Does Relativity affect Radioactivity?

[nwaogu]

This will be proving our theories that are also against Einstenian Relativity right.

 

According to Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, time runs slow in places of lower gravity or in places of high speed.

 

With this we can conclude that "half life" of Radioactive Elements such as Uranium, Polonium etc will differ in other heavenly bodies like the moon, jupiter and other planets.

 

This is because the speed at which they are orbiting differs from that of Earth and also they have different gravitational pull from that of Earth.

 

With this we can conclude that Rate of Randomness Decay of Radioactive elements are directly proportional to gravity and inversely proportional to the speed of its containing vessel.

 

This is called the "Theory of Randomness Decay"

 

This theory above can be explained mathematically with our Nwaogu Relativity-Radioactivity Equation:

Let's see

H . G . 1/S

when H is the half life of the radioactive element and G is the gravity of the body the element contains, S is the speed at which the body is moving at and . means proportional.

 

With this we can get our equation

that is

H * S / G

and there can be a relationship, that is

H(1) * S(1) / G(1) = H(2) * S(2) / G(2)

 

when 1 is the 1st body and 2 is the 2nd body.

 

Now here is a question we can solve with our equation.

 

If uranium has a half life in Planet(1) of 5 mins which moves at 40 m/s and gravity of 4 m/s, and then it is taken to Planet(2) of garvity 4 m/s and speed 50 m/s. Calculate roughly its new half life.

 

5 * 40 / 4 = H(2) * 50 / 4

200 / 4 = H(2) * 50 / 4

200 * 4 = H(2) * 50 * 4

800 = H(2) * 200

H(2) = 800 / 200

H(2) = 4 mins

 

therefore its new half life is 4 mins

What a success!

 

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 slows down.

 

See topic: "A New Relativity is born, An Anti-Relativity"

[Klaynos]

With this we can conclude that "half life" of Radioactive Elements such as Uranium' date=' Polonium etc will differ in other heavenly bodies like the moon, jupiter and other planets.

[/quote']

 

The half-life would be the same in their rest frames.

[swansont]

According to Albert Einstein's theory of relativity' date=' time runs slow in places of lower gravity or in places of high speed.

[/quote']

 

 

Higher gravity, not lower.

[m4rc]

One example where relativity affects radioactivity is the decay of muons. Muons are created in the high atmosphere in a reaction between cosmic rays and the atmosphere. They have very short lifetime and if we assume newtonian mechanics, even if they travel at c they don't have enough time to reach the surface before decaying. However some do reach the surface of the earth because the lifetime of the muon undergoes time dilation. For more information see http://nobelprize.org/physics/educational/relativity/transformations-4.html or do a google search on muon and relativity.

[Tom Mattson]

Does Relativity affect Radioactivity?

 

Buddy' date=' the phenomenon of radioactivity is a [b']prediction[/b] of QFT, which is manifestly relativistic. Nonrelativistic theories do not and can not account for radioactivity because they do not acknowledge the existence of energy due to mass ([imath]E=mc^2[/imath]).

 

You will find comprehensive, noncontradictory relativistic descriptions of strong, weak, and EM decay processes in any number of modern books on QFT, if you take the trouble to look.

[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"

[swansont]

Huh?

 

Huh?

 

Huh?

 

huh?

 

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

-There is gravity is space' date=' you just feel weightless because of the perpetual freefall of orbit.

 

 

-The mechanical effects of gravity are distinct from the relativistic effects.

 

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

 

No idea where you got this. Gravity and speed aren't the same thing.

 

I think that you (whether that's singular or plural "you") don't have any idea about the details of relativity, so it's no wonder your "critique" of it is incomprehensable. Maybe you should take on one small section at a time, instead of attempting it all at once.

[Janus]

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.

Einstein was wrong.

[/quote'] A few points here.

A common misconception is that astronauts experience weightlessness due to being beyond the Earth's gravity. This is wrong. the strength of the Earth's gravity at the height of low Orbit has only decreased to 91% of that on the surface. The astronauts experience weightlessness because they are in freefall. You would experience the same type of weightlessness in an falling elevator( until it hit).

Another common misconception is that the time dilation due to gravity is due to the local strength of gravity, it is not, it is due to the difference in potential between the clocks being compared.

 

There are also two relativistic effects in play when considering an astronaut in orbit. One is due to his difference in gravitational potential, and the other is due to his relative velocity. The difference in gravitational potential will cause his clock to run fast by a factor of 1.000000313, and his relative velocity will cause his clock to run slow by a factor of 0.999996512.

When you multiply these two factors you will find that the net effect is that his clock runs slow by a factor of 0.999996826. And thus you do a complete analysis of the situation you find that Einstein predicts exactly what we see.

 

 

 

 

 

In candle clocks, Gravity doesnt in any way affect it, only oxygen.

take two identical candles in the exact same oxygen content, place them at different gravitational potentials and they will burn at different rate.

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.

Take two identical water clocks. Place one on the suface of Uranus(where the surface gravity is less than that on Earth). Put the other at an height above the Earth's surface so that the local gravity equals that of Uranus' surface, and you will find that the clock on Uranus' surface will run slower. Even though the gravitational force drivng each clock is equal This is because Uranus has a deeper gravitational field than the Earth does, and its clock will be at a different gravitational potential.

In Sun dial, gravity too doesnt affect it.

A sun dial does not measure local time rate, but the "motion" of a Heavenly body. Since this motion varies over time due to different influences, such astronomical time keeping has been abandoned for any time measurements that require any high accuracy.

 

 

 

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.

What is weird is that you think the wording of the above makes any sense.

