Connor Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 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. ciao[/quote'] where does the gravity approach infinity?
Severian Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 So you want us to accept your theory but your theory doesn't have time dilation? Is that correct? Since time dilation is an observable fact, isn't that rather bad for your theory?
nwaogu Posted February 22, 2006 Author Posted February 22, 2006 Cool lets look into this. according to relativity any matter can achieve any mass it want to get before it reachs the speed of light, c which is an upper limit of speed as their mass approachings infinity. So if earth approachs light's speed it can get a mass that can make it have a gravity as that of the black hole before it reachs c. With this earth will pull all light and matter that comes near it including its moon and orbiting satellites towards the centre of the earth. As such the light will be little reflected backwards as it strike the centre of the earth. and as such people in space will find it hard to see earth as it little reflect light backwards for vision like that of the black hole since its escape velocity is greater than c. people inside will also find it have to see themselves as the light entering earth will be little reflected and if strikes on an individual it will not be reflected backwards but instead towards the centre of the earth and as such things gets relatively darker on earth. So using Hawking's Ideas of the Black hole we have proved Einstein and his Relativity wrong somewhere and that is "Things gets darker from the outside and the inside even before it crosses light's speed although light still caught up with it. let's call this the General theory of Gravity-Contraction
nwaogu Posted February 22, 2006 Author Posted February 22, 2006 missing mass don't all th time contract the universe unlike what we said previously, we sometimes think they simply make the universe seem to extend in infinity without seeming to be no matter. When rays of light comes too close to the gravity of a missing mass, it will be accelerated towards its centre since they have much gravity due to their huge speed and as such the rays of light will not be seen by any one else and so it will appear as if the star doesn't exist, but if it is not so close to the missing mass's gravity, and the gravity has not so much effect or influence on it, it will only be obsure and seem to have move away from its point. in some cases the observer might think the star moved forward towards it (contraction seem to occur), in some cases the opposite (enlargement seem to occur). massive bodies will only obsure light, but can absorb it only if its speed is so large enough that its mass is infinite and gravity approaches infinity and matches that of the black hole. Some times galaxies might not truely be galaxies but because of the contraction (or distortion) in space, brings the two different stars close to each other and it seems like it is difficult for them to leave or expand away from each other after such a long period of time. To understand this particular idea, read the book: "Why Galaxies might not be truely Galaxies" on http://www.lulu.com/ddnpmfng. it illustrates this portion diagramatically.
Klaynos Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 I really do think you should read up on reference frames....
YT2095 Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 erm, I might be wrong here, but as an observer traveling at near C, don`t objects appear to bend Inwards along the trajectory and that it would be possible to see Behind an object before you even got there. non of this "Vanishing" stuff, unless you`re on about Red/blue shift, which isn`t exactly vanishing, it`s just hitting your eye at a faster frequency and may become "Out of Range" in the UV and above spectrum. Just a thought
zebov Posted February 25, 2006 Posted February 25, 2006 nwaogu, I'm having a hard time trying to follow what your theory actually IS. Can you state your theory in a single sentence to allow me to understand better what you are saying (eg. "Gravity changes the direction of light propagation." or "Gravity and light are the same thing" or etc. etc.). One concise sentence please.
ydoaPs Posted February 25, 2006 Posted February 25, 2006 So if earth approachs light's speed it can get a mass that can make it have a gravity as that of the black hole before it reachs c. with respect to what? i think it was swonsont who said somthing along the ines of "asking an objects speed is like asking "what is the difference between a duck?""
nwaogu Posted March 4, 2006 Author Posted March 4, 2006 we believe we were wrong about Gravity not slowing time. we admit to our mistakes. but, before approaches c, we believe they get relatively dark from the outside and the inside using the science of the black hole that light will be accelerated towards its gravity and very little might be reflected and since there is little reflection, there will be little vision both inside and outside since all matters even an electron can acertain the gravity of the black hole before its speed equals c as when v approaches c, mass approaches infinity and thus will its gravity and escape velocity. that's all we have to say.
