| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/13/2008 7:20:39 PM | I do not have the background in applied physics that would allow me the proof that E=mc2 is inaccurate, but I would like to put forth the following hypothesis for discussion.
Relativity as expressed in terms of E=mc2 only holds true because our ability to observe is limited by the speed of light This thought occurred to me (not sure if published elsewhere) when speaking to a friend about cellular harmonics. Atoms vibrate at the speed of light -- or do they? Do we observe that only because we can observe nothing greater? This way of looking at energy and matter may help explain the wave/mass properties of photons. Is this worth looking into? (Remember, you heard it here first!) | |
|
| |
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/13/2008 7:29:28 PM | Without the academic background, you're going to have a tough time proving your conjecture. E=mc2 is only one aspect of it. And it was proved pretty effectively with the first successful explosion of the atomic bomb.
Moments of insight and inspiration are the beginning of discovery, not the end of it. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/13/2008 7:31:41 PM | Ok so atomic particles typically travel (via vibration) at 10,000 m/s (10^13Hz * 10^11m)-- basically a calculation based upon observation using statistics -- not a direct observation. Our observable limit is still the speed of light, thus an equation using that as a constant would necessarily hold true.
True, this is merely insight, but where does my logic go askew?
| |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/13/2008 7:53:40 PM | | Theoretically speaking, E=MC2 Square? If in fact, relativity speaking, of course, this may or may not be true....A thought occurred to me as I was reading your post: that atoms are little particles of cellular harmonics and can be seen floating in mid air. Energy/Matter, Wave/Mass....Properties!!!!Is it worth looking into? I'm not sure. What do you want to know? | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/13/2008 8:05:51 PM | Particles travel at different velocities, according to their mass and energy. Heavy particles tend to move more slowly, lighter particles faster, the lightest and fastest (neutrinos) are the most difficult to observe (it would actually be more accurate to say that light travels near the speed of neutrinos).
In fact they aren't observed directly, but the result of their interactions with known particles can be detected and analyzed; from this we determine their characteristics.
Since you're on the Internet, spend a bit of time with Wikipedia. Look these things up. If nothing else it can lead you in the right direction to begin asking questions.
Really smart people have tried "debunking" relativity for over a century. POF forums aren't going to challenge it. It still rules. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/13/2008 8:08:42 PM | well I think it is worth looking into and you make a very good point.
I get baffled by electrons and have come to the conclusion that there is no "present" that the past and the future overlap and we exist in both the past and the future at the same time. This is based on my very basic knowledge of everything, but simply and quickly put (because I need to go to bed) if 2 electrons, spinning around an atom, close to the speed of light, in opposite directions to each other would in fact be travelling faster than the speed of light relative to the individual electron.
But you must bear in mind I am as thick as two short planks and cannot even spell relativity let alone understand it. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/13/2008 8:13:46 PM | I once thought that no thing actually physically travels. That it is only property transference resulting from vibrations. That the illusion of travel is our not yet fully understanding exactly what it is that is being traveled through and the nature of it's behaviour.
Don't laugh at me and call me aether lover!
I'm just crazy for the sake of having fun.  | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/13/2008 8:19:17 PM | Vancer,
Everything physically travels. At what velocity..we don't know. It is the illusion of travel that baffles us especially when we think we can see it. And poof!!! it's gone. Crazy! Maybe, but not any more crazier than anyone else who is trying to figure out the theory of relativity.....Signed: Issac Newton...LOL | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/13/2008 8:48:36 PM | Oh, I only meant that when we see something travelling it is essentially an identity comprised of combinations of smaller entities. And that when we get to the smallest entity we may find it's not the same entity from one second to the next. It's simply property transferences through some multi-dimensional grid we don't fully understand.
Does that make any sense? I don't know.
I just think of stuff for story making most of the time. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/13/2008 8:57:51 PM | Hey Vancer,
I love your story making up ideas.....If smaller entities travel as fast as larger entities we would have a movie making in progress...LOL....Time travel through "grids". Now that would be interesting especially if we enter a blade of "grass" in the mix. If you uproot a blade of grass, think of the particles that will emerse from that blade. We could even go as far as "planting" in mid-air. What do you think? | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/13/2008 9:04:55 PM | But then the identities making up the blade of grass would be ignoring the relationships to what's around it, and would not be supporting the best localized route to energy conservation.
They may be suicidal on their own, but when surrounded by their little buddies they will support them to be legion!
I can hear them now, marching through my skull at extraordinary speed. Make it stop.
