I was thinking about this...

An object accelerating towards c (speed of light) gains mass as it nears c... how i see it is c being an asymptote of a graph, the closer the object gets to c, the closer its mass is to infinity...

Now, if light has a mass, because it cant escape black holes and is bent by stars and other heavy things... if it moves at the speed of light, shouldnt light become very very heavy? Infinately heavy?

Is there something wrong in my reasoning somewhere? Where?

Hm... woa... quick cool theory just popped up in head... maybe c is not limit of travel, but just below the limit... making photons very heavy and visible and stuff only when they at c... when they hit something and are absorbed by it, they slow down, and are all of the sudden so light and with so little mass, that they might as well just dissappear...

/patent
/claim

If this idea wins nobel prize... i posted it here 1st!... unless i saw/heard it somewhere else and subconciously memorized it, just to think that its my original idea now...

Ok, this should have been two posts, but what faults are there in my 2 theories? The light being infinately heavy one and the light being heavy or noticeable as long as it moves at light speed... only to be really massless when it stops.

Now, if light has a mass

Light has no mass.

shouldnt light become very very heavy? Infinately heavy?

If light has no mass, it can't get "heavy."

btw - light has no mass.

Is there something wrong in my reasoning somewhere? Where?

Yes. Light has no mass.

maybe c is not limit of travel

c, the speed of light, 299,792,458 meters per second,186287.490 miles per second, is the limit.

Light has no mass. The ultimate speed limit is the speed of light.

:)

Are you sure light has no mass? I definately have repeatedly seen otherwise.. :)

Are you sure light has no mass?

Pretty sure.

I definately have repeatedly seen otherwise

Don't believe it.

;)

Hi GRO$$,

"An object accelerating towards c (speed of light) gains mass as it nears c... how i see it is c being an asymptote of a graph, the closer the object gets to c, the closer its mass is to infinity... "

Objects don't get "heavier" when they move faster. They only get more energy. In relativistic mechanics, the concept mass is redefinied to include the energy. Hence, since the energy increases, the mass increases (with the sidenote that you should know what is understood by "mass" in relativistic theories).

Bye!

Crisp

"Q"

You have ridiculed my last two theories and now my friends theory. Light does indeed have a mass!! If light had no mass like you are saying then why does it curve when it passes by stars, and black hole??? ever think of that??? A Photon is what makes light have mass, just incase you didn't know Photons make up light!! They are what we call "sub-atomic" particles, I would suggest to you that you start reading some physics books, and maybe, just maybe you might be right about something down the line.


BTW: Nice theory Andrey, lol

thank you. I am also a little frustrated about (Q)'s aggressive approach to other's ideas... why do you think light has no mass tho? I always have assumed it has, I think I learned it somewhere long ago and never really questioned it... it would make sense for it to have mass...

Originally posted by (Q)
Are you sure light has no mass?

Pretty sure.

I definately have repeatedly seen otherwise

Don't believe it.

;)

hehe :)

Hi GRO$$,

This is one of the reason's why I have always been against not using the word "relativistic" when talking about mass in special relativity.

Light does not have a restmass: m₀ = 0. This means that if you could ever put a photon on a balance, it would read 0.00 grams.

Light does have relativistic mass (which is commonly called just "mass" in the theory of relativity, but which does NOT refer to the restmass). The (relativistic) mass of a photon is related to the momentum/wavelength/frequency of the light.

Light does not bend near the sun because it has "mass" (in all possible meanings of the word). The theory of general relativity states that light follow a straight path in spacetime, which is bent near a gigantic object like our sun. A straight path in a bent spacetime is perceived by us as a bent path in our regular universe.

Hope this settles the discussion :).

Bye!

Crisp

it settles a lot i think crisp, i remember reading about spacetime cured at gravity, i can look like i understand what its implying, but i havent really gotten my mind around the concept... which way is it curved? into another dimention?

so what u are saying Crisp is that Light only has a mass when it is relitive to space and time. for example if x=mass of light, and space =n, time =y :


x=0



===but===


(x)(n)(y)= unknown mass?



When I say unkown mass I mean any type of mass but it is unknown to us because it is only in theory.

Am I right, if not please explain to me, thanks a lot crisp for clearing it up.

what hes saying is light has no mass, and travels in straight line always... but gravity bends space-time, so it travels in straight line thru curved space-time...

correct me if im wrong please...

Hi all,

GRO$$,

"which way is it curved? into another dimention?"

Okay, I'm going into a domain that I never studied extensively, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

It's not curved into another dimension, it are the dimensions themselves that are curved. The best way to visualize this is probably with the following analogy. Suppose that we were confined to a 2D spherical surface. This means that there would not exist any up or down, just forward/backward and left/right. If you start walking somewhere on the sphere and keep on walking forward, then you will say that you always follow a straight path (assume that the sphere is very huge and that you don't walk all the way around it). For someone who lives in a three dimensional world and can observe the sphere, you would have walked a curved path. For someone living on the sphere, it appears that their living world is the same in all directions (flat, you are confined to the sphere) but someone who lives a dimension higher clearly sees that your living world is curved. Replace the 2D world by our 4D spacetime and you more or less get the real situation. However, there's no extra fifth dimension (yet :)) where you can observe our curved 4D spacetime.

The analogy doesn't quite work because it is somewhat the other way around: it is the 4-dimensional spacetime that is curved, and what we perceive as 3D straight paths are really curved paths in 4D spacetime, and the other way around (straight path in 4D, eg the path of light, is curved in 3D -> which is why light bends).

S. Dalal,

"so what u are saying Crisp is that Light only has a mass when it is relitive to space and time".

Eeeeehrrrr.. no. If you want to talk about light in a proper theoretical way, you have to talk about a theory that happens to be called "the special theory of relativity". The reason why it has the word "relative" and "special" in it is a long and boring story (I'll just skip that for now :)). It has nothing to do with being "relative to space and time".

Bye!

Crisp

You have ridiculed my last two theories and now my friends theory.

Don't know who your friend is but your theories are nonsense.

Light does indeed have a mass!!

Light has no mass. Get over it.

If light had no mass like you are saying then why does it curve when it passes by stars, and black hole??? ever think of that???

Geodesics (straight lines) curve near matter because the geometry of spacetime is curved (gravity). Light follows a straight line (geodesics). Hence if the geodesics are curved and light travels along the geodesics, light appears to curve around matter (stars, black holes, etc.). Is that clear enough?

A Photon is what makes light have mass

Really? I thought photons were tiny energy packets of electromagnetic radiation.

They are what we call "sub-atomic" particles

Photons are bosons. Bosons have no electric charge or rest mass. They are field particles that are thought to be the carriers of the electromagnetic field.

I would suggest to you that you start reading some physics books, and maybe, just maybe you might be right about something down the line.

Uh.....yeah, sure. :rolleyes:

I am Stephan's friend he was reffering to, I know him in real life :)

"Photons are bosons. Bosons have no electric charge or rest mass. They are field particles that are thought to be the carriers of the electromagnetic field."

hm... if they have no rest mass, how do they exist?

i am finding it hard to understand how something has no mass ... how can it exist?

Mass is just one of the properties that a particle can have. It can also have energy, momentum, spin, electric charge and colour charge (related to the strong force). It can have some of those things and not others.

A photon has no rest mass, no charge and no colour charge. It does, however, have spin. It also has momentum and energy.

The concept of relativistic mass causes more confusion than it takes away. Physicists these days have pretty much dispensed with the idea. Instead, they talk only about rest mass.

So it has energy without mass? cool... any good sites on the subject u guys can suggest, or should i just look it up on google?

Originally posted by S. Dalal
so what u are saying Crisp is that Light only has a mass when it is relitive to space and time. for example if x=mass of light, and space =n, time =y :


x=0



===but===


(x)(n)(y)= unknown mass?





i just want to know if everyone agrees with this equation

Originally posted by James R
Physicists these days have pretty much dispensed with the idea. Instead, they talk only about rest mass.

Absolutely. Mass is rest mass in most discussions.

Read the ohter thread on light has mass for more details.

Dave "at rest" Barlow

P. S. Damn i'm meant to be in bed.

The equation is dimensionally incorrect, and so is meaningless.

i know it does not make sense because if light has no mass at rest in the second equation anything times zero(cause someone thinks light has no mass) equals so light has to have mass in order to have mass in motion

i know it does not make sense because if light has no mass at rest in the second equation anything times zero(cause someone thinks light has no mass) equals so light has to have mass in order to have mass in motion

Since the last thread I'm on the no-mass bandwagon. I'd misunderstood what I had read on several sites and in several books. I went back and read it all again with the input of thed and Q. sorry guys. light = no mass.

Light curves around a heavy object because its the path of least resistance. heavy objects warp spacetime like a bowling ball on a blanket. if you roll a ball bearing across the blanket, if it passes close enough to the bowling ball its path will curve around the ball.

Gro$$ - Google search will do just fine. Look for HyperPhysics. its a good site with plenty of info to get you started.

IggDawg,

Let me remind you, the attractive force is not only found in the gravitational interaction, it is also found in the electromagnetic interaction.

Does a positive charge curve space around it so that it can attract a negative charge??? If so, why is an uncharged object not effected??

If a positive charge can attract a negative charge without curving space, why does gravity have to???

Wouldn't it be more likely that the gravitational interaction is SIMILIAR to the electromagnetic interaction, instead of being COMPLETELY different????

From my questions, you can see why I don't believe in curved space.

Tom

it's easy to visualise it with a blanket, but look at it in space

how does space "curve" --> what "spacestuff" would do that?
space is not a blanket
everyone seems to think that gravitational lensing is like looking at the sun with your bear eyes and hops there it is
damn it's late, promess i'll tell some more of my thoughts on this ;)

Tom,

I am sorry you learnt nothing from our previous discussions of your questions.

James R,

I'm sorry that there was nothing to learn from our previous discussions about my questions.

Tom

This hamster is happy to have learned from these discussions. (Hope no one feels his efforts have been wasted.) Learning from books, articles, and web sites is good but the authors have usually concluded that a certain view of the universe is correct. That spins and biases the presentation. Lots of info presented explaining why an idea is right with little or none showing deficiencies or alternate explanations or how the idea came about. Watching an intelligent discussion between people supporting different views is not only more interesting; it drives out essential questions that aren’t obvious from a one-sided presentation.

This hamster likes to collect models. Even if it turns out a model isn’t supported by experimental data in one case, the model might find application in a different area. This hamster would rather understand a person’s model than try to prove that it is incorrect. (This hamster believes that all models are approximations but that does not stop them from being useful. Whatever model one applies it is important to understand the model’s limits.)

I always like the contributions of this Hamster. What a wonderfull Hamster we have in our midst! :p

"This hamster believes that all models are approximations but that does not stop them from being useful."

I agree, I will never say relativity is useless, it is usefull
and as Crisp (what a guy ... :cool: ) said many times, when scientists find a model works pretty well, they'll keep it
if nature works differently, ie more complex etc., then be it so (for scientists) they like efficiency
well I am not a scientist and I really really want to understand how it really works, though we'll probably never find out, just close is also okay

Light doens't need to have mass to be captured by a black hole because light travels through spacetime; and a black hole distorts spacetime to the extent that anything that passes the event horizon is going down the drain. Even if it IS moving at 186,282 miles per second.

what causes the effect of solar wind if light has no maass:confused: :(

then one photon would power universe for ever.
photon created by star in said universe.
and star produces finite energy.
? finite=infinite.
pls explain
with respect:( :confused:

Originally posted by grimreaper
what causes the effect of solar wind if light has no maass:confused: :(

I knew you'd ask me that... And I don't know.

The transfer of energy?

grimreaper:
"so how dose the solar sail work "

It's hard to imagine it without an inertial recoil, isn't it? You surely could describe it by the change in momentum of the light particles and the sail because momentum must be conserved, but then, momentum was initially defined in terms of rest mass, wasn't it? Photons do have momentum p=E/c^2. The photons do change direction. So how can it be that a unit of energy accelerated but no inertia was involved? Or is this inertia without mass?


James R:

"The concept of relativistic mass causes more confusion than it takes away. Physicists these days have pretty much dispensed with the idea. Instead, they talk only about rest mass."

Then what does that do to the idea of mass-energy equivelence?
Einstein said something like: mass is energy and energy has mass. A photon without mass wouldn't fit that statement.


As far as the path of a photon thru space-time goes, I think all units of energy are described in GR by their momentum vector. Is this momentum vector of a photon different than the momentum vector of a massive particle? That should govern how curved space-time effects each particle, right? This momentum without mass does sound like something Newton never dreampt of.

I think most of this thread has been about differences in definitions of mass.

Another question, which when answered legitemately and scientificly, is met with sceptisism and disbelief.

Q's original response is correct, and I like his tone.

Now for the Millionth time

BY DEFINITION LIGHT ALWAYS TRAVELS AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

It has no mass, it has inertia and it has energy.


S.Dalal


You have ridiculed my last two theories and now my friends theory. Light does indeed have a mass!! If light had no mass like you are saying then why does it curve when it passes by stars, and black hole??? ever think of that??? A Photon is what makes light have mass, just incase you didn't know Photons make up light!! They are what we call "sub-atomic" particles, I would suggest to you that you start reading some physics books, and maybe, just maybe you might be right about something down the line.

You obviously have no inkling of how phyics is. PHOTONS HAVE NO MASS. They never do they never will, by definition.

