Relativity with gravity (Split from is relativity wrong)

[Kramer]

When we speak about relativity we intend Lorens formula S = C / (C^2 - V^2) ^ 0.5. As a lay man i don't understand about velocity "V" of what is the issue? If it is about velocity of mass particles, then how this fact is reflected in the above formula?
The special relativity was discovered in 1905. In general relativity there is another kind of velocity Vg = ( G*M / R) * 0.5.
I think Special relativity is wrong because it does not take in consideration this fact. And naturally as everything in physic, go weird so in the Lorens formula go weird when divide by zero..

[ACG52]

I think Special relativity is wrong because it does not take in consideration this fact.

Special relativity is special in that it is a limited case, where there is no gravity. General relativity includes gravity.

 

 

[swansont]

The Lorentz formula doesn't "go weird", though, as you can't actually travel at c. And it has the bonus of being experimentally confirmed, many, many times.

[Kramer]

Swansont
The Lorentz formula doesn't "go weird", though, as you can't actually travel at c. And it has the bonus of being experimentally confirmed, many, many times.


----- when i asked what or who is moving with "v" velocity, i wanted to understand if there is any difference between the object that is moving is a black hole or an electron. In the Lorens formula i didn't see any difference.
I think that experimentally confirmed not infinity as in Lorens formula but same-thing very big.
If we take in consideration gravity velocity for example that of electron: " Vge = (G*me / re)^0.5 = 1.4687201*10^-11 cm/sec" and rewrite Lorens formula:
S = C / (( C^2 - V^2 ) + Vge ) The result will be (for V=C) = 2.011812*10^22 but not zero.
This is exact the rate between Mplank (extrapolated toward real electric charge) and mass of electron, or with all other characters of electron particle.
Has been this kind of reasoning confirmed or discarded?

[swansont]

What reasoning? Why you would arbitrarily place a gravitational potential term in the equation hasn't been justified.

What is re in your equation?

[Kramer]

 

Swansont

What reasoning? Why you would arbitrarily place a gravitational potential term in the equation hasn't been justified.
What is re in your equation?

------ I made a question: Why it is irrelevant in Lorens formula the mass of particle that is moving? I made this question because the “ gravitational potential term” has dimensions of velocity. So I think this is a kind of velocity “Vge” that oppose the out caused velocity “V”. So I think is not arbitrarily.
------ You say that experimentally is proved validity of formula.
As I have listen in T.V. the scientist in CERN made a statement that they have not detected any tiny black hole. Why needed this statement? They tried in this direction? Why they tried if they were sure about the negative result?
I think that is not jet proved experimentally for an absolute statement.
------ I see that scientist of CERN try to use heavier ions to achieve results with lower velocity. This is an indirect link between velocity and the mass of ions. May be this has nothing to do with my reasoning. But even if I might be wrong, I will go further in my reasoning.
The out caused velocity over the mass particles influence changes in structure of particle: in its radius and with this cause change of the mass of particle that is will change (augment) “Vge” (as I intend electron particle). So in fact the revised formula above will take this form:
S = C / (( C^2 –V^2) – Vge * S)
Solved this formula ( With fingers as teach us Mr. ACG50) step by step we’ll find that S achieve a maximum value “ before “ V= C , and further go faster down toward S=1 for V=C
That means that particle has reached the Plank area.
This “before” V = C I think is important.

[ACG52]

 

 

As I have listen in T.V. the scientist in CERN made a statement that they have not detected any tiny black hole. Why needed this statement? They tried in this direction? Why they tried if they were sure about the negative result?

It's not that they tried, it's that there was a lot of speculation about it in the popular press, and the statement was made to put the doom-sayers to rest.

[swansont]

Swansont

 

What reasoning? Why you would arbitrarily place a gravitational potential term in the equation hasn't been justified.

What is re in your equation?

 

------ I made a question: Why it is irrelevant in Lorens formula the mass of particle that is moving? I made this question because the “ gravitational potential term” has dimensions of velocity. So I think this is a kind of velocity “Vge” that oppose the out caused velocity “V”. So I think is not arbitrarily.[/size]

 

No derivation or discussion, just that it has the right units? It's hard to get more arbitrary than that, unless you're willing to drop any pretense of science.

 

 

 

------ You say that experimentally is proved validity of formula.

As I have listen in T.V. the scientist in CERN made a statement that they have not detected any tiny black hole. Why needed this statement? They tried in this direction? Why they tried if they were sure about the negative result?

