A Collection of Ideas by blochee

Hi. Here is my paper called "A Collection of Ideas".

It's fairly long. You do not have to read everything. You can read
the entire paper at:

www.angelfire.com/un/rv

I will only include here the most important parts: the second, third
and fourth section:
-----------------

CONTENTS:

(2) Law of Conservation of Energy
Two examples which clearly demonstrate that the Law of
Conservation of Energy is wrong.

(3) Absolute Frame of Reference
First, this section will demonstrate that special relativity
is wrong. Then, it will amend special relativity by introducing the
concept of an absolute frame of reference.

(4) Work
This section is a continuation of the previous section. The
discussion thus follows by considering absolute velocity (that is,
velocity measured relative.

-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-
-|-|-| (2) LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY |-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-

---------------------------------------
_________________________
| |
semi- __\ |___ _________________ |
permeable / | | | |
material | |
(dialysis | | |
tubing) | | |
| | |
| | ------*------ <--\
| | | |
| | | turbine
| | |
tube B --> | |
(contains | | | |
perfluoro- | | | |
octane) | | | |
| | | | <-- tube A
| | | | (contains
| |_________________| | water)
| | |
|____________|____________|

/|\
\_ semi-permeable
material
(dialysis
tubing)


Tube A contains 250ml of water. Tube B contains 750ml of
perfluorooctane. Tube A and tube B are connected to each other by
dialysis tubing, which is a semi-permeable material. Water can
permeate through the dialysis tubing, but perfluorooctane can't. Due
to osmotic pressure, the water in tube A will pass through the dialysis
tubing entering tube B. Since water is insoluble in perfluorooctane,
and since water is less dense than perfluorooctane, the water will rise
to the top of tube B. The water that has risen will permeate through
the dialysis tubing at the top of tube B. Once enough water has
accumulated at the top of tube B, it will fall, turning the turbine,
and returning back into tube A.

Notice that this dynamo didn't require any input energy, and it
will continue to work, creating electricity by turning the turbine (and
generator, which is not shown), so long as the perfluorooctane does not
seep into tube A through the semi-permeable material. Eventually, the
perfluorooctane will seep through the dialysis tubing, and so this
invention is not a perpetual motion machine.

But how can this dynamo generate electricity without any input
energy? First, let's observe that the water at the top of tube B has a
gravitational potential energy. When it falls, the gravitational
potential energy is realized and is converted into electricity by the
turbine (and generator, which is not shown). But how did the water
initially get its gravitational potential energy? It got its
gravitational potential energy by being displaced upward in a fluid
(perfluorooctane) that is more dense than it. Thus, we must conclude
that insoluble objects immersed in fluids that are more dense gain
gravitational potential energy by being displaced upwards. However,
where is that energy coming from? By the Law of Conservation of
Energy, something must lose energy so that another can gain energy.
Since we cannot find anything losing energy, we must conclude that the
Law of Conservation of Energy is wrong, and that gravity creates forces
which then create/destroy energy; in this case it created energy in the
final form of electricity.

As mentioned before, enough perfluorooctane will eventually seep
through the dialysis tubing causing the level of the liquid in tube B
to lower such that the water cannot escape through the top of the tube.
And so, the turbine will stop spinning. At such a point we can easily
"unmix" both liquids by pouring all the liquid into a tall cylinder.
If we leave the two liquids in the tall cylinder for awhile then the
water will accumalate at the top and the perflourooctane will gather at
the bottom. We know that originally there was 250ml of water. So, we
need only take the top 250ml of liquid (water) from the cylinder and
put it into tube A; the rest of the 750ml of liquid (perfluorooctane)
can be dispensed into tube B.

Thus, this dynamo can continually produce electricity; when the
turbine stops turning because the two liquids mix, then we need only
unmix the two liquids and restart the dynamo.

Notice again that this dynamo creates electricity without using
any input energy! Some may argue that we used energy to unmix the two
liquids. That is true, *but* even though we used energy to unmix the
two liquids we did not *give* the two liquids energy. That is, two
liquids in separate beakers have the same amount of energy as the same
two liquids in the same beaker.