You are being silly, and I like it. Because it supports my silliness. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/13/2008 9:16:47 PM | | Silly is good,,,Cuz like the blade of grass I'm down-to-earth. I was gardening this last weekend and as I up-rooted a blade of "weed" a black bug was un-earthed too and I thought to myself...Poor little "bugger" been down there for awhile and I held him in my hand and threw him back to the dirt letting him know that although the forces of "evil" were against him and anyone else that dug him up would have killed him, it was his lucky day...LOL....Sorry, I'm digressing.....So, thus I get to the identies of the blade of grass...Please don't tell me that I must name my blade of grass "Sybil"...LOL...anyway, yes ignoring the relationships around it, it takes the Scenic Route. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/13/2008 10:07:15 PM | You want to hear another silly story.
Perhaps it's taking the scenic route across so many different dimensions it's occasionally bumping into itself and saying hello in various ways.
'Aye, which one of me are you?'
'I dunno.'
'Where you headed?'
'mmmm, that way? ... I think'
'Ohhhh, I was that way earlier. Let my selves help you find the best route. That way you won't waste time getting there.'
'Kay. Thank you.'
'Zarlight. It's what we do. See you around.'
'Ditto.' | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/14/2008 5:39:51 AM |
the lightest and fastest (neutrinos) are the most difficult to observe (it would actually be more accurate to say that light travels near the speed of neutrinos).
Incorrect, they are heavier and slower than photons. Photons have zero rest mass while neutrinos have a non-zero mass, though very minuscule, and it's been calculated that they travel at 1-((5.1±2.9)×10^-5) times the speed of light. While lower than the speed of light it is sufficiently close enough by the uncertainty principle that it would be indistinguishable from the speed of light.
In fact they aren't observed directly, but the result of their interactions with known particles can be detected and analyzed; from this we determine their characteristics.
The reason why they are difficult to observe is because they have no electrical charge and therefore can travel through just about anything and all observations of sub-atomic particles is a direct result of interactions. Basically they travel through the space between atoms which is a HUGE area in the sub-atomic world, it's as though you were immune to the pulls of gravity and traveling through our solar system and actually hitting a planet or moon (probably not even that likely.) It is purely by the large amounts of neutrinos traveling through everything that we get the random minority that collide with an atom that we know they are there. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/14/2008 7:17:41 AM |
Relativity as expressed in terms of E=mc2 only holds true because our ability to observe is limited by the speed of light
Incorrect. A popular misconception due to Einstein's original 1905 derivation of the Lorentz transforms is that relativity has something to do with the speed of light. In a modern treatment of relativity, spacetime is a 4 dimensional manifold equipped with a metric, ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2.
Note that there is no `c' because time is measured in meters, just like the spatial dimensions. Velocities are dimensionless and correspond to hyperbolic rotations in a spacetime plane. Light propagates with a velocity of 1 and it only propagates at that velocity because the photon is massless. The correct energy-mass-momentum relations is E^2 = p^2 + m^2. Note that without the `c', energy, momentum and mass all have the same units. Basically, relativity is nothing more than the pythagorean theorem applied to 4 dimensions with one of the directions having a negative sign (a so-called indefinite metric) so that the geometry is hyperbolic.
Every experiment ever performed agrees with relativity, which is the criteria for judging the merits of a theory. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/14/2008 7:28:01 AM | | Correct me if I'm wrong but "Relativity" refers to the fact that observations of physical processes are relative to your frame of reference, does it not? Although the laws of physics are the same regardless of where you are in the universe and whatever speed you're travelling, the speed of time is relative to the stationary observer. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/14/2008 9:28:46 AM | Correct me if I'm wrong but "Relativity" refers to the fact that observations of physical processes are relative to your frame of reference, does it not? Although the laws of physics are the same regardless of where you are in the universe and whatever speed you're travelling, the speed of time is relative to the stationary observer.
That is sort of true, but in those terms, relativity also applies to Newtonian mechanics (Galilean relativity.) But, that makes both theories harder to understand. Both Galilean and special relativity are really theories of spacetime geometry. Had Galileo (or Newton) had the mathematical knowledge we have today, all of Newtonian mechanics could have been derived from Galileo's principle alone, i.e., physics is unchanged under a Galilean boost: x' = x - vt.
Einstein's original derivation was clumsy by today's standards, and lacks the generality needed to address some questions in physics, but unfortunately is still used to teach relatvity. A more modern way of looking at relativity (both Galilean and special) is as a theory of invariants. The reason for this is, as you said, the laws of physics should remain unchanged under space and time displacements. (If this weren't true, you couldn't expect an experiment to be repeatable or obey the same laws of physics if performed in different places.)
This is familiar from trig. For example, the length of a line is given by s^2 = (x-x_0)^2 + (y-y_0)^2 + (z-z_0)^2, regardless of how you choose your coordinates x,y,z. s^2 is an invariant. In general the length of any arc is found from the line element (or metric) ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2. and a change of coordinates leaves ds^2 unchanged: ds^2 = dx'^2 + dy'^2 + dz'^2.
