Are Relativistic Resistances Misunderstood?

[swansont]

Principle 3

RR is a reversible process. This means that if no force pushes an object towards an absolute motion direction, the object will decelerate. The deceleration can be calculated using the Lorenz equation as shown.

The Lorentz equation does not have a deceleration, and you have not shown that such a deceleration has been observed.

[Bjarne]

The Lorentz equation does not have a deceleration,

 

This is true.

But we know it requires ever more energy to reach a diminishing speed increment.

We do know that an object's speed increment causes energy and therefore also mass increment.

Due to mass increment, the curvature of space near a moving object also increases.

 

The question is therefore, - does space resists deformation (e.g. the release of tension of space results in a gravitational wave, ) ?.

If so speed related space deformation = resistance.

So we have good reason to believe there are "relativistic resistance" against motion - also even but we have certainly not understood it true nature of it.

 

Resistance is normally = deceleration.

If you cycle against strong wind you'll decelerate so soon you being to relax.

The nature of relativistic resistance is maybe not more strange like that.

 

We believe resistance only apply by acceleration. But there are no scientific evidence for Newtons first law.

This law is only based on medieval observations. We should be more carefully to accept this as certain knowledge.

 

So the Lorentz transformation could very well also be an expression of the tension increase of space that a fast-moving object exerts.

When the force (causing the speed of an object) stops, speed-related tension on space is automatically released, so the Lorentz transformation factor is also a deceleration factor.

 

Hence relativistic resistance must be a reversible process, and the Lorentz equation reflects the magnitude of resistance against motion and the magnitude of deceleration at the same time

 

Since the deceleration can't be linear the result only shows what happens the first second.

 

 

 

and you have not shown that such a deceleration has been observed.

 

True. I have not proved this yet.

But I have predicted what more we shall expect.

There are many broad hints, that easy all can point to that that all objects can be affected by relativistic resistances.

 

For example.

As mentioned, many believe the orbit of the Earth is understood, - but the ice ages mysteries clearly shows this is not the case.

Something seems to be missing.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Bjarne

[swansont]

True. I have not proved this yet.

But I have predicted what more we shall expect.

There are many broad hints, that easy all can point to that that all objects can be affected by relativistic resistances.

 

For example.

As mentioned, many believe the orbit of the Earth is understood, - but the ice ages mysteries clearly shows this is not the case.

Something seems to be missing.

Particle accelerators see no discrepancy.

[ACG52]

We do know that an object's speed increment causes energy and therefore also mass increment.

Due to mass increment, the curvature of space near a moving object also increases.

 

 

Relativistic energy does not cause an increase in the gravitational field. (Relativistic mass is an outdated concept which doesn't really exist).

 

So, again, you start off in error and proceed from there.

[Bjarne]

Particle accelerators see no discrepancy.

Yes this is also true

But first at all I think Niels Bohr would have say, that this is a different experiment. We can't be sure whether we must expect the same result (resistance against motion).

I mean the magnetic field has taken over the control of a moving particle by replaces the particles normally interaction environment with a strong magnetic field. ( we know a little about what a magnetic field really is, so it can be difficult to predict any certain result, according to this question). Still the mass of the particles are increasing, - but the environment is no longer the same.

 

If this not should be important, the orientation of the LHC orbit must be, - The LHC must point more or less towards for example the primary RR direction (constellation Vela / Centaurs) .

If the orientation not is 100% aligned, the anomaly must be proportional weaker too.

The next to consider is that even though our absolute speed is let's say 300km/s , - RR always starts from zero, in each new reference frame.

 

This mean motion towards the absolute motion direction is not causing lager RR as we expect from a local perspective, but only the exact RR as we expect (during acceleration).

This is because the absolute motion speed we already are moving at, already affect us, - (in a very strange way). Speed is changing our reality (time and distance.) So motion towards the absolute motion direction will not cause unexpected larger RR, - seen from a local perspective, - simple because the influences is already transformed to "reality change" .

So we shall only expect resistances according to the Lorentz transformation when moving towards the absolute motion direction.

I know this is very confused, but this is how SR works.

