# JohnMnemonic

Senior Members

113

-23

• Rank
Baryon

## Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

1. ## Gravity In Relative Motion - a new model?

Hello! Quite some time has passed, since my last visit here and a lot of things changed... For example, it turned out, that I can in fact do some math and use it, to show you the only correct model of gravity and energy distribution in relative motion. I've spent around 6 weeks and wasted some 8 pages format a5 on calculations, while looking for the right formula - it took me so long, because I did such things for the first time in some 20 years or so and also, this was that part of physics, which as far as I remeber, I've always hated at most... I wonder, what then can explain all those generations of professional physicsts, who didn't even think about trying to calculate such things... If you really want to show me, that theoretical physicists aren't only just a bunch of overconfident snobs, then show me, that mainstream science can actually deal with the problem, which I present below: Here's a simple scenario: 4 objects with masses: m1=4, m2=1, m3=4, m4=1 Objects m1 and m3 move in relation to eachother at v=0,2c (1c=1d/1t) Distances between m1 and m2, just as between m3 to m4 are equal to 2d. Due to gravitational attraction m1 makes m2 to accelerate at a1=1 (where 1a=0,1d/t^2) and attraction between m3 and m4 is just as strong. Can you calculate the kinetic energies or acceleration (a2) for object m2 in relation to object m3 or for m3 in relation to m2? I can do it, but I had to find my own way... Frame of m1: Frame of m3: I will wait a day or two for you to make any attempt of solving this problem and then I will begin to show you, how to do it my way...

3. ## Hijack from Special Relativity - simple questions?

...Learn how to use time-space diagrams and come back - then we can speak again... It's easy - it took me just one day...
4. ## Hijack from Special Relativity - simple questions?

Please... You're wasting our time... If you don't have anything to say about those time-space diagrams, then remain silent. I already know your opinion and, as I said eariler, I don't care about it. Let those with authority speak...
5. ## Hijack from Special Relativity - simple questions?

I know, that without gravity Universe wouldn't work. But something tells me, that if Standard Model would include MHD effect on the rotation of galaxies, we wouldn't need dark matter. Anyway, this is just another off-topic discussion But did I said anything about some aether... I'm simply using time-space diagrams - primary tool of scientists, who deal with relativity...
6. ## Hijack from Special Relativity - simple questions?

His post brings no value to the conversation. I would love to hear some opinion about those time-space diagrams... First he starts an off-topic conversation and then accuses me of making off-topic claims...
7. ## Hijack from Special Relativity - simple questions?

I don't care... Stop talking to me

9. ## Hijack from Special Relativity - simple questions?

Tell this to people from nasa, who make pseudo-scientific models of magnetosphere. Gravity has no chance with electromagnetism... Looks to me, like a model of galaxy... since you're an amateur like me your opinion has no value to me
10. ## Hijack from Special Relativity - simple questions?

Interaction between magnetic fields is stronger. Plasma makes 99,9% of matter in Universe. Even in Solar System... https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-universe-is-99-9-plasma-1 http://theastronomist.fieldofscience.com/2010/09/magnetic-fields-in-cosmology.html You just stopped with your knowledge in the beginning of XX century So you asked wrong question, or didn't understand the answer Time dilation due to acceleration and gravity is definitive. Time dilation due to velocity is relative Of course... Nothing is at rest in the Universe... Of course - first you would need to understand, what they mean... Last step is to boost the coordinates to light and it will still remain valid.... But we need to change perspectives each time, to get valid result - because at speed of light c becomes relative. Where's the problem....? Oh, there's of course the time dilation due to Doppler's effect - but it is relative
11. ## Hijack from Special Relativity - simple questions?

Gravity and magnetohydrodynamics - to be specific... And this is beautyful... I've already did it, now I'm just presenting the results.. Nope. You can't be more wrong... Go ask someone smarter - maybe Markus Hanke Indirect evidence... I have direct evidences for many things... Of course, that photons don't have rest mass... Who said they have? And what you are going to do, to stop me...? Here's time-space diagram for the perspective of yellow sphere: I just skewed (boosted) the coordinates, leaving the c constant - and it is still valid... Sorry - I need to change the orientation of paths Now it is good: I have to fix the perspective of red sphere and cross the paths in the middle of timeline... Like this... Funny - I don't see no problem here... I'm just skewing the perspectives, while keeping c constant and it works perfectly in every case...

13. ## Hijack from Special Relativity - simple questions?

I will let you know, when I finish - right now I'm still putting the pieces together... It would be nice however, if someone would try to discuss my claims, using actual science, instead of private opinions and impessions... Bye...

15. ## Hijack from Special Relativity - simple questions?

Ok, maybe it was invented for different purpose - it doesn't actually matters, as in SR it is being used, to maintain the constant speed of light in all frames, which are in relative motion (at velocities, lower than c). I promise, that I will read that book, but at this moment I don't need to learn about it's history, to use it for time-space diagrams... I don't even need to learn the equations, as I can simply use an online calculator... http://www.trell.org/div/minkowski.html I HAVE A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ALL OF YOU: Is there a symmetry in relativity Doppler's effect? Will I observe the same distortion of a sound wave, for a source, passing next to stationary me and for me passing next to a stationary source? This has significant meaning for the model of relativity, which I'm making right now... If there wouldn't be no symmetry in relativity Doppler's effect, then we would be able to learn the definitive velocity of a moving source, by looking at the relation between it's motion and the waves, which it emits... Ok - I start to look for the answer by myself... I will tell you, if I find something Found it - according to mainstream science, Doppler's effect is asymmetric for the sound waves and symmetric for the light... Funny... But after spending a minute to think about it, it started to make sense for me - It's all because the crazy constant c There's a significant difference between the light and other waves - it's the medium, in which waves propagate. A wave moving in a bowl of water is a nice example, which shows, how tricky is the light... If we accelerate the bowl, waves on the water surface will behave, like in the case of a stationary source of light. But if the wave propagates in stationary water, it will behave like source of light in motion. Most funny is the fact, that in the case of light, instead of accelerating the medium, we just have to change the point of view... How not to love relativity and the constant c? It makes things such more complicated... Is time the medium for light...? <<<just joking (or maybe I'm not... I'm not sure...) Anyway, if there wouldn't be no symmetry of relativity Doppler's effect for the light, I would have to change my mind and start to claim, that the rate of REAL time flow would indeed depend on the constant velocity of a frame. Luckily, it seems, that twins are still aging at the same rate... Phew!
×