We can conclude by noting that energy is being created/destroyed
all around us. Gravity and magnetism are prime examples. Both create
forces. The immediate effect of the forces on the system is nothing
(the vectors of the forces cancel each other out). However, after the
immediate effect, and after a minute amount of real time, the forces
will do work on the system. If "positive work" is done, then the
system will gain energy. If "negative work" is done, then the system
will lose energy. Should these forces be sustained for a longer
duration of real time, then the forces might be found to have not done
any work on the system (that is, it added the same amount of energy
that was removed). Whether "positive work" is done or "negative work"
is relative.

This is just a random thought: Since gravity can create kinetic
energy, the fact that the Universe is expanding may simply be a result
of the gravitational forces between the masses of the Universe, not
dark energy. That is because two masses (e.g. stars, galaxies) can
pass by each other and both gain speed *without* colliding.

---------------------------------------
Suppose we have two magnets with like-charges "q" and "q0". The
space between the two charges is "r". Let the potential energy between
the charges be "U". Consulting a physics textbook we find that

1 q*q0
U = ------ ------
4*pi*E r

where "pi" equals 3.14
"E" is the permittivity of free space

As the two magnets are moved closer to each other, potential
energy will be gained and kinetic energy will be lost. As the two
magnets move away from each other, potential energy will be lost and
kinetic energy will be gained.

Say, initially, that both magnets are far apart. Now, let us do
work by moving the charges closer together. When we are done and the
magnets are close to each other, the potential energy will have
increased. The increase will be equivalent to the work we did pushing
them together.

Now, let's say that we took two hammers and pounded both magnets
until they lost their magnetism. Then, the potential energy between
the two magnets will dissappear. Thus, the system has lost energy
without any part of the system gaining energy. Thus, we have
demonstrated that the Law of Conservation of Energy is wrong.

Let me recap: First, we did work to move two repelling magnets
together. Thus, we lost kinetic energy while the magnets gained
potential energy. We then destroyed the magnetism of the magnets, thus
losing the potential energy. Thus, all-in-all, we lost energy.

This idea, which works on magnetism, can also be applied to
gravity.

Consider two stationary gaseous planets, both made entirely of
deutrium. Let's do work on the planets, increasing the gravitational
potential energy between the planets, by moving them apart. The
increase in gravitational potential energy will be equivalent to the
amount work we did separating the planets.

Now, let's say that the deutrium of both planets began to fuse by
the following equation:

deutrium atom + deutrium atom => helium atom + neutron + 3.27 MeV
(from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html)

(It is true that I didn't include the initial energy to start the
fusion. However, the above equation is properly balanced, so we do not
have to consider the initial energy required.)

Now, it is obvious that mass is being converted into energy.
Since the masses of both planets are decreasing, the gravitational
potential energy between both planets will also decrease. Thus, the
work we did moving the planets apart (which is now graviational
potential energy) will diminish. We have again demonstrated that the
Law of Conservation of Energy is wrong.

Let me recap: First, we did work by moving the two planets apart.
Thus, we lost kinetic energy while the planets gained gravitational
potential energy. We then converted some of the mass of the planets
into energy. Thus, we lost mass and in the process we lost
gravitational potential energy. Thus, all-in-all, we lost energy.

(One might oversimplify the above to say, "What goes up does not
*necessarily* come down.")

Or, since mass and energy are interchangeable, what if the mass of
both planets suddenly converted into energy. I don't know exactly how
this could happen, but nonetheless, it is within the realm of
possibilities. Thus, the mass of both planets would dissappear and so,
the gravitational potential energy would also dissapear.

-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-
-|-|-| (3) ABSOLUTE FRAME OF REFERENCE |-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-

--------------
I will take an example out from a physics textbook and show how it is
wrong, and how its failure is due to the fact that there is an absolute
frame of reference and there is absolute velocity. (The various
failures of Special Relativity are well described at the following
website:
http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/Relativity.html)

The chapter is "Relativity of Time Intervals" in the book "University
Physics".

