Controversial : Special relativity miss something from General relativi

[Kramer]

 

Controversial : Special relativity miss something from General relativity.
( An idiot try to revise EINSTEIN )

Special relativity was promoted 10 years later than General relativity, and in its base formula it doesn’t reflect the relation that it has with gravity. Only indirect Einstein promote idea that change of velocity bring change in mass via:
m1 = m0 * γ1; m2 = mo*γ2 etc.
The modern physic, this assertion of Einstein, considers a mistake. The modern physic, try to throw out of scene of physic mass particles, and to substitute it with overall energy notion without mass.
In fact nobody denied the change of space dimensions by velocity. But here is the trick: if elementary particles have a spatial configuration, those dimension will change when change velocity. And here is the corner where to push the logic: It is fact that particles have a relation between their spatial dimension with mass. And is fact, that the particles with greater mass have smaller radius; that means that if velocity change the dimension of particles, it change their mass.
So the idiot propose change of basic formula as below;



Revising Einstein

Г = 1 / (1 – β ^ 2 ) ^ 0.5

Revised :
Г= 1 / ( (1 – β ^ 2 ) ^ 0.5 + ( Vg / C ) * Г )

Here Vg = ( G * Mx / (Rx+d) ) ^ 0.5 < C

(Mx, Rx---mass and radius of moving of “X” object)

( d -----Distance from observer)

Doing a calculation with “fingers” and step by step:

Γ0 = 1 / ( ( 1 – β0 ) ^ 0.5 + ( Vg / C ) ) ; for β0 = 0

Γ1 = 1 / ( ( 1 - β ^ 2) ^ 0.5 + ( Vg / C ) * Γ0 ) ;

Γ2 = 1 / ( ( 1- β ^ 2 ) ^ 0.5 + ( Vg / C ) * Γ1) ;

----------------------------------------------
Γn = 1 / ( ( 1- β ^ 2 ) ^ 0.5 + ( Vg / C ) * Γ ( n – 1 ) ) ;

There are three graphs from calculations:
1 -- Einstein’s infinity for β = 1. via Γ = 1 / (1-β^2)^0.5
2 – The rate C / Vg different from infinity, for β = 1
3-- The change of “Γ” by “step by step influence of gravity”. It reach a max.

when C / Vg = (1 – βcr^2) ^ 0.5 for a β critique and further collapse in C / C.
Now shoot.

[Mellinia]

And is fact, that the particles with greater mass have smaller radius

 

 

Extrapolating that logic, you have just shown that a 5 megaton lorry has a smaller size than me, or that a proton has lesser size than an electron. Are you sure about that?

[swansont]

Special relativity was promoted 10 years later than General relativity

Earlier. SR was introduced in 1905. GR was developed in the decade afterwards.

 

 

, and in its base formula it doesn’t reflect the relation that it has with gravity.

SR has no relation with gravity, which was why GR was developed.

 

Only indirect Einstein promote idea that change of velocity bring change in mass via:

m1 = m0 * γ1; m2 = mo*γ2 etc.

The modern physic, this assertion of Einstein, considers a mistake. The modern physic, try to throw out of scene of physic mass particles, and to substitute it with overall energy notion without mass.

Einstein didn't promote the idea of relativistic mass. He didn't like the idea.

See the figure on page 2 http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/~des/Phys2320/concept%20of%20mass.pdf

 

 

In fact nobody denied the change of space dimensions by velocity. But here is the trick: if elementary particles have a spatial configuration, those dimension will change when change velocity.

Indeed. This is confirmed in collisions of relativistic heavy nuclei, where the length contraction is needed to explain the collision dynamics.

 

 

Can your formulas properly predict the time dilation of GPS satellites? Please show your work.

