Gzhpcu,


This set of statements are all very interesting especially the last 2 lines.

The first line essentially captures the one of the key ideas of Super Relativity. In reality the theory states there is no difference relativistic mass and rest mass. There really is no such thing as rest mass. As I said earlier everything is always in motion relative to the ether. As Newton’s Second Law says F=MxA is awesome statement. Rearranging the equation gives m=F/A. The definition of mass is: Mass is the quantity of inertia possessed by an object or the proportion between force and acceleration referred to in Newton's Second Law of Motion. Basically it is saying that some force in motion causes mass. Even the rest mass version E=mc^2 says the same thing a force in motion will equal mass. Super Relativity says the same thing, a force in motion (unbalanced charge in accelerated motion) generates mass. Which ultimately means it generates the gravitational field. If there was a way to literally stop the motion of a particle such as an electron you would see that it no longer has mass and its magnetic field would be eliminated as well. Super Relativity says the property of the particle that we call mass is its gravitational field. So mass is a relative thing. If you increase the particle acceleration its mass will increase. If you also increase the velocity of a macro -object relative to the ether the mass of each and every particle that makes up that object also increases.

My point about Einstein’s General Field equations is that they describe perfectly how the gravitational field works. When you say to me the stress-energy tensor describes the density and flux of energy and momemtum in spacetime and that it is an attribute of matter, radiation and non-gravitational force fields. It is a lot to swallow and try to make sense of. But I think that it is saying the same thing I am saying. A stress-energy tensor is another way of saying that there is a stress vector of some sort being applied across a surface element in an elastic solid. It is the same as a motion of a force within the elastic ether solid. Mass is manifested as the motion of charged particles through the elastic solid. But I say that even more importantly that General Relativity does not say. General Relativity does not give the details of the physical model it stops just short of that. It describes the field but does not really say what the origin of the field is.

Therefore all mass is really relativistic value.

And why exactly should that surprise us?

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Actually, now that I've posted that, the atomic weights don't appear to be as close as it first seemed to me, especially considering the atomic numbers are so close in the sets for the difference in the weights of the electrons to begin with , unless one considers the difference between the weights of protons and neutrons themselves, which is about 2.53 electron weights, but forget that for now, I guess. Anyway, the point is that whatever formula is used for relativistic speeds and time dilation of particles, it would be helpful if it were capable of reproducing the mass defects to find the binding energy of nuclei and/or predicting the atomic weights of atoms in some way.

__________________
Let's put together the pieces of The Grand Puzzle . (website - now revised)

"Let's define another operator, Sz, which we won't pay any attention to."
"This transformation will automatically make zero equal zero."
"It may be true that zero equals zero -- and that is certainly an equality -- but I don't want to go into the details at this time."

F=ma, says that for simple systems with a rest mass of m, to accelerate it by a quantity of a, you need a force of F. ma is mass in motion.

Solving the equation for m, m=F/a does not mean that the force is in motion. The unit of measurement of force in the metric system is the Newton, which is kilograms times meters per second per second (kg.m/s2). F/a is not force in motion.

Same thing for Einstein's famous equation. Energy is measured in the metric unit of the joule, which is kg.m2/s2 -- you can see that this is Newtons times meters.

You are misinterpreting the math.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Hello Malaidas,

This if for Fortis as well…. Proof that may help certainly food for additional discussion.

Welcome aboard Malaidas. I read through your comments and your are having much of the same view point as Fortis which I can and do appreciate. Basically I need solid evidence. I also very much appreciate your ideas on what needs to happen in order to rally support. Realistically speaking I agree with what you guys are saying. I can tell you personally I have exhausted my resources for promoting this idea. Over 11000 dollars of my own money from my savings has been spent on the book I have written. It is a science fiction book with my concepts written into the story line. I realized writing a non-fiction book talking on this subject would pretty much get me stoned to death by the scientific community. So I am not going to go in that direction just yet. Bottom line is I have no more money to buy my own equipment or rent the services of a lab to do or conduct an experiment.

Now you guys have also suggested that some previously performed experiment may be able to help. There is such an experiment that exists. Of course there will be disagreement over the interpretation I am sure but if you keep an open mind, who knows maybe you will see what I see.

The experiment I refer to is the Hafele and Keating Experiment.

Some time back I came to the same conclusion as you both have stated that perhaps an experiment confirming special relativity already has been performed that would help prove the ether existence. I found this experiment. This is a quote from a physics website.

