# A New Relativity is born, An Anti-Relativity

## Recommended Posts

In our theory of Gravity-contraction' date=' wouldn't of course the moons and the man-made satellites of the earth be drawn into the centre of the earth, of course Yes, that is when it starts approaching light's speed as its gravity approaches infinite.

ciao[/quote']

where does the gravity approach infinity?

##### Share on other sites

So you want us to accept your theory but your theory doesn't have time dilation? Is that correct?

Since time dilation is an observable fact, isn't that rather bad for your theory?

##### Share on other sites

Cool lets look into this.

according to relativity any matter can achieve any mass it want to get before it reachs the speed of light, c which is an upper limit of speed as their mass approachings infinity.

So if earth approachs light's speed it can get a mass that can make it have a gravity as that of the black hole before it reachs c.

With this earth will pull all light and matter that comes near it including its moon and orbiting satellites towards the centre of the earth.

As such the light will be little reflected backwards as it strike the centre of the earth.

and as such people in space will find it hard to see earth as it little reflect light backwards for vision like that of the black hole since its escape velocity is greater than c.

people inside will also find it have to see themselves as the light entering earth will be little reflected and if strikes on an individual it will not be reflected backwards but instead towards the centre of the earth and as such things gets relatively darker on earth.

So using Hawking's Ideas of the Black hole we have proved Einstein and his Relativity wrong somewhere and that is "Things gets darker from the outside and the inside even before it crosses light's speed although light still caught up with it.

let's call this the General theory of Gravity-Contraction

##### Share on other sites

missing mass don't all th time contract the universe unlike what we said previously, we sometimes think they simply make the universe seem to extend in infinity without seeming to be no matter.

When rays of light comes too close to the gravity of a missing mass, it will be accelerated towards its centre since they have much gravity due to their huge speed and as such the rays of light will not be seen by any one else and so it will appear as if the star doesn't exist,

but if it is not so close to the missing mass's gravity, and the gravity has not so much effect or influence on it, it will only be obsure and seem to have move away from its point.

in some cases the observer might think the star moved forward towards it (contraction seem to occur), in some cases the opposite (enlargement seem to occur).

massive bodies will only obsure light, but can absorb it only if its speed is so large enough that its mass is infinite and gravity approaches infinity and matches that of the black hole.

Some times galaxies might not truely be galaxies but because of the contraction (or distortion) in space, brings the two different stars close to each other and it seems like it is difficult for them to leave or expand away from each other after such a long period of time.

To understand this particular idea, read the book: "Why Galaxies might not be truely Galaxies" on http://www.lulu.com/ddnpmfng. it illustrates this portion diagramatically.

##### Share on other sites

I really do think you should read up on reference frames....

##### Share on other sites

erm, I might be wrong here, but as an observer traveling at near C, dont objects appear to bend Inwards along the trajectory and that it would be possible to see Behind an object before you even got there. non of this "Vanishing" stuff, unless youre on about Red/blue shift, which isnt exactly vanishing, its just hitting your eye at a faster frequency and may become "Out of Range" in the UV and above spectrum.

Just a thought

##### Share on other sites

nwaogu,

I'm having a hard time trying to follow what your theory actually IS. Can you state your theory in a single sentence to allow me to understand better what you are saying (eg. "Gravity changes the direction of light propagation." or "Gravity and light are the same thing" or etc. etc.). One concise sentence please.

##### Share on other sites

So if earth approachs light's speed it can get a mass that can make it have a gravity as that of the black hole before it reachs c.

with respect to what? i think it was swonsont who said somthing along the ines of "asking an objects speed is like asking "what is the difference between a duck?""

##### Share on other sites

we believe we were wrong about Gravity not slowing time.

we admit to our mistakes. but, before approaches c, we believe they get relatively dark from the outside and the inside using the science of the black hole that light will be accelerated towards its gravity and very little might be reflected and since there is little reflection, there will be little vision both inside and outside since all matters even an electron can acertain the gravity of the black hole before its speed equals c as when v approaches c, mass approaches infinity and thus will its gravity and escape velocity.

that's all we have to say.

##### Share on other sites

• 4 weeks later...

Hmm, Lets say it will be completely erroneous to say that:

"We will like to tell you that when someone is on a moving vessel such as the earth or a rocket almost to that of the outwards moving galaxies, you will see the universe much more like it really is, but when you are stationary you will see that the universe tends to look contracted in size. This is because the particles in the universe are all in constant high speed"

As we said in our first statement in our GRAND theory of Relativity.

