Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
- From: NovaJoe <relativetheorys@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:56:59 -0000
On Oct 16, 6:07 am, NovaJoe <relativetheo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 15, 8:07 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
"NovaJoe" <relativetheo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1192422352.548579.218410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The relativity of motion in space relative to the inertia phenomena is
a subject that no one can seem to agree upon. It seems no one can make
up there mind either. But, if we all we to take a deep breath, and
approach this difficulty by thinking "out side the box," we would find
there is a easy way to go about this difficulty. Lets go back to the
basics and see what we can come up with. Assuming motion cannot exist
without reference, the first thing that needs to be done is we need to
define motion relative to the inertia phenomena. Let us simplify this
statement by saying, "We need to define motion in space relative to
space" (spatial reference) If we imagine the universe in a perpetual
orbit, from the perspective of watching the univers from outside the
universe, how are we to know if the universe is spining in perpetual
orbit, or are we orbiting the universe while the universe stands
still? There is no motion to define here relative to a orbital motion
without a third body of reference. The only motion that can be
defined under these conditions is the motion of the expansion of the
universe. Now were begin to get the picture. How are we to modify a
postulate for the functionality of the inertia phenomena by using this
deduction. Let us assume that inertial mass and gravitational mass
are equivalent.
That reflects a common misunderstanding: originally (and there is no reason
to change that), "mass" was postulated to be something physical and not
merely a constant in an equation. To claim about something physical that it
is "equivalent" to itself when measured with different methods is
meaningless.
Inertial mass is relative to velcity in space, thus,
gravitational mass is relative to motion in space as well.
Perhaps you meant that "mass is RELATED to velocity (speed) in space"?
Indeed, relativistic mass m = gamma*m_0 = f(v) with v= relative to any
inertial frame of choice - incl."space" if you so desire.
Go to relativetheorys.com blogs and quotes page for more...
Sorry but... too many colours, underline etc. That gives a BAD first
impression!
Cheers,
Harald- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
inertial frame of choice - incl."space" if you so desire.
To claim about something physical that it
is "equivalent" to itself when measured with different methods is
meaningless.
Yes, mass is what I mean when I speak of inertial and gravitational
mass and yes, to state two different measurements of the same thing
(mass measured either with inertia, or gravity) are equivalent is in
itself meaningless. But this seemingly meaningless statement is
fundamental to the point I am trying to convay.
Perhaps you meant that "mass is RELATED to velocity (speed) in
space"?
Indeed, relativistic mass m = gamma*m_0 = f(v) with v= relative to any inertial frame of choice - incl."space" if you so desire.- Hide quoted text -
It is known that space warps relative to velocity approaching the
speed of light. Space expands in the direction of motion, while the
space opposite to the direction of motion contracts creating a
resistance opposite to the direction of motion. The greater the
velocity of a body of mass is approaching the speed of light (in a
vacuum) the greater the overall mass of the body becomes (increase in
mass relative to acceleration in velocity). The property of matter
experiencing an increase in overall mass associated with velocity in
space ("in space" because all motion in reality is in space/all
physical matter exist in space weather surrounded matter or not all
matter exist in space) is the connection in implying, because: this
suggest mass needs to be in motion for gravity to exist. Which raises
the question," how is velocity referenced relative to the warping of
space associated with velocity approaching the speed of light (inertia
phenomena)?" There must be a reference of motion in space relative to
the inertia phenomena. Understanding the connection between matter
(mass), inertia and the reference (also the need to define this
reference) of the inertia phenomena is fundamental to understanding
gravity, the curvature of space in the presence of mass, the
acceleration of the expansion of the universe (the so called "dark
energy"). My theory (Relativistic-Hyper-Unification Theory or RHU
Theory for short) defines the reference of the inertia phenomena, the
motion of the matter/mass (universal spatial expansion of all mass in
the universe spherically outward with the velocity of light, which
becomes the third reference unto which all other motion is defined
relative to the inertia phenomena), among numerous other difficulties
solved or explained by my theory (Relativistic-Hyper-Unification or
RHU Theory). The universal spatial expansion of mass with the
velocity of light is the reason for universal gravitation. The
universal special expansion of all mass in the universe with the
velocity of light sounds like a pipe dream the first time you imagine
matter expanding at the speed of light because we don't observe this
motion in reality. However, if space expanded equivocally
proportional relative to the expansion of mass so that two separated
bodies in space would not appear to be getting closer to each other so
long as two bodies are far enough away from each other so that gravity
is not a factor. Under these conditions the expansion of space
associated with the expansion of matter would be impossible to observe
relative to the lack of reference. The universal spatial expansion of
mass (PUM) velocity would have to be a continuously accelerated
velocity relative to the unit of measurement continuously expanding
with the expansion of space (associated with the expansion of
matter). Under these conditions the expansion velocity of mass would
be required to accelerate in order to maintain an equivalent
perception of inertia from moment to moment. If the expansion
velocity of mass was a constant unvarying velocity gravity would
appear to weaken over time. As the unit of measurement expands with
space and matter/mass inertia would weaken without acceleration that
maintains a velocity equivalent to our perception of a 186,000 miles
per/sec from moment to moment. As our perception of one mile remains
constant (under these conditions), the reality is the unite of
measurement continuously increases in volume requiring the expansion
velocity of matter (mass) to accelerate in order to maintain
equivalent perception of inertia (gravity). This hypothesis is
supported by the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
Proven through experiment suggested and carried out by, Saul
Perlmutter with the Lawrence Berkley national laboratory. He
suggested 100 or more type 1-A supernovas be photographed so that they
could decipher the deceleration ratio of the expansion of the
universe. They discovered the expansion of the universe was
accelerating. They recorded a 20% increase in velocity of expansion
since the big bang, and of course no one was expecting this (except
for me) leading to hypothesis of some unknown force repelling bodies
of matter on opposing sides of great expanses of empty space called
"dark energy". This is consistent with my hypothesis on the PUM
(universal spatial expansion of all mass throughout the universe with
the perceived velocity of light). In accordance with the Lorentz
Transformation, the velocity of light would be perceived at 186,000
miles per/sec now AND shortly after the big bang. However, if we
could measure the velocity of light shortly after the big bang from
the present time and compare that velocity with our (present time)
perception of the velocity of light we would find the velocity of
light has been decelerating related to the acceleration in velocity of
universal spatial expansion of mass and space in accordance with the
Lorentz Transformation. The velocity of light would necessarily
decelerate when light comes in contact with matter while our
perception of the velocity of light remains equivalent throughout
time. This would be the affect on the velocity of light in accordance
with the Lorentz Transformation in association with the PUM (universal
spatial expansion of matter and space). This means light was faster,
relative to matter, the earlier in time you go towards to the birth of
the universe (the big bang).
Note:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
Physics looks for new Einstein as nature rewrites laws of universe
Times Newspapers Ltd., September 9 2001
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten.....Among the ideas facing revision is
Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that
light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe.
Rees,
Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
they recently organized a private conference in Cambridge for more
than 30 leading cosmologists.....Another puzzle is the so-called
"smoothness" of our universe, by which astronomers mean the
distribution of matter and radiation." more>>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
- From: harry
- Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
- References:
- The Relativity of Motion in Space
- From: NovaJoe
- Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
- From: harry
- Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
- From: NovaJoe
- The Relativity of Motion in Space
- Prev by Date: "The Einstein Hoax"
- Next by Date: Re: Sagnac Fully Supports the BaTh.
- Previous by thread: Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
- Next by thread: Re: The Relativity of Motion in Space
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
