Re: Need opinions for theory.
- From: lithium@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 04:30:33 -0800 (PST)
On Mar 2, 3:24 am, "Artful" <art...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<lith...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44071929-f7f4-4407-a2c7-2d23befefc9d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.alttheories.com
==
This theory started with the realization that the way gravity can be
shown to at least relative to us
==
In what way does that show gravity is relative to us .. and what do you
actually means by gravity being relative?
I must have meant the time slowing due to gravity.Time is a very
relative thing and I could not have meant gravity was relative.Had to
just be my poor writing skills.
==
, slow time, that this slowing of time
can also be shown to contract materShapiro effect
==
How can it be shown. What experiments would show this. What reason is
there for making such a wild assertion.
More than 1 hypothetical tests are reviewed and are crudely written up
on my website.
But to actually do such an experiment you would have to forget about
the pole in barn experiment but something like how the Shapiro effect
was done would work.Instead of barn doors you would use satellites in
certain locations etc.Remember that the Shapiro effect
was done by measuring the change or rather the decrease in the speed
of light as it passed our sun.
So how can we argue that this effect can be shown to be wrong.About
the only way is if we can argue that from the rods prospective
something very different is observed but how. No question that the
outside observer will see the rod now fit within a much smaller length
of space.
To be honest I had to look really hard at this question as it was the
only way I could falsify my own theory.Remember our rod is in free
fall traveling faster and faster and will see distances becoming less
and less from its prospective.
But if you were to assume that our traveler was to use rockets to
prevent his gaining and then losing any extra relative speed then it
becomes more obvious that yes he should see his space measuring more
as a result of the time dilating effects of gravity.Another way is to
hypothesize about keeping the time dilating effects of gravity minus
the gravity and then the effect is also really obvious without the
confusion of gaining extra speeds that also contract distances to the
prospective of our rod.
Actually its easy to argue that the even from the rods prospective it
should be able to apply relativistic corrections mathematically.
In the end I didn't come to any conclusions on where the theory could
be wrong but it would be good to have some others also take a look.But
used to post this all the time a year or more ago and never got much
in useful opinions.
Another point about all this is that you have to remember the analogy
I had on light entering a glass rod and getting shorter as it travels
slower.I had a discussion with some physicists one time and it was
pointed out that at the fundamental level there may actually be no
such thing as true rest mass, all those quantum particles zip around
and or disappear in one place and appear elsewhere etc where the speed
of light is a factor so why would matter be any different than light
when it enters a slower time. So also it hypothetically it should
contract the same way for much the same reason.
Got a hypothetical light box idea for the web site that illustrates
another interpretation of the possible cause of inertia as a result.It
was interesting that while light has no mass it can be shown to add
mass to a hypothetical box.What if quantum particle could have inertia
by the same mechanism ? No rest mass at all, in sold mass, would be
interesting if its true.
Don't know what to make of it but it appeared to gave the same
predictions, conservation of energy and equivalence principle and all
that.Never did much with it but it would be very odd if if actually
did give any other predictions.
==
If you measure space with a
contracted rod you end up measuring more space or distances as the case
may be.
==
No .. you end up measuring the same space, but coming up with a different
answer, because your ruler is shorter. The same applies to anything you
measure .. it will give you higher numbers. So it doesn't matter whether it
is space or matter (as you seem to draw a distinction between the two).
Not so sure that could be true, If you measure more space how you can
argue that the extra space you measure is not actually extra space.How
can you tell your meter stick is different if everything about that
meter stick says its a meter long even when an outside observer
measures your space as much less.
I point out that circumferences around planets etc will be more
because the rulers are shorter but how could you possibly tell that
your measure is the right one and the other is wrong.Outside measures
will say the space is less but inside measures will say the space is
more.I would really have to think hard about how one could argue
different.
On the other hand I do hypothesize that its the quantum vacuum or ZPE
thats different.In other words a more concentrated quantum vacuum
would contract all of your toll in such a way that anything you could
use to measure that difference just contracts so it comes out the
same.I looked at the idea of taking along a set of Casimir's plates on
a space ship to see if they could be shown to be able to detect the
differences.They should not be able too but my maths is not good but I
attempted it.Remember that I think they plates pulled together by 16
times the force each time the distances were 1/2 so if matter
contracted so would the Casimir's plates but remember that the time is
also 1/2 as fast and the plates are also 1/4 the area.
Seams to keep the proper relationships but don't remember now so I
might try it again sometime.I think its what they say, it needs to be
covariant.
Thing is that space may not just be a relative difference in a rulers
length.
This theory is really not to be confused with Lorentz contractions and
I used to have a really hard time pointing that out when I used to
post about this theory a long time ago.You cant get extra space or
even less space with it.Just doesn't seam to work that way.
==
Leads to all sorts of explanations for a whole bunch of physics stuff.
==
"Physics stuff"? You expect to be taken seriously at all with remarks such
as that?
==
Nearly everyone knows now that black holes and their extreme gravity
slow down time to an extreme, at least to us outside observers so how do
you show that it also contracts mater.
==
Really .. you need to improve your writing style.
Yes I know. Will try to do better and re write the site bit by bit But
I have to chose between adding more content or improving on whats
there.
==
About the easiest way to start
is by looking at the pole-valt in barn thought experiment only this time we
also add a slowed down time within the barn.
==
You don't need that .. the effect is due to changes in simultaneity which
result in the physical effect of a long pole being shorter at any given
instant in the frame of the barn.
==
But if the barn has a
significant amount of slower time inside it by for example 2 small
black holes in rotation about each other so we have a clear path
between them and then do this experiment again
==
So a similar example is it you have a meter rod upright at the top of a tall
tower and then move it, will an observer at the top of the town see
something different wrt the velocity and length of the rod compared to an
observer moving with the rod, or someone on the ground. ie will it matter
who is trying to keep the velocity of the rod to appear constant.
Never thought about looking at it that way.Might be something I could
use, will have to think about it.
But tired now.
Dale
.
- References:
- Re: Need opinions for theory.
- From: lithium
- Re: Need opinions for theory.
- From: Artful
- Re: Need opinions for theory.
- From: lithium
- Re: Need opinions for theory.
- From: Artful
- Re: Need opinions for theory.
- Prev by Date: Re: GPS' indulgence about GR
- Next by Date: Re: GPS' indulgence about GR
- Previous by thread: Re: Need opinions for theory.
- Next by thread: Re: What is Proper Time?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