[Kramer]

 

Mellinia
Extrapolating that logic, you have just shown that a 5 megaton lorry has a smaller size than me, or that a proton has lesser size than an electron. Are you sure about that?
---- For friendly joke : I am curious to know how much is your Compton wave-length in comparison of lorry’s?
Proton’s is lesser than electron’s. Hence : λe / (2*pi / α) = re > rp

Swansont
Earlier. SR was introduced in 1905. GR was developed in the decade afterwards.
---- Thanks - My lapse. Just this I wanted to say: the ideas of G.R. were promoted later and for this they were not reflected in S.R.

SR has no relation with gravity, which was why GR was developed.

----- To debate about relation of S.R with G.R. is the aim of this thread.

Only indirect Einstein promote idea that change of velocity bring change in mass via:
m1 = m0 * γ1; m2 = mo*γ2 etc.
The modern physic, this assertion of Einstein, considers a mistake. The modern physic, try to throw out of scene of physic mass particles, and to substitute it with overall energy notion without mass.

Einstein didn't promote the idea of relativistic mass. He didn't like the idea.
See the figure on page 2 http://www.physics.u...ept of mass.pdf

------ This means that not only a layman, like me, is in confusion and turmoil about essential concept on physics science, even they that are affirmed scientist don’t know for sure what they say. Exact: A semaphore in cross rode with the same red and green light on.
This means that every-body has the right to speculate about concepts.

Indeed. This is confirmed in collisions of relativistic heavy nuclei, where the length
contraction is needed to explain the collision dynamics.

---- So the alleged “gravity velocity” = ((G * m) / (r+d)) * γ^2 (ones for m, once for (r+d) is right.

Can your formulas properly predict the time dilation of GPS satellites? Please show your work.
---- As you see in my formulas there is not any time in view.

[Mellinia]

Mellinia

Extrapolating that logic, you have just shown that a 5 megaton lorry has a smaller size than me, or that a proton has lesser size than an electron. Are you sure about that?

---- For friendly joke : I am curious to know how much is your Compton wave-length in comparison of lorry’s?

Proton’s is lesser than electron’s. Hence : λe / (2*pi / α) = re > rp

Does the wavelength of a particle correspond to it's volume?

Edited August 15, 2013 by Mellinia

[ajb]

SR has no relation with gravity, which was why GR was developed.

 

----- To debate about relation of S.R with G.R. is the aim of this thread.

We know how special relativity fits inside general relativity. We call it the equivalence principal.

[swansont]

Proton’s is lesser than electron’s. Hence : λe / (2*pi / α) = re > rp

What electron radius are you using?

 

---- As you see in my formulas there is not any time in view.

Gamma is the time dilation factor in SR, and you give a new formula for gamma. If this cannot give the time dilation of a GPS satellite, then of what value is your new equation?

[Kramer]

 

Mellinia

Does the wavelength of a particle correspond

to it's volume?---- The electromagnetic wave length of the particle is created by a periodic movement of a charge in circles movement. So I think this has to do with the radius.

AJB
We know how special relativity fits inside general relativity. We call it the equivalence
principal.
------ In the special relativity of Lorentz Einstein’s formula I don’t see any alleged connection with general relativity. I think they are two different kind.

Swanson
What electron radius are you using?
Sure not re = . = zero ; The classic radius .

Gamma is the time dilation factor in SR, and you give a new formula for gamma. If this cannot give the time dilation of a GPS satellite, then of what value is your new equation?
---- When you say time dilation you intend change of period of what? Because change of time in general for me is without any meaning.
The fact is that I am not aware about GPS phenomena: who is moving toward who, what is relative velocity, what is gravitational velocity in given distance.
-------------------------------
Now, am I with a question for physics experts: Exist any experiment fact that reject for sure change of mass by change of velocity? Because the recommended work of Mr. Okun
confused me more, and made more aware that this is an enigma

[swansont]

Sure not re = . = zero ; The classic radius .

The classical radius is not the actual radius of the electron. It's a handy shorthand for sizes on that scale, just like Avogadro's number is handy for numbers of a macroscopic collection of atoms.

