Proving einstein wrong in 2 simple steps

[Janus]

imagine a helicopter rotor blade as it rotates and the helicopter moves forward. the rotation of the blade is not balance. the rotor rotates faster when the spin of the rotation is in the same direction with the helicopter's forward motion. because there is a portion on the cyclic motion of the rotor that the spin velocity of the rotor add up to the forward motion. the same phenomena are true with tornadoes and hurricanes.

 

You're confusing rotational speed and linearspeed. The rotational speed is measured in rotations per sec or radians per sec, and does not change at any point of the blade whether the helicopter is moving or not. The linear speed of any point of the rotor doesn't change with respect to the helicopter, but can change with respect to the ground if the helicopter is moving.

 

i think it is also true to an electron with a spin, orbital and linear velocities . if the orbital velocity of an electron is c, then there are portions in its cycle that all the other velocities add up and a greater than c speed is present.

 

 

 

Electrons do not orbit at c. The orbital speed of a electron of a hydrogen atom would be less than 1% of c.

 

Even if thety did have an orbital speed of a high fraction of c and the atom was moving at a high fraction of c, the electron would not have a speed higher than c with respect to the frame in which the atom s moving. The electron would still be subject to the velocity addition theorem of

 

[math]w = \frac{u+v}{1+ \frac{uv}{c^2}}[/math]

 

 

resulting in a less than c speed.

[Haech]

imagine a helicopter rotor blade as it rotates and the helicopter moves forward. the rotation of the blade is not balance. the rotor rotates faster when the spin of the rotation is in the same direction with the helicopter's forward motion. because there is a portion on the cyclic motion of the rotor that the spin velocity of the rotor add up to the forward motion. the same phenomena are true with tornadoes and hurricanes.

 

i think it is also true to an electron with a spin, orbital and linear velocities . if the orbital velocity of an electron is c, then there are portions in its cycle that all the other velocities add up and a greater than c speed is present.

 

 

we use frequency to measure velocity. a particle vibrating at say 2c will never interact with a c frequency. a 2c frequency will be "invisible" to the measuring device that uses c frequency. and since nothing surpass c , instrument and all , those greater than c particles will be invisible to us. although their presence can be felt or inferred, since their presence should affect our universe.

 

 

I'm not too sure about the physics of it, but it sounds like you're saying that there could be an orthogonal system to the one we're experiencing. However, if for all relevant purposes it's orthogonal and can't be measured detected or interacted with, then how it is at all empirically relevant?

[lenvanzanten]

The cause for the apparent location of a star verses that of its actual location is due to the refraction of its light as the same grazes the sun through its atmosphere. (Illustration) The same is true for the Sun appearing above the horizon when in fact it is below the horizon.

To date no real evidence has been furnished that light for its movement is susceptible to gravitational forces. Gravity has shown to act upon all atomic substance, but no evidence to act upon wave formations. The theory of light not escaping from a so called black hole as speculation cannot be construed as evidence, while the refraction of light as illustrated is abundantly evident.

As far as a delay in the reduction of the velocity of light grazing the sun, however difficult such is to measure, is due to the density of the plasma (atmosphere surrounding the sun) verses the density of space. Opting “newtonphysics.on.ca/ECLIPSE/Eclipse.html” likewise shows relavistic errors

The irony of it is – Einstein’s prediction that light would bend in passing near the Sun, is hardly a prediction, but a known fact as it does so by any sphere or prism. One need not predict known common occurances, but to replace the known factual refraction of light into an assumption of gravitational deflection is at best mis-appropiation.

A quotation from the listed website Quote: So now we find that the legend of Albert Einstein as the world's greatest scientist was based on the Mathematical Magic of Trimming and Cooking of the eclipse data to present the illusion that Einstein's general relativity theory was correct in order to prevent Cambridge University from being disgraced because one of its distinguished members [Eddington] was close to being declared a "conscientious objector".

 

[modest]

Lenvanzanten, I don't see how your post is on topic and the site you're referring to is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. If you'd like to discuss alternative explanations for light deflection then open a thread in the alternative theories forum.

 

~modest

[Janus]

lenvanzanten,

 

The idea that the deflection of light passing the Sun is due to refraction is belied by the fact that it shows no chromatic aberration.

Different frequencies refract at different degrees when passing through the same medium. This is why light breaks up into a rainbow pattern when it passes through a prism. Gravitational lensing however bends all frequencies evenly and leads to no chromatic aberration.

 

In the observations confirming the bending of light due to gravitational lensing no proportional aberration is seen, so it cannot be due to refraction.

[Qfwfq]

Although not aiming to give specific support to lenvanzanten's point, I feel I almost must play the devil's advocate:

Different frequencies refract at different degrees when passing through the same medium.

This is what defines dispersive media and is certainly typical (at least in the visible EM range) of material ones. Some serious folks have worked on the optical interpretation of GR and the idea of PV. Compatibility with the equivalence principle obviously requires the vacuum to be non-dispersive in any case.

[lenvanzanten]

In reply to Janus and Qfwfq: here is some reasoning in plain terms to consider.

We know that the light of stars refracted by our atmosphere places the star at a slightly different location from where it really is. This is for stars that appear close to the horizon, while those appearing directly above us at midnight for example their light passes in by the normal with no refraction. If therefore this is true for all stars by any atmosphere why not so by the Sun?

The best time to view the light of a star grazing the Sun would be at midday when it would come to by the normal into our atmosphere, any other time of the day would make that star appear somewhat out of location by its angle into our own atmosphere - - to as we might say; - add to the dislocation.

Then for the arberration of the light, we must take in account the high temperature of the media surrounding the Sun in which refraction is minimized. And the great distance, which for the smallest of arc’s causes to enlarge the appearant relocation of the star. Adding this together our own possible dislocation – why should we not behold pretty well most of the visible wavelengths?

