This is it.

[arkain101]

Were this not true, coherent, single-frequency light, such as that produced by cool hydrogen (eg: Balmer line radiation) and LASERs of all kinds, would not exist, and it would be possible to for the photoelectric effect to be produced simply by concentrating low-frequency light, such as inferred, on a small area of a photoelectric material.

 

The photoelectric effect is the emission of electrons from matter upon the absorption of electromagnetic radiation, such as visible light or ultraviolet radiation.

A laser can be produced from a double A battery. The battery is feeding the "energy' for the lazer to work. There is such thing as infrared lazers, but the frequency and intensity obviously isnt strong enough to create intesive heat.

[CraigD]

There is examples all over the place that show flaw in this relativity.

This statement is at odds with reality. One of the main strengths of Relativity is its superb agreement with experimental evidence. Simply put, every prediction of the theory that has been experimentally tested has been confirmed.

Particles in particle accelerators reach .9 C but dont seem to have anything close to infinate mass.

The mass of an object accelerated to .9*c is predicted by Relativity to be (1-.9^2)^-.5, or about 2.3 times its rest mass. The reason a particles accelerated to this speed don’t seem to have anything close to infinite mass is that 2.3 is not very large.

 

To effectively understand Physics, one must use arithmetic, else one is subject to confusions such as the one quoted above. The rest of your comment suffers from the same problem, speculation uninformed by hard numbers – “formalism”, in other words. There are obvious, basic resolutions to the problems you see with Relativity, but all require use of the formal tools of Physics. Intuitive, language-based approaches just don’t work well.

[cwes99_03]

I'm beginning to wonder if the moderators of this forum should remove arkain101.

 

I hate to sound like i'm putting someone down.

 

Arkain101 is posting all over this site, always posting the same gibberish about himself finding some new theory that discredits all theories on energy. All of these posts have been refuted as a simple minded individual who claims he has studied physics, and yet obviously does not grasp even some of the simplest teachings of physics, namely motion and conservation of energy and conservation of momentum.

[Torson]

I'm beginning to wonder if the moderators of this forum should remove arkain101.

 

I would agree to that. This site is one of the best as discussion forum for the mysteries and facts on science and has great participants, but if it is "bombarded" with "rubbish" it becomes tiresome to follow/participate in all the interesting discussions going on. We all post "rubbish" from time to time but not on a continous basis.

[Tormod]

I'm beginning to wonder if the moderators of this forum should remove arkain101.

 

I hate to sound like i'm putting someone down.

 

Arkain101 is posting all over this site, always posting the same gibberish about himself finding some new theory that discredits all theories on energy. All of these posts have been refuted as a simple minded individual who claims he has studied physics, and yet obviously does not grasp even some of the simplest teachings of physics, namely motion and conservation of energy and conservation of momentum.

 

There are several ways to do this without posting in the forum.

 

1. Use the reputation system - the blue icon under each poster's avatar. Click on it an leave negative feedback.

 

2. Use the report bad post system. Ie, click on the red icon to report the post to the moderators

 

3. Contact one of the admins and voice your concerns.

[C1ay]

I'm beginning to wonder if the moderators of this forum should remove arkain101.

 

I hate to sound like i'm putting someone down.

 

Arkain101 is posting all over this site, always posting the same gibberish about himself finding some new theory that discredits all theories on energy. All of these posts have been refuted as a simple minded individual who claims he has studied physics, and yet obviously does not grasp even some of the simplest teachings of physics, namely motion and conservation of energy and conservation of momentum.

In addition to Tormod's suggestions I will also point out that you can add members to your personal ignore list. There are many younger members (and some older) here that come up with all kinds of ideas that supposedly challenge theories of classical science. If we banned all of them the membership here would be pretty slim. It is better that we engage them so they can learn.

[arkain101]

I have to agree I have been getting carried away with rubbish posts. I have worked out the kinks and have found most of the areas of my theories to have problems so I will put them at rest.

 

I understand how the current science is said to work. My posts have been attempts to explain things differently without C as a constant and time dialation and that sort of thing. I understand tests have been done to back up the theory and I do not discredit anyones expertise on the results and tests but there is other explanations that are sound.

Personally, I would like to see the atomic clock test be done on the ground in a flight simulation that has some bumps and g-forces. Then compare the results to the atomic clock on the ground. It seems pretty easy to me to through an atomic clock out by a few billioths of a second.