I think that is not jet proved experimentally for an absolute statement.

 

There were a couple of untested models, not part of relativity or the standard model, that predicted mini black holes. Few people thought there was any chance at all that they were going to make black holes.

 

 

 

------ I see that scientist of CERN try to use heavier ions to achieve results with lower velocity. This is an indirect link between velocity and the mass of ions. May be this has nothing to do with my reasoning. But even if I might be wrong, I will go further in my reasoning.

 

Because kinetic energy depends on mass, as well as speed. KE = [math](\gamma-1)mc^2[/math]

 

If mass goes up, speed goes down for a given kinetic energy.

 

The out caused velocity over the mass particles influence changes in structure of particle: in its radius and with this cause change of the mass of particle that is will change (augment) “Vge” (as I intend electron particle). So in fact the revised formula above will take this form:

S = C / (( C^2 –V^2) – Vge * S)

Solved this formula ( With fingers as teach us Mr. ACG50) step by step we’ll find that S achieve a maximum value “ before “ V= C , and further go faster down toward S=1 for V=C

That means that particle has reached the Plank area.

This “before” V = C I think is important.

 

We have probably hundreds if not thousands of experiments that confirm that relativity is right the way it is, which falsifies any modifications unless they are really, really small; haw small is given by the experimental error of the experiments

[Kramer]

 

Swansont

No derivation or discussion, just that it has the right units? It's hard to get more arbitrary than that, unless you're willing to drop any pretense of science.

------ Right! Without derivations, without high math there is not science. I have never pretended to make science, how can a layman?. But they that make science didn’t gave me a convincing answer about:
How reflected in Lorentz formula the fact of “what” is forced to move by “ outside cause” (a mini black hole, an electron, one gold ion, one neutrino – a star) ?
How velocity influence on the object that it forced to move, what kind of changes velocity cause on the object and how?
Which character of object forced to move is linked with velocity and how? Which not?



There were a couple of untested models, not part of relativity or the standard model, that predicted mini black holes. Few people thought there was any chance at all that they were going to make black holes.

------- Sure. In both of them is out-casted the hated “mass”==== that base concept of reality.

Because kinetic energy depends on mass, as well as speed. KE =

------- So KE = ( gamma – 1 ) * me*C^2 . Why not KE = (gamma –1)*Mu.p.*C*Vge?
At least will have a relation only between “V” and “Vg”.
It is the same result. Here Mu.p. is extrapolated Mplank, for real value of electric charge.
By the way in your formula for KE we have on the right side: gamma is a dimension-less number, C^2 is a constant, the only which change is “m “ that is m is the only proportional with KE. Why then modern physic has discarded Einstein formula : Mup = m *gamma?

If mass goes up, speed goes down for a given kinetic energy.
Right!

We have probably hundreds if not thousands of experiments that confirm that relativity is right the way it is, which falsifies any modifications unless they are really, really small; haw small is given by the experimental error of the experiments.
-----?


ACG$2

It's not that they tried, it's that there was a lot of speculation about it in the popular press, and the statement was made to put the doom-sayers to rest.

--- Maybe you are right. Then i am the only crackpot to believe that unique particle:
Mu.p. = (e / (4*pi*epsilon0 *G)^0.5) is the ultimate reliable thing of reality.

[ACG52]

Is there any chance you could learn to use the quote function?

[swansont]

Swansont

 

No derivation or discussion, just that it has the right units? It's hard to get more arbitrary than that, unless you're willing to drop any pretense of science.

 

------ Right! Without derivations, without high math there is not science. I have never pretended to make science, how can a layman?.

Plenty of lay people learn about science. All scientists were once lay people.

 

But they that make science didn’t gave me a convincing answer about:

How reflected in Lorentz formula the fact of “what” is forced to move by “ outside cause” (a mini black hole, an electron, one gold ion, one neutrino – a star) ?

How velocity influence on the object that it forced to move, what kind of changes velocity cause on the object and how?

Which character of object forced to move is linked with velocity and how? Which not?

The basic idea of relativity is that moving at a velocity has no effect on the physics.

 

 

There were a couple of untested models, not part of relativity or the standard model, that predicted mini black holes. Few people thought there was any chance at all that they were going to make black holes.

 

------- Sure. In both of them is out-casted the hated “mass”==== that base concept of reality.

I have no idea what this means.

