Alternative to relativity (split from A problem to the theory of relativity ?)

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

So you recognize that you need more and more energy to be able to maintain a certain rate of acceleration?

Why is this a problem? You need energy in Galilean relativity to maintain acceleration, too.

Basically, this boils down to things not behaving the way you want them too, rather than some actual issue with relativity, which matches experiment quite well.

[studiot]

17 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Try to elaborate on what you mean?

If you knew the meaning of the basic terms you are bandying about, you would know exactly what my simple question is asking.

You want to introduce imaginary hobgoblin 'forces' when you don't actually know what a force is.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

How do you explain that you have to use more and more Energy to maintain a certain acceleration and at the same time that there is no resistance to this acceleration? - It is a mathematical contradiction.

Because this is a false statement.

Mass is resistance to acceleration in Newtonian physics. Acceleration requires a force. If the object has more mass, a larger force is required to have a given acceleration.

Relativity modifies this relationship, but to say there’s no resistance is wrong. If there was no resistance to acceleration, no energy would be required.

[Bjarne-7]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Why is this a problem? You need energy in Galilean relativity to maintain acceleration, too.

Right, and in "relativistic physics" the only challenge is to understand (and express by an equation) that the acceleration is none-linear´, but that this also follows gamma.
 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Basically, this boils down to things not behaving the way you want them too, 

Plenty of kinematic mysteries require a solution. 
Regardless if you like it or not the modification I suggest can solve all, in one incredibly simple go.

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

, rather than some actual issue with relativity, which matches experiment quite well.

That a theory solves a number of challenges does not mean it is perfect. 
Many scientists agree that a modification of GR is necessary so that GR and Quantum Mechanics can both go into a higher unity
Have you seen the 3 videos I linked to, it illustrates this problem very well

Where is the contradiction between quantum physics and Einstein’s gravity? Right here 

Even if "the curvature of space" is replaced by "elastic space" (included the ruler/meter as an elastic variable), many of GR's consequences will still be exactly the same, - for example gravitational waves, gravitational lensing (etc) .

The benefits by such modification, seems to be to be 1000 times greater than the camel it is to swallow such "little" modification. 

2 hours ago, studiot said:

If you knew the meaning of the basic terms you are bandying about, you would know exactly what my simple question is asking.

You want to introduce imaginary hobgoblin 'forces' when you don't actually know what a force is.

Why do you accuse me of not knowing what the Force is?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Mass is resistance to acceleration in Newtonian physics. Acceleration requires a force. If the object has more mass, a larger force is required to have a given acceleration.

Relativity modifies this relationship, but to say there’s no resistance is wrong. If there was no resistance to acceleration, no energy would be required.

I can only agree

Edited December 6, 2023 by Bjarne-7

[studiot]

59 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Why do you accuse me of not knowing what the Force is?

 

Because we have had 6 pages of listening to failed attempts to  reconcile a series of self contradictory statements.

 

On 11/25/2023 at 7:56 AM, Bjarne-7 said:

- The nature of space is elastic and not necessarily so different from the concept of "the curvature of space"

- Energy in GR in the form of mass, -  and in SR in the form of relative mass-increase, -  is the basic process / cause of any relativistic transformation.

- Space and matter are connected elastically.

- Gravity is still a force.

- An absolute motion reference frame is introduced, this is relative to absolute rest.

- SR transformation can go both ways, depending on whether the speed relative to absolute rest is increased or decreased.

- Travel through space is associated with relativistic resistance to motion (RR). [see more in-depth below]

- True speed is always relative to absolute rest.

These changes will only harm the theory of relativity very little, however the gain is 1000 times greater.

 

In particular "Gravity is still a force."

 

do you mean a newtonian force following all the Newtonian rules ?

or

Do you mean a special Relativity 4 force following the rules of special relaticity?

or

Do you mean something following some other as yet undefined rules ?

Since these choices are not compatible you need to pick one and stick to it, not pick n mix

[Bjarne-7]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Because we have had 6 pages of listening to failed attempts to  reconcile a series of self contradictory statements.

In particular "Gravity is still a force."

do you mean a newtonian force following all the Newtonian rules ?

or

Do you mean a special Relativity 4 force following the rules of special relaticity?

or

Do you mean something following some other as yet undefined rules ?

Since these choices are not compatible you need to pick one and stick to it, not pick n mix

I see no problem with the equation F = RM x f
F = Force
RM = Relativistic Mass
f = Factor (Gamma)

I agree that this is a relativistic equation.
I also agree that I cannot conclude that F/M= acceleration
The solution must be that: - F/RM = RA
RA = (Relativistic Acceleration)

RA is necessary because the acceleration must also follow the consequence of gamma / acceleration is not linear.
It can be solved mathematically, but requires a bit of time for me as I don't normally work with math.

Gamma, in to my opinion, represents both the transformation of m and t = (m/s)
This is the expression of "negative velocity" and only a snapshot where f is the factor for velocity change.

Once RA is solved mathematically, the equation F/RM = RA  will show the correct acceleration.

As I see it Force is a Newtonian force, and not a variable. 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Bjarne-7

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Many scientists agree that a modification of GR is necessary so that GR and Quantum Mechanics can both go into a higher unity

There is absolutely nothing in your conjecture tying quantum mechanics and general relativity. This is just another reach. 

You have been afforded many opportunities to provide us with a model that this might be tested. You have failed to do so.

Quote

I see no problem with the equation F = RM x f
F = Force
RM = Relativistic Mass
f = Factor (Gamma)

Yes, but everyone else here sees the problem.

!

Moderator Note

It’s quite obvious that you don’t have a sufficient grasp of the physics to make further discussion worthwhile. All we have is repetition of the same material 

Don’t bring this up again