 

Anyways, my theory posts are coming to an end... I accept I was wrong and mislead about most of my stuff. From now on I am going to take a more questioning approach to things, so dont worry about me flooding the forum.

[GAHD]

Personally, I would like to see the atomic clock test be done on the ground in a flight simulation that has some bumps and g-forces. Then compare the results to the atomic clock on the ground. It seems pretty easy to me to through an atomic clock out by a few billioths of a second. .

Agreed, but I'd take it a step further and say sync a few clocks in geosync, leave one right there, push one to L1, the other to L2 (points where gravity acts 'strange' and becomes almost nullified), and a last one dropped to about halfway between earth & venus. leave them sit 5 years, and bring them back to be synced side by side again. The data from that experiment would be very hard to 'corrupt'.

[cwes99_03]

I don't want to discourage you from thinking, nor from posting good thought. I only want you to test and test again before going and posting something that given an extra days thought might clear itself up. You tend to post about 4 messages on the same thread before any replies are given, meaning that you aren't thinking things through clearly before posting.

 

Agreed, but I'd take it a step further and say sync a few clocks in geosync, leave one right there, push one to L1, the other to L2 (points where gravity acts 'strange' and becomes almost nullified), and a last one dropped to about halfway between earth & venus. leave them sit 5 years, and bring them back to be synced side by side again. The data from that experiment would be very hard to 'corrupt'.

 

Good ideas, though the distance of halfway between here and venus would not be possible as the gravity of the sun would not allow that to stay in orbit around earth. And I was assuming that you meant halfway between the orbit of venus and the orbit of earth because otherwise that would put the satellite in the sun when venus is on the other side of the sun.

 

But then doing this experiment would validate GR not SR. GR says that time is affected by gravity. SR is a special case of GR, which also says that time is affected by traveling at relativistic speeds with respect to another object (not with respect to light itself, as that is impossible.)

[GAHD]

Good ideas, though the distance of halfway between here and venus would not be possible as the gravity of the sun would not allow that to stay in orbit around earth. And I was assuming that you meant halfway between the orbit of venus and the orbit of earth because otherwise that would put the satellite in the sun when venus is on the other side of the sun.

 

But then doing this experiment would validate GR not SR. GR says that time is affected by gravity. SR is a special case of GR, which also says that time is affected by traveling at relativistic speeds with respect to another object (not with respect to light itself, as that is impossible.)

You'te telling me the speed difference between an orbit of the sun halfway to venus Vs a satilite orbiting earth arn't gonna have much different velocities?

Somehow I think You're not thinking of the orbital math correctly. The clocks would test BOTH theories, and give room for any other explanations to make themselvs apparent. Earth and venus are traveling at two completely different speeds around the sun; it's your angular momentum that determins how far out you orbit, faster=farther(*thus halfway to venus is a 'slower' frame).

If the expriment with the 3 atomic clocks (2 in flight, 1 'stationary') shows a minute discrepency, a bigger version will show it far more clearly.

[arkain101]

Definatly agree with that.

 

Is it not true less massive objects must travel faster in the same orbit level as a much more massive object. It is not only faster=further, mass/velocity=orbit right?

 

We could also do a test with a long shaped space craft, speed it up with a few orbits around the sun as fast as possible and compare how long it takes to rotate itself end over end 180degrees and stop compared to how long it takes when at velocity 0 on earth (in a vacume). Would this be able to test any kind of mass increase?

[cwes99_03]

I was merely pointing out that nothing can orbit earth at a distance that great. The pull of the sun would become so great that it would be ripped from orbit around the earth and either fall into the sun, or it would become a satellite of the sun.

 

The other thing about this type of experiment is that you would be testing two theories at the same time (not good physics). You want your data only to be effected by one of those theories and everything else held constant. Therefore two different satellites in orbit would result in two different speeds, but it would also result in two different gravitational fields (the strength of a gravitational field falls off as [1/(r^2)].

[CraigD]

..Is it not true less massive objects must travel faster in the same orbit level as a much more massive object. It is not only faster=further, mass/velocity=orbit right?

No. :naughty: The mass of an object in orbit has not effect on the speed or path of its orbit. Nor does the mass of a falling object in a vacuum have any bearing on the its acceleration or velocity.