 

Because kinetic energy depends on mass, as well as speed. KE =

------- So KE = ( gamma – 1 ) * me*C^2 . Why not KE = (gamma –1)*Mu.p.*C*Vge?

Because it's wrong. It doesn't agree with what we observe.

[Kramer]

 

Swansont


Plenty of lay people learn about science. All scientists were once lay people.

------ I have to admit that I am not this kind of people. I see the science of physic like an amount of scrambled puzzles, where many intelligent people have spend their life to solve enigmas for creating a reliable panorama. Alas with many holes, with many patches.
It is different -- solving enigmas from trying to unscramble. The solvers are scientist, instead they that try to unscramble with guessing are speculators. I am one of them, I try to put different pieces of puzzle in the holes. If they fit, I think I am in the right direction.
This is a shame but that is true.
Thanks for suggestion but is a little late for me.

The basic idea of relativity is that moving at a velocity has no effect on the physic.

------ Here we don’t understand each other. I think that the effect of movement over the object in movement happens when the velocity change value. This change (acceleration) of velocity without doubt must leave imprint in the moving object.
Let me develop my “ideas” about movement.

1- 1- Movement is a natural, inseparable property of mass or mass-less mater.
2- Do not exist mater out of movement, Do not exist movement without mater.
3- There exist three kind of velocity:
a- “C’ velocity, is property of mass-less particles ( photons and their fields) and sub particles (from my failed thread about Unique Sub Particle).
b- “V” the common velocity of mass particles, which is caused by interaction with photons or neutrinos or by their fields.
c- “Vg” gravity velocity. It is different from common velocity “V” because is reflection of gravity movement of unique sub particles, stripped by electromagnetic movement.
Electron and proton in their pure structure, created from their sub particles, are absolute stationary as whole. This because electromagnetic and gravity forces of sub particles are in absolute equilibrium, even though sub-particles in themselves evolve with C velocity toward each other.

2- Electron and proton move from their absolute stationary status in a relative stationary status when “absorbs” one or some photons in their structure.
Preceding direction of movement of photons cause the direction of movement of whole structure.
Insertion of photon in the structure of electron or proton change the structure: radius and mass which I take in consideration in formula with “Vg”

I have no idea what this means.

-- It’s not important -- never mind.

Because it's wrong. It doesn't agree with what we observe.

If formula of Einstein ( m = γ * mo) is wrong, then formula of Lorentz is in doubt.
If “γ” can cause change of dimensions of space then why not the radius of particle?
Oh. I forget that particles have not radius.!
I think that to give a categorical judgment if wrong or right about formulas:
1—KE = γ* m0e * C^2 ;
2 –KE = (γ - 1) * m0e * C^2;
3—KE = (γ* Mplank * scrt α* C * Vge)
4 –KE = (1-((1-β^0.5)^0.5 +Vge) ) * Mplank*scrt α *C*Vge)
you need to operate with very high velocity to observe differences.

The calculation of the above formulas for electron particle , with V = 0.999999*C gave those result:
1---- KE =5.789158303*10^-11 J
2-----KE = 5.78091199 *10^-11 J.
3---- KE = 5.789158198*10^-11 J.
4 ----KE = 5.781958198*10^-11 J.
(3 ,4 are my interpretations)
(I doubt in observation about conclusion

[Prophet12]

 

Swansont

 

 

Plenty of lay people learn about science. All scientists were once lay people.

 

------ I have to admit that I am not this kind of people. I see the science of physic like an amount of scrambled puzzles, where many intelligent people have spend their life to solve enigmas for creating a reliable panorama. Alas with many holes, with many patches.

It is different -- solving enigmas from trying to unscramble. The solvers are scientist, instead they that try to unscramble with guessing are speculators. I am one of them, I try to put different pieces of puzzle in the holes. If they fit, I think I am in the right direction.

This is a shame but that is true.

Thanks for suggestion but is a little late for me.

 

The basic idea of relativity is that moving at a velocity has no effect on the physic.

 

------ Here we dont understand each other. I think that the effect of movement over the object in movement happens when the velocity change value. This change (acceleration) of velocity without doubt must leave imprint in the moving object.

Let me develop my ideas about movement.

1- 1- Movement is a natural, inseparable property of mass or mass-less mater.

2- Do not exist mater out of movement, Do not exist movement without mater.