Hafele and Keating Experiment
"During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."
These results prove exactly what I have said about time dilation. For whatever reasons no one then, or now dares to make the cosmic connection. Why does one clock gain time and the other one lose time relative to the pseudo stationary clock. Technically speaking both airborne clocks accelerate away from the stationary clock on earth. Of course not even the clock on earth is truly stationary it is moving in a circle as the earth spins. So the clock that moves in the same direction as the earth’s spin eastward spin should lose time relative to stationary clock which it did. It’s velocity is in addition to the earth spin so that clock will run slower than stationary clock. Importantly though it can be argued that this velocity is also a higher velocity relative to the stationary ether so this clock will run the slowest. On the other hand the clock moving in the opposite direction westward runs a little faster and gains time. Its speed relative to the ether is slightly slower so its time rate will be faster.

The difference in the results occurs because of one primary thing the direction of the flight. Both plane speeds I imagine should have been at the same rate only in opposite directions. The question should now arise. Was the time differences of positive and negative time rates relative to stationary clock due solely due to the fact that the eastward and westward clocks were moving at different speeds relative to the pseudo stationary clock on earth or were they different because they were different speeds relative to the absolute motionless ether. I say the true rate of time flow for all objects is determined by the macroscopic objects speed relative to the ether.

There is the evidential proof you requested.

Gzhpcu,

Ok thanks, I see what you are saying. So F = Newton, which is kilograms times meters per second per second (kg.m/s2) and that is divided by accleration. So everything force and motion related still remains on the right side of the equation and mass still remains on the left side of the equation. So my point still holds I just mis-interpreted math. Energy and motion on the right side and mass on the left. You guys are definitely helping me shore up my arguments by catching things like this. I appreciate it.

MMfore, interesting. The question which occurs though, is how one could definitively show which of the two theorums are the more likely candidate for the observed dilation. From a pure philosophical basis I can see how your Super Relativity theory could match the observation and have no argument with you. The observed results are not too bad with respect to the Standard Relativity calculations, although I note that the eastern trip is roughly comparable but not explicitly within range. What we could do with here is more data to see if this is just an outsider.

__________________
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding... Monty Python

The Aliens stole my other sock.

Hello Malaidas,

I believe that, that experiment has been performed other times as well with satellites. I don't know if there was an experiment done with orbits in opposite directions though. In order to get a clock in sync with Universal time many motions have to be cancelled out. The spin of the earth on its axis, the rotation around the sun, the rotation of our solar system about the center of our galaxy and also the motion of our galaxy. Sending a spacecraft in the proper direction to cancel all those motions will result in a clock that runs faster than all other clocks. Of course the only way to tell if we are moving in the correct direction and speed is continue to sample earth based clock then make adjustments accordingly. Newton was right there is absolute time.

You know this evidence has been out there for years. The problem is a matter of how we have chosen to interpret the data from experiments like this. We have not tried to look at the bigger picture as we were happy to prove that simply, clock speeds are all relative to one another. The bigger question is what is moderating this relativity. I say it is a centralized object that all frames of reference are connected to.

The Hafele Keating experiment is well understood within the context of mainstream physics. There is no need to invoke "Super Relativity". The fact that GPS works, should be sufficient evidence that the mainstream description works fine here.

Does your model quantitatively explain any QM related observation? As I suggested in my earlier posts, it would be good to know if your model can derive the emission spectrum of the hydrogen atom. Can it?

Hi Fortis,

In a limited fashion, time dilation is understood. You apparently are happy with that and do not want to explore any further. No one dares to go where I went because it involves invoking the ether. I gave you the evidence that you asked for. Then you are choose to ignore it. Please understand that I am not trying to anger you with my response here I am just trying to make a point. So you are telling me that everything is relative and you are not the least bit curious to how all of these movements relative to one another manage to work out without some sort of interconnecting device that is the true manager of all the movements and Special Relativity transformations. Intellectually I just do not get why that does not make you the least bit curious.

You can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink. There is a funny thing about the truth. No matter what you do or how you try and suppress it, it always has a way of rising to the top. Eventually, if what I am saying turns out to be true it will force its way to the surface. What you are seeing here is just the beginning of that process.

I think I understand where you are coming from Fortis. You are just trying to get quantitative answers and descriptions and predictions from me. I can and do appreciate that effort. All I have is the pages and documents that I have posted on my website. Which for the most part don’t have advanced mathematics. So asking me to predict things like Einstein would predict in a way that he would predict it with incredible accuracy much more so than QM by the way which much of the time postdicts things and then retrofits the math to explain something. Then claiming a prediction which is much less impressive by the way. Those types of predictions are not going to come from a philosopher. Surely you must know that. So why ask those kinds of questions.