There are two people, Stanley and Mavis. Stanley is standing on the
Earth while Mavis is sitting on a train. Now, there is a flashlight
secured on the floor of the train and there is a mirror on the ceiling
of the train. The mirror is secured such that it will reflect the
light from the flashlight directly back down to the floor of the train.
Let's do a little experiment and have the flashlight send a flash of
light towards the mirror and time how long it takes for the light to
return back to the flashlight.

*let "tM1" be the time elasped as timed by Mavis during the experiment
*let "tS1" be the time elasped as timed by Stanley during the
experiment
*let "v" be the speed at which the train is
travelling at relative to the Earth
*let "d" be the distance between the flashlight and the mirror

Stanley and Mavis should both start and stop their clocks at the same
time to properly time the experiment. In order to do that in the real
world is very difficult, and perhaps it is not possible (I'm not sure).
But that does not mean in any way that we cannot consider it on paper;
on paper, we just need to assume that the light from the experiment
reaches both Mavis and Stanley instantaneously.

Now, Mavis views the light emenating from the flashlight, travelling
upward to the mirror, and getting reflected back to the flashlight.

mirror--> #### ___
| |
| |
| | "d"
| |
flash- | _|_
light--> ^^^

Thus,

(1) "tM1 = 2d/c"

Meanwhile, Stanley sees a flash of light emanate from the flashlight.
It then moves upward and to the right where it meets the mirror and
gets reflected downward and to the right. Then it hits the floor where
the flashlight is.

mirror--> #### ___
/\ |
/ \ |
"l" / \ "l" | "d"
/ \ |
/ \ |
flash- / \ _|_
light--> ^^^ ^^^
|__________|
"v*tS1"

*where "2l" is the distance that Stanley observes the light to have
travelled

Thus,

(2) "l² = d² + (v*tS1/2)²"

I will leave it to you to verify that using equation (1) and (2) we can
derive:

(3) "tS1 = y*tM1"

*where "y" equals "1/(1-(v/c)²)^½"

That's how the physics textbook leaves the subject.

However, what if on the Earth Stanley had a contraption similar to the
one that Mavis has on his train. Let's give Stanley a flashlight which
is fastened to the ground (Earth) and a mirror that is a distance "d"
from the ground. Let's do our little experiment again except this time
on Earth; let's have the flashlight send a flash of light towards the
mirror and time how long it takes for the light to return back to the
ground.

*let "tM2" be the time elasped as timed by Mavis during the 2nd
experiment
*let "tS2" be the time elasped as timed by Stanley during the 2nd
experiment

Notice that "d" is the same because we built both our contraptions the
same way, and "v" is the same because it is the *relative* velocity
between both the train and the Earth.

This time we will get:

(4) "tS2 = 2d/c"

and

(5) "l² = d² + (v*tM2/2)²"

Again, I will leave it to you to verify that using equation (4) and (5)
we can derive:

(6) "tM2 = y*tS2"

Now notice that in equation (3) and equation (6) the values of the
elasped time need not have any correlation with our two little
experiments! That is, in equation (3) the value "tS1" is determined by
the value of "tM1" which could be anything. Likewise, in equation (6)
the value of "tM2" is determined by the value of "tS2" which again
could be anything.

So it is obvious that equation (3) can reduce to

(5) "tS = y*tM"

and equation (6) can reduce to

(6) "tM = y*tS"

*where "tS" is a period of time measured by Stanley
and "tM" is a "corresponding time" measured by Mavis

By "corresponding time", I mean that if Stanley and Mavis could both
start and stop there clocks at the same time, then Stanley would
measure an amount of time "tS" to have passed and Mavis would measure
an amount of time "tM" to have passed. Again, the fact that it may be
difficult to get both guys to start and stop their clocks at the same
time does *not* mean in any way that we cannot discuss it on paper.

It's obvious that equation (3) and (6) are incompatible because they
both work *only* when "v" equals zero. The general reason why the
equations are incompatible is because, despite what Relativity
dictates, there is an *absolute* frame of reference (some may call it a
*preffered* or *unique* frame of reference). And so it follows that
there is absolute velocity; absolute velocity is a velocity measured
relative to the absolute frame of reference.