3- There exist three kind of velocity:

a- C velocity, is property of mass-less particles ( photons and their fields) and sub particles (from my failed thread about Unique Sub Particle).

b- V the common velocity of mass particles, which is caused by interaction with photons or neutrinos or by their fields.

c- Vg gravity velocity. It is different from common velocity V because is reflection of gravity movement of unique sub particles, stripped by electromagnetic movement.

Electron and proton in their pure structure, created from their sub particles, are absolute stationary as whole. This because electromagnetic and gravity forces of sub particles are in absolute equilibrium, even though sub-particles in themselves evolve with C velocity toward each other.

2- Electron and proton move from their absolute stationary status in a relative stationary status when absorbs one or some photons in their structure.

Preceding direction of movement of photons cause the direction of movement of whole structure.

Insertion of photon in the structure of electron or proton change the structure: radius and mass which I take in consideration in formula with Vg

 

 

 

I have no idea what this means.

 

-- Its not important -- never mind.

 

Because it's wrong. It doesn't agree with what we observe.

 

If formula of Einstein ( m = γ * mo) is wrong, then formula of Lorentz is in doubt.

If γ can cause change of dimensions of space then why not the radius of particle?

Oh. I forget that particles have not radius.!

I think that to give a categorical judgment if wrong or right about formulas:

1KE = γ* m0e * C^2 ;

2 KE = (γ - 1) * m0e * C^2;

3KE = (γ* Mplank * scrt α* C * Vge)

4 KE = (1-((1-β^0.5)^0.5 +Vge) ) * Mplank*scrt α *C*Vge)

you need to operate with very high velocity to observe differences.

 

The calculation of the above formulas for electron particle , with V = 0.999999*C gave those result:

1---- KE =5.789158303*10^-11 J

2-----KE = 5.78091199 *10^-11 J.

3---- KE = 5.789158198*10^-11 J.

4 ----KE = 5.781958198*10^-11 J.

(3 ,4 are my interpretations)

(I doubt in observation about conclusion

Kramer,

 

You are on to something, and you make great sense about it.

 

There is problems with SR and GR and constant, and most of the community does not want to accept/hear it. Status quo is how they go; otherwise they don't seem wise at all, at all.

 

Hold their feet to the fire, eventually they will move; the fire/chorus is growing.

 

Swansont, AGC52 and so forth think they know and don't want anything to interrupt their (sleep) comfort. Getting them to think is one thing, thinking they could be wrong is unacceptable, to them.

 

Keep up your good work, your chorus is growing.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Prophet12,

 

A friendly reminder that,' you are not permitted to reintroduce the topic,' means you can't drag it into other threads as well as not being able to start your own on the subject. Further attempts to hijack discussion will be taken as a request for suspension.

[swansont]

Swansont

 

 

Plenty of lay people learn about science. All scientists were once lay people.

 

------ I have to admit that I am not this kind of people. I see the science of physic like an amount of scrambled puzzles, where many intelligent people have spend their life to solve enigmas for creating a reliable panorama. Alas with many holes, with many patches.

It is different -- solving enigmas from trying to unscramble. The solvers are scientist, instead they that try to unscramble with guessing are speculators. I am one of them, I try to put different pieces of puzzle in the holes. If they fit, I think I am in the right direction.

This is a shame but that is true.

Thanks for suggestion but is a little late for me.

Seeing that this is a science site, this would seem to be a problem.

 

The basic idea of relativity is that moving at a velocity has no effect on the physic.

 

------ Here we don’t understand each other. I think that the effect of movement over the object in movement happens when the velocity change value. This change (acceleration) of velocity without doubt must leave imprint in the moving object.

Acceleration is not velocity.

 

Let me develop my “ideas” about movement.

1- 1- Movement is a natural, inseparable property of mass or mass-less mater.

2- Do not exist mater out of movement, Do not exist movement without mater.

3- There exist three kind of velocity:

a- “C’ velocity, is property of mass-less particles ( photons and their fields) and sub particles (from my failed thread about Unique Sub Particle).

b- “V” the common velocity of mass particles, which is caused by interaction with photons or neutrinos or by their fields.

c- “Vg” gravity velocity. It is different from common velocity “V” because is reflection of gravity movement of unique sub particles, stripped by electromagnetic movement.

Electron and proton in their pure structure, created from their sub particles, are absolute stationary as whole. This because electromagnetic and gravity forces of sub particles are in absolute equilibrium, even though sub-particles in themselves evolve with C velocity toward each other.