Natural:

<i>Then what does that do to the idea of mass-energy equivelence? Einstein said something like: mass is energy and energy has mass. A photon without mass wouldn't fit that statement.</i>

What Einstein actually said was that a given rest mass m has an equivalent rest energy given by E=mc². If the mass moves, it has an additional amount of kinetic energy.

He did not say that things with zero rest mass have no energy. A photon has zero rest mass, but it is never at rest. Its entire energy is (essentially) kinetic energy. A photon also has momentum related to its energy by p=E/c.

Originally posted by James R
Natural:

<i>Then what does that do to the idea of mass-energy equivelence? Einstein said something like: mass is energy and energy has mass. A photon without mass wouldn't fit that statement.</i>

What Einstein actually said was that a given rest mass m has an equivalent rest energy given by E=mc². If the mass moves, it has an additional amount of kinetic energy.

He did not say that things with zero rest mass have no energy. A photon has zero rest mass, but it is never at rest. Its entire energy is (essentially) kinetic energy. A photon also has momentum related to its energy by p=E/c.

new math is so confusing
old math states any number times 0=0
if ke= m*s and m=o then ke=o
i dont argue that photons have mass
i only ask how they exibit the propertys of it without it?
what is the energy of a photon?
sunlight exerts a pressure of approxamatly 3 to 5 psf to the surface of the earth.
sunlight is formed by converting mater to energy through the process of fusion in the sun.and is = (e=mc^2)
then mass equivilant =(e/c^2=m)
i need 4 asprin
with respect:confused: :o :confused:

there are recently experiment that show light react to gravity (i read it in encarta), well
is that means light has a mass??, BEcause
F= G.M1.M2/R^2 right??
WELL i don't know if this formula is correct i forgot(a little)

hey i just thought it...
in this universe, the energy(weak,strong,gravity,electro) must be reacted to anything in this universe (from a photon(light) to a bigplanet). Ahh i don't know what i am talking

We need an FAQ to cover this sort of thing.

actually, light can travel quite a bit slower than c. in vaccums it can only go c.

anyway, it seems to me like there is a lot of confusion about this mass thing. you are confusing mass with momentum. light has momentum not mass.

as for the solar sail thing, what is really happening is that light reflects off of the sail and moves in the opposite direction. since momentum is conserved in this collision, the net momentum of the sail is now equal to 2X the initial momentum of the light that has hit it because the light after the collision is traveling backwards. thus the net momentum of the system is conserved.

light has been confirmed to be affected by mass. mass causes a curving in space-time and the light bends with it. a professor here at my school in fact is doing a research project this summer looking for more gravitational lenses.

gravitational lenses are multiple images of galaxies which are behind another galaxy. the light, while passing the closer galaxy bends around from multiple directions, making more than one image appear. if the galaxy is positioned just right behind the other, you get the "einstein ring" effect. pretty cool stuff.

Before I start a yelling stream at me let me make it clear I am not taking a position on a photons rest mass issue. But I am inclined to think that both sides should take a deep breath. There may be more to the story than you are considering.


It turns out that there have been several experiments subsequent to MM that tend to support an aether theory and that a photon has a rest mass. But since this data runs agrain Relativity they are being ignored.


http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V04NO2PDF/V04N2MU2.PDF

or: http://www.signaldisplay.com/relativity.html

I have found another research organization involved in gauge theory that says photons indeed may have mass although they general refer to it as the massless photon throughout their study:


http://www.aias.us/pub/mattersagnac.pdf

Will an atom have a mass if you measure it with a device made of
"huge atoms", whose nuclei are as large as planets or stars?

There is no such thing as a "huge atom" with a nucleus the size of a star.

Originally posted by James R
There is no such thing as a "huge atom" with a nucleus the size of a star.
I believe it would be called a solar system.
I have always toyed with the thought that each solar system was only an atom in a molecule of a cell of a much larger being.
with respect:cool:

grimreaper:

Solar systems and atoms are very different. The picture of an atom that most people are taught at school is of the atom as a kind of miniature solar system. The modern quantum picture of an atom is very different from that. It describes the atom as a nucleus surrounded by "clouds" of electrons whose positions at any time are uncertain, but which can be predicted probablistically.

Thanks for the clarification. I am not up on quantum physics. So how dose this relate to the valence bonding then. One electron per orbit? I think I’ll probably need some aspirin but it’s worth it for enlightenment.
With respect
:cool:

Your confusion arises from the word orbit. You can use the word orbit so long as you don't associate with the classical analogy of orbiting sytems such as planetary orbits. Replace the word orbit with state. One electron per state. A state in the atomic sense, is characterised by 4 quantum numbers, n, l, m(l) and m(s) (m(l) and m(s) are meant to be subscripts).

What if a scale invariant and complete description of the universe is consistent with the existence of these “huge stellar and planetary like atomic nuclei”. What if the very massive source of the atoms building us creates from the center of the earth the puzzling smaller variation of the gravitational field over the oceans and continents than what is expected from their masses. Until the irrefutable origin of the universe is revealed we should explore all possibilities in a search for a self-consistent picture of creation.

Quantum mechanic describes, like the rest of physics, only what we see. How we influence observation and what creates what we see is still controversial. The discovery of what creates what we see will not reject quantum mechanics or any other well checked theory. It will only show WHY we came to these descriptions of nature and in the same time it will expand the scope of understanding.

Probably there are no such things as quarks, which strangely enough know no unbounded states. And the discrete structure of the atomic nucleus can be accounted for by something simpler, connected to the universe beginning like one all-building scale independent, finite and discrete 3D-spiral interaction.

Peter2003:

<i>What if a scale invariant and complete description of the universe is consistent with the existence of these “huge stellar and planetary like atomic nuclei”.</i>

It isn't. Atoms and planets are quite different.

<i>Until the irrefutable origin of the universe is revealed we should explore all possibilities in a search for a self-consistent picture of creation.</i>

Yes, but let's not hang onto possibilities long after they have been shown to be false.

<i>Quantum mechanic describes, like the rest of physics, only what we see. How we influence observation and what creates what we see is still controversial. The discovery of what creates what we see will not reject quantum mechanics or any other well checked theory. It will only show WHY we came to these descriptions of nature and in the same time it will expand the scope of understanding.</i>

This is philosophy, not physics.

<i>Probably there are no such things as quarks, which strangely enough know no unbounded states. And the discrete structure of the atomic nucleus can be accounted for by something simpler, connected to the universe beginning like one all-building scale independent, finite and discrete 3D-spiral interaction.</i>

There is no evidence that this is the case.

Originally posted by James R
There is no such thing as a "huge atom" with a nucleus the size of a star.

the neutron star is very often likened to a single huge nucleus, the size of a star.

It is likened, but we know that the 2 are definately not the same.
For one, gravity plays a much more important role. Also you should know that there are no stable neutron nuclei.

To all,

Yes, atoms and planets are quite different at the scales of observation created by the atoms that build us.
But have we any idea how the earth will behave in a giant hand that squeezes it together with the moon? This hand will feel like squeezing a balloon according to Savov’s theory of interaction, or like a tiny hand squeezing and atom, due to revealed 3D-spiral structure of the space between the earth and the moon. This 3D-spiral structure offers the simplest and singularity free explanation of structure buildup in the universe as an interaction between multiscale self-reproducing and so self-similar sources of interaction, some seen as galaxies, stars, planets, atoms and light depending on their size.

Meantime the collapse of the sources of the atoms in centers of stars and planets leaves very massive dense and rotating 3D-spiral interactions, which are considered as neutron stars in the terms of what we have at hand – the atomic structure that builds everything around us. It is very likely that there are more things in heaven and earth than are deemed in anybody’s philosophy as it is argued in one of greatest plays of all times (Hamlet).

The great puzzles of understanding imply that either nature is really enormously complex or that the initial objects set in the foundations of physics should be reconsidered. The study of dynamical systems, e.g. see Gleick’s CHAOS Making a New Science and many similar titles imply that complexity of nature is likely to be born in our minds.

The inward 3D-spiral vorticity of the found 3D-spiral interaction that builds the source of the earth’s atoms pushes them inward and thus creates what we call earth’s gravitational attraction. The outward 3D-spiral vorticity prevents the moon from falling on the earth. At much smaller scales the electron never falls on the proton and the discreteness of these 3D-spiral patterns if interaction accounts for the discrete orbits of the electron.

How can the big bang universe beginning generate the clumpy structure of the universe at all scales from flying away from each other elementary particles of uncertain origin and structure. Consider this: the distance between every two particles increases in the just born big bang expanding universe. Then their interaction has to decrease also. How can you trigger any structure buildup in a domain of a decreasing interaction? It is much simpler to obtain everything from one unfolding to smaller scales interaction rather than to start from very small sources of interaction (elementary particles, puzzling matter antimatter asymmetry and so on) for multiscale structure buildup.

Peter2003, we've been through this before. Until you can explain what you mean by "3d spriral structure" in simpler terms, the theories you are trying so hard toconvinse everyone of are useless.


me:"purple monkey bus"
you:"what"
me:"it explains everything. purple monkey bus. check out this link"
you:"that link says nothing about 'purple monkey bus' what does it mean?"
me:"it means everything. it explains how the universe works. purple monkey bus is very greataford and versimilitude."
you:"huh? that doesn't make any sense. what is purple monkey bus"
me:"it explains everything. check out this link."
you:"but that link doesn't explain what I'm asking! what is purple monkey bus??"
me:"it explains everything. check out this link."
....

please take you assumptions doewn to their base level, and explain them from there if you want peop0le to understand what you are saying. What is, and what makes up a thing wherein the universe is a 3d spiral? Please use simple geometric terms and math to explain. do not define it with other items which are as yet undefined. Assume I know nothing about the universe *AT ALL* and tell me what it is, in your understanding. start with space. then matter. then energy. then time. then whatever else you want to branch into.

and please start as new thread to do this in, instead of filling up everyone else's thread with this theory until it has more than ust you and the author backing it. Once you have shown that the theory has some serious reality to back it, then you can start using it to answer other people's questions.

this explains everything! (http://nhrhs.com/all.html)

Hello. I'm new to the group. This is one of my favorite subjects so I decided to post on this topic first.

First - Many physicists do tend to not use the concept or relativistic mass but that is a matter of personal taste. More people use it in places like cosmology then they do in particle physics. This should be noted since its quite wrong to assume that a relativist means rest mass when he uses the term "mass."

And whether light has mass depends on how you define the term "mass". Inertial mass (aka "relativistic mass) is defined as the quantity "m" such that the quantity "mv" is defined in collision processes. Once m is determined then so is mv. Then the quantity mv is defined as momentum and given the name p. If the particle is a tardyon, defined as a particle for which v < c then m is a function of velocity, i.e. m = m(v) The quantity m(0) = m_o is then called its "proper mass" aka "rest mass". I prefer the term "proper mass" myself. Then

m(v) = m_o/sqrt[1-v^2/c^2] = gamma*m_o

where

gamma = 1/sqrt[1-v^2/c^2]

The momentum is then given by

p = mv = gamma*m_o*v

The kinetic energy of the particle is found through the work-energy theorem, i.e. the work done on a particle equals the particle's change in kinetic energy. It can then be shown that

K = (gamma - 1)m_o*c^2 = gamma*m_o*c^2 - m_o*c^2

The quantity m_o*c^2 is the particles rest energy E_o. Substituting in m we get

K = mc^2 - E_o

or

mc^2 = K + E_o

This is called the "total energy" but it really isn't since it doesn't include the potential energy. I call this "inertial energy." Let E represent this quantity. Then

E = K + E_o

It can be shown that

E^2 - (pc)^2 = (m_o*c^2)^2

The momentum of the photon is related to its energy as E = pc. Substituting into this equation we get

m_o = 0

That is what people mean when they say "a photon has zero proper mass". It's not really a valid thing to do since the derivation is carried out by *assuming* the particle's speed could change and that's impossible for a photon.

If the particle is a photon then the mass is given as m = p/c where c = speed of light and p = magnitude of its momentum. Since p = hf where h = Plancks constant and f the photons frequency then m = hf/c.

There are three aspects of mass and therefore three kinds of mass

(1) Inertial mass - The "m" in "p = mv"
(2) Passive Gravitational Mass - That upon which gravity acts.
(3) Active Gravitational Mass - That which creates a gravitational field.

A beam of light is deflected by the sun because it has (passive gravitational) mass. In fact both Richard Feynmab and Albert Einstein said this.

A beam of light can also generate a gravitational field - i.e. it has an active gravitational mass.

Someone said that light isn't bent by the sun because it travels in a straight line in spacetime. That is not quite right. To be precise one should say that light moves on a pass of extremal length. The path of light is a geodesic and that is all that is required. This does not mean that the light does not have a straight line in *space*. Note that saying that light is deflected due to curved spacetime and not due to gravitational attraction is wrong. These are identically the same phenomena which is simply described in different languages. The later being described in the language of differntial geometry.

Einstein showed that inertial mass and what you call "active gravitational mass" are the same thing. In the general relativistic picture, there is no need for a concept of "passive gravitational mass". Inertial mass is all that is required.

Light has "no mass" is a current theory that physicists like to hold because it has yet to be proven wrong. Assuming this allows for all the wonderful equations and experiments that we have in our pursuit for the T.O.E. It is taught in class because this seems to be the general consensus and why fight with it. SOmeone's gotta have a lot of guts and funding or time to do such a thing.

