Negative Special Relativity

[Klaynos]

I am not trying to undermine relative reference, since this is how mathematics views the universe. But if one thinks in terms of practical special relativity (needs energy to occur), then one can begin to guage absolute measures of special relativity.

 

I'm sorry, but you are WRONG! You need to go and find some reference material for special relativity, and try to understand it.

 

Please...

[sunspot]

I think I understand my confusion. If we look at relative reference and special relativity the reference affect that everyone has presented is indeed valid for distance and time. But it is not valid for relativistic mass. The only reference that will actually gain relativistic mass will have to have energy inputted into them, since E=MC2. We can not gain or lose mass just by observing a relative reference.

 

If I was on my spaceship traveling near C, time and distance, will be relative, but relativistic mass will be not. Only the spaceship, due to the energy input needed to reach relativistic speeds will show mass increase. This relativistic mass increase is one aspect of what I called practical special relativity. I call it mass potential. Practical special relativity is a special case of relative reference special relativity. It is the reference with the mass increase.

 

Practical special relativity is more than just mass increase, it also shows practical relativity in distance contraction and time dilation, that are also a practical affect caused by the energy input. For example, space is actually pulled into the practical reference. If I could cut the netting and allow space to expand, I could drive a work cycle with the expansion of space. I call this aspect of the practical special realtivity distance potential. The energy input will also cause practical special relativity in time. This could also be used for work. I call this time potential.

 

Practical special relativity is more than just relative reference, it is based on the reference that contains the potential energy store in mass, distance and time potential. With the laws of physics the same in all references, including the practical special relativity reference, the relativistic changes in mass, distance and time, due to the energy input, are able to adjust all the laws of physics. Or all the laws of physics can be expressed in terms of various combinations of mass, distance and time potential.

[Klaynos]

Firstly, you are wrong. Please see the above arguments.

 

Practical special relativity is more than just mass increase' date=' it also shows practical relativity in distance contraction and time dilation,[/quote']

 

Secondly it shows NOTHING, you have provided no maths or testable predictions.

[sunspot]

The data I showed in an earier post, was the half life of an accelerator particle increasing, i.e., proof time dilation does indeed occur as was predicted by the math. Also particles in accelerators will increase their relativistic mass and start placing a drag on the equipment. Nothing different happened to the scientists or the controlled samples that sat nearby in their relative reference. The energy input created these practical special relativity affects. The stationary reference had no practical special relativity affects because it did not recieve the neccesary energy.

[Janus]

The data I showed in an earier post, was the half life of an accelerator particle increasing, i.e., proof time dilation does indeed occur as was predicted by the math. Also particles in accelerators will increase their relativistic mass and start placing a drag on the equipment. Nothing different happened to the scientists or the controlled samples that sat nearby in their relative reference. The energy input created these practical special relativity affects. The stationary reference had no practical special relativity affects because it did not recieve the neccesary energy.

 

Which does absolutely nothing towards supporting your interpretation of Relativity.

 

The transforms between frames in relative motion explain these experiments quite nicely.

 

Once again, you are just taking the results of these experiments, and trying to fill in the causes by yourself, rather than actually learning the theory and what it says on the matter.

[sunspot]

Let me give another anology that may get my point across better. If someone was to walk into a house of mirrors, their reflection will be everywhere. Others can stand in many places and still watch what that person is doing. This is the practical strength of relative reference and special relativity. One can see same things from many references such that all the activities of the person (laws of physics) will appear the same to all the references.

 

On the other hand, if that person physically walks into the reference area one is in, such that he is no longer a 2-D reflection (distance and time), but now have substance (also mass), one is still seeing what everyone else is seeing. This practical reference is just a special case of relative reference. But the difference is the extra third dimension (mass). One no longer has a flat or 2-D reference but essentially a 3-D reference that can get other senses involved including the sense of depth. One can touch (practical experiments) and even smell the person, something that can not happen with any of the purely relative references.

 

In an earier post I mentioned how, with the electron moving a good fraction of C, it defines a practical special relativity reference with respect to a hydrogen proton nucleus. The latter is more connected to our earth reference (as a first approximation). We tradtionally put both the electron and proton in the same reference for analysis, even though they occupy two different practical references. If we go back to our house of mirror, if a second person enterred from another area, but both people appear in a relative reference as being close together, one may assume they are both in the same space. This may or may not be true, but that is how it will appear from that relative reference. If we instead look in terms of practical reference one would notice that they are not together in 3-D but only 2-D. We can define them in 2-D (distance, time) with great practical utility. Maybe that is enough. But I tried to see them in terms of their practical references so I could also include their energy differences and the practical affects that should result their MDT practical special relativity.

 

That is why I am lobbying for practical reference because it can shed some new light on phenomena that exist in many practical references. I am not trying to confuse things or make things harder. It takes a little getting used to but it allows one to model physics in three variables, since the laws of physics stays the same in all relative and practical references, with the practical references only varing by the amount of energy in mass, distance and time relativity.