2- Electron and proton move from their absolute stationary status in a relative stationary status when “absorbs” one or some photons in their structure.

Preceding direction of movement of photons cause the direction of movement of whole structure.

Insertion of photon in the structure of electron or proton change the structure: radius and mass which I take in consideration in formula with “Vg”

Is there any experiment that backs any of this up?

[Kramer]

Prophet 12



Kramer,

You are on to something, and you make great sense about it.

------ Thanks for your encouragement. I don’t see my thread as a “great sense” rather than as one lost in doubt and eager for answers by every body benevolent.

As for the rest of your post I have my reserve:
1 – I don’t consider debate in science site as a fight in arena, this is the cult about champions and losers about fans and haters.
Maybe this cult so highly appreciated in our country, is a big stimulus for perfection.
It incites fighters to prepare themselves for the most fitter to achieve triumph. I am in the side of losers, because I am a loser.
2 – I see debate in science not as fight between peoples but as a cooperation of the people in fight with nature, which hold secrets with so hostility.

Swansont

Seeing that this is a science site, this would seem to be a problem.

------- This is a science site that allows speculations. I think is the most democratic site loved by people, which are free to express doubts, ideas, suggestions about science (Even naïve, crazy, weird ones) but with a cultured manner in debate. Only with a prize --- invalided ones have place in trash-can, this condition is approved by participant that debate in this site.
The rest of your sentence about the ‘ problem” is an ‘enigma problem’ for me that i am not able to solve. I hope you will be kind to give a clue.

Acceleration is not velocity.

-------I think that after acceleration particle will continue to move with a new constant velocity. The question that divide us is: has or not suffered any change the particle in itself, in its characters ( mas. radius, frequence)?

Is there any experiment that backs any of this up

------- I do no. May be any physicist will be kind to give any answer.
I think that is a weird fakt:
A hydrogen or gold atom, striped by electron is put in acceleration, achieve a high velocity, collide with another his body -- and a shower of many different particles burst ( with their charges, mass, movements) ready and brand new as from a box. How?
The ready answer is : The kinetic energy of accelerated particle has create new particles via Einstein E = M*C^2 .
Is sufficient this kind of answer?
Hence my speculation hypothesis:
During acceleration of “ion”, accelerator insert inside ion “Unique sub-particles” the blocks that build the same photons and mass particles, only with different configuration of charges.
The collision freed the jailed sub-particles and they are free to recombine them selves via their charges in different exotic, and further in stabile common particles

[swansont]

Swansont

 

Seeing that this is a science site, this would seem to be a problem.

 

------- This is a science site that allows speculations. I think is the most democratic site loved by people, which are free to express doubts, ideas, suggestions about science (Even naïve, crazy, weird ones) but with a cultured manner in debate. Only with a prize --- invalided ones have place in trash-can, this condition is approved by participant that debate in this site.

The rest of your sentence about the ‘ problem” is an ‘enigma problem’ for me that i am not able to solve. I hope you will be kind to give a clue.

 

This is a site that allows scientific speculations. There are rules that govern what, or how, one may speculate

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=29

 

 

 

Acceleration is not velocity.

-------I think that after acceleration particle will continue to move with a new constant velocity. The question that divide us is: has or not suffered any change the particle in itself, in its characters ( mas. radius, frequence)?

 

Acceleration and velocity are separate things. If you mean acceleration, you should say acceleration. So when you ask what effect velocity has on an object, I assumed you meant velocity.

 

Is there any experiment that backs any of this up

 

[/size]------- I do no. May be any physicist will be kind to give any answer.

I think that is a weird fakt:

A hydrogen or gold atom, striped by electron is put in acceleration, achieve a high velocity, collide with another his body -- and a shower of many different particles burst ( with their charges, mass, movements) ready and brand new as from a box. How?

The ready answer is : The kinetic energy of accelerated particle has create new particles via Einstein E = M*C^2 .

Is sufficient this kind of answer?

Hence my speculation hypothesis:

During acceleration of “ion”, accelerator insert inside ion “Unique sub-particles” the blocks that build the same photons and mass particles, only with different configuration of charges.

The collision freed the jailed sub-particles and they are free to recombine them selves via their charges in different exotic, and further in stabile common particles[/size]

 

What happens in such an experiment is all in line with the standard model and relativity as it already is. If you want to speculate on a new model, you need to be able to predict specifically what happens and do a better job than the existing model.