When we consider the red sky in the evening here on Earth to view mostly the longer lengths, we must consider how we from our view point are in the middle and at the bottom of the refractive index.

And so I deem it fair to consider these and more such phenomena before in this case we scrap light’s refraction grazing the Sun as of no relevance

[stereologist]

I think you are wrong to suggest that stars near the horizon have their light refracted while stars from above do not have their light refracted. It is correct to state that the light from stars viewed through more air is refracted more than stars viewed through less air. Stars twinkling is due to refraction.

 

When we consider the red sky in the evening here on Earth to view mostly the longer lengths

 

I didn't follow you on this section of your post. The longer wavelengths viewed at sunset are not due to refraction. This is due to Rayleigh scattering.

[modest]

This is for stars that appear close to the horizon, while those appearing directly above us at midnight for example their light passes in by the normal with no refraction. If therefore this is true for all stars by any atmosphere why not so by the Sun?

 

It is not just light very near the sun which is deflected by the sun's mass. EM radiation (such as radio waves) is deflected at much greater distances such that pretty much anywhere we look in the sky we are seeing some light-deflection caused by the mass of the sun. At earth's distance from the sun (at 90 degrees from the sun in earth's sky) the deflection is 4 milliarcseconds.

 

By tracking radio galaxies and quasars with VLBI (very long baseline interferometry) we now have the ability to measure deflection with great-enough precision to test deflection that small. This was done in the 90's with great success in verifying the predictions of general relativity. The results are summarized here:

 

A recent series of transcontinental and intercontinental VLBI quasar and radio galaxy observations made primarily to monitor the Earth’s rotation (“VLBI ” in Figure 5) was sensitive to the deflection of light over almost the entire celestial sphere (at 90◦ from the Sun, the deflection is still 4 milliarcseconds). A recent analysis of over 2 million VLBI observations yielded (1 + γ)/2 = 0.99992 ± 0.00014.

 

The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment (section 3.4.1)

 

The paper publishing the results is here:

 

Advances in Solar System Tests of Gravity

 

The sun's atmosphere can't conspire to mimic these results with such accuracy over the entire celestial sphere!

 

~modest

[stereologist]

What about gravitational lenses?

 

Gravitational Lensing

[coldcreation]

What about gravitational lenses?

 

Gravitational Lensing

 

What about gravitational redshift?

 

It looks like proving Einstein "wrong in 2 simple steps" is averting more difficult than photographing twins. :naughty:

 

 

 

 

CC

[arkain101]

Reading through this topic, and like all topics that have to do with relativity I find contradicting explanations. It does not seem to matter where I go to learn about special relativity, someone is always going to explain it slightly different. It makes it very difficult know who really understands it.

 

So help me make a list of the things that happen for an obsever watching an object travel up to light speed first. Then second, an observer experiencing acceleration up towards the speed of light.

 

 

First, Observing an accelerating massive body towards the speed of light and observed effects. Starting from zero velocity, up to C. Distance between observer and object 1 light hour.(in order to keep things easier to visualize so that regardless of direction of motion of the accelerating object, it can be hypothetically viewed as barely moving, as opposed to a close object that creates all kinds of problems like change in angle of observation, and time to observe events.)

 

Lets think of this object as a 1km long cylinder shaped ship.

 

 

 

a)Shift of light wavelength (red or blue shift, depending on perspective)

 

[math]1 \quad + \quad z \quad = \quad \gamma \quad \left(\quad 1 \quad + \quad \frac {v}{c} \quad \right)[/math]

 

 

 

b)Displacement of actual position (the objects actual position is continually moving further from its observed position as it continually accelerates)

 

(not sure equation for here)

 

 

c)The observers, observed passage of time for the accelerating object slows down in proportion to specific velocity.

 

 

 

d)While acceleration occurs, actions (such as photons bouncing between mirrors AND electrons being shot forwards from one 'gun', and backwards from another 'gun') in the direction of motion happen , as to not exceed the speed of light.

_____Photons in the direction of motion, move through the ship at a speed = Speed of light - speed of object.

_____Photons in the direction opposite to motion, move through the ship at the speed = speed of ship + speed of light.

_____Electrons move in the direction of motion through the ship more slowly in the direction of motion than they do in the direction opposite to motion (in proportion to acceleration)

 

 

e)While accerlation stops, but velocity still exists.

_____Photons in the direction of motion, move through the ship at a speed = Speed of light - speed of object.

_____Photons in the direction opposite to motion, move through the ship at the speed = speed of ship + speed of light.

_____Electrons move in the direction of motion through the ship more slowly in the direction of motion than they do in the direction opposite to motion (in proportion of velocity % of C)

 

 

 

f)Contraction of the length of the ship.

 

 

 

g)Loss of mass from any means of acceleration. It is best to include a means of acceleration. In our case of an electron gun. Prior to the electron being shot, sitting in the "barrel" it is considered part of the system of the ship, so the 'mass' of the body is the mass of the ship. Then, when the electron is fired, it loses mass = mass of ship - mass of electron.

_____Furthermore, the ship itself must have also been losing mass in order to accelerate. Keeping in mind.

 

 

Such that, if one can eject mass which a high enough acceleration it can provide a greater force / mass ratio.. thus providing near velocity C with minimal loss of ejected mass form the system.

 

 

Now. This was all I could gather off the top of my head for the observer at rest, observing the accelerating object nearing C.

 

A note, the equations are expressed with movement in only the X axis, such that you can mentally align exactly which direction the X axis faces.

 

 

(NOT SURE IF THESE ARE THE CORRECT EQUATIONS )