 

The anomaly will rather be that there are no resistances towards the opposite direction of the constellation Vela / Centaurus.

RR will first apply when the absolute motion speed 300 km/s (that already affects us) has been cancel out.

At 300km/s the full influence of the possible anomaly can be calculated to 5×10-7m/s²

But since the orbit diameter of the LHC is 30 times less the influence can max be 1,66 -7m/s² per ½ orbit. That value will increase much more when approaching c.

But the particles will anyway not accelerate faster as the LHC allow it to, it will reach the same speed towards the opposite direction, until they hit the RR "wall" in that direction too.

So particles will actual accelerate a tiny bit faster when moving opposite the Vela / Centaurus direction IF the LHC is aligned with the Vela / Centaurus constellation.

 

But as mentioned, maybe the strong LHC magnetic field of the LHC can completely outplay all other influences of the particle, whereby the absolute motion direction in this case not affect it at all.

 

Relativistic energy does not cause an increase in the gravitational field. (Relativistic mass is an outdated concept which doesn't really exist).

 

So, again, you start off in error and proceed from there.

 

What do you mean by this ?

 

The particles in the LHC are traveling at speeds of 0.999999991 of the speed of light, making their apparent mass 7000 times as large as if they were static.

http://www.oxfordspa.../animations/lhc

Edited October 25, 2012 by Bjarne

[swansont]

Yes this is also true

But first at all I think Niels Bohr would have say, that this is a different experiment. We can't be sure whether we must expect the same result (resistance against motion).

Not being sure what it predicts is an indication of a very weak hypothesis.

[Bjarne]

Not being sure what it predicts is an indication of a very weak hypothesis.

 

I am sure what the theory predict, but I am not sure whether it includes motion of particles trapped by a strong magnetic field .

 

All ideas trying solve for example the dark matter mystery, - have shown not only to have been weak, but also wrong.

There are always a risk that we (and I) are wrong.

 

There are not many shot left.

Sooner or later we are forced to open our mind for controversial suggestions.

Relative small error or misunderstanding can indeed lead us fare away from the truth.

 

http://atramateria.c...or-dark-matter/

Edited October 25, 2012 by Bjarne

[Bjarne]

So particles will actual accelerate a tiny bit faster when moving opposite the Vela / Centaurus direction IF the LHC is aligned with the Vela / Centaurus constellation.

I regret this statement.

So fare I understand particles in the LHC will accelerate equally, doesn't matter whether the relativistic resistance should be a little less towards a certain direction.

It is first when acceleration of the particles is going on that the LHC really is using huge amount of power. ( By idling electromagnet are using relative little power.)

 

I should be possible to compare this to how a transformer works.

First when consumption of elasticity is used on the secondary side of the transformer, the consumption is (of course) also increasing on the primary side.

This mean the larger secondary consumption (resistance), automatically results to larger primary delivery.

 

This shows that attempt to resist the magnetic field, is immediately and automatically counteracted, by larger power delivery, to counteract.

This of course then also means that less secondary consumption, automatically mean less, primary power to counteract.

 

So I think rather we can say that less relativistic resistance (as expected) towards a certain direction will automatically save electricity consumption of the LHC, - and still the expected speed is achieved, also towards a direction with less relativistic resistance.

 

Furthermore I want to add this simple equation.

 

Acceleration Towards an Absolute Motion Direction = t(a1- a2)

t = time (s)

a1 = acceleration (for example acceleration due to gravity)

a2 = RR. Can be calculated by the shown Lorentz transformation

 

Acceleration Opposite the Absolute Motion Direction = t(a3+a4)

t = Time (s)

a3 = Acceleration (for example acceleration due to gravity away from an absolute motion direction)

a4 = The same magnitude as 'a3', so long 'a3'<'a4'. - If 'a3'>'a4' = 'a4' is stable. - Basic 'a4' is calculated by the shown Lorentz transformation.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Bjarne

[Bjarne]

I forgot

 

Acceleration Opposite a Secondary Absolute Motion Direction = t(a5+a6)

t = Time (s)

a5 = Acceleration (for example acceleration due to gravity away from an absolute motion direction)

a6 = RR.