 

If I was to guess a possbile source of confusion it is connected to using energy when dealing with relative references. The relative orientation is based on what we see, which only needs energy (light) to be made possible. Light or energy has no mass, so mass is not needed for relative references, by default. The practical reference also uses mass and is therefore more useful when dealing with mass between references. This is where all the forces of nature are active. If we use the practical relativity reference with mass potential equal to zero, we get energy and relative reference. In this respect, relative reference is a special case of practical reference.

[sunspot]

One of the lines of reasoning that appeared to necessitate a practical reference was connected to common matter. If we look at the proton, electron and maybe neutron, these subparticle composites last as long as the universe. They were created at the beginning and will continue to exist maybe all the way to the end.

 

In the lab we have also catalgued a wide range of subparticles and subparticle composites, but almost all these only last for a tiny fraction of time. There are essentially no subparticle composites that exist within the intermediate ranges of time, yet the electron, proton and neutron have the same building blocks as the less stable composites. The particle composites of common matter seem to act as though there are in a highly time dilated reference. In their practical reference, they may last as long as the unstable composites do in our reference, but in our reference they appear to be almost eternal due to time dilation. The perspective that matter is sort of condensed energy was consitent with this. They were not moving at C but very close to C ,in a very tiny region of space in our reference. This would also explain why mass and energy can interconvert so easy without any intermediate things, i.e., tiny step either way.

 

How this could be theoretically possible could be explain as follows. During the creation of the universe, when gravity and relativity affects were extreme, potential energy was stored in the practical special relativity of these composites. Space continued to expand with these primal composites retaining they time dialation to become external particles that will last as long as the universe. This parallel allows the large and the small of the universe to run on the same time schedule with respect to our relative reference.

 

One of the possible conceptual problems with this premise is, when we think in terms of special relativity and relative reference usually the velocity will alter the mass, distance and time relativity, simultaneously. But these common matter composites were similar with respect to time dilation, but differed in their mass and how they appear to occupy space or distance. This led to the theory that mass, distance and time practical special relativity of these primal composite can change independantly of each other.

 

The independant angle was consistant with the way electron and proton appear in our reference. The proton has more mass or mass potential (potential energy in mass relativity) than the electron, while the electron appears to have more distance potential (ability to occupy distance through its faster velocty). Based on this thinking, it became possible to model any subparticle composite in terms of its mass, distance and time potential. The unstable lab composites have low time potential so they do not last long, but they can still show significant mass potential as well as significant distance potential.

 

The next related theory is the conservation of long phase. Long phase was a term I used to describe the highly time dilated composites of common matter (last a long time) to distinguish them from all the other low time dilated composites. The way this conservation principle worked was that long phase composite can alter their three parameters and their ratios, to create a wide range of states with the original composites being retained. But, if they lose too much time potential, they are lost forever. This could explain some of the particle state that occur in atom smasher type experiments. The time potential of the long phase, is sometimes converted to mass and distance potential with long phase lost forever. Based on this theory, this led to the theory that mass, distance and time potential were all interconvertable.

 

For example, the proton of a nucleus and the hydrogen proton of water, were the same types of long phase particles (hydrogen proton is older), but differentiated slightly in their parameter ratios. The hydrogen proton of water is more mobile indicating that it has more distance potential. The hydrogen proton also has more mass potential since nuclear fusion would decrease its mass potential if it was to become part of a higher atom. This parameter ratio difference would imply that there is a practical potential between the protons within the nucleus of oxygen of water and hydrogen protons on water's chemical perimeter. Water can not fuse the hydrogen protons but the practical potential could partially explain why hydrogen protons are so mobile in an aqueous continuum.

[swansont]

In the lab we have also catalgued a wide range of subparticles and subparticle composites, but almost all these only last for a tiny fraction of time. There are essentially no subparticle composites that exist within the intermediate ranges of time, yet the electron, proton and neutron have the same building blocks as the less stable composites.

 

The electron has no composites. Neutrons decay into protons. Protons don't decay because there's nothing for them to decay into — there's no lower energy system.

 

The particle composites of common matter seem to act as though there are in a highly time dilated reference. In their practical reference, they may last as long as the unstable composites do in our reference, but in our reference they appear to be almost eternal due to time dilation.

 

A proton at rest is in our reference frame, so there is no time dilation.

[sunspot]

You seem to miss the point. I was saying this tiny region of space that we call the proton is a tiny zone of extreme time dilation. Even if it is at rest in our reference, this tiny zone still defines time dilation. It is funny, nobody has a problem with strings, which have never been proven, yet to suggest a tiny zone of time dilation, it becomes speculation. Shouldn't all mention of string theory be dumped into speculations until it is proven? It is accepted because it has pratical value.