However it also depends on how you define mass. which i believe is based on some scale. I myself don't believe in it being massless...just negligible mass!
Its sort of like viewing an axis or plane...a point really has no quantity but mixed in with a bunch of other points you can get some measurement, in this example distance

As for curved space:
the best 2 examples are the (1)orange and the bowl and (2)the toilet flushing.
The bowl center acts as the "sun" and the orange is the object in orbit.
The toilet bowl is the region bounded by the gravitational forces of the "sun"
and if its let to continue flushing without sucking anything in, the things will orbit.

And it is this latter example that i think its more believable...that is little particles pushing the gravitational bending rather than the space actually bending on its own.
DAMN PHYCISIST TERMINOLOGY

Einstein showed that inertial mass and what you call "active gravitational mass" are the same thing. In the general relativistic picture, there is no need for a concept of "passive gravitational mass". Inertial mass is all that is required.


Actually Einstein showed that inertial mass is proportional to *passive* gravitational mass. One then chooses units to set the constant of proportionality equal to one.

And is would be incorrect to say that there is no need for passive gravitational mass. For one thing we must keep in mind the different ways in which these terms are defined so that we can test the theory. Also, passive gravitational mass is what is being weighed when you step on the bathroom scale. And weight is a function of speed. Thus a moving body weighs more than the same body at rest.

For example: Suppose you're in a frame of reference in which there is a uniform gravitational field. The gravitational accelertion is along the z direction, i.e. drop a stop and it accelerates relative to your frame, in the -z direction. Place a scale at z = 0. Place a body on the scale and let it move with speed v. Then the weight is

W = m_p*g

where m_p = passive gravitational mass. Since passive gravitatioinal mass equals inertial mass then

m_p = m = m_o/sqrt[1-v^2/c^2] = relativistic mass

And keep in mind that the "curved" in "curved spacetime" is just a term carried over from differential geometry. Nothing is really physically curved per se. The curvature is simply a mathematical statement about the mathematical manifold we call "spacetime." It's these mathematical things which describe the physical world. The physical manifestation of this curvature is tidal forces, i.e. the deviation of the trajectories of two particles in free-fall.

Note that spacetime curvature cannot be used to describe all gravitational forces. For example: There is no spacetime curvature in a uniform gravitational field and yet particles are still deflected by such a field.

Note that spacetime curvature cannot be used to describe all gravitational forces. For example: There is no spacetime curvature in a uniform gravitational field and yet particles are still deflected by such a field.

Hey, this is new thing for me. Are you sure about this, that there is no spacetime curvature in a uniform gravitational field? I believe that general relativity is a more general gravitational theory than Newton's theory. However, if what you said is true, it would mean GR is not better than Newton's theory after all. :)

Hey, this is new thing for me. Are you sure about this, that there is no spacetime curvature in a uniform gravitational field? I believe that general relativity is a more general gravitational theory than Newton's theory. However, if what you said is true, it would mean GR is not better than Newton's theory after all. :)

Yes. I'm 100% positive. Spacetime curvature and tidal gravity are precisely the same thing expressed in different languages. Since a uniform gravitational field is defined as a gravitational field with no tidal forces then it follows that there is no spacetime curvature.

Consider Einstein's equivalence principle: A uniform gravitational field is equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference.

Consider an inertial frame of reference in flat spacetime. There is obvioulsy no spacetime curvature in that frame. Now go to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference. Since spacetime curvature is absolute then it follows that there is no spacetime curvature in this frame of reference and since this is equivalent to a uniform gravitational field then it follows that there is no spacetime curvature in a uniform gravitational field.

If a gravitational field does have spacetime curvature then the equivalence is only local, i.e. restricted to a region so small as to consider the field to be uniform.

This is all in the GR literature especially in Einstein's paper

"The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity," by Albert Einstein (1916)
(Annalen der Physik 49)

Note what Einstein says in that paper

"It will be seen from these reflexions that in pursuing the general theory of relativity we shall be led to a theory of gravitation, since we are able to "produce" a gravitational field merely by changing the system of co-ordinates. "

In Einstein's general theory of relativity (and by this I mean as interpreted by Einstein himself and not as interpreted people who disagree with Einstein) the gravitational field has a relative existance. Spacetime curvature does not have a relative existance


This is also in the paper "Principle of Equivalence," F. Rohrlich, Ann. Phys. 22, 169-191, (1963), page 173

In this paper the author defines a uniform gravitational field as a gravitional field which has no spacetime curvature.

Hey, this is new thing for me. Are you sure about this, that there is no spacetime curvature in a uniform gravitational field? I believe that general relativity is a more general gravitational theory than Newton's theory. However, if what you said is true, it would mean GR is not better than Newton's theory after all. :)

[sorrytobuttinbutilovethisstuff]

Isn't that saying, that if there is nothing to describe, so they will both give a zero result (you cannot improve on 0), they [the theories] are therefore to be considered equal ? :eek:

It seems to be a general human stipulation that many people cannot understand how something exists without mass! Mass is definitely not a prerequisite for existance but because everything we encounter in day to day life is indeed composed of mass (other than light!) it is hard for some to get a grip on. This is the time for those people to stop understanding the world the way they used to and start realising that we humans are limited in how we can perceive and even understand something.

It seems to be a general human stipulation that many people cannot understand how something exists without mass! Mass is definitely not a prerequisite for existance but because everything we encounter in day to day life is indeed composed of mass (other than light!) it is hard for some to get a grip on. This is the time for those people to stop understanding the world the way they used to and start realising that we humans are limited in how we can perceive and even understand something.
The reason for this is that when people say "light has no mass" they mean something different than what normally understands by mass. That's one of the things I don't like about this use of the term "mass." When it comes to the way Einstein used the term when discussing light, light has mass. The other definition is rather esoteric in that it is a function of both inertial energy, E, and momentum, p.

>> The theory of general relativity states that light follow a straight path in spacetime, which is bent near a gigantic object like our sun. A straight path in a bent spacetime is perceived by us as a bent path in our regular universe.

LOL, funny bent space time near a massive object..... I thought that the space-time bend near a massive object was, well circular like a 'well'.

How can a geodesic well bend a light path that does not result in a geodesic.... then call the resultant light path 'straight'.

God, I love the logic of GR... what a hoot !!!!! and to think 'intelligent' people believe it makes me scream with laughter..... LOL

>> The theory of general relativity states that light follow a straight path in spacetime, which is bent near a gigantic object like our sun. A straight path in a bent spacetime is perceived by us as a bent path in our regular universe.

LOL, funny bent space time near a massive object..... I thought that the space-time bend near a massive object was, well circular like a 'well'.

How can a geodesic well bend a light path that does not result in a geodesic.... then call the resultant light path 'straight'.

God, I love the logic of GR... what a hoot !!!!! and to think 'intelligent' people believe it makes me scream with laughter..... LOL

That's because that is an inaccurate way of describing it. One should never refer to a geodesic as a straight line in spacetime. At best it should only refer to it as the *straightest possible* line in spacetime. For example: Picture yourself standing on a sphere. Walk in the straightest possible direction that you can. That is a geodesic. To be more precise a geodesic is a path of extermal length. It should not be thought of as a path of shortest length either since there can be many possible geodescics of finite length between two points where each of the said geodesics have different lengths.

Regarding bending of light - While the geodesic is the straightest possible line in *spacetime* the spatial portion of the geodesic it is not the straightest possible length in *space* and its the spatial portion of the geodesci which is bent.

pmb,

Interesting. So are you claiming that the existance of a uniform gravitational field is actually proof that the "curved spacetime" model is wrong? How would you actually prove that uniform gravitational fields exist?

I believe that photons have gravitational mass, but their gravitational fields are different than the gravitational fields of "regular mass". While regular mass is surrounded by a uniform positive gravitational field (like the electric field of an electron), a photon has a dipolar gravitational field (like the magnetic field of a magnet). Because of this, a photon placed in a gravitational field will be accelerated by that gravitational field until it reaches the speed of c relative to the field. This would, of course, mean that Special Relativity is wrong, and that the speed of light in a vacuum is only equal to c relative to an observer that is stationairy relative to the gravitational field that the light is travelling through at the moment.

The reason I bring all this up is because it seems that there is no way of proving that a uniform gravitational field exists by using "regular matter". However, if you had a particle, or a device, with a dipolar gravitational field, then the acceleration of this particle, or device, in a uniform gravitational field would provide proof of the existance of that field. I mentioned a dipolar gravitational device because it might be theoretically possible to make such a device using gravitomagnetics. I should stop talking about anti-gravity devices before my post gets tossed into pseudoscience.....:)

Light has no mass ? Doesn't that depend on how you define mass. Aren't we getting closer & closer to deciding that all matter/mass is just energy anyway ? Surely light is energy ? Where's the difference ? Is it just one of definition ?

Isn't saying that light has no mass just a convenient way for the current day scientists to keep their theories working ? If light has mass, it can't be accelerated to the speed of light in zero time. If it has a mass, no matter how small, light cannot be a constant speed ... and that would mean that the World wasn't flat after all !!

Mass is just one of the properties that a particle can have. It can also have energy, momentum, spin, electric charge and colour charge (related to the strong force). It can have some of those things and not others.

A photon has no rest mass, no charge and no colour charge. It does, however, have spin. It also has momentum and energy.

The concept of relativistic mass causes more confusion than it takes away. Physicists these days have pretty much dispensed with the idea. Instead, they talk only about rest mass.

But do photons truly exist?Have they confirmed photons' existence?
As far as I know,they didn't so,it's unreasonable to talk about photons,how sure they are that photons exist or don't exist.Also,how sure it is that light doesn't have mass?Has this been confirmed and is it 100% sure?

But do photons truly exist?Have they confirmed photons' existence?

Yes. Photons are the theoretical construct from Einsteins work on the photoelectric effect which confirmed that light is "more then a wave". In that way, they are said to 'exist'


As far as I know,they didn't so,it's unreasonable to talk about photons

Why is it unreasonable to talk about them?

Yes. Photons are the theoretical construct from Einsteins work on the photoelectric effect which confirmed that light is "more then a wave". In that way, they are said to 'exist'



Why is it unreasonable to talk about them?

Well,it's not,my mistake,but does this proves that gravitons exist?What are the newest discoveries about graviton?Does graviton exists-if so,does it have mass,momentum,spin...?
Is theory about graviton's existence theoretical or not?
If you look at the Einstein's General theory of relativity,you'll see that gravity is curved space-time because of the presence of the massive body,if I remembered this correctly?If so,than we don't graviton as a particle that explains gravity and gravitational waves(I'm not sure if gravitational waves exist at all)?

If you accept Einstein's theory, then there are no graviton's ?? Just warped space / time ?

If light doesn't have mass, what is it that travels at the speed of light. What is a light 'wave' made up of ???

Zarkov,

Another non-believer !! Top.

To me the theory is so full of holes you could see Einstein's behind through them !!


Mike.



>> The theory of general relativity states that light follow a straight path in spacetime, which is bent near a gigantic object like our sun. A straight path in a bent spacetime is perceived by us as a bent path in our regular universe.

LOL, funny bent space time near a massive object..... I thought that the space-time bend near a massive object was, well circular like a 'well'.

How can a geodesic well bend a light path that does not result in a geodesic.... then call the resultant light path 'straight'.

God, I love the logic of GR... what a hoot !!!!! and to think 'intelligent' people believe it makes me scream with laughter..... LOL

Another question ... If as you reach the speed of light, time stops, how does light move ??

Plus ... If light can only travel at the speed of light, how when it's originally created does it accelerate to the speed of light instantly ??

If light doesn't have mass, what is it that travels at the speed of light. What is a light 'wave' made up of ???

U can even just explain this classically if u want. Think of water waves. They have no mass right?! But they have a velocity that depends on the medium and height of water. EM waves don't require a medium as such (although one could consider free space as a medium with its values of permittivity and permeability!). As u can see, the wave doesn't have to be made up of anything. It is simply energy.

questions of a child

If light has any form of mass, it can't be restricted to the speed of light, because it can't be accelerated instantly when it's created.

If you assume that the speed of light isn't constant. You could assume that light could decay over distance, ie. the frequency could decrease over very long distances. If it could, then it would red-shift. Also the further away a star / galaxy was, the more it would red-shift, which would match the existing observations.

Then what scientists see as stars moving away from us could just be explained as stars a long way away.

Then the Universe isn't expanding and the Big-Bang, which is obviously dodgy anyway, would not longer be a reasonable explanation and we can all go back to the old 'Steady State' theory, which makes much more sense ??

Another question ... If as you reach the speed of light, time stops, how does light move ??

Light doesn't "appear" to move at the speed of light :)

U can even just explain this classically if u want. Think of water waves. They have no mass right?! But they have a velocity that depends on the medium and height of water. EM waves don't require a medium as such (although one could consider free space as a medium with its values of permittivity and permeability!). As u can see, the wave doesn't have to be made up of anything. It is simply energy.

The difference being of course, that for water to 'wave' in your example, it must be in place at the time. If you were to open a dam and watch the wave travel over a dry river bed, I can guarantee that it is the water that is travelling, not just energy.

When people talk about light 'waves' they're generally talking about switching a light source on at point A and watching it travel to point B. It's presumably not just rippling some existing particles as with the water example ?