nwaogu Posted April 1, 2006 Author Posted April 1, 2006 Hmm, Lets say it will be completely erroneous to say that: "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 contracted in size. This is because the particles in the universe are all in constant high speed" As we said in our first statement in our GRAND theory of Relativity. This idea is only correct in 1 condition and that is if the moving vessel is moving at the same speed as the outwards moving galaxies been observed as predicted in our theory and General theory of Relative Motion and the theory of Anti-velocity, which supports the idea that the outward moving galaxies' velocity will be reduced by the speed of the moving vessel if moving at the speed direction and contraction will be smaller and the inverse or vice-versa occurs if moving at opposite direction and thus contraction increases. It is best to make observations in space (EVH that is space-walking) if the thing been observed is moving at the opposite direction to earth and it is best to make observations here on earth or a moving rocket if the thing observed is moving at the same direction as earth or the moving rocket. It is best to read up on the books: "The Theory of Relative Motion" "The General Theory of Relative Motion" "The General Theory of Relative Motion 2" "The Theory of Anti-Velocity" at http://www.lulu.com/ddnpmfng The Mathematical Expression of the Above Statement conforms to that of the Fitzgerald-lorentz contraction as explained by Einstein with the equation LR = L0 (/1-v2/c2) When LR is the relavistic length, L0 is the length at rest, / is the square root sign, v2 is the velocity squared and c is the speed of light squared Thanks Dominic and Donatus Nwaogu DDNPMF Nigeria http://ddnpmfng.tripod.com/
Shwarzchild Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Light is constant. If you had 2 photons traveling in opposite directions, they would still be traveling the speed of light relativistically to each other. Once you approach the speed of light a lot of strange things happen. Your length decreases, your mass increases, and time slows down from an observers view. It is impossible to travel the speed of light because light has no mass. The equation for time dialation: Time dialation= Time of the origional/square root of 1- Velocity squared/speed of light squared The equation for Length contraction: Length observed= Length of the orgional x square root of 1- Velocity squared/speed of light squared The equation for Mass increase: Mass observed= Mass of the orgional/square root of 1- Velocity squared/speed of light squared. /= divide x= multiply
swansont Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Light is constant. If you had 2 photons traveling in opposite directions' date=' they would still be traveling the speed of light relativistically to each other.[/quote'] You really can't say that, because the frame of a photon is not a valid inertial frame.
mimefan599 Posted April 16, 2006 Posted April 16, 2006 Man, this isn't very scientific but if you are going to post something, wipe off your grammar. Sometimes it is very hard to interperet what you are trying to say, nwaogu. Plus I think your science is quite off.
mooeypoo Posted May 23, 2006 Posted May 23, 2006 Kids, Kids!!! Instead of lecturing us, try to listen to us. Share your ideas with the expectation of input, not with the attempt to "educate" us. My physics education is quite limited to High School major, and to my curiousity and love of the subject. You will NOT see me argue with those who actually have degrees in it. They've studied it long, hard, and know much more than me. I might ask, doubt, and raise questions, but lecture them? Not really. You don't yet have your own proffessurship. Don't lecture. Listen. It just got me frustrated; instead of people showing you why you are wrong in some points and right in others, people mock you. They don't mock you because your are wrong, they mock you because you presume to lecture them. It's really too bad. You can have such insightful input that will lead you to better conclusions. Debates and Question-asking and DOUBT is what science relies on. Don't keep your noses so high up, you ignore scientific advancements. Geesh, you're only 16, you got your entire life to lecture people. ~moo
alt_f13 Posted June 11, 2006 Posted June 11, 2006 Am I moving this to "Speculations" then? speculation Noun 1.Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation. 2.A conclusion' date=' opinion, or theory reached by conjecture. 3.Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition. [/quote'] Maybe there should be a forum titled "Pseudospeculation and Metarelativity." Or would that be "Metaspeculation and Pseudorelativity." Or The "I'm smater than Einstein" Section
Klaynos Posted June 11, 2006 Posted June 11, 2006 would it just auto delete? And here was I thinking this thread was dead
ydoaPs Posted April 27, 2008 Posted April 27, 2008 HannonRJ: Yes. Using nothing but newtoniam mechanics. Mind showing us?
insane_alien Posted April 27, 2008 Posted April 27, 2008 i would be interested in seeing that as well as it is trivial to make a computer model using newtonian mechanics for the entire solar system and even to add in the effects of nearby stars. they don't produce anywhee near the amount of precession we see. GR does. and it does so spectacularly well.
Severian Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 Am I moving this to "Speculations" then? Deletion would seem more appropriate. The poster clearly has no wish to enter into reasoned debate.
Sayonara Posted April 28, 2008 Posted April 28, 2008 Deletion would seem more appropriate. The poster clearly has no wish to enter into reasoned debate. The poster hasn't responded for over a year. This debacle was bumped by HannonRJ.
swansont Posted April 29, 2008 Posted April 29, 2008 Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession has been moved to its own thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32591 If anyone wants to discuss the "anti-relativity" of the OP, PM me and I'll unlock the thread. Otherwise, I think it's best to leave it be.
Recommended Posts