Recognitions:
Gold Member

## A few double slit experiments.

If you were to put up a million dollars then I'm sure you would find someone to take it from you. If not, you will need to support your ideas with ACTUAL NUMBERS and not just arm waving. You need to talk Science and not fantasy.

 Quote by sophiecentaur If you were to put up a million dollars then I'm sure you would find someone to take it from you. If not, you will need to support your ideas with ACTUAL NUMBERS and not just arm waving. You need to talk Science and not fantasy.
Yes likely, but if such situation with prize would came true it is real chance that more than one man with excellent Maths education would find me and would offer 50% for collaboration.

Also (if not touch me), this would really refresh public thinking.
Many of them who now spend money in Las Vegas would find better hobby to learn physics,
to talk about it with friends and so on. IQ would double for many of them :)
Funny, but this is much realistic.

Also this can be used for solving many other problems.
Here is not so big problems with copyright, just make some site where people can register their ideas. So it can take a few minutes from generating to registering.

About Maths. When Einstein found his E = m0*c^2 (inner energy of mass)
he made assumption that photon have mass p/c .
And this assumption was named like genial at many textbooks.
The same way (by doing the same assumption for photon's mass like p/c)
I have derived analogy of relativistic mass and relativistic kinetic energy for ether.
But people was not happy (at another forum) with this assumption.
This is strange.
And what about my assumption that hard bodies can be seen like standing waves.
Even if (maybe) Einstein's assumption about mass of photon was not correct enough, he had obtained right results for E_inner = m0*c^2
So the same way amount of contraction can be correct even if hard bodies are not exactly like standing waves.

 Here is a man who thinks similar to me. At least mentioned proportions of contraction of hard bodies he have found