 

 

Gamma is the time dilation factor in SR, and you give a new formula for gamma. If this cannot give the time dilation of a GPS satellite, then of what value is your new equation?

---- When you say time dilation you intend change of period of what? Because change of time in general for me is without any meaning.

The fact is that I am not aware about GPS phenomena: who is moving toward who, what is relative velocity, what is gravitational velocity in given distance.

Then pick some experiment you can do, or has been done, that can test your formula, as the rules of speculations demand.

[ajb]

AJB

We know how special relativity fits inside general relativity. We call it the equivalence

principal.

------ In the special relativity of Lorentz Einstein’s formula I don’t see any alleged connection with general relativity. I think they are two different kind.

The equivalence principal basically tells us that on small enough regions non-gravitational physics reduces to special relativity. In that sense we know how special sits inside general. The two are not completley seperate.

[Kramer]

 

Swansont

The classical radius is not the actual radius of the electron. It's a handy shorthand for sizes on that scale, just like Avogadro's number is handy for numbers of a macroscopic collection of atoms.

 

------ This handy shorthand I think is very precise in classic calculations:
E = e^2 / (4*pi*ε0*Re) = me * C^2 = Mpl.* C^2* Lpl*α / Re = h / ((2*pi/α)*Re) = G*Mpl^2 *α / Re.
Now put instead of “Re” the modern “. “ or “zero”, and joke with idiot lay-mans.

Then pick some experiment you can do, or has been done, that can test your formula, as the rules of speculations demand.
------ This is formula about classic particles: mass and radiuses.

Γ = 1 / ( ( 1 – β^2 ) ^ 0.5 + ( Vg / C ) ) ;
First : For V = 0 it take form :

Γ =1 / (1 + ( Vg / C ) ) quite = 1
For V = C it take form :
Γ = C / Vg Which is different by infinite and is the rate :
Plank constant / constant of particle.
As Vg / C is very small both two cases are difficult to perceive with experiment.
At least getting rid from absurd 1 / 0
Instead if my hypothesis of “unique particle” is right then instead of
Vg / C we must use (( Vg * C ) / C^2))^0.5
then something change. It is possible that for using heavy particles to achieve the max. for V ( during acceleration) in range V = 0.9999999C. in which range β becames critique. After achieving Γmax. it is possible oscillations between Plank Energy and energy of particle.
The heck know what will happens in this unstable situation.
???
By the way nobody answered my question about any experiment that surely rejected change of mass by acceleration….. and to get rid from this disgusted thread.


AJB
The equivalence principal basically tells us that on small enough regions non-gravitational physics reduces to special relativity. In that sense we know how special sits inside general. The two are not completley seperate. nside general.

Theorists have used many methods in their searching work, using high math. Those method study physics phenomena in their transitory statuses, to reach in stable situations.
I am not physicist, not mathematician. I speculate with which is achieved in stable status.
AJB. I friendly will ask you a favor, as I read you are mathematician.
I am not able to calculate equations step by step.
May you help me about graph of equation;
Y = 1 / (( 1 – X^2)^0.5 + A * Y) giving A some value between 1 and zero. Let say
A = 10 ^ - 8

[Mellinia]

 

Mellinia

Does the wavelength of a particle correspond

to it's volume?---- The electromagnetic wave length of the particle is created by a periodic movement of a charge in circles movement. So I think this has to do with the radius.

Not all particles are held together by the electromagnetic force. And that "charge in circles movement" was proven to be wrong. Look up on Bohr radius.

[ajb]

Theorists have used many methods in their searching work, using high math. Those method study physics phenomena in their transitory statuses, to reach in stable situations.

I am not physicist, not mathematician. I speculate with which is achieved in stable status.

The best thing you can do is get to grips with some of these methods.

 

AJB. I friendly will ask you a favor, as I read you are mathematician.

I am not able to calculate equations step by step.

May you help me about graph of equation;

Y = 1 / (( 1 – X^2)^0.5 + A * Y) giving A some value between 1 and zero. Let say

A = 10 ^ - 8

You want to plot Y Vs X?