The exact reason why both equations are incompatible will be discussed
afterward. For now you must be asking, if there is an absolute frame
of reference then how can we find out where it is? It is actually
surprisingly simple. Just do the following experiment:


--------------
Say we want to find the absolute relative velocity of a train. (This
is very similar to Einstein's "Train" Thought-Experiment.) In the
middle of the train we will have a switch. The switch is connected to
two wires; one wire leads to the front of the train while the second
wire leads to the back of the train. At the front and back of the
train are flashes and timers. When the switch is activated, a current
in the wire will cause both flahses to emit a flash of light
simeltaneosly. The flash of light from the front will be directed to
the back of the train while the flash of light from the back of train
will be directed to the front. Each timer will stop when it observes a
flash of light from the other side of the train.

*let "tF" be the time measured by the timer at the front of the train
*let "tB" be the time measured by the timer at the back of the train
*let "l" be the length of the train
*let "v" be the absolute velocity of the train

These two equations are obvious:

"tF*c = l + tFc"
"tB*c = l - tBc"

Solving the above equations we get an equation which determines the
absolute velocity of the train:

"v = c * (tF-tB)/(tF+tB)"


--------------
I propose that when a velocity is measured relative to the absolute
frame of reference then we call that velocity an "absolute velocity".
Also, if acceleration, force, work, kinetic energy, time, rest, etc.,
is measured from the absolute frame of reference then it too will gain
the prefix-word "absolute". Also, one may either say that
"such-and-such is relative to the absolute frame of reference" or
simplify it by saying that "such-and-such is relative to the Universe".


--------------
Now let us return to the problem that Stanley and Mavis faced at the
beginning of this section. Remember the following equations:

(5) "tS = y*tM"
(6) "tM = y*tS"

Now, both equations ((5) and (6)) are incompatible; either one of the
equations is true or they are both invalid. This goes against the
Principle of Relativity which is "the laws of physics are the same in
every inertial frame of reference."

Thus, we see the need for an absolute frame of reference. I propose
that the equation for time dialation works only when the velocity is an
absolute velocity, that is, the velocity is measured relative to the
absolute frame of reference.

Remember Einstein's "Train" Thought-Experiment? A train is travelling
at a velocity of "v" relative to the ground. One man is standing in
the center of the train and another man is standing outside. Now, when
each man sees the other standing directly in front him through the
window a flash of lightning strickes the front of the train and the
back of the train.

We know that "v" must be an absolute velocity, otherwise we would be
led into a paradox. Now, the man on the ground will observe the
flashes of light to occur simultaneiuosly. However, the man on the
train will observe the flash of light from the front before he observes
the flash of light from the back. But from his position the light from
the front and the light from the back traversed the same distance!
This means that he will view the speed of the light from the front to
be faster than the (traditional) speed of light while the light from
the back will be slower than the (traditional) speed of light!

Relativity is right in saying that the speed of light is constant BUT
it is only constant when measured from the absolute frame of reference.
If you are in an inertial frame that is not at rest with the absolute
frame of reference then you may very well observe light not to be a
constant.

Now, there are two ways to measure the relative velocity of two
objects: (1) "absolute relative velocity" and (2) "apparent relative
velocity". To determine the absolute relative velocity one needs to
know the absolute velocity of both objects OR one needs to use the
Doppler effect. To determine the apparent relative velocity one needs
to visually observe the change in displacement of the two objects and
then take into account the change in time. Notice that absolute
relative velocity does not normally equal apparent relative velocity
because when you are measuring apparent relative velocity time gets
dialated and length gets contracted because you are not always in the
absolute frame of reference.

-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-
-|-|-| (4) WORK -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-

--------------
Two terms introduced in the previous section are used in this
section:

-"absolute velocity": a velocity that is measured relative to the
absolute frame of reference.

-"absolute relative velocity": the relative velocity between two
objects typically measured by using the Doppler effect.