 

The Physics of this are simple:

Forcegravity = G * Masscentral * Massorbiter / Distance^2, where G= the gravitational constant,

Acceleration = Force / Mass,

so

Accelerationgravity = G * Masscentral * Massorbiter / (Mass * Distance^2) = G * Masscentral / Distance^2.

Notice that the Massorbiter term disappears.

 

Around 350 BC, Aristotle (rarely one to experimentally test an idea) wrote that heavy objects fall faster than light. There’s a famous story that Galileo demonstrated that this was not true by dropping a lead and a wooden ball side-by-side from the Leaning Tower of Pizza around 1600 (it’s likely untrue – Galileo did do such demonstration, but used ramps and other less spectacular equipment) Kepler clearly knew better when he wrote his 3 famous laws around 1620.

 

There’s a neat piece of glassware, containing a coin and a feather, commonly used to demonstrate this in science classes.

We could also do a test with a long shaped space craft, speed it up with a few orbits around the sun as fast as possible and compare how long it takes to rotate itself end over end 180 degrees and stop compared to how long it takes when at velocity 0 on earth (in a vacume). Would this be able to test any kind of mass increase?

Interestingly, anything long and thin placed in an orbit fairly quickly orients itself to point toward the center of orbit. :) Can you explain this phenomena, without resorting to an internet search? :shrug:

[CraigD]

Personally, I would like to see the atomic clock test be done on the ground in a flight simulation that has some bumps and g-forces. Then compare the results to the atomic clock on the ground. It seems pretty easy to me to through an atomic clock out by a few billioths of a second.

Agreed, but I'd take it a step further and say sync a few clocks in geosync, leave one right there, push one to L1, the other to L2 (points where gravity acts 'strange' and becomes almost nullified), and a last one dropped to about halfway between earth & venus. leave them sit 5 years, and bring them back to be synced side by side again. The data from that experiment would be very hard to 'corrupt'.

I’d like to see these kinds of experiments, too.

 

I was surprised, when researching the well-know 1971 Hafele-Keating experiment, to discover that the precision of this experiment was actually questionable and controversial. Although the well-known .000038 sec/day correction applied to the GPS satellite system agrees with high precision with Relativity (most of the uncertainty in this calculation is due to uncertainty of the Gravitational constant (4 significant digits) and of the mass of the Earth), the orbital similarity of these satellites don’t allow distinct measurement of time dilation due to Special Relativity, vs. General Relativity.

 

I strongly doubt that any disagreement with Relativity will be detected by such experiments, but it would be easier to argue for the theory’s validity if more dramatic, compelling experimental evidence were available.

 

I like GAHD’s Lagrangian point ideas. What I’d most like to see is a true “twins paradox” confirmation using 2 state-of-the-art atomic clocks, one on or near Earth, another on a planet/asteroid/comet return mission, where the spacecraft does some gravitational slingshotting to get up to a goodly velocity (~ 17000 m/s, similar to the Voyager missions), giving a clock difference of about .1 s/year. If the craft returns after a 10 years, the clocks could disagree by a dramatic full 1 s!

[arkain101]

Yes, I think doing an experiment of this matter is one of the most important things that should be done right now. It does seem very questionable to have such a phenominom to exist. Although Einstien did have a really altered brain. That is, some spots of his brain were considerdably larger than the average persons, with a decrease in other (cortex's?)

[CraigD]

… Einstien did have a really altered brain. That is, some spots of his brain were considerdably larger than the average persons, with a decrease in other …

Google “white matter grey matter” for some informative links on recent discoveries concerning the relationship of brain anatomy to behavior and intelligence.

 

A growing view is that the proportion of “white matter” – the long connective parts of individual nerve cells – to “grey matter” – the central parts in important areas such as the prefrontal cortex – is as or more important than the absolute or relative size or mass of the brain and its various regions.

 

Briefly, the ability to use complicated mental model (eg: do math, understand other people, lie well) appears more pronounced in people with more white matter, while people with more gray matter appear to be more adept at non-model using thoughts processes (eg: “just knowing” and, startlingly, the extreme form of “living in the now” known as autism).

[arkain101]

yah I heard about some of that research.. its intersting we might know how to developed geniouses with engineering..

 

lol we should use einstiends dna and make an embryo of him. either that or nikoloa tesla