The Rebel

I did start to write a thread especially on these basic constants we see around in physics as a fundamental constant, which unfortunately got lost. It basically listed all the constants, which can be found at the same address I came across that you mentioned. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/ I made a point of trying to stay away from quantites such as electron charge, rest mass and avogrado's constant. I was also insecure in presenting c as a constant, but left it due to its popularity as a constant in so many formulae. I also wanted to avoid mathematical constants that could be specific to our numbering system. even though pi, natural log e and the magic number are so pertinent in our world. I had come up with three formulae I found. One day I might repeat the thread in the hope that ideas could be brought together to link the constants we have defined but not yet explained. [math]e_{0}u_{0}c^{2}=1[/math] [math]e^{\pi i}=-1[/math] [math]u_o=4\pi * 10^{-7}[/math] --- On radians I should imagine they are in themselves natural. Afterall there are pi number of radians in a circle. Degrees are probabily an earily man made inventation based on clocks (i.e. degrees, minutes and seconds)

I'm still not sure how acceleration can not be an absolute. I could accelerate (in space) from a particle at 3ms-2, therefore the seperation would widen at 3ms-2 and so the particle could in effect be accelerating from me at 3ms-2. The only reason i feel g when i accelerate in a car is because of the acceleration of me with repect to the back of the seat. "feel" is only our measure of something else. That something else could be doing as much as we do. I assume acceleration is a nice thought to pick on because if velocity is constant the time change would be inverse to the acceleration. i.e. when we accelerate time slows down. The statement also doesn't quantify (for me) why the return journey does not reverse the "aging" phenomena. Ok, this is another confusion I am having. My understanding of relatvity is largely based on what it says on the tin, i.e. relativity...how i observe something relative to someone else/another frame of reference. But from the way others have spoken in threads, relativity is about a physical phenomena where clocks are literaly slowed down. Can we confirm if relativity is an apparent difference in measurement between two parties, or a literal/physical effect on the object/measuring instruments themselves. For example, if I tied a bit of string to the needle of a tachometer and pulled it, that is a physical effect on the measurement. If two parties read the needle at different angles, they would be different due to parallax, what I call an apparent measurement. Agreed, there is a difference in reference to time dilation formulae. But what is the basis of these formulae. Is it because of a literal effect on the atoms in the clocks, or is it an apparent difference due propagation between an event happening and it being observed. If it is literal (physical) effect, doesn't this then indicate that this is a physical property and not that time itself is changed. What I am relating to, in particular with gravitational dilation, is how can we assess the integrity of the elasticity within the atom due to changes in the gravational field, heat, vibration, etc. Is this not physical effects put on to the atoms not time. Quite simply, is relativity apparent (i.e. the way we measure) or physical (i.e. the way the thing being measured actually changes)? Finally, on the point of pigs. I hate big heads myself but if you sit back sometimes they spur a moment of thought. And don't forget people used to think the universe revolved around the earth, the earth was flat, that when you tied someone to a chair and held them underwater they'd drown if they were a witch. Who really knows what's right and what's wrong????

I have also lost several posts. Not only that, I noticed that at one point the time it said that when I was last online, was not when I was last online. Everything from within a particular time frame (i.e. yesterday evening to today) seems to have been lost wether its posts, new threads or new users.

On the topic of constants has there been any research into linking all the constants together. Speed of light c, Planck constant h, Constant of Gravitation G, Magnetic constant u0, Electric constant e0, avogrado constant NA, Boltzman constant k, stefan-Boltzman constant, pi, e, magic number etc. All these appear to have been derived and refined through experimentation but there must be a link between them all. Perhaps this will verge on unified theories, but it bugs me that we have all these constants that have appeared. All I can find is u0 = 4pi x 10^-7 and u0e0C^2 = 1 There must be a link between all this natural phenomena somewhere.

I agree with the comments on proving that time has slowed down. Is there any evidence of this? I've heard experiemtns where atomic clocks go faster in an aeroplane jetting through the sky than one on the ground, but with the amount of vibration, and changes in pressure, temperature, etc. There's bound to be a difference. I still believe we can't afford to treat light as a particle with mass. Even though m=E/c^2, we can manipulate a formula to say anything. Isn't the reason for a black hole simply that the matter is contorting the field that emits the photon, to such an extent that the light is not able to pass. A bit like what happens when a magnet is edged towards a crt screen.

Pmb, Firstly apologies I was responding to the 1st page not realising there was a 2nd. I take it you are going along the route of the force is caused by inertia which in turn is caused by the mass around it not the KE it has? What would happen if the outer masses were removed, would this then leave the particle to spiral inward to the centre of the orbit. The shell idea too. If an outer mass is spinning it stands to reason the inner matter will be dragged. Take the arm inside a motor as the fields in the coils fluctuate. Not quite sure what you're getting at. I'm still a little unpersuaded how this is not a confusion between the effects of energy exhibited in a mass having velocity and energy generated from spin.

Who's to say gravity has speed at all??? I believe that we shouldn't be seeing light and gravity as a travelling phenomenom, but merely an effect of energies. To me gravity and light are very similar and I see no reason why light and gravity should not be considered as identical entities. Why are we also quantifying our judgements against c??? We've become so engrossed in a constant speed of light it almost seems impossible to progress other ideas because they do not align with current theories on light.

Circular motion to create gravity??? Gravity is about the seperation of two particles with mass, not the independant kinetics of one particle. I can only assume you are refering to centripetal force. This is the force that keeps the particle from straying from its orbit, caused by the KE that is the direction of a tangent on the orbit circle. Where I believe the confusion is, is as the KE is pulling us astary from the centre of the orbit, we would seem to weigh less if we standing on a set of scales. Hence on the equator of the earth, we would weigh less as the KE from the spin draws us outward, than in the centre where the orbit speed would be much slower. Circular motion does not give gravity it merely takes up some of the gravitational force via KE.

How can it be possible to have multiple universes??? Imagine throwing a simple pack of cards into the air, the amount of different spins and flips each of the 52 cards could encounter and how they could fall to the ground. With what can be formed with a single deck like this, think of all the events that happen across one country, one world and our universe. Even infinity itself could not substantiate the number of universes that would exist, and with the energies existing in one universe, it would be so volatile. This is part and parcle of why I severly object to the other sci-fi idea of time travel. With the amount of chaos caused from one moment in time such as a pack of cards. How could any phenomenom reverse such a complexity to its previous state. Not to mention to the forces required to the break the bonds of fused molecules that happened in that time frame, e.g. radiation phenoma, or baking a cake.