-any time "absolute" preceeds a term that means that the term was
measured from the absolute frame of reference; e.g. "absolute effective
general work" is effective general work measured from the absolute
frame of reference.


--------------
Once one has realized that energy is not conserved, the big
question that arises is how did something so obvious allude us, and for
so long. The answer to that has many reasons. One reason is that we
did not define work intuitively. I will now attempt to rectify that.


--------------
First, let's realize that force has two equations, or rather, that
it can be observed in two different ways. First, there is "ineffective
force":

f_g = pA

where "f_g" is ineffective force
"p" is pressure
"A" is area

And then there is "effective force":

f_e = ma

where "f_e" is effective force
"m" is mass
"a" is acceleration

Effective force is ineffective force which is allowed to cause a change
in kinetic energy.


--------------
Consider the following scenario: two classmates, Jack and Jill,
both able to hold a one-kilogram brick. Naturally, holding that brick
on Earth is approximately equivalent to maintaining a force of 10
Newtons. Let's say that Jack held his brick for 20 seconds, and Jill
held her brick for 2 seconds. Now, without using any scientific
jargon, who did the most work? Jack obviously did more work than Jill.
Thus, *intuitively*, work should equal force multiplied by time.


--------------
Notice, that this means that work done on an object does not
necessarily have to cause a change in kinetic energy. On the contrary,
even if you placed a book on a table work is being done; the table is
maintaining a force, and likewise, the book is maintaining a force.
The force of gravity is causing stress between the two at the atomic
level. Work, in general, does not require a change in kinetic energy.
Thus, I call the following the equation for "general work":

W_g = f_g*t

where "W_g" is general work
"t" is a period of time


--------------
I propose that the real unit for work (that is, general work,
which is force multiplied by time) should be "P", for Prescott, Joule's
middle name. Thus, one prescott equals one newton second. I relegate
the old, traditional meaning for work to the term "productive work".


--------------
Now, work defined as it is today (productive work) is wrong
intuitively, but nonetheless, it is a *VERY* *USEFUL* "measuring tool".
It calculates "useful" work, where usefulness is defined as causing an
object (I use that term very loosely) to be displaced in a certain
direction. Power calculates the rate at which this "useful" work is
happening. I should make it clear that any form of work can be
considered useful or useless depending on the situation and its
application.


--------------
Of course, just as force has "effective force", work has
"effective work". The term "effective" means that the work is allowed
to cause a change in kinetic energy. Thus, we can have "effective
general work" and "effective productive work"; "Effective general
work" is general work that is allowed to cause a change in kinetic
energy and "effective productive work" is productive work that is
allowed to cause a change in kinetic energy. If the work (general work
or productive work) does not cause a change is kinetic energy then the
work is called "ineffective work".

To find out effective general work, take the term "f_g" and make it
effective, that is, change it into "f_e". And thus:

W_g = f_g*t
W_e = f_e*t
= ma*t

where "W_e" is effective general work

And since in Newtonian mechanics

v = a*t

where "v" is velocity

we can simplify the equation for effective general work to the
following:

W_e = mv

In Newtontonian mechanics, momuntum is equal to "mv". Thus, in
Newtononian mechanics, effective general work causes a directily
proportional change in momentum.


--------------
From the previous section we know that there is an absolute frame
of reference. Allow a guy named "watcher" to inhabit the absolute
frame of reference.

Consider a space ship with a captain in it. The space ship is
travelling at an absolute velocity of "v". Then the captain turns on
his thrusters accelerating the ship in the direction of the velocity.
The force on the ship is "f_g". He leaves the thrusters on for an
amount of time "dt", an infinitesmal amount of time as measured by
himself.

In the eyes of the watcher the space ship will experience a force
"f_g" (in agreement with the captain) for a period of time "dtA".