Well light waves can be a rippling of pre-existinng EM fields so that if u were to wave an electrically charged wand up and down, then a disturbance is created in the field and a wave runs through it. The difference is that the wave can also propogate through free space (apparently) when there is nothing else there (even if EM fields haven't reached there yet!). This is because a disturbance in an electric field can induce a magnetic field out of free space and vice versa. Clearly there is some property of space which allows this. The same property of space which governs the speed of light through it.

Sorry for this question, but I am new to all this.

I've seen an experiment that suggests the speed of light is not constant but none that suggest it is. Presumably, there's a well known example that I can look up ??

I'm not keen on just taking someone else's word for it. I'd like to see some proof ?

Isn't saying that light has no mass just a convenient way for the current day scientists to keep their theories working ? If light has mass, it can't be accelerated to the speed of light in zero time. If it has a mass, no matter how small, light cannot be a constant speed ... and that would mean that the World wasn't flat after all !!

Todays physicists use the term "mass" to mean only the mass of something at relative rest to the observer and refer to the energy content as momentum not its mass equivelent.

This is to avoid the embarressing results of Relativity that predict "Infinite" mass at v = c and to give them more flexability when accounting for such things as gravity of an object. It also means that any energy applied to a "massless" photon reaches the beloved V = c limit instantly. F = ma,

a = F/m = x/0 = Infinite acceleration.

Also, a bunch of mumbo jumbo (in my humble opinion).

MacM, Zarkov, etc.:

It would help if you actually learned something about relativity before you went around making pronouncements about it. You have all made basic errors in your most recent posts. Then you presume to laugh as if you're somehow at a higher level than the people who have spent years learning real physics rather than the babble you go on about.

I can point out your mistakes for you if you want me to. Please let me know.

This is to avoid the embarrassing results of Relativity that predict "Infinite" mass at v = c

I don't think there's anything embarrassing about that is there?! Experiments have been done confirming the fact that mass increases with speed according to the equations of relativity so whether it seems stupid or not, it happens!

Also, a bunch of mumbo jumbo (in my humble opinion).

I agree with you that for someone who does not understand anything about relativity, SR seems like a bunch of mumbo. However, when you learn relativity, and understand it, it is not.

MacM, Zarkov, etc.:

It would help if you actually learned something about relativity before you went around making pronouncements about it. You have all made basic errors in your most recent posts. Then you presume to laugh as if you're somehow at a higher level than the people who have spent years learning real physics rather than the babble you go on about.

I can point out your mistakes for you if you want me to. Please let me know.


Quite happy to learn. Please go ahead and point out the flaws. Non-technical terms if possible, please. Some of us haven't had the advantage of a formal education in Physics.

mhobbs_bbt:


I've seen an experiment that suggests the speed of light is not constant but none that suggest it is. Presumably, there's a well known example that I can look up ??

There are many experiments that support the conclusion that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. Any experiment whose results agree with predictions made using the theory of relativity will do, and there are literally thousands of those.

The speed of light is slower in material media than it is in a vacuum. The speed of light in a medium with refractive index n is c/n, where c is the speed in a vacuum.

If you have a light source that outputs alot of photons, do they "collect together" when running parallel through a vacuum?

Another point I remember an experiment that used a colour television, a freezer and a piece of gold taped to the television, where the television was turned on and placed into the freezer for a duration of two weeks, over that period of time the Gold(Au) turned to Lead(Pb) which meant not just a change of elemental state but increase in electrons through the use of light, This means the original material gained mass.

Not sure what it implies, but it's something to mention none the less.

James R.,


MacM, Zarkov, etc.:

It would help if you actually learned something about relativity before you went around making pronouncements about it. You have all made basic errors in your most recent posts. Then you presume to laugh as if you're somehow at a higher level than the people who have spent years learning real physics rather than the babble you go on about.

I can point out your mistakes for you if you want me to. Please let me know.

If you are referring to my minor post immediately above. Yes I would like to see your comments regarding it.

Also I would like to see your response to the fact that your were wrong when you claimed that the "Illusion Solution" to FTL observations was the ultimate answer since it has been shown that it can only answer about 1% of such observations. You have chosen to ignore that post.

Mac, I gave you links before to explain what you call an 'illusion solution', but I guess
you either did not read them or did not comprehend what was entailed. If the ejecta
is moving at right angles to our line of sight, we see such ejecta as relativistic is velocity, but not FTL. Only about your '1%' of the ejecta from such quasars is moving almost directly
towards us, and that 1% is what we preceive as 'apparent' FTL. The quasar you focused
on is a radio quasar, but the 'apparent' FTL ejecta was recorded in the x-ray spectrum.
In other words, it was blue shifted, meaning the ejecta is moving in our direction.

Todays physicists use the term "mass" to mean only the mass of something at relative rest to the observer
Not exactly. The mass is the length of the momentum-energy vector in Minkowsky space. When this number is different from zero; it is indeed the mass of the particle when it is at rest. However' when the mass is zero' the particle is moving at the speed of light, hence, you cannot say that the mass physicist refer to is the rest mast.



and refer to the energy content as momentum not its mass equivelent.
The relation between energy is given by E² - p²c² = m²c⁴.
I don't understand where you have read what you claim.

BTW since the velocity of a particle with energy E and momentum p is given by v = pc²/E, you can see that when a particle will have a mass, it will allways have a velocity lower than c, while if it has a zero mass, then E = pc, and from this its velocity eill allways be c.




This is to avoid the embarressing results of Relativity that predict "Infinite" mass at v = c
As seen before, a massive particle will never have a velocity equal to c. Nothing embarrassing with this.




and to give them more flexability when accounting for such things as gravity of an object.
You were once told that the source of gravitation is not the mass but the energy-momentum tensor. Please learn GR before criticizing it.





It also means that any energy applied to a "massless" photon reaches the beloved V = c limit instantly. F = ma,

a = F/m = x/0 = Infinite acceleration.


When energy is applied, it does not necessarily mean that a force is acted on it. In fact you cannot apply any force on a photon.




Also, a bunch of mumbo jumbo (in my humble opinion).
As I told you once in this thread:

I agree with you that for someone who does not understand anything about relativity, SR seems like a bunch of mumbo. However, when you learn relativity, and understand it, it is not.

2Inquisitive,

Here is the tauted "Illusion Solution", which I pointed out failed to account for the fact that such observations were discussed as "Red Shifted", not "Blue Shifted" and I was told I didn't know what I was talking about and James said was the cats meow answering all FTL observed motion.

http://cosmos.colorado.edu/~maytag/superlum-math1.htm

I have found another paper which I think deals with this issue more extensively than anyother I have seen. It addresses a multitude of considerations and data over several pages.

The following are extracts from that paper.

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Kellermann/Kell6_3.html (Kellerman)


]“ Attempts to understand the superluminal motion have produced a flurry of imaginative phenomenological interpretations including

(a) real tachyonic motion;

(b) grossly incorrect Hubble constant or non-cosmological red shifts (Kellermann & Shaffer 1977, Burbidge 1978) or incorrect cosmological model (Segal 1979);

(c) light echoes (Lynden-Bell 1977, Lynden-Bell & Liller 1978);

(d) gravitational lenses and screens (Barnothy & Barnothy 1971, Chitre & Narlikar 1980);

(e) systematic variations in synchrotron opacity (Epstein & Geller (1977);

(f) synchrotron or curvature radiation from electrons gyrating in a fixed dipole field (Milgrom & Bahcall 1978, Sanders & Da Costa 1978, Bachall & Milgrom 1980);

(g) various kinematic illusions caused by the finite signal propagation time (Rees 1966, 1967, Cavaliere et al. 1971). ”


"g" above is the "Illusion" solution. While they give it the best evaluation they also give considerable objections to it

************************************** Extract from above paper *******************************************
“ (c) To produce the observed superluminal motion, the motion must be closely aligned with a narrow cone along the line of sight which has an a priori probability of 1 percent (1/2); yet about half of all compact sources show evidence for superluminal motion, either from the VLBI observations or, less directly, but for a much larger sample, from the flux density variations. ”
************************************************** ************************************************** ************

Note:In the quote above there is a gamma symbol after the (1/2 Gamma) but it didn't cut and paste.

**************************************** Extract from above paper **********************************************
“ It is unlikely that this effect can be important in normal quasars, as the line and continuum intensities are typically comparable, and there is no evidence that the line emission in quasars contains a significant blue shift. ”
************************************************** ************************************************** *****************


It appears that the "Illusion" and several other approaches can answer some observations but it also appears that the issue is far from a slam dunk for Relativity. The highly tauted "Illusion Solution" is deemed valid in less than 1 % of FTL observations and is infact unlikely to explain FTL Quasar observations.

It appears this issue about blue shift which I raised is in fact a major concern.

Perhaps it is you that need to read again. I am the one that posted the link. Now if you have a paper that states ALL "Proper Motion" is sub-luminal please present it. BTW by definition "Proper Motion" excludes any motion relative to us. It is only orthogonal motion.

1100f,


As seen before, a massive particle will never have a velocity equal to c. Nothing embarrassing with this.

So that is why we see superluminal Quassar ejecta that is stated as being "Proper Motion" and that has no "Blue Shift" and is not covered by the "Illusion Solution". Glad you cleared that up with one simple statement of fact.


“ Originally Posted by MacM

and to give them more flexability when accounting for such things as gravity of an object. ”

You were once told that the source of gravitation is not the mass but the energy-momentum tensor. Please learn GR before criticizing it.

I take it then you are prepared to vouch for GR and can explain to us exactly how it fits observation over the entire spectrum of observation.? I didn't think so.


“ Originally Posted by MacM

It also means that any energy applied to a "massless" photon reaches the beloved V = c limit instantly. F = ma,

a = F/m = x/0 = Infinite acceleration.
”

Posted by 1100f: When energy is applied, it does not necessarily mean that a force is acted on it. In fact you cannot apply any force on a photon.

Seems that without mass it would be hard to produce an inertial resistance so as to be able to generate a force. It also seems that my above statement a = F/m = x/0 = infinity, says the same thing.



“ Originally Posted by MacM

Also, a bunch of mumbo jumbo (in my humble opinion). ”

[Posted by 1100f: As I told you once in this thread:

Ditto

>> I can point out your mistakes for you if you want me to. Please let me know.

Always interested in learning, James R.

Spit out the truth so we can all learn... Thanks

>> There are many experiments that support the conclusion that the speed of light in vacuum is constant

This vacuum is a mysterious thing.... does it really exist..... show me a space free of electromagnetic effects....
certainly in our locality in space we seem to find that yes our "vacuums" are reproduciable.

Drawing a long bow to transpose this to other parts of the Universe, IMO.

So that is why we see superluminal Quassar ejecta that is stated as being "Proper Motion" and that has no "Blue Shift" and is not covered by the "Illusion Solution". Glad you cleared that up with one simple statement of fact.You're kidding... right?

Just goes to show, you can teach adog old tricks... but only if it doesn't disagree with their pet theory.

This vacuum is a mysterious thing.... does it really exist..... show me a space free of electromagnetic effects....

The electromagnetic effects you talk of are covariant under Lorentz transformations, as is clearly and plainly obvious, as electromagnetic phenomena are described by Maxwells laws. Thus, the structure of the vacuum is also covariant under under lorentz transformations.

Or is this a bit over your head?

Persol,


You're kidding... right?

Just goes to show, you can teach adog old tricks... but only if it doesn't disagree with their pet theory.


I'm sorry. My mistake, I assumed you could read.

Stryderunknown

I very much doubt the veracity of the experiment you mentioned about turning gold into lead in a freezer. Do you have a reference?


MacM:


Todays physicists use the term "mass" to mean only the mass of something at relative rest to the observer and refer to the energy content as momentum not its mass equivelent.

The concept of "relativistic mass" is well understood by physicists, but it generates confusion among people who do not properly understand it (including beginning physics students and even some more experienced physicists). For that reason, specialists in the field tend to avoid that term and instead use rest mass exclusively, otherwise talking about energy or momentum as appropriate.


This is to avoid the embarressing results of Relativity that predict "Infinite" mass at v = c and to give them more flexability when accounting for such things as gravity of an object.

That is wrong. There is nothing "embarassing" about something having infinite relativistic mass at v=c. The only embarassment is on the part of those who make unwarranted assumptions based on an imperfect understanding of the definition of relativistic mass (e.g. saying incorrectly that any mass travelling at close to v=c would form a black hole).

Relativistic mass has nothing to do with the gravity of an object. It seems you've missed that point.


It also means that any energy applied to a "massless" photon reaches the beloved V = c limit instantly. F = ma,

a = F/m = x/0 = Infinite acceleration.

F=ma is not the correct expression for relativistic force, so this is incorrect. Moreover, photons are not accelerated from rest to v=c. They always travel at v=c. There's no such thing as a photon at rest.


Also, a bunch of mumbo jumbo (in my humble opinion).

In your uneducated opinion.

James R.,


In your uneducated opinion.

Since it would be fool hardy, inappropriate and futile for me, not having your credentials, to continue to argue your fallicies. I will simply suggest that others consider that there are "Educated" persons that simply don't agree with you and agree with me.

PS: Dr Kennington (Phd in Mathematics) has just added UniKEF Gravity to his links. He and I seem to see things very much the same. Thank you. No he isn't a physicist but Dr Allard is. So your continued effort to paint me a dumkof is dribble.