In special relativity, the corresponding line elememt is ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2. A Lorentz boost is just a change of the time coordinate and ad a spatial coordinate that leaves ds^2 unchanged:
ds^2 = -dt'^2 + dx'^2 + dy'^2 + dz'^2
I'll ignore the y' and z' coordinates to get,
ds^2 = -(1 - (dx'/dt')^2) dt'^2
You'll recognize the dx'/dt' as a velocity. Since this is also equal to -dt^2 + dx^2,
-dt^2 + dx^2 = -(1 - (dx'/dt')^2) dt'^2
For an observer at rest at the spatial origin in his own frame, dx^2 = 0, so
dt^2/(1-v^2) = dt'^2
Which after taking the square root of both sides, is just the Lorentz transform. The Galilean case is more complex to treat the same way. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/14/2008 10:32:32 AM | Time dilation and other aspects of Relativity have been proven conclusively
over and over. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/14/2008 3:24:09 PM | I might understand Vancer's idea...
Its like considering that there is an invisible 3-D framework akin to a tiny cube of many invisible cubes which is the medium for tranference of "matter" and energy from cube to cube, that matter is not really traveling, its transferring through a system of such design.
And I've confused myself.. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/14/2008 3:45:10 PM | This is exactly what I was inferring earlier
by abelian: Every experiment ever performed agrees with relativity, which is the criteria for judging the merits of a theory. The observable and measurable results of the experiment must necessarily remain within the confines of the equation because we can neither see nor observe anything beyond the limits of the equation in question. Even substituting the speed of light constant with derivations of time and space, we are still limited by our ability to observe time and distance. We see the "result" but not the cause of the result. Conclusions are based upon a "norm" of experimental results. Science concludes that the abnormal results are due to faulty procedure or observation, but those abnormal results are always present. Most scientific breakthroughs come from a minority willing to accept those abnormalities as normal and try to determine why.
Vancer has an interesting angle. Maybe the universe is a giant matrix where movement does not occur but energy just jumps from one dimension to another (conservation of energy still applies.) Our observations only occur in the dimensions we readily have knowledge of, so necessarily our equations would reflect those dimensions as well. String theory is an attempt at such a solution, however it seems to be also mired with the same issue -- proveable only within the limits of itself.
Our ability to infer something that is not observable in our universe is apparent by our ability to define and utilize the "square root of negative one" | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/14/2008 5:06:31 PM | Sorry but you're still not resolving the basic issue in that, in order to debunk such a strongly supported theory as Relativity you have to a: identify where the problems with Relativity are and b: come up with a proveable alternative both mathematical and experimentally verifiable.
The fact that the c is a universal constant does not negate the truth of an experiment's positive result. I'm not sure what the issue here is because now we're slipping into discussions of other dimensions. Well, they likely do exist. But since they aren't attached in any way to our universe, they are not observable and so would not have any influence on a local environment.
As for how science is done, well, an experiment must be repeatable. A result that occurs only once is more likely to be a glitch in the experiment versus an actual phenomenon. The experiment itself is done more than once. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/14/2008 5:34:49 PM |
Time dilation and other aspects of Relativity have been proven conclusively
over and over.
Yes, by: Einstein, Galilean, Newton, and several others
dt^2/(1-v^2) = dt'^2 = Balance/Resistance
And others after them. There are many dimensions, each resistance of the next and cannot be seen by the human eye but can be felt by the human spirit.
All too often we as humans forget that we live in a world full of Paranoia and Delusion. We struggle to get our thoughts and feelings across to other people only to realize that they too are puzzled. We are robots in our own right where reality doesn’t satisfy the thirst for knowledge and our fantasies reflect how we act.
In theory - this works in relativity as well. All you have to do is "People Watch" and observe. In hindsight, that's all the theory of relativity is.....IMO anyway.....
We Co-Exist with the animal kingdom confirming the fact that we are no different than they are. We have the same thoughts as they do wondering where our next meal is going to come from. We are in constant search for the truth and a never-ending quest for the cure. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/14/2008 10:49:15 PM |
Our ability to infer something that is not observable in our universe is apparent by our ability to define and utilize the "square root of negative one"
You seem to be missing the point. Any physical process that involves a cause/effect relationship defines an experiment. If no experiment can be performed to demonstrate the cause/effect relationship, then no such process exists. | |
|
| Relativity Debunked
Posted: 5/15/2008 6:45:34 AM | In short, Relativity in its present form is proveable and, more important, applicable. Just look at the GPS satellite network. Time dilation effects have to be taken into account because the satellites are travelling faster than the person carrying the receiver. As a result, without taken Special Relativity into account, the units would be off by metres and even kilometres versus a few inches or feet.
Wanna, don't know where you're going with that or what that has to do with the topic of discussion. However, it was efforts after Einstein that proved Relativity. Galileo, et. al. weren't aware of it at all. | |
|
Home
login 