This idea is only correct in 1 condition and that is if the moving vessel is moving at the same speed as the outwards moving galaxies been observed as predicted in our theory and General theory of Relative Motion and the theory of Anti-velocity, which supports the idea that the outward moving galaxies' velocity will be reduced by the speed of the moving vessel if moving at the speed direction and contraction will be smaller and the inverse or vice-versa occurs if moving at opposite direction and thus contraction increases.

It is best to make observations in space (EVH that is space-walking) if the thing been observed is moving at the opposite direction to earth and it is best to make observations here on earth or a moving rocket if the thing observed is moving at the same direction as earth or the moving rocket.

It is best to read up on the books:

"The Theory of Relative Motion"

"The General Theory of Relative Motion"

"The General Theory of Relative Motion 2"

"The Theory of Anti-Velocity"

The Mathematical Expression of the Above Statement conforms to that of the Fitzgerald-lorentz contraction as explained by Einstein with the equation

LR = L0 (/1-v2/c2)

When LR is the relavistic length, L0 is the length at rest, / is the square root sign, v2 is the velocity squared and c is the speed of light squared

Thanks

Dominic and Donatus Nwaogu

DDNPMF Nigeria

http://ddnpmfng.tripod.com/

##### Share on other sites

Light is constant. If you had 2 photons traveling in opposite directions, they would still be traveling the speed of light relativistically to each other.

Once you approach the speed of light a lot of strange things happen. Your length decreases, your mass increases, and time slows down from an observers view. It is impossible to travel the speed of light because light has no mass.

The equation for time dialation:

Time dialation= Time of the origional/square root of 1- Velocity squared/speed of light squared

The equation for Length contraction:

Length observed= Length of the orgional x square root of 1- Velocity squared/speed of light squared

The equation for Mass increase:

Mass observed= Mass of the orgional/square root of 1- Velocity squared/speed of light squared.

/= divide

x= multiply

##### Share on other sites

Light is constant. If you had 2 photons traveling in opposite directions' date=' they would still be traveling the speed of light relativistically to each other.

[/quote']

You really can't say that, because the frame of a photon is not a valid inertial frame.

##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...

Man, this isn't very scientific but if you are going to post something, wipe off your grammar. Sometimes it is very hard to interperet what you are trying to say, nwaogu. Plus I think your science is quite off.

##### Share on other sites

• 1 month later...

Kids, Kids!!!

Instead of lecturing us, try to listen to us. Share your ideas with the expectation of input, not with the attempt to "educate" us.

My physics education is quite limited to High School major, and to my curiousity and love of the subject. You will NOT see me argue with those who actually have degrees in it. They've studied it long, hard, and know much more than me.

I might ask, doubt, and raise questions, but lecture them? Not really.

You don't yet have your own proffessurship. Don't lecture. Listen.

It just got me frustrated; instead of people showing you why you are wrong in some points and right in others, people mock you.

They don't mock you because your are wrong, they mock you because you presume to lecture them. It's really too bad. You can have such insightful input that will lead you to better conclusions.

Debates and Question-asking and DOUBT is what science relies on.

Don't keep your noses so high up, you ignore scientific advancements. Geesh, you're only 16, you got your entire life to lecture people.

~moo

##### Share on other sites

Am I moving this to "Speculations" then?

##### Share on other sites

• 3 weeks later...
Am I moving this to "Speculations" then?
speculation

Noun

1.Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.

2.A conclusion' date=' opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.

3.Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.

[/quote']

Maybe there should be a forum titled "Pseudospeculation and Metarelativity."

Or would that be "Metaspeculation and Pseudorelativity."

Or The "I'm smater than Einstein" Section

##### Share on other sites

would it just auto delete?

##### Share on other sites

• 1 year later...

HannonRJ: Yes. Using nothing but newtoniam mechanics.

Mind showing us?

##### Share on other sites

i would be interested in seeing that as well as it is trivial to make a computer model using newtonian mechanics for the entire solar system and even to add in the effects of nearby stars.

they don't produce anywhee near the amount of precession we see. GR does. and it does so spectacularly well.

##### Share on other sites

Am I moving this to "Speculations" then?

Deletion would seem more appropriate. The poster clearly has no wish to enter into reasoned debate.

##### Share on other sites

Deletion would seem more appropriate. The poster clearly has no wish to enter into reasoned debate.

The poster hasn't responded for over a year. This debacle was bumped by HannonRJ.

##### Share on other sites

well call him up! lets get it goin again

##### Share on other sites

Newtonian explanation of Mercury's precession has been moved to its own thread

If anyone wants to discuss the "anti-relativity" of the OP, PM me and I'll unlock the thread. Otherwise, I think it's best to leave it be.

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
×