BTW you still haven't commented on the fact that the UniKEF Analysis thread came out in my favor regarding the calculus and inverse square origin. It really is sad to see such intreanchness. Sort of reminds me of an ostrach.

http://www.topology.org/sci/grav.html

For those not blinded by Einstein this is recommended reading.

MacM:


Since it would be fool hardy, inappropriate and futile for me, not having your credentials, to continue to argue your fallicies.

Credentials are not that important in science, except to the extent that they verify that you have studied particular subjects to a certain level of expertise.

I am quite happy for you to point out any fallacies you are aware of. However, all the instances you have brought up so far have been either dismissed or explained. In other words, they haven't turned out to be problems for standard theories at all.


I will simply suggest that others consider that there are "Educated" persons that simply don't agree with you and agree with me.

About what?


PS: Dr Kennington (Phd in Mathematics) has just added UniKEF Gravity to his links.

Link please.


No he isn't a physicist but Dr Allard is. So your continued effort to paint me a dumkof is dribble.

Have you been in contact with Dr Allard recently?

And, I don't you are a dumkof. I think you are uneducated about relativity - a conclusion amply supported by your posts. I doubt you've read even a single introductory textbook on the subject.


BTW you still haven't commented on the fact that the UniKEF Analysis thread came out in my favor regarding the calculus and inverse square origin.

No, I haven't, because I haven't read the end of the thread yet. Can you give me a brief summary of how the calculus has been verified, or provide an appropriate link to your web site? I'm sure you will have included the verification in an update to your site, since it is quite important if you're going to convince anybody about UniKEF.

James R.,


Credentials are not that important in science, except to the extent that they verify that you have studied particular subjects to a certain level of expertise.

Fair point but certainly not valid. Being educated in Relativity simply means you have been indoctrinated to accept it without question and reject any opposition without detailed analysis simply because it violates your accepted answer.


I am quite happy for you to point out any fallacies you are aware of. However, all the instances you have brought up so far have been either dismissed or explained. In other words, they haven't turned out to be problems for standard theories at all.

Again not a valid statement. I was clear on the FTL issue. You claimed the "Illusion Solution" was the total answer. In fact it only covers 1% Of such observtions and my raising the "Blue Shift" issue was poo poohed when in fact it is one of the major reasons the "Illusion Solution" falls short.


About what?

Read his web page. It reads 98% like UniKEF Gravity.


Link please.

http://www.topology.org/sci/grav.html


Have you been in contact with Dr Allard recently?

I wrote him before when he came up but the letter was returned. I suspect he is now deceased, since he had had a near death heart attack before and the last address I found for him on the internet was the same one he had when I knew him. I don't think he moved after all these years.


And, I don't you are a dumkof. I think you are uneducated about relativity - a conclusion amply supported by your posts. I doubt you've read even a single introductory textbook on the subject.

Again your "doubt" are totally incorrect. I have read (and understand) a great deal. But I have also read and studied many things that seem much more probable than Relativity. It is a matter of choice not lack of information.


No, I haven't, because I haven't read the end of the thread yet. Can you give me a brief summary of how the calculus has been verified, or provide an appropriate link to your web site? I'm sure you will have included the verification in an update to your site, since it is quite important if you're going to convince anybody about UniKEF.

Nothing to cite other than a new member, a mathematician competent in calculus, came here and entered the discussion. He was generally negative but ultimately confirmed that the UniKEF calculus does result in the claimed inverse square function which you specifically stated "It would not" even though you didn't do the math.

This has nothing to do with physics or relativity. It has to do with the fact that mathematically my UniKEF vision does produce the inverse square and further that that same vision predicts flattening of the inverse square over vast distances, to include becoming repulsive which may explain the complete range of gravity observations from inverse square to galactic flattening and accelerated expansion of the universe. Once the mathematics is in place it would be hard to ignore the implication but the ultimate decision of its viability as an alternative will be up to many others.

Being educated in Relativity simply means you have been indoctrinated to accept it without question and reject any opposition without detailed analysis simply because it violates your accepted answer.

No, that's not what being educated in relativity is about. Being educated in relativity means understanding the theory in a conceptual and mathematical sense, and being able to apply it to real examples.

Can you answer the following questions? Because anybody educated in relativity would be able to.

1. Write down the Minkowski metric for a flat spacetime.
2. Write down the Lorentz tranformations for one spatial and one time dimension.
3. What is a four-vector, in relativity?
4. Please explain, relativistically, why muons created in Earth's upper atmosphere are observed at ground level.
5. Observer A measures a spacetime interval of 20 metres between event #1 and event #2, which occur at different locations and different times (as measured by A). Observer B, travelling at 110 metres per second relative to observer A in the x direction, observes the same two events. What spacetime interval does B measure for these events?
6. Imagine two general events in spacetime, event #1 and event #2. Observer A sees event #1 occur before event #2. Is it possible, according to relativity, for some other observer B to see event #2 occur before event #1? If so, is this always true? If it is not always true, under what conditions would it be false?

Hey, while we a talking about relativity, it seems Mac, the Dr. Michio Kaku, primarily recognised as the instigator of string theory, agrees that indeed according to relativity, relativistic Merry-go-rounds have properties consistent with curved space-time. See Hyperspace pg 90.

I want to see how someone who does not believe in special relativity, can predict the existence of the positron.

Being educated in Relativity simply means you have been indoctrinated to accept it without question and reject any opposition without detailed analysis simply because it violates your accepted answer.

Ek???
As an academic, I am appalled at that perception of education!
If any of my students only give me back rote answers from my lectures or a text book, they're likely to fail.

James R.,


Can you answer the following questions? Because anybody educated in relativity would be able to.

1. Write down the Minkowski metric for a flat spacetime.

dS^2 = c^2dT^2 - sX^2 (for one space and one time dimension)

dS^2 = g (T,X)c^2 dT^2 - g (T,X) dX^2 ( adds curvature)
TT XX

Damn format will not hold math post and sub-scripts.



2. Write down the Lorentz tranformations for one spatial and one time dimension.

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 (assuming x as the dimension)

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 (time and 3 dimensions)

i i k
ds^2 = dx dx = dx dx g
j jk (for time dilation)
Where Xi and Xk for i,j,k = 0 for time and i,j,k = 1, 2, 3 for space and gjk is metric tensor. . (Can't write math format correctly - read between the lines)

In matrix format:

1 0 0 0

0 -1 0 0

0 0 -1 0

0 0 0 -1

Now at one time I did matrix math but I have forgotten every rule and no longer attempt it.


3. What is a four-vector, in relativity?

Since I can't write math format and do not have all the answers to our quiz memorized, lets make this easy.

http://www.physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node50.html

time, space components are transformed using matrix rules. The space-time 4 - vector is structured to be invariant:


Now I don't remember all those rules but if I really cared to do it, it would be easy to look them up and to perform this highschool algebra.[/color]

[quote]4. Please explain, relativistically, why muons created in Earth's upper atmosphere are observed at ground level.

Time Dilation due to their relative velocity to earth.


5. Observer A measures a spacetime interval of 20 metres between event #1 and event #2, which occur at different locations and different times (as measured by A). Observer B, travelling at 110 metres per second relative to observer A in the x direction, observes the same two events. What spacetime interval does B measure for these events?

Again the actual manipulation of time dilation or contraction formulas involving the gamma function are easy. However, it does seem to me your description lacks some important information. Orientation of the two events relative to "A" and the orientation of "B" seem required to actually do a calculation.


6. Imagine two general events in spacetime, event #1 and event #2. Observer A sees event #1 occur before event #2.
Is it possible, according to relativity, for some other observer B to see event #2 occur before event #1?

Absolutely. And also in UniKEF.


If so, is this always true?

No. It would depend again on orientation and relative motion of "A", "B" and the events being considered.


If it is not always true, under what conditions would it be false?

Again orientation and relative motion could reverse the conclusions.

I really do hope you don't actually believe your quiz has any merit what-so-ever. Even if I had not had algebra and Intro Calculus, nuclear physics, etc., one can read articles and papers and understand the written text and meanings of Relativity. One DOES NOT need to be able to do calculus, matrix, etc. You don't even need to be able to do algebra to understand although it helps to be able to do the gamma functions.

Does being able to do all the math and actually derive the formulas increase the depth of knowledge - you bet. Is a person inept about Relativity in absense of such formal knowledge? Hell no. If you can read and understand english you can understand what is being asserted or claimed. Your whole attitude regarding the value of your qualifications and understanding of Relativity is really quite distorted.

Now that you have wanted to quiz me on Relativity, let me quiz you on UniKEF:

1 - What is "q" and what are its implications?

2 - What is "e" and what are its implications?

3 - What is "U"?

4 - What is "~"?

5 - What is U * ~"?

6 - What is UPV?

7 - What is UPM?

8 - What is CoS?

9 - Why does a simple non-Relavistic based concept which makes one set of simple assumptions, that not only shows the origin of the local gravity inverse square function via integration by calculus to use pseudo-mass, not actual mass, to eliminate mass^2 as a physically non-sensical unit, but also predicts the galatic flattening and acceleration of the expansion of the universe in ONE coherent process instead of three different mathematical and hypothetical causes as is currently done, JUST SCARE THE HELL OUT OF YOU?

If you can't answer my quiz then I suggest you are not sufficiently educated to be making negative comment. To repeat statements that have been made here, "Don't try to debunk it if you don't understand it".

All efforts here to debunk it by attacking me, due to my lack of doing calculus is absolutely baseless, most especially since actual physicists and mathematicians have seen it and did understand it and did confirm my concept as viable.

I actually came here hoping for the same assistance I now am getting elsewhere. Can you explain why it is this group lacks such vision? They all seem more interested in patting themselves on the back for having graduated with a degree and saying "you should listen and not talk". Shssssh!

ryans,


Hey, while we a talking about relativity, it seems Mac, the Dr. Michio Kaku, primarily recognised as the instigator of string theory, agrees that indeed according to relativity, relativistic Merry-go-rounds have properties consistent with curved space-time. See Hyperspace pg 90.

You really are a masochist. You got your foot shoved in your mouth over that one.


I want to see how someone who does not believe in special relativity, can predict the existence of the positron.

Interesting diversionary tactics.

1 - I don't recall predicting "positrons"

2 - You apparently believe in Relativity but I don't recall seeing any papers written by you predicting anything.

3 - I don't believe in Relativity (perse but in some of its principles but for alternate causes) and I have predicted things that have been found true.

Are you sure you want to go here?

Pete,


Ek???
As an academic, I am appalled at that perception of education!
If any of my students only give me back rote answers from my lectures or a text book, they're likely to fail.

That is a rather strange attitude.

BTW my mother was a school teacher. "Rote" is an excellent accomplishment for most things.

Now if remembering what you have read or been told verbatum is a negative then I'm missing something. Surely if your lecture was on some physics principles and you gave precise instructions on how to perform a process you would not fail such a person that repeats your instructions to get the answer?

What the hell is your point. My point was not anti-education but anti-ivory tower. That is the attitude that being a specialist means non-specialists can have no understandings of the issue.

Sorry I just dropped in on this thread and have just noticed Petes comment about rote responses.

I think Pete knows like most teachers do that rote understanding is by far inferior to actual deeper personal understanding achieved by working the logic taught, in the students own way.

Sorry for interupting...I'll go away now.....

BTW the above comment is in no way directed at any one and is only a general statement about a generally accepted principle of higher quality teaching.

QQ,

I happen to agree but my point was the ability to develope the formulas taught in a lecture are not required to understand the functions and process.

I would also assert that "ROTE" spelling is far superior to "Phonetics" and that "ROTE" multiplication tables are far superior to "Modern Math" and "Groups and Sets".

The later of these processes should supplement the "ROTE" learning, not replace it. Kids can no longer spell, read nor do math because of our modern teaching methods.

of course MacM you are quite correct in your concerns and I think "Rote" has a place especially in the lower levels such as primary school where the children are still developiong the ability to see things logically. However in the higher levels such as university levels a student is expected to be able to "see" logically and form their own understandings. Of course you already know this but I thought I'd mention this distinction between primary and tertiary level learning and teaching.

QQ,

I think we are in complete agreement on education. The ability to use logic and develope ones own ideas and understandings is the ultimate goal but must be based on solid "ROTE" learned three RRR's.

My complaint in fact comes down to the issue of Relativity tending to limit most educated persons from actually thinking and deriving their own concepts.

This is in fact partly due to the fact that it requires you to take it in blind faith without providing the physical basis upon which it functions. Many if not most Relavitists only know how to perform the functions in a "ROTE" manner and have no actual understanding of how or why there is such a process.

I am on the opposite side of that barrier. I tend to see "How" and "Why" but cannot do the "ROTE" mathematics.

MacM:

I was not seeking to test your ability to use a search engine, and in doing so you have just helped me make my point about being educated (or not) in relativity. My first few questions were easily answered by googling with an appropriate search term. The last couple were slightly disguised so that they would require real understanding of concepts to answer the question; a simple search would not do the trick.

Let's see how you did...


dS^2 = c^2dT^2 - sX^2 (for one space and one time dimension)

This is correct, apart from the typo with the "s".


