RELATIVITY+

RELATIVITY+

I’ve always held Albert Einstein in the highest regard. I admire his ability to think outside the box, and empathise with his curiosity and desire to understand the world in terms we can grasp and understand. Interestingly, when you read about Einstein, you realise that some things are incorrectly attributed to him, and there have been some subtle but crucial shifts in interpretation that he wouldn’t agree with.



If Einstein was still alive today, I think we would have a different interpretation of Relativity. I think he would have explained the postulates he used in Special Relativity and General Relativity, and would have united both theories into something new. I’d like to introduce you to my vision of where Einstein would have gone. I’ve given it a name that is easy to remember and hopefully conveys the right message:

RELATIVITY+.

There’s already a General Relativity+, but I want something even more general, and RELATIVITY++ isn’t so easy on the tongue.

We start with time. Albert said “time is suspect”, but we’ve rather forgotten that. We’ve also rather forgotten his Princeton years with Godel. We misinterpreted Godel’s rotating universe as something that permits time travel instead of rendering it impossible, and we have brushed aside Einstein’s conclusion. The TIME EXPLAINED essay below describes how time is a relative measure of change, and whilst it's a dimension in the measure sense, it really isn't a dimension like the dimensions of space where we have freedom of movement. It exists like heat exists, but like heat, it is a “derived effect of motion” rather than something fundamental.

TIME EXPLAINED



Time is the guilty party. Because once you understand time, you hold the key to all the doors in Physics: Spacetime is a Space. It’s rather difficult to accept this, because it’s difficult to analyse your own long-held concepts. There are psychological factors at work, associated with the phrase “Catch ‘em young”. Since ”Time is Money” and as an illustration why you should persevere, I offer an essay MONEY EXPLAINED:

MONEY EXPLAINED



No, time is not money. But it isn’t quite what you thought it was, and if you can accept this you’re starting to understand ontological thinking. It’s a matter of looking at what’s really there, and asking yourself soul searching questions about the concept you hold dear. In the picture below, squares A and B are the same colour. Sounds amazing, but it's true. Follow the echalk link to check it out.



http://www.echalk.co.uk/amusements/Optical...s/illusions.htm

One such question is: ”If I understand it, can I explain it?” If you think you understand something but you can’t explain it, then you don’t understand it. You perhaps already understood money, and you may already be aware of some parallels between money and energy. But do you understand energy?

ENERGY EXPLAINED



Energy is in essence stress, quantified by volume. It’s that simple. In empty space with nothing to hold it in place, a stress travels, like a ripple in a rubber sheet. We call it a photon. It has momentum. But it’s all relative. If it’s the photon moving, you feel its momentum when it hits you. If it’s you moving, you feel its inertia when you hit it. When you really understand this relativity, you understand just how simple mass is:

MASS EXPLAINED



In its barest essence, mass is energy going round in circles. When you push an object you deform these circles in the direction of motion, creating a partial spiral. The energy now moves in a helical fashion, rather like a spring. To stop the object you have to push the “springs” back into circles. It’s wonderfully elegant, and what’s more it tells you that everything is basically made of light. We live in a “hard light” world. Everything is drawn in light, and when we measure the speed of it, it’s like we’re measuring the length of our shadow with the shadow of our ruler. We can now understand what Einstein meant in chapter 22 of General Relativity about the non-constancy of the velocity of light. And we can now understand Gravity:

GRAVITY EXPLAINED

Gravity is not really a force. That’s why unification was so difficult. It’s like an extended tension gradient opposing matter/energy stress. The speed of light is always 300,000km/s but light defines our time. The speed of light isn’t constant, and that’s what the gravity is. There’s no magical mysterious spacetime curvature. Not when spacetime is a space. Not in a world drawn in light. It’s just the permittivity of space that changes. The capacitance. The thing we call c changes, it is not flat. And it all comes down to charge, which is a story of something and nothing.



Understanding this is the next challenge. And once we understand it all, we can set to work. And if we can make it work, we’re on the road to the stars. And I like to think that the name of the road is: RELATIVITY+.

© “Farsight” 2007

This post has been edited by Farsight on Mar 17 2007, 10:17 AM

FARSIGHT EXPLAINED:

He's an idiot, who obviously has waaaay too much time on his hands.

FARSIGHT EXPLAINED:
He makes sense, who obviously is the twentith century Galilei.

I thought my post was amusing, but I hold my hands up to yours. It's much, much funnier!

Killer sarcastic comment.

Nope, the Farsight just doesn't understand the subject. If he says, for example "mass is energy going round in circles", we can ask, why in circles? Why not in rectangles, for example? It's evident, this answer deals with vorticity of environment and the vorticity is artifact of matter.

By such way, the "energy moves in circles" just because it's being formed by another matter and the "explanation" is self-recursive.

SPECIAL RELATIVITY NEEDS TO BE UNITED WITH GENERAL RELATIVITY BECAUSE GR PREDICTS MATTER FALLING AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT AT AN EVENT HORIZON. MATTER REACHING LIGHT SPEED GOES HAND IN HAND WITH TIME STOPPING. TIME STOPS AT THE HORIZON. AND IF THERE IS EVEN GREATER GRAVITY ON THE INTERIOR OF A BLACK HOLE IT SHOULD ACCELERATE MATTER EVEN FASTER.

THE EVENT HORIZON IS WHERE MASS FALLS AT LIGHT SPEED BECAUSE TIME STOPS THERE. INSIDE IS WHERE IT WOULD FALL EVEN FASTER.

THANKYOU.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --

Thanks truth2k.

Time stops there Nick. End of.

Give it a few years Euler, and you'll be teaching this.

LOL, Zephir!

You're probably stupid enough to believe that statement.

There's about four Nobel prizes in this, Euler. Count them. To be shared of course. And when you're not teaching this here RELATIVITY+ you'll fill in as a kind of janitor, mopping up the maths.

THERE IS NO TIME!!!

MITCH RAEMSCH -- TIME FELL --

Now we know you're not bright - but are you really that stupid? Your ramblings are that hysterical, it becomes difficult to distinguish between jokes and when you're being serious.

How about you be kind enough to share what specfically the prizes entailed? Because if you think these extremely vague comments support your relativity+ you're mistaken.

MMax: I think there's one prize apiece for explaining time, energy, mass, and gravity. Note my acknowledgements in each essay. IMHO all those people deserve recognition.

Very simple:
1. We can smell it that GPB staff has tremendous difficulties to fit its data to Einstein`s requirement. Then what is the consequences?
2. Curved spacetime assumption and Einstein equation are wrong because the equation is the unique choice of the assumption. Then how is flat spacetime consistent to GR classical tests?
3. The tests did prove flat spacetime because the coordinates r, t, phi are considered distance, time, angle respectively. These calculations are based on a fixed reference frame. Different reference frames must give different times, distances, angles as suggested by special relativity. Therefore spacetime is the hierarchical folder of flat spactimes (freely falling frames), while GR assumes single entity (manifold) of hardened marble spacetime. Then what is the consequence of folder spacetime?
4. Time is not an independent dimension. Julian Barbour and Robert A. Close are the new paradigm.

Therefore, there are at least two guys being future Nobel winners, on my limited knowledge.