 

For those with an open mind, I would like to add another example to show how the model can make complex predictions with ease. My contention is that any particle and particle state can be expressed in terms of just three parameters, mass, distance and time potential. I equate these to special relativity. The way this is possible is tight orbits of near infinitessimal subunits traveling near the speed of light. The center of the orbit is in our earth reference, but the tiny subunits are in a relativistic reference. This has as much basis in proven fact as strings, but leads to a more practical model that does not require extra dimensions to do the same thing. The extra dimensions is a mathematical construct that should be considered speculation until it is proven in the lab, with hard data. If science excepts this without proof it is becoming philosophy.

 

Geting back to the MDT model, if we start with an oxygen nuclei with only one electron in the 1S orbital, if I was to input energy, at the correct quanta, I could knock the electron into the 2P orbital position associated with the chemical reactions of oxygen. The energy quanta, like all energy, has no mass but has wavelength and frequency. These define its energy value. The speed of light is common all all quanta from gamma to radio waves and is not a measure of energy potential. That is an artifact of the specfic distance and time potential called wavelength and frequency.

 

 

The distance and time potential of the energy quanta, or the energy stored as what we see as wavelength and frequency, is tranferred to the electron, causing the distance and time potential of the electron to increase by this energy value. There is no change in mass potential since the energy quanta has no mass (potential).

 

This new MDT state of the electron defines a chemical electron associated with an oxygen nucleus. The induced EM force potential is reflected in its new combination of MDT parameters. Or EM force is connected to coordinated changes in distance and time potential.

 

If we combine an electron and proton we can make a neutron. In this case the two original long phase particles are conserved to become a composite called the neutron. The neutron is not an original primal particle but a conserved combination the two original particles. The distance and time potential of the two; proton and electron, lower removing the EM force. The weak nuclear force shows the distance and time potential of the two particle composite fluctuating, allowing the EM force to weakly cycle in and out near its zero. We can increase the distance and time parameters and cause a neutron to break the composite allowing the electron and the proton to regain their charges. This is a good example of the conservation of the original primal particles.

[swansont]

You seem to miss the point. I was saying this tiny region of space that we call the proton is a tiny zone of extreme time dilation. Even if it is at rest in our reference' date=' this tiny zone still defines time dilation.

[/quote']

 

Call it something else, then. Time dilation is a well-defined phenomenon. This doesn't qualify.

[sunspot]

I am recycling nomenclature because it still appears to apply. Let me give a practical example that I already alluded to. If we start with a hydrogen atom that is stationary, relative to our reference, the electron is traveling with relativistic velocity. As such, the electron should be defining relativistic mass, distance and time due to its velocity, even though the atom, as whole, is stationary in our reference. So essentially the hydrogen atom is a combination of two distinct references.

 

The electron is both a particle and a wave. The electron is also hard to pin down in the space within an orbital. This uncertainty of location is expressed by the Hiessenberg uncertainty principle. Because there are two distinct reference affects, but we traditionally try to model the electron using only the stationary reference of the nucleus, one ends up with a level of uncertainy because the electron is not exactly within the zero reference. This is a good first approximation, but a more complete analysis needs to include the stationary and the relativistic reference.

 

If we were to take a snap shot of an orbital, to look at the electron, and if we could zoom in, what I believe one will see is an additional set of tiny relativistic particles also traveling near C, orbitting/spinning around the center of the electron. This expectation is not without precident since electrons display relativity around the stationary center of atoms. In the case of the electron center, one would see three tiny subparticles that I called mass, distance and time. The various ratios of their three relativistic velocities will define the properties of an electron.

 

I can not prove this sub-particle make-up of the electron any better than string theory can prove the existence of strings. However, if one extrapolates from this basic (unproven) premise, one can create a model this can go way beyond string theory, with greater simplicity. That is the only assumption that needs to be made, everything else is based on what we already know.

 

If we use this base (unproven) assumption and look at a proton, it can be stationary in our reference. But if we magnify it, it too will have the mass, distance and time sub-components traveling close to C in tight orbits around the center. Its mass relativistic velocity will be higher than an electron giving it more mass in our reference. It time component will be similar to the electron. While the distance component will have a slower velocity making it behave in a more stationary way compared to the mobility associated with the electron.

 

When an electron and proton interact, there is reference potential between the mass, distance and time parameters. All the forces of nature can be defined by various combinations of just these three potentials. For example, the EM force is the interaction of D and T, which is why it gives off energy as wavelength and frequency (DT). Gravity is essentially between M and D, while the nuclear force is between M and T. The weak nuclear force is when both DT and MT act at low D.

[swansont]

If we start with a hydrogen atom that is stationary, relative to our reference, the electron is traveling with relativistic velocity.

 

Please show a calculation that supports this.

[bascule]

Isn't saying "negative special relativity" like saying "negative Manchester" or "negative coloring book?"

 

No way, it makes perfect sense, like Negativeland

[sunspot]

The term negative special relativity was used to explain the type of adjustment one would need to make to go from relativistic to stationary reference, if one assumes the relativistic reference is the zero reference. In the relativistic reference, there is zero time dilation because I am calling it the zero reference. The stationary reference therefore appears as though its special relativity is going in a negative way with respect to this zeroed relativistic reference.