2. Write down the Lorentz tranformations for one spatial and one time dimension.

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 (assuming x as the dimension)

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 (time and 3 dimensions)

i i k
ds^2 = dx dx = dx dx g
j jk (for time dilation)
Where Xi and Xk for i,j,k = 0 for time and i,j,k = 1, 2, 3 for space and gjk is metric tensor. . (Can't write math format correctly - read between the lines)

In matrix format:

1 0 0 0
0 -1 0 0
0 0 -1 0
0 0 0 -1

Now at one time I did matrix math but I have forgotten every rule and no longer attempt it.

Not so good here. You've given more information about metrics, but nothing about Lorentz transformations, which is what the question asked. This would seem to indicate to me that you don't know what the difference is.


3. What is a four-vector, in relativity?

Since I can't write math format and do not have all the answers to our quiz memorized, lets make this easy.

http://www.physics.nmt.edu/~raymond...ook/node50.html

time, space components are transformed using matrix rules. The space-time 4 - vector is structured to be invariant:

Now I don't remember all those rules but if I really cared to do it, it would be easy to look them up and to perform this highschool algebra.[/color]

I note that here, instead of writing a single-sentence answer, as anybody who understood the question would have, you have posted a link to another site, and talked about matters irrelevant to the question.


4. Please explain, relativistically, why muons created in Earth's upper atmosphere are observed at ground level.

Time Dilation due to their relative velocity to earth.

This is not an explanation, but I'll let it pass, because I'm sure you can google an explanation of this very well-known example.


5. Observer A measures a spacetime interval of 20 metres between event #1 and event #2, which occur at different locations and different times (as measured by A). Observer B, travelling at 110 metres per second relative to observer A in the x direction, observes the same two events. What spacetime interval does B measure for these events?

Again the actual manipulation of time dilation or contraction formulas involving the gamma function are easy. However, it does seem to me your description lacks some important information. Orientation of the two events relative to "A" and the orientation of "B" seem required to actually do a calculation.

You are simply wrong here, which proves my point.


6. Imagine two general events in spacetime, event #1 and event #2. Observer A sees event #1 occur before event #2. Is it possible, according to relativity, for some other observer B to see event #2 occur before event #1?

Absolutely. And also in UniKEF.

This is correct, but you had a 50-50 chance... :)


If so, is this always true?

No. It would depend again on orientation and relative motion of "A", "B" and the events being considered.

Half marks for that one. Yes, it does depend partly on those things, but there is a much simpler answer.

Now, I haven't given you the short answers to these questions, because I'd like to ask anybody who is REALLY educated in relativity and who is reading this post to answer the questions, and we'll compare your response with their response.


I really do hope you don't actually believe your quiz has any merit what-so-ever.

It supports my contention nicely.


Even if I had not had algebra and Intro Calculus, nuclear physics, etc., one can read articles and papers and understand the written text and meanings of Relativity.

Yes, one can. However, to do that, you need to be systematic about it. You need to study it. You can learn algebra and calculus.


One DOES NOT need to be able to do calculus, matrix, etc. You don't even need to be able to do algebra to understand although it helps to be able to do the gamma functions.

You can get a vague grip on some of the concepts without maths, but to really understand relativity, maths is essential.


Does being able to do all the math and actually derive the formulas increase the depth of knowledge - you bet. Is a person inept about Relativity in absense of such formal knowledge? Hell no. If you can read and understand english you can understand what is being asserted or claimed.

Yes, but you are incapable of verifying it or disproving it, because you're not aquainted with the tools necessary to do so.


Your whole attitude regarding the value of your qualifications and understanding of Relativity is really quite distorted.

How so? If I want to be a good Japanese speaker, I need to study Japanese. It is not enough to learn all about Japan, and read writings in English about Japan and the Japanese language. What I need to do is actually immerse myself in the subject. I need to talk to people who know Japanese. I need to look at the actual language as written and spoken, and practice actually writing and speaking myself.

The same is true of relativity. It is not enough to read a few pop-science books and sites on the internet with English-language descriptions of the physics. You need to immerse yourself in the subject - learn the maths, solve the problems yourself, talk to people who really know about relativity, and practice using it yourself to solve problems.


Now that you have wanted to quiz me on Relativity, let me quiz you on UniKEF:

I have never claimed to be educated in the minutiae of UniKEF. In fact, I don't think it is a coherent and self-consistent theory. I don't think it makes any useful predictions which have been verified. I don't think it provides a framework for solving general problems in physics. And even if it can replicate the inverse-square law of Newton in a simple case (which I haven't seen a UniKEF proof of yet), then I still doubt whether it can actually be applied to any more-general problem. For example, can it predict the tidal effects of the moon on the Earth? Can it help determine the orbital parameters of Halley's comet? Can it be used to calculate a gravity-assist trajectory to get a rocket to Mars?


9 - Why does a simple non-Relavistic based concept which makes one set of simple assumptions, that not only shows the origin of the local gravity inverse square function via integration by calculus to use pseudo-mass, not actual mass, to eliminate mass^2 as a physically non-sensical unit, but also predicts the galatic flattening and acceleration of the expansion of the universe in ONE coherent process instead of three different mathematical and hypothetical causes as is currently done, JUST SCARE THE HELL OUT OF YOU?

It doesn't. I don't believe there is good evidence that UniKEF does any of those things.


All efforts here to debunk it by attacking me, due to my lack of doing calculus is absolutely baseless, most especially since actual physicists and mathematicians have seen it and did understand it and did confirm my concept as viable.

Which physicists? Not your Dr Allard. I've looked at his contributions in detail. Who else, then? And where can I find their work? (Not in a protected "group" which I have to join to look at the documents, please.)


I actually came here hoping for the same assistance I now am getting elsewhere.

I'm glad you're getting assistance elsewhere. I hope it is not a complete waste of your time. Physics is such an exciting field, it would be a shame to waste your life without ever doing any real physics, if that's what you're interested in.


Can you explain why it is this group lacks such vision? They all seem more interested in patting themselves on the back for having graduated with a degree and saying "you should listen and not talk". Shssssh!

The fact that educated people don't share your idiosyncratic vision is not a reliable indicator that they lack vision in general. Far from walking around patting themselves on the back, those people with degrees spend most of their time out in the world actually doing useful things. You, on the other hand, seem to spend a lot of YOUR time patting yourself on the back and congratulating yourself on how your UniKEF theory is so great, and how you've outwitted Einstein. You're only slight problem is that nobody of consequence agrees with your conclusion.

Wow. That was hard work.

From someone on the outside, it looks like you're all very educated. Doesn't anyone speak English anymore (apologies to those who aren't English but are doing better than me anyway).

I'm sure all of these equations add up, some how. But does this really prove that the theory is right or jus that we can make equations add up to confirm anything we want them to ?

Then if they don't we just throw in the odd constant or two and invent a few more dimensions to hide any discrepancies ?

... probably been watching too much tele ?

1. Write down the Minkowski metric for a flat spacetime.

depends on the notation. In the notation of Bjorken and Drell, g has signiture (+ - - -) where x^0=ct

In the notation of Pauli, the metric has signature (+ + + +) but x^0=ict

Also in use is a metric with signature (- + + +), I think this is used more by cosmologists, the Bjorken and Drell notation used by field theorists, but I could be incorrect, It makes little difference anyway


2. Write down the Lorentz tranformations for one spatial and one time dimension.


x'=Ax
where A is

| cosh(u) sinh(u) |
| sinh(u) cosh(u) |

and u is the boost parameter


3. What is a four-vector, in relativity?

In Bjorken and Drell notation.

Contravariant x^u=(ct,x,y,z)

Covariant x_u=g x^u=(xt,-x,-y,-z)

where g is the Minkowski metric

[/QUOTE]4. Please explain, relativistically, why muons created in Earth's upper atmosphere are observed at ground level.[/QUOTE]

Time dilation. I've explained this experiment so many times to these people that I cannot be bothered doing it again. You tell them


5. Observer A measures a spacetime interval of 20 metres between event #1 and event #2, which occur at different locations and different times (as measured by A). Observer B, travelling at 110 metres per second relative to observer A in the x direction, observes the same two events. What spacetime interval does B measure for these events?

This is invariant is it not? dS^2 is invariant under Lorentz transformations


6. Imagine two general events in spacetime, event #1 and event #2. Observer A sees event #1 occur before event #2. Is it possible, according to relativity, for some other observer B to see event #2 occur before event #1? If so, is this always true? If it is not always true, under what conditions would it be false?

Spacelike and timelike seperations.

If events #1 and #2 are seperated by a spacetime interval ds^2 < 0 (spacelike), the there exist some inertial frame of reference whereby they will be observed at the same time. That is to say that the order with which #1 and #2 happen is not unique and does not violate causality.

Wow. That was hard work.

From someone on the outside, it looks like you're all very educated. Doesn't anyone speak English anymore (apologies to those who aren't English but are doing better than me anyway).

I'm sure all of these equations add up, some how. But does this really prove that the theory is right or jus that we can make equations add up to confirm anything we want them to ?

Then if they don't we just throw in the odd constant or two and invent a few more dimensions to hide any discrepancies ?

... probably been watching too much tele ?

No you are very much on track.

"Dark Matter", "MOND", "Dark Energy", "Relavistic Illusion Solution", etc, etc.

James R., {BLUE}

MacM {RED}


I was not seeking to test your ability to use a search engine, and in doing so you have just helped me make my point about being educated (or not) in relativity. My first few questions were easily answered by googling with an appropriate search term. The last couple were slightly disguised so that they would require real understanding of concepts to answer the question; a simple search would not do the trick.

Let's see how you did

“ dS^2 = c^2dT^2 - sX^2 (for one space and one time dimension) ”


This is correct, apart from the typo with the "s".

I understand the necessity of starting your response with qualifiers. Anything right was cut and paste. Anything wrong shows you were right, I know nothing. Pardon me but bullshit. I do and would refer to books and/or googled references for anything that I did not have memorized and use regularily. It has no bearing what-so-ever on the fact that not only have I had (4) year equivelent education in mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering; which required extensive mathematics and physics, including some calculus and relativity but I graduated 2nd in my class by less than 1/2 point. If they ever fix "Attachments" here I can post copies of my training and scores.

Your attacks are aggravating. I don't like having to repeatedly defend my honor but I'll be damned if you can sit there and spread bullshit and make such assinine claims about me or anybodyelse. You don't know the first damn thing about me or my past. I have stated clearly that I no longer claim to do this stuff because it has been damn near 40 years since I have done it. But to repeatedly make statements about I have never picked up a beginners book on relativity is absolute slander and borders on you being called a deliberate liar. I have restrained using that term for quite some time but by god you are pushing the envelope with this.


“ 2. Write down the Lorentz tranformations for one spatial and one time dimension

Posted by MacM:
ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 (assuming x as the dimension)

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 (time and 3 dimensions)

i i k
ds^2 = dx dx = dx dx g
j jk (for time dilation)
Where Xi and Xk for i,j,k = 0 for time and i,j,k = 1, 2, 3 for space and gjk is metric tensor. . (Can't write math format correctly - read between the lines)

In matrix format:

1 0 0 0
0 -1 0 0
0 0 -1 0
0 0 0 -1

Now at one time I did matrix math but I have forgotten every rule and no longer attempt it. ”


Not so good here. You've given more information about metrics, but nothing about Lorentz transformations, which is what the question asked. This would seem to indicate to me that you don't know what the difference is.

Interesting. I'll have another look but that is what came up under the Lorentz heading and frankly I am not thrilled with your efforts to quiz and pick on answers. You might give some actual proof of your claims against UniKEF.


“ 3. What is a four-vector, in relativity?

Posted by MacM: Since I can't write math format and do not have all the answers to our quiz memorized, lets make this easy.

http://www.physics.nmt.edu/~raymond...ook/node50.html

time, space components are transformed using matrix rules. The space-time 4 - vector is structured to be invariant:

Now I don't remember all those rules but if I really cared to do it, it would be easy to look them up and to perform this highschool algebra.[/color] ”


I note that here, instead of writing a single-sentence answer, as anybody who understood the question would have, you have posted a link to another site, and talked about matters irrelevant to the question.

Simple, as stated above, I do not claim to have this stuff at the top of my head. Am I aware? Yes. Is there need to re-write what is already written? No. Have I attempted to hide the fact I am using references? No. So what is your point? Anyone not active for years in mathematics that openly admits not claiming to currently do higher mathematics must also then renounce his past training and experience and return to kindergarden? I don't think so. Your familarity with a subject in no way shows a superiority. It only shows what I have already stated I am limited and rusty but not ignorant on the subject.


“ 4. Please explain, relativistically, why muons created in Earth's upper atmosphere are observed at ground level.

Posted by MacM: Time Dilation due to their relative velocity to earth. ”


This is not an explanation, but I'll let it pass, because I'm sure you can google an explanation of this very well-known example.

You want an overly complicated response. Something goes beyond understanding the principle? Why? I could have posted the gamma function for time dilation (which I can still do easily to get the answer) but then you would say it was gotten off of the net or "Yea but you can't derive the formula". That is crap and others know it (except the few here that are in love with themselves and their degree.


“ 5. Observer A measures a spacetime interval of 20 metres between event #1 and event #2, which occur at different locations and different times (as measured by A). Observer B, travelling at 110 metres per second relative to observer A in the x direction, observes the same two events. What spacetime interval does B measure for these events?

Posted by MacM: Again the actual manipulation of time dilation or contraction formulas involving the gamma function are easy. However, it does seem to me your description lacks some important information. Orientation of the two events relative to "A" and the orientation of "B" seem required to actually do a calculation. ”


You are simply wrong here, which proves my point.