Now, "dt" does not equal "dtA". That is because, due to
Relativity, we must take into account the dilation of time.

dtA = y*dt

where "y" is equal to "1/(1-v²/c²)^½"
"c" is the speed of light
"dtA" is a period of time measured by the watcher
("A" stands for "absolute")
"dt" is the period of time measured by the captain

Thus, in the watcher's eyes the thrusters are doing an amount of work
equal to "W_g":

W_g = f_g*dtA
= y*f_g*dt

Again, let us allow general work to become effective, that is, let's
allow the general work to cause a change in kinetic energy. However,
we cannot just replace "f_g" with "f_e". This is because effective
force does not always equal "ma" in Relativity. But, we will allow
"f_e" to equal "ma" here, and it will be justified later. So,

W_e = y*f_e*dt
= y*ma*dt

Since,

a*dt = dv

where "dv" is an infinitesmal amount of velocity

Thus, we get the equation:

dW_e = yma*dt
= ym*dv

where "dW_e" is an infinitesmal amount of effective general work

The above equation means nothing now but it will be important in the
next paragraph.


--------------
I have found the following equation in "Introduction to the
Relativity Principle" by Gabriel Barton (pg. 189):

ya = 1/m ( F - 1/c² V(V·F) )

where "F" is the vector for force
"V" is the vector for velocity

let "µ" be the angle between force and velocity measured in radians,
"0 <= µ <= pi"

The above equation can be rewritten as

ya = |F|/m ( 1 - v²/c² * cos(µ) )

Observe that "|F| = dW_g/dt",

where "dW_g" is an infinitesmal amount of general work

So,

ya = dW_g/dt/m ( 1 - v²/c² * cos(µ) )

yma*dt = dW_g ( 1 - v²/c² * cos(µ) )

In the above equation "dt" is being measured in the moving frame. So
we can use the equation in the previous paragraph. That is:

yma*dt = ym*dv = dW_e

And so,

dW_e = dW_g ( 1 - v²/c² * cos(µ) )

To be clear, in the above equation "dW_g" is an amount of general work
which is allowed to become effective as measured in the moving frame.
"dW_e" is an amount of absolute effective general work, in other words,
it is effective general work measured from the absolute frame of
reference.

>>From the above equation, we can infer many things:

As absolute velocity increases and as the angle between force and
absolute velocity decreases the effectiveness of general work changes
depending on the direction of the general work. (1) If the general
work is in the direction of the absolute velocity ("0 <= µ <= pi/2")
then the general work is less effective because "dW_e < dW_g". Thus,
in such a situation we will say that the general work is
"sub-effective". This means that we cannot have an absolute velocity
that surpasses the speed of light because general work losses its
effectivity when absolute velocity nears the speed of light. (2) If
the general work is in the opposite direction of the absolute velocity
("pi/2 <= µ <= pi") then the general work is more effective because
"dW_g < dW_e". Thus, in such a situation we will say that the general
work is "super-effective". (3) If the absolute velocity is zero or if
the angle between the force and absolute velocity is 90 degrees then
"dW_g = dW_e". In such a situation we will say that the general work
is "exactly-effective". Remember that above we allowed "f_e" to equal
"ma"; we can now realize that "f_e" equals "ma" only when general work
is exactly-effective. When general work is sub-effective then

"f_e < ma"

and when general work is super-effective

"f_e > ma".

Notice that you could just as well say that as absolute velocity nears
the speed of light the effectiveness of a force to create an
acceleration in the direction of the absolute velocity diminishes. On
the other hand, as absolute velocity nears the speed of light the
effectiveness of a force to create an acceleration in the *opposite*
direction of the absolute velocity greatens. What this means is that
it is easier to slow an absolute velocity than it is to increase an
absolute velocity.

Even though we can never have an absolute velocity greater then the
speed of light, we can still have an absolute relative velocity that
surpasses the speed of light. Consider two space ships both at rest
with respect to the absolute frame of reference. Let one ship
accelerate till an absolute velocity near the speed of light is
reached. Then, the other ship should accelerate in the *opposite*
direction till it reaches an absolute velocity near the speed of light.
The absolute relative velocity measured by either ship (by using the
Doppler effect) should now be greater than the speed of light.