As for the emission spectrum for hydrogen atom question there is already a good explanation of that provided by Bohr. My theory does not need to be invoked to explain it any further. As that is particle theory QM Theory. Perhaps there is a way to do it with classical equations as well. I do not know. I am not a mathematician and you know that. So why ask me those types of questions. So the simple one line answer to your question is can it describe emission spectrum of the hydrogen atom. Yes, in its full blown mathematically proven version I am sure it can. Can I personally drum up the mathematics for you, of course not and you already know that. Why don't you try and talk about something I have made a statement about and not something that is out of the realm of the statements and claims that I do make. I am sure that you can find many more examples in nature that I cannot explain but does that disprove my theory. All you are attacking is my personal lack of knowledge on a particular topic. You don’t really disprove an idea of mine by exposing some lack of knowledge that I may have personally. Not really, after all it is just a theory and I am not God I am not all knowing. When I do give you responses in the future I really would like to see a little more response back from you. I am beginning to think that your tactic is to simply launch pot shots and then not give any reply back. This way you don't have to defend your statements or ideas.


For example:
That really does not say much. I give you paragraph upon paragraph of explanation and you give me a 2 line response.

Another example I ask you a question and you answer with a question:

I respond:
I may not be understanding something here and I will withhold my next response until you confirm what I am thinking. Are you saying that in the drawing above that before the two photons appear there are just one electron and no positron? Is that the interim step that you refer to?

I am asking for clarification.

Instead of explaining and clearing things up you reply with another question.

Anyway I would like to continue that discussion further. My interpretation is that for a very short amount of time which I think represents a transition time and particle before the conversion to photons. Now what is the quantum mechanical explanation of that red line?

Bottom line here is I am trying to discuss philosophical arguments and you want to bring advanced mathematics into play. We need to talk about the reasoning, logic and ideas so then we can determine whether scientists and mathematicians should attempt to answer the questions that you bring up. Theoretical concepts start first with an idea or intuition and then scientists proceed to formulate.

Well, that would be because using normal physics one only needs 2 lines, whereas you, in super relativity seems to need paragraphs and paragraphs of text that say less that those 2 lines.

Your super R does not have appropriate math, you do not understand forces (e.g. force at speed), you cannot predict mass of a particle without the mass of said particle being an input, you don't seem to understand Feynman diagrams even though you said that studying them would lead to insights (or whatever) etc. etc.

I fail to see why we would continue to keep this thread open at all.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

The Bohr model is a crude model of the hydrogen atom. As a theory, it can be derived as a first-order approximation of the hydrogen atom using the broader and much more accurate model presented by quantum mechanics, which states that the electron can be taken not only as a particle, but also as a de Broglie wave (wave of matter) which interferes with itself. The orbit is only stable, if it meets the condition for a standing wave: The circumference must be an integer multiple of the wavelength.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Tusenfem

Ok, you feel better. You are supposed to be a moderator. Please try and remain calm. Remember this is about exploring ideas and discussing philosophy. You guys made this site for the purpose of debunking ATM theories. Then you become irate when an ATM stands up for himself. Thats not really fair. I think that I understand what force is better than you will ever be able to understand. As far as the feynman diagram is concerned it not the middle line that is so important it is the beginning and the end result that is important but you obsess about the trivial and fail to grasp the essential. etc etc etc.

Hey you are the moderator if you don't like that I put up a fight shut down the thread. But in doing so you admit that your ego just does not like to be challenged and your way of handling it is to silence the opposition. Do as you will.

Well, actually this is a place to discuss physics, not philosophy. Intuitive ideas based on physics is something else. This can be discussed.

Mathematics is the language of physics, and I do not see how advanced ideas can be worked out and confirmed without it.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Hi Gzhpcu,

Yes, I know what you are saying. I just wanted to keep it simple because we were just talking about the hydrogen atom and not more complex structures.

Gzhpcu,

Well this is a phlilosophical discussion about physics. So maybe this is not the proper place for this discussion. I will leave that entirely up to moderators to decide. I am ok with whatever is decided. There definitely needs to be somewhere, where people such as myself can introduce new ideas and have fair consideration. The physics community is missing out on some potentially good ideas. It certainly can't hurt to talk about such things. Anyway no matter what, I appreciate the opportunity I have had here. For the most part it has been fun.

In any case, don't think that I am irate...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Hi gzhpcu,

Oh, no not talking to you or about you. You are great. I was referring to the moderator guy who piped in there a little while ago. Apparently they have a lot of them here. Is that a paying job or is it voluntary. Just curious.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Do to all the comments about website interface I have decided to redo the Super Relativity website. I will also have a blog setup up on the site for anyone who wants to continue conversation after the time is up here which should be in about 7days.

How about answering Fortis' question without setting conditions?

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Yes, never mind what yuou are doing to your website. It's this thread we are interested in.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Hello Slang,

Sure that can easily be answered. No, not to the best of my knowledge. I have not even attempted that.