You have only proven that if I answer correct I have copied the answer from somewhere or made a lucky guess. If I answered incorrectly then you claim it proves you are right and I know nothing. Sorry but your full of sh_t.


“ 6. Imagine two general events in spacetime, event #1 and event #2. Observer A sees event #1 occur before event #2. Is it possible, according to relativity, for some other observer B to see event #2 occur before event #1?

[Posted by MAcM: Absolutely. And also in UniKEF. ”

This is correct, but you had a 50-50 chance...

Thanks for proving my point.


“ If so, is this always true?

Posted by MacM: No. It would depend again on orientation and relative motion of "A", "B" and the events being considered. ”


Half marks for that one. Yes, it does depend partly on those things, but there is a much simpler answer.

What? I didn't copy the answer from some place? You are still proving my points above with regard to you twisting your responses by the "Wrong" or "Oh that was simple anybody knows that" or "You had a 50/50 chance" or "You could have googled it". According to you, you would have others believe I have no education or understanding what-so-ever. That is blatantly false.

Now, I haven't given you the short answers to these questions, because I'd like to ask anybody who is REALLY educated in relativity and who is reading this post to answer the questions, and we'll compare your response with their response.

What more self congratulations and pats on the back. What does any of this have to do with understanding of relativity? According to you anyone that doesn't operate beyond the gamma functions knows nothing. That is simply wrong. Anyone that does the gamma functions has the ability and understanding of manipulating mass, time and dimension in accordance with the predictions of relativity and certainly are not inept of the issue as you seem to want to claim.



“ I really do hope you don't actually believe your quiz has any merit what-so-ever. ”


It supports my contention nicely.

In your eyes and a few other self-biased persons eyes perhaps but not on a larger scale.


“ Even if I had not had algebra and Intro Calculus, nuclear physics, etc., one can read articles and papers and understand the written text and meanings of Relativity. ”


Yes, one can. However, to do that, you need to be systematic about it. You need to study it. You can learn algebra and calculus.

You still seem to want to ignore that fact that I do algebra and have done some calculus years ago. Your claim that I understand nothing about relativity is simple BS.


“ One DOES NOT need to be able to do calculus, matrix, etc. You don't even need to be able to do algebra to understand although it helps to be able to do the gamma functions. ”


You can get a vague grip on some of the concepts without maths, but to really understand relativity, maths is essential.

The problem here is that I am well above the lowest level "F" but not anything near the upper level "A" but your entire efforts have been to reduce my understanding to an "F" rather than a "C". I am quite content with a "C" and "C's" are more than qualified to discuss the issues at practical levels. Rather than discuss the issue raised you prefer to play the "A" or "F" routine. I suspect that is because some of the issues such as the FTL you have no solid defense for.


“ Does being able to do all the math and actually derive the formulas increase the depth of knowledge - you bet. Is a person inept about Relativity in absense of such formal knowledge? Hell no. If you can read and understand english you can understand what is being asserted or claimed. ”

Yes but you are incapable of verifying it or disproving it, because you're not aquainted with the tools necessary to do so.

Rather than attack ones ability to compete mathematically perhaps you should start to address the actual issue. Lets start with the failure of the "Illusion Solution" to actually salvage relativity on the FTL issue, shall we?


“ Your whole attitude regarding the value of your qualifications and understanding of Relativity is really quite distorted. ”

How so? If I want to be a good Japanese speaker, I need to study Japanese. It is not enough to learn all about Japan, and read writings in English about Japan and the Japanese language. What I need to do is actually immerse myself in the subject. I need to talk to people who know Japanese. I need to look at the actual language as written and spoken, and practice actually writing and speaking myself.

The same is true of relativity. It is not enough to read a few pop-science books and sites on the internet with English-language descriptions of the physics. You need to immerse yourself in the subject - learn the maths, solve the problems yourself, talk to people who really know about relativity, and practice using it yourself to solve problems.

Here you go again. Trying to qualify what a person must know to have an intelligent discussion. It is entirely wrong to claim that to not being a good Japanese speaker, one can therefore not know any Japanese.

The facts would be just the opposite. Knowing Japanese fluently and its culture do not assure being a good Japanese speaker. (We have many of those types here BTW. They have been through the academics but are nothing more than tape recorders and Xerox copiers with no original thoughts or ability to think other than repeat what they have been told or read written by others.

Also once again my education and exposure is substantially above your repeated use of the "Pop Science" and "Internet" comment. But go ahead try and convience others you are right and therefore I must be wrong. All because you have said so.


“ Now that you have wanted to quiz me on Relativity, let me quiz you on UniKEF: ”


I have never claimed to be educated in the minutiae of UniKEF.

OH, I SEE. Then why do you continue to make invalid comments about it? You just told us if you aren't an expert you shouldn't being talking but listening. It is indeed the "minutiae" of relativity that you seem to want to defend at all costs.

In fact, I don't think it is a coherent and self-consistent theory. I don't think it makes any useful predictions which have been verified. I don't think it provides a framework for solving general problems in physics. And even if it can replicate the inverse-square law of Newton in a simple case (which I haven't seen a UniKEF proof of yet), then I still doubt whether it can actually be applied to any more-general problem.

See there you go making all sorts of negative statements based on absolutely no information and no effort to actually do even one calculation. The fact is UniKEF only appears "Inverse Square" at very short ranges but contains an inherent difference which can indeed be made satisfy the actual observation of gravity through galatic flattening and accelerating expansion of the universe. Can GR do that without fabricating some unseen matter or explain the expansion without Dark Energy? I didn't think so.

Now you seem to be side stepping your earlier position which was to state that the UniKEF integration "Did not produce the inverse square". You were wrong then and you re wrong now bubba.


For example, can it predict the tidal effects of the moon on the Earth? Can it help determine the orbital parameters of Halley's comet? Can it be used to calculate a gravity-assist trajectory to get a rocket to Mars?

I would have to answer assuming the correctness of the extension of what has already been shown to be correct - "Absolutely". Can I do it now? Of course not. That is why the mathematics need to be completed. Shame those capable but are opposed to having such a viable and understadable alternative to relativity, which is known to fail at the extremes anyhow.


“ 9 - Why does a simple non-Relavistic based concept which makes one set of simple assumptions, that not only shows the origin of the local gravity inverse square function via integration by calculus to use pseudo-mass, not actual mass, to eliminate mass^2 as a physically non-sensical unit, but also predicts the galatic flattening and acceleration of the expansion of the universe in ONE coherent process instead of three different mathematical and hypothetical causes as is currently done, JUST SCARE THE HELL OUT OF YOU? ”

It doesn't. I don't believe there is good evidence that UniKEF does any of those things.“

All efforts here to debunk it by attacking me, due to my lack of doing calculus is absolutely baseless, most especially since actual physicists and mathematicians have seen it and did understand it and did confirm my concept as viable. A concept you have yet to actually calculate yourself.

Which physicists? Not your Dr Allard. I've looked at his contributions in detail.

Are you implying that his calcuus "Does Not" result in the inverse square? If so say so and at that point you and he (and I think he was better qualified than you in making that assessment) are in opposition, and you are further in disagreement with one of SciFi's own mathematician members that says it does.

Don't be trying to subvert something by innuendo. Take a position. But base that position on a fully presented and correct performed calculus process.

Shows us the actual curve and how it is not inverse square please.

Who else, then? And where can I find their work? (Not in a protected "group" which I have to join to look at the documents, please.)

I am not going to go the route of chasing wild gueese. There were two from the physics department from Purdue. There was one at least from the U of NC. There were an unknown number from the US Army Research Command, which commented that much of UniKEF was found in existing literature and for which they forwarded the copy of the Geodetic Inst report on the elclipse data. Then there was the Geodetic Inst which approved publication of my explanation of their findings in that report.

Added to that is the fact that there have now been a goodly number of qualified people looking over the theory. Some names in fact that you would recognise (not from SciFi but from public recognition).

NONE SEEM TO HAVE YOUR ABSOLUTE DISTRUST OF UniKEF and its potential. Why is that since you have made no effort to actually verify or falsify the work but continue to attack by innuendo.


Posted by MacM: “ I actually came here hoping for the same assistance I now am getting elsewhere. ”

I'm glad you're getting assistance elsewhere. I hope it is not a complete waste of your time. Physics is such an exciting field, it would be a shame to waste your life without ever doing any real physics, if that's what you're interested in.

You bet physicis is exciting, even more so once you get your nose out of the rut plowed by others before you and simply follow that rut.

The fact is UniKEF not only agrees with much of relativity but provides a very understandable cause. That is exciting and useful even though you claim it has no value to understand physical reality and advocate pure mathematical projection.


Posted by MacM: “ Can you explain why it is this group lacks such vision? They all seem more interested in patting themselves on the back for having graduated with a degree and saying "you should listen and not talk". Shssssh! ”

The fact that educated people don't share your idiosyncratic vision is not a reliable indicator that they lack vision in general. Far from walking around patting themselves on the back, those people with degrees spend most of their time out in the world actually doing useful things.

"...... educated people don't share your idiosyncratic vision ......", this shows the problem. It is not UniKEF but your attitude that is in error. Not all educated people hold your view - fortunately. To not see the useful bases for a physical model is indeed your greatest short fall.

You, on the other hand, seem to spend a lot of YOUR time patting yourself on the back and congratulating yourself on how your UniKEF theory is so great, and how you've outwitted Einstein.

LOL. That is bullshit. It is you that continue to pat yourself on the back for having a degree and avoid directly addressing serious question about relativity by attacking others. I have not claimed to "Outwit anybody, much less Einstein". I merely claim what I claim and that is the UniKEF process appears mathematically to be a viable concept and since it covers the entire spectrum of observation as one coherent process, appears more likely to be valid than Relativity (recognizing that much of relativity is still valid in UniKEF).

Just as it has been my statement about relativity "Mathematical correctness, does not mean it is reality, also applies to UniKEF. It will be up to others to decide if it is superior or more correct.

You're only slight problem is that nobody of consequence agrees with your conclusion.

Easy statement to make since you have no idea who now agrees with me and for whom you will have a much greater problem of thumbing your nose at once this is all ready. -Good Bye.

ryans,

You really should see a Dr about all those bruises you are making with all those meaningless pats on the back.

MacM,

Now if remembering what you have read or been told verbatum is a negative then I'm missing something. Surely if your lecture was on some physics principles and you gave precise instructions on how to perform a process you would not fail such a person that repeats your instructions to get the answer?

You appear to have missed the word "only".
If any of my students only give me back rote answers from my lectures or a text book, they're likely to fail.

Knowing the content of a course is important, but it is more important to be able to demonstrate deep understanding of the limitations and applications of those concepts. Such understanding is not demonstrated by regurgitation.


What the hell is your point. My point was not anti-education but anti-ivory tower. That is the attitude that being a specialist means non-specialists can have no understandings of the issue.
Then you did not state you point well. Your statement:

Being educated in Relativity simply means you have been indoctrinated to accept it without question and reject any opposition without detailed analysis simply because it violates your accepted answer.
Directly attacks education at all universities and many other educational institutions.
You said that anyone educated in Relativity will only ever give a rote response. That is crap, and I am appalled that you could even think such a thing, especially if your mother is a teacher. Any of my students who give only rote responses are likely to fail. Any student who can not or does not intelligently analyse opposition or anomalies should fail.

MacM:

I am not particularly interested in persuing how much you know about relativity in the abstract any further. I have made my point that being educated in relativity means much more than being able to give rote responses to questions, and that is all I was trying to do. Hopefully you will be more careful in future about making silly statements like the one which led to this exchange.

Neither am I interested in playing a round of dueling degrees with you. I don't care what your formal qualifications are. I care how much you know about what you're talking about. I hope that the same would apply in reverse.

You say:


But to repeatedly make statements about I have never picked up a beginners book on relativity is absolute slander and borders on you being called a deliberate liar.

Please list for me a couple of reference books you have found useful in your studies of relativity.


Rather than attack ones ability to compete mathematically perhaps you should start to address the actual issue. Lets start with the failure of the "Illusion Solution" to actually salvage relativity on the FTL issue, shall we?

Ok. Do you have any particular references to where that solution is said not to work?


Me: In fact, I don't think [UniKEF] is a coherent and self-consistent theory. I don't think it makes any useful predictions which have been verified. I don't think it provides a framework for solving general problems in physics. And even if it can replicate the inverse-square law of Newton in a simple case (which I haven't seen a UniKEF proof of yet), then I still doubt whether it can actually be applied to any more-general problem.

You: See there you go making all sorts of negative statements based on absolutely no information and no effort to actually do even one calculation. The fact is UniKEF only appears "Inverse Square" at very short ranges but contains an inherent difference which can indeed be made satisfy the actual observation of gravity through galatic flattening and accelerating expansion of the universe. Can GR do that without fabricating some unseen matter or explain the expansion without Dark Energy? I didn't think so.

Far from making no effort to do any calculation, I started an entire thread for exactly that purpose. However, I quickly found that you could not give me enough information to even allow me to formulate the problem in a mathematical sense. Your UniKEF theory seems to give no guidance as to how one actually goes about calculating the gravitational force between two simple objects.

