not see all part of Earth and sum up the ones seen as the new size of the object as our GRAND Theory of Relativity says which makes object approaching light's speed look more contracted as explained by the Fitzgerald-Lorentz Contraction and later becomes a flat disk before varnishing when little or no light is getting to it ) and may might strike on its moon or the man-made satellites if lucky enough.

 

This is The Theory of Gravity-Contraction

 

This is in conflict with Relativity[/quote']

 

 

The light will not strike on the earth as usual in the sense that the mass of earth will start approaching infinte and its gravity will start approaching infinite and so will its escape velocity.

This causes rays of light to be affected by its gravity and thus all the rays of light will be accelerated towards the centre of the earth and reflection of the light when it hits an obstacle minimizes and as such vision of things minimizes as there are little rays of light to cause vision of an object.

 

this is an extension of the theory of gravity-contraction

[zebov]

How, nwaogu, would you explain clocks that are unaffected by gravity measuring time differently at different speeds? (By "unaffected by gravity", I will mean that it's physical orientation to its Gravitational Force vector has very little affect on the time [much less than the effect of the relative speed]).

 

If you are to answer this question, please do so concisely as I despise long-winded, skirt-the-issue, responses.

[nwaogu]

In our theory of Gravity-contraction, wouldn't of course the moons and the man-made satellites of the earth be drawn into the centre of the earth, of course Yes, that is when it starts approaching light's speed as its gravity approaches infinite.

 

Excuse us, Zebov, we are off the idea that Gravity don't slow time and so we don't want to go further in any thing to do with Relativity and Time-Dilation.

sorry for the inconvinence but we just don't want to go into that anymore.

 

ciao

[swansont]

In our theory of Gravity-contraction' date=' wouldn't of course the moons and the man-made satellites of the earth be drawn into the centre of the earth, of course Yes, that is when it starts approaching light's speed as its gravity approaches infinite.

 

Excuse us, Zebov, we are off the idea that Gravity don't slow time and so we don't want to go further in any thing to do with Relativity and Time-Dilation.

sorry for the inconvinence but we just don't want to go into that anymore.

 

ciao[/quote']

 

"Off the idea" in that you don't think it's right, or that you don't want to discuss it?