It comes out from the fundamental geometry of spacetime.
Are you able to show mathematically why a mechanistic aether leads to time dilation? So far I haven't seen evidence of that. We need to go beyond simple assertions.
I didn't ignore it. I generally tried to indicate why it was inadequate.
And you are not angering me. I am simply trying to tease out what you theory/model is and how it connects to the real world. After all, the real world is under no obligation to behave as you want it to behave.
I just do not see any need for your aether. As far as I can see you are adding things, for which there is no evidence, and that provide no additional explanatory power. In fact, I haven't yet seen you demonstrate mathematically that your aether model is even consistent with the known results of SR. (If I am incorrect, please point out where I missed your explanation.)
As I have already said, the universe will do what it does regardless of our own prejudices. Theories must be tested against observation. Can you point to any phenomena which your model explains, that the mainstream model does not?
Quantitative answers are really very important. If I claim that supernovae are due to Chinese fireworks because they both explode and generate heat, you would tell me that the energy released by a firework was far smaller than the energy released by a supernova. In other words, quantitative results enable you to differentiate between models by going beyond simple hand-waving.
Please can you justify this claim? This is a direct question, and I would be very keen to see how you back it up.
I am asking those questions because you are claiming a theory of everything, and are discounting a number of aspects of the standard model, such as QM.The Bohr model of the hydrogen atom only possesses limited utility, and as far as I have been able to determine, the Bohr model does not form part of your TOE. Am I incorrect?
The title of this thread was "Theory of Everything - Unified Field Theory". Are you now telling us that it is not a TOE? And if it isn't intended to describe things such as particles making up the hydrogen atom, then why did we have a discussion about a similar scenario involving up and down quarks?
Because it is nice to be able to back up claims. Do you now claim that you have no quantitative evidence that supports your model?
Because you claim that QM is wrong and that you are discussing a Theory of Everything. Currently I have seen no evidence for either of these claims.
On ATM, the onus is on the proposer of the ATM idea. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. You may be surprised to know that I believe that the mainstream model is wrong. In fact, the mainstream view is that the mainstream model is wrong. If that was not true then there would not be all that work on string theory, loop quantum gravity, and many other ideas. That acknowledgement, however, does not mean that therefore your model is correct. Thus, it is up to you to provide the proof.

I still believe that it is valid to identify your level of knowledge of those concepts that you use (such as that Feynman diagram) and those concepts that you discount.
If you had read a standard description of the H-K experiment, then you would have discovered that it is perfectly consistent with SR (and GR.) You, however, were proposing it as a proof of the existence of the aether. I would suspect that if you had carried on reading the uncredited text that you quoted (possibly this page?) you would have discovered the mainstream explanation. Do you really believe that the H-K experiment allows us to differentiate between your theory and the mainstream theory?
I thought that I was clearing things up. The straight line between the photons is an electron, though a very special type of electron. I had hoped that as you had introduced this diagram to bolster your claim that your model was correct. Elsewhere I explained what this diagram was, and what it represented. I wanted to understand if you really understood what was going on in this diagram. It seemed a reasonable thing to ask, as you were introducing it to back up your argument. What has followed, however, shows that you don't understand what this diagram represents. If the people discussing this with you didn't understand what this diagram was, either, then it might have looked impressive enough to sway them. Perhaps it would be best to use things that you actually understand, in order to provide evidence to back up your claims, rather than just pluck things off the internet that you do not understand?
That line represents a virtual electron. Now what is special about a virtual electron? Do they even exist in your theory, and if not, why introduce them here?
Do we want to discuss physics? I don't think that I am introducing particularly advanced mathematics. Particularly given that you introduced the Fenyman diagram, which is part of the perturbation theory approach to a quantum mechanical abelian gauge theory requiring the use of regularisation and renormalisation to obtain many of the physically meaniful results. Compared to that, solving the Schrodinger equation for hydrogen is a walk in the park.
Can I confirm that you have no intention of talking about any quantitative results? I'm afraid that without the math, what you are proposing is just hand-waving, and trying to discuss its validity is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

Might I repeat what I said earlier?

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

This is a science forum not a philosophical forum. Maths is the language of physics. It is to be expected that you will be asked for some maths.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

You have not even attempted to answer his question? Please tell me I'm misunderstanding. For clarity, I was referring to the Feynman diagram question.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Hi Slang,

I can't seem to locate the question can you please repeat it. I am not sure what you are referring to.

Thanks

Hi Fortis,

I found your post very interesting, Yes I know that you are trying to tease things out. That is good. There is alot of interest and questions about the diagram. Yes center line is a very special type of electron please explain to me why it is special? Is it because it only lasts a fraction of a second? Is it because it does not behave like a normal electron in its brief life? To me that portion of the event is not that interesting. Why because it is an unstable state brought on by external forces. Its in transition. You know what I am driving at but yet you want to focus on other things less important. It is a clear demonstration of how the photon is constructed.