Now, maybe better brains than mine have managed to work on this problem and get a solution. If so, I'm all ears. I'd love to see what they did. But so far, you haven't managed to show me, or point me to anywhere I can find the relevant information, apart from a site which I am locked out of.


Now you seem to be side stepping your earlier position which was to state that the UniKEF integration "Did not produce the inverse square".

No, I stand by that position, and will do so until I see something which indicates otherwise.


Shame those capable but are opposed to having such a viable and understadable alternative to relativity, which is known to fail at the extremes anyhow.

You have never once shown that relativity "fails at the extremes". You make repeated claims to that effect, but they never turn out to be supportable.


Are you implying that [Dr Allard's] calculus "Does Not" result in the inverse square?

Yes. I examined all his work which you had posted on your web site. It did not establish the inverse-square result. I commented extensively on it previously.


If so say so and at that point you and he (and I think he was better qualified than you in making that assessment) are in opposition, and you are further in disagreement with one of SciFi's own mathematician members that says it does.

Which one? Where can I see his work verifying UniKEF?


Don't be trying to subvert something by innuendo. Take a position.

I'm taking a clear position. I do not believe that UniKEF reproduces Newton's inverse square law, even at short distances, between two masses.


But base that position on a fully presented and correct performed calculus process.

Tell me how to set up the problem, and I'll do the calculus.


Added to that is the fact that there have now been a goodly number of qualified people looking over the theory. Some names in fact that you would recognise (not from SciFi but from public recognition).

NONE SEEM TO HAVE YOUR ABSOLUTE DISTRUST OF UniKEF and its potential. Why is that since you have made no effort to actually verify or falsify the work but continue to attack by innuendo.

Show me their work, and I'll check it out. Is their support of UniKEF based on a hunch, or on something solid? If something solid, show me. If a hunch, then frankly I'm not interested in their opinions.


It is you that continue to pat yourself on the back for having a degree and avoid directly addressing serious question about relativity by attacking others.

Believe me, I know many people of very limited intelligence who hold degrees. The mere fact that somebody has a degree doesn't count for much in science.

So, can you show me something which supports your inverse-square contention, or not?

James R.,

I am not particularly interested in persuing how much you know about relativity in the abstract any further. I have made my point that being educated in relativity means much more than being able to give rote responses to questions, and that is all I was trying to do. Hopefully you will be more careful in future about making silly statements like the one which led to this exchange.

Likewise regarding your slipshod posts and innuendo

Neither am I interested in playing a round of dueling degrees with you. I don't care what your formal qualifications are. I care how much you know about what you're talking about. I hope that the same would apply in reverse.

Ditto

You say:

“ But to repeatedly make statements about I have never picked up a beginners book on relativity is absolute slander and borders on you being called a deliberate liar. ”

Please list for me a couple of reference books you have found useful in your studies of relativity.

Not going to bother. Most was decades ago. Also my eldest son has taken many of my books for his library. This would be a fruitless effort since your next response would simply be "Then you didn't understand what you read - blah, blah.

“ Rather than attack ones ability to compete mathematically perhaps you should start to address the actual issue. Lets start with the failure of the "Illusion Solution" to actually salvage relativity on the FTL issue, shall we? ”

Ok. Do you have any particular references to where that solution is said not to work?

There you go. I have never said the solution doesn't work. It simply is not applicable but to a very few rare cases, in part due to the missing Blue Shift issue which I raised initially and was poo phooed for.

I gave a link on extensive analysis of that solution and others a - g. Their statement was that it could only be affective in perhaps 1% of such cases.

“ Me: In fact, I don't think [UniKEF] is a coherent and self-consistent theory. I don't think it makes any useful predictions which have been verified. I don't think it provides a framework for solving general problems in physics. And even if it can replicate the inverse-square law of Newton in a simple case (which I haven't seen a UniKEF proof of yet), then I still doubt whether it can actually be applied to any more-general problem.

You: See there you go making all sorts of negative statements based on absolutely no information and no effort to actually do even one calculation. The fact is UniKEF only appears "Inverse Square" at very short ranges but contains an inherent difference which can indeed be made satisfy the actual observation of gravity through galatic flattening and accelerating expansion of the universe. Can GR do that without fabricating some unseen matter or explain the expansion without Dark Energy? I didn't think so. ”


Far from making no effort to do any calculation, I started an entire thread for exactly that purpose.

True and that has been appreciated. However, you still have not done the UniKEF Calculus Intergration but only made some initial negative comments about it.

However, I quickly found that you could not give me enough information to even allow me to formulate the problem in a mathematical sense.

I gave a very detailed description of the process. Further Dr Allard's work should be adequate in the first instance. Further "Shmoe", a mathematician member here, seemed to have little problem forging through and forming a conclusion.

Your UniKEF theory seems to give no guidance as to how one actually goes about calculating the gravitational force between two simple objects.

That seems to be because you expect everything laid out in a formula which you can pick up and apply. You have been told that the process being evaluated did not produce the gravity force but only the curve of such force. However, the limitation has now been overcome and is covered in the new detailed instructions which you choose to not view since you would have to join to do so. That too is being overcome, thanks to one member here that is assisting in the formation of a new web site that is not member oriented. I will announce when it is ready.

Now, maybe better brains than mine have managed to work on this problem and get a solution. If so, I'm all ears. I'd love to see what they did. But so far, you haven't managed to show me, or point me to anywhere I can find the relevant information, apart from a site which I am locked out of.

A bit of over statement. You are far from locked out. It requires membership, just as SciFi requires membership. It is also free. Your unwillingness to join is not the same as being locked out. In addition it is not my fault that "Attachments" here have vanished and can not be posted. If they could you would not have this escape goat excuse. Further as stated above you will not have that excuse much longer.

“ Now you seem to be side stepping your earlier position which was to state that the UniKEF integration "Did not produce the inverse square".

No, I stand by that position, and will do so until I see something which indicates otherwise.

Fair enough as long as others recognise that your position is based on a refusal to actually do the calculation for yourself and refusal to analyze work already done by Dr Allard (physicist) that happens to disagree with you. Further more I have shown how the original UniKEF Summation Method also resulted in an inverse square result. You are simply wrong but that tactic will not hold for long in that a new presentation is being developed. You need to be spoon fed, then you will be spoon fed. But don't sit there and make absolute negative statements which are based on an unsupported belief.

“ Shame those capable but are opposed to having such a viable and understadable alternative to relativity, which is known to fail at the extremes anyhow. ”

You have never once shown that relativity "fails at the extremes". You make repeated claims to that effect, but they never turn out to be supportable.

So I take it that I missed out when GR was found to work at the quantum level, explains galatic flattening and the accelerating expansion of the universe. Please up date us all on the new GR understandings.

“ Are you implying that [Dr Allard's] calculus "Does Not" result in the inverse square? ”


Yes. I examined all his work which you had posted on your web site. It did not establish the inverse-square result. I commented extensively on it previously.

I won't call you a liar but only say that I must question your mathematical prowess for I don't question Dr Allards, Shmoe's, nor my own rudimentary result. As I recall you came up with an estimated projection (claim) of results that were radically different than anyone else that has actually set down and committed the calculation to a step by step process. I don't recall seeing even one step written by you - only your "I say it doesn't work" statement. That doesn't cut it. I have supplied much more than that and you object that it is inadequate. Well you are the pot calling the kittle black.

“ If so say so and at that point you and he (and I think he was better qualified than you in making that assessment) are in opposition, and you are further in disagreement with one of SciFi's own mathematician members that says it does. ”

Which one? Where can I see his work verifying UniKEF?

His user name was Shmoe and he claimed to be a mathematician by occupation (we had private messages in addition to his posted comments). His comments were not in support of UniKEF but once walked through the process and having reviewed Dr Allards work, concluded it indeed will result in the inverse square just as I have claimed. That series starts on page 20 of the UniKEF Thread.

“ Don't be trying to subvert something by innuendo. Take a position. ”


I'm taking a clear position. I do not believe that UniKEF reproduces Newton's inverse square law, even at short distances, between two masses.

Fine. Show us by calculus that it doesn't. Your position is based on a complete lack of performing the process calculation and hence is worthless. Actually worse than worthless since you would like others to take your statement as to have some conclusive meaning. It does not.

“ But base that position on a fully presented and correct performed calculus process. ”

Tell me how to set up the problem, and I'll do the calculus.

I did that once. But thanks for making it clear to others that your postion IS NOT based on any actual calculation or evaluation as you have just claimed above.

“ Added to that is the fact that there have now been a goodly number of qualified people looking over the theory. Some names in fact that you would recognise (not from SciFi but from public recognition).

NONE SEEM TO HAVE YOUR ABSOLUTE DISTRUST OF UniKEF and its potential. Why is that since you have made no effort to actually verify or falsify the work but continue to attack by innuendo. ”

Show me their work, and I'll check it out. Is their support of UniKEF based on a hunch, or on something solid? If something solid, show me. If a hunch, then frankly I'm not interested in their opinions.

Ditto. Neither am I interested in your uninformed opinion. Formal presentation will be made as soon as it is ready. In the mean time others willing to look into it have been given sufficient information to do so.

“ It is you that continue to pat yourself on the back for having a degree and avoid directly addressing serious question about relativity by attacking others. ”

Believe me, I know many people of very limited intelligence who hold degrees. The mere fact that somebody has a degree doesn't count for much in science.

We agree.

So, can you show me something which supports your inverse-square contention, or not?

I already have but will do so formally, once again, shortly.

Now, now girls. You're not sounding very scientific ? or very adult for that matter. Always better to rise above ? Only a fool argues with a fool ... ;)

MacM:

I have just finished catching up with the UniKEF analysis thread. I will post further comments regarding UniKEF in that thread, to keep them all in one convenient place.

Here, I will simply note that I do not think that the inverse square law has been verified for UniKEF - at least not on this forum.

Regarding your comments on relativity...


So I take it that I missed out when GR was found to work at the quantum level, explains galatic flattening and the accelerating expansion of the universe. Please up date us all on the new GR understandings.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood your meaning. I agree that GR is not a quantum theory. I don't know what you're referring to with respect to "galactic flattening" - I am not aware that that is a problem for GR. As for the accelerating universe, it is GR models which best explain this, although the precise cause is still a matter of debate.

quote:
4. Please explain, relativistically, why muons created in Earth's upper atmosphere are observed at ground level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a little quible here, the way James phrased the question, 'relativistically' leads
to one answer, of course. It is that answer that is so often cited as a 'proof' of
Special Relativity. Is it? I have reciently been reading some material (published) about
FERMILAB's Neutrino Factory. I'm sure you physicists know how the neutrinos are
produced, from muons. To be able to store more muons and increase their life, or as
it is usually referred to in the SR time dilation examples mean-life, how do you suppose
they do this? Just to be straight, they increase the lifetime of the muon so they have
more time to carry out their neutrino experiments. How? No, they don't increase the
speed of the muon to closer and closer to 'c' so 'time dilation' effects extend their
lifetimes. They slow the muons down. They slow the beam of muons down to extensively increase their life. The muon is a particle, what happens when it travels through our atmosphere? Is time dilation the real reason 'more than expected' muons
reach the ground? Something don't seem right to this skeptic.

2inquisitive:

Please explain how slowing a muon beam down increases the mean lifetime of the muons. A link to an appropriate reference would be nice, too, if you have one.

I am looking for the exact article I read, but haven't located it yet. I can give a brief
explaination of the contents. A little background. I was reading FERMILABS feasibility
study on Neutrino Factories.
http://www-mucool.fnal.gov/talks/history-organization-lecture.pdf
This is a 47 page document, by the way. It kind of covers all the early proposals from
Fermilab, CERN and the Japan Haydron collider for Neutrino Factory designs and gives
limitations and general operating method of each design. It covered research up until about 2002, I beleive it was. Generally, they concluded the MUCOOL design of S. Geer
was most likely to give the highest number of muons for conducting their neutrino
research. I did some google searches and came across the paper I read. I am not
certain if it was the MUcool design or not, but it was very close and I believe an
extension of his design. I will give a link below. Generally, high energy muons beams
are collected and stored in rings, from pion decay of course. The beams need to be cooled fast, otherwise the muons decay. It was found that by lowering the energy
and the SPEED of the muon beams, it would cool them and extend their lifetimes.
They needed to do this to collect a higher density of muons for their neutrino experiments. I believe they use muons with up to a 50 GeV energy level. The neutrino
experiments were looking first for a method to measure CP violation in the lepton sector. They then discovered neutrino oscillations and got excited by that. By the way, do you know anything about dark current, James? I thought dark energy and dark
matter were enough, but that is something I also had not heard of. It has been damaging glass and components in the colliders, including melting titanium. Here is a link to FERMILAB's Neutron Factory page, but it is not very well updated with the latest. The paper I read could have been one here, but I don't think so. It does have
a good bit about the MUCOOL design, though.
http://www.fnal.gov/projects/muon_collider/

JamesR,
This is a little late but none the less I pulled some info on Gold > Lead

The following URL had someone request about the very same experiment I saw,
However it wasn't "Tomorrow's World" that it was shown on I don't think,
I think it was actually a program called "It will never work".
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/amia-l/2001/07/msg00231.html

And this one might give a better example of it being possible.
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htm

(Although Televisions only project photons, you don't need me to tell you
how discussion on if particles are actually wavefunctions have gone in the past.
However the television would be outputting wavefunctions, which should make up
for the lack of a particle accelerator)