 

Well you should first write Y(X), see here. You can then plot this with whatever package you like. Excel will probabily do it.

[swansont]

Swansont

The classical radius is not the actual radius of the electron. It's a handy shorthand for sizes on that scale, just like Avogadro's number is handy for numbers of a macroscopic collection of atoms.

 

------ This handy shorthand I think is very precise in classic calculations:

E = e^2 / (4*pi*ε0*Re) = me * C^2 = Mpl.* C^2* Lpl*α / Re = h / ((2*pi/α)*Re) = G*Mpl^2 *α / Re.

Now put instead of “Re” the modern “. “ or “zero”, and joke with idiot lay-mans.

The precision isn't the issue. It's precise because it's defined in terms of well-established (or defined) values. The issue is whether it corresponds to a physical size of a particle: it doesn't.

 

 

Then pick some experiment you can do, or has been done, that can test your formula, as the rules of speculations demand.

------ This is formula about classic particles: mass and radiuses.

 

Γ = 1 / ( ( 1 – β^2 ) ^ 0.5 + ( Vg / C ) ) ;

First : For V = 0 it take form :

Γ =1 / (1 + ( Vg / C ) ) quite = 1

For V = C it take form :

Γ = C / Vg Which is different by infinite and is the rate :

Plank constant / constant of particle.

As Vg / C is very small both two cases are difficult to perceive with experiment.

At least getting rid from absurd 1 / 0

Instead if my hypothesis of “unique particle” is right then instead of

Vg / C we must use (( Vg * C ) / C^2))^0.5

then something change.

What is the value for gamma for a proton at 0.999999991 c according to your formula? That's the speed of protons at the LHC, according to relativity.

[Kramer]

 

Mellinia

Not all particles are held together by the electromagnetic force. And that "charge in circles movement" was proven to be wrong. Look up on Bohr radius.
------Many concepts are now upside down between classic and modern. As a young man you are, stick with modern and ignore what a layman grand pa, like me, say.
Nevertheless isn’t hurt to see everything with criticism, and to dig in controversies. Dispute is an awesome force in progress.
For a stubborn chap like me, with an old knowledge baggage, two are the main forces of nature: gravity and electricity, all-ways opponent with each other and in equilibrium.

AJB

The best thing you can do is get to grips with some of these methods.
Thanks AJB for suggestion, but it is far too late for me.

. Seems to me, that with my childish threads, I gave wrong impression for me as a media school student.

You want to plot Y Vs X?

Well you should first write Y(X), see here. You can then plot this with whatever package you like. Excel will probabily do it.
---- Again thanks for guideline. I tried, -- is an unknown field for me. I hoped “a baked pie” , and after, I my helped myself. But there is no lunch free. It is a friendly joke, never mind.
Swansont

The precision isn't the issue. It's precise because it's defined in terms of well-established (or defined) values. The issue is whether it corresponds to a physical size of a particle: it doesn't.
-----Then “ well established values “ are wrong. If they doesn’t corresponds to physical characters of particle, where are they based? Throw all classic physic in trash can together with my threads.

What is the value for gamma for a proton at 0.999999991 c according to your formula? That's the speed of protons at the LHC, according to relativity.
----- In this case formula is :
Γ = 1 / ( (1 – 0.9999999991)^2)^0.5 + ( ( C*Vgp) / C^2) ^ 0.5 * Γ))

Vgp classic = 2.696794925*10 ^ -8 cm/sec. and
(Vgp / C)^0.5 = 2.484481847*10^-10

Then Γ = 1 / ( ( 4.242640689*10^-5) + (2.4269406888106 ^ -10) *Γ )

But gamma is a result that depends from previous values.
So it asks a solving step by step that I am not able to solve.
When you gave velocity of proton I am sure you intended in the collision head by head.
Formula is about relative velocity toward the source of mater that is injected in proton.