 

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 gibberish

 

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.

Time to read what I posted above on this matter.

 

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.

Due to the Relative velocity the traveling twin has during the trip.

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.

This makes no sense. The Earth's orbital velocity has no effect on its gravity. And even if you were trying to invoke a relativistiv mass increase this is way off. Relativistic mass increase follows the rule of

[math]M_r = \frac{M_0}{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}[/math]

Earth's orbital velocity 30 km/sec. Assuming its rest mass is 1,000,000 "shuttles" its relativistic mass due to velocity is 1,000,000.005 "shuttles" . it only gains .005 of a shuttle in mass.

Using the same formula we can find that the shuttle would have to travel at .943 of c to reach this same mass. ( Not the ten times the speed of light you mention below)

 

 

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)

See above for correct calculations. You also seem to be laboring under a false impression as to the effect a relativistic increase in mass has on the gravity of an object. (another common misconception)

 

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

Which, as pointed out above, has a smaller influence on the shuttle's time rate than the relative velocity of the shuttle has.

 

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

 

In the Twin Paradox gravitational effects are ignored, because due to the high Realtive velocity of the Traveling twin, they cause a negliable effect.

 

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.

Again, two different Relativistic effects in play, with the one causing a slower time rate overshadowing the other.

 

And if you think that effect that velocity has is that it causes a mass increase, and the resulting gravity increase is what causes the clock to run slow, you are way off base. This is not what the theory predicts.

 

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"

 

Before you go around claiming to have proved Einstein wrong and proposing new theories, maybe you should actually learn what Einstein actually said

[nwaogu]

This will be proving our theories that are also against Einstenian Relativity right.

 

According to Albert Einstein's theory of relativity' date=' time runs slow in places of lower gravity or in places of high speed......

 

This theory above can be explained mathematically with our Nwaogu Relativity-Radioactivity Equation:

Let's see

H . G . 1/S

when H is the half life of the radioactive element and G is the gravity of the body the element contains, S is the speed at which the body is moving at and . means proportional.

 

With this we can get our equation

that is

H * S / G

and there can be a relationship, that is

H(1) * S(1) / G(1) = H(2) * S(2) / G(2)

 

when 1 is the 1st body and 2 is the 2nd body.

 

Now here is a question we can solve with our equation.

 

If uranium has a half life in Planet(1) of 5 mins which moves at 40 m/s and gravity of 4 m/s, and then it is taken to Planet(2) of garvity 4 m/s and speed 50 m/s. Calculate roughly its new half life.

 

5 * 40 / 4 = H(2) * 50 / 4

200 / 4 = H(2) * 50 / 4

200 * 4 = H(2) * 50 * 4

800 = H(2) * 200

H(2) = 800 / 200

H(2) = 4 mins

 

therefore its new half life is 4 mins

What a success!

 

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 slows down.

 

See topic: "A New Relativity is born, An Anti-Relativity"[/quote']

 

we didnt mean that einstein did say that lower gravity slow time down but you will figure that if you look carefully.

 

Seems like our previous Nwaogu Relativity-radioactivity egaution had a problem.

 

Let's see, it is:

H . S . 1/G

instead of H . G . 1/S

since half life and the rate of decay are 2 different quantites. The more the rate of decay, the less the half life in number.

For instance a radioactive element with half life of 1 min decays faster than that with 2 mins

when H is the half life of the radioactive element and G is the gravity of the body the element contains, S is the speed at which the body is moving at and . means proportional.

 

With this we can get our equation

that is

H * G / S

and there can be a relationship, that is

H(1) * G(1) / S(1) = H(2) * G(2) / S(2)

 

when 1 is the 1st body and 2 is the 2nd body.

 

Now here is a question we can solve with our equation.

 

If uranium has a half life in Planet(1) of 5 mins which moves at 40 m/s and gravity of 4 m/s, and then it is taken to Planet(2) of gravity 4 m/s and speed 50 m/s. Calculate roughly its new half life.

 

5 * 4 / 40 = H(2) * 4 / 50

20 / 40 = H(2) * 4 / 50

0.5 = H(2) * 4 / 50

0.5 * 50 = H(2) * 4

25 = H(2) * 4

H(2) = 25 / 4

H(2) = 6.25 mins

 

therefore its new half life is 6.25 mins

What a success!

[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?

[Janus]

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']

At one trillionth, the shuttle would have to travel at 0.9999999999999999995c

 

However, the actual mass ratio would be more like .0000000000000000000125

 

But the Shuttle would still only have to travel at less than c for its relativistic mass to equal the Earth . A quick check of the formula shows that as v approaches c, the factor by which the relativistic mass increases approaches infinity. So no matter how many times more massive the Earth is compared to the Shuttle, the Shuttle's Relativistic mas would equal the Earth's before it reached c.

 

I've got it, but apparently you haven't.

[nwaogu]

we see.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 therent enough proves to our claims.

[nwaogu]

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.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It would be nice if you took the time to respond to others' posts.

[Tom Mattson]

that's all we have to say.

 

Is that a promise?

[kenshin]

In all the posts I find that you have been heavyly condemed.I wont say you are right as you are not,but,your approach of dealing with subject(physics)is all most right.You can think good,thats well,but,you should read well too.You reminde me of my olden days when in ninth grade I was desperately trying to prove that E=MC^2 is wrong.I will suggest you read brian green or still better kleppner and kollenkow(introduction to mechanics),if you can handdle some maths.Also I liked the examples of various clocks what you quated.You can easyly stump a common man,but here no one is common.Start some good reading and you will find things changing.