Perhaps dark matter is what is observed when two objects have an
absolute relative velocity that surpasses the speed of light. The
light from each body of mass would reach the other mass, however, the
frequency of the light would be an imaginary number, thus making the
masses "dark". It is a well-known fact that the Universe is expanding
and so there is a lot of matter receding away from us. And so, there
ought to be a lot of matter which have a relative velocity higher than
the speed of light, which would thus explain the fact that there is a
lot of dark matter out there.


--------------
Now, I would like to point out that the "rulers" we use to
"measure" various things, such as time, acceleration, velocity, force,
work, energy, etc., are subjective. For things such as time,
accleration and velocity, the way we measure the three is obvious and
it is trivial to examine them.

However, force, work and energy are much different. For instance,
let's consider ineffective force. We know that as pressure increases
so does ineffective force increase. We also know that as the surface
area that is being pushed by the pressure increases, so does
ineffective force increase. Now, we say that ineffective force equals
"pA" where "p" is pressure and "A" is the affected surface area.
However, we could just as well say that ineffective force equals
"3*p²A^½". We can say that because it follows the rule that as
pressure increases so does ineffective force increase and as the
affected surface area increases so does ineffective force increase.
However, the way that the equations are defined right now makes
handling them easy.

We could apply the same argument to kinetic energy and momentum.
Notice that that is why we can observe both kinetic energy and momentum
as being the result of effective work. Kinetic energy and momemtum
increase as velocity increases and as the affected mass increases.
Thus, we can measure kinetic energy as the result of effective
productive work ("½mv²") or we can measure momentum as the result of
effective general work ("mv"). (To be accurate, kinetic energy equals
"½mv²" and momentum equals "mv" only when we look at the world in
Newtonian terms or when absolute velocity is near zero.)

Also notice that velocity is relative. It is true that there is
"absolute velocity" but that does *not* mean in any way that velocity
is not relative. I should make it very clear that velocity is *always*
measured relative to some frame of reference, even absolute velocity is
relative; absolute velocity is velocity measured relative to the
absolute frame of reference.

Now, kinetic energy and momentum is what effective work
accomplishes. Both, effective productive work and effective general
work, as seen above, increase as velocity increases. But since
velocity is relative, then kinetic energy must also be relative.

Now, you can measure ineffective force, ineffective work and
potential energy from any point in the Universe and come up with the
same value. However, measuring velocity, acceleration, time, effective
force, kinetic energy, and momentum is relative, that is, the value you
get will vary. The value can vary even if you make the measurement in
the same place at the same time! To illustrate: measuring kinetic
energy depends on two things: (1) the relative velocity of the object
you're measuring and (2) the velocity at which you would say you are
travelling at. (We are assuming here that you and the object are not
changing inertial frames). Thus, if I were sky-diving and was in
free-fall such that I had reached my terminal velocity, I could say (1)
that the Earth has great kinetic energy because I am at rest and it is
rushing towards me or I could say (2) that I have kinetic energy
because I am hurtling towards the Earth which is at rest and has no
kinetic energy. Both measurements above can be made in the same
position at the same time and they are both right; it just depends on
how you want to look at things. Thus, like velocity is relative, so
too are effective force and effective work (kinetic energy).
-----------

Raheman Velji
you can view the entire paper at www.angelfire.com/un/rv

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: speed and cinetic energy
    ... | Suppose that I am looking at a body in space, seaming to approach to ... My understanding is that I would need to know his ... Energy is relative, there is no such animal as ... absolute velocity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: lorenz transformation and spped of light
    ... producing an electric field. ... But the loss of energy by light is ... Make a change of reference frame and get free-energy. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: lorenz transformation and spped of light
    ... producing an electric field. ... energy loss, I presume). ... Make a change of reference frame and get free-energy. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: My definition of force!!!
    ... > in the velocity vector. ... > which hires the most-accepted authorities to write their reference ... Fishbane et al., Physics for Scientists & Engineers, 3rd edition, page ... heat is energy and energy is a force when it is "performing ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: My definition of force!!!
    ... > in the velocity vector. ... > which hires the most-accepted authorities to write their reference ... Fishbane et al., Physics for Scientists & Engineers, 3rd edition, page ... heat is energy and energy is a force when it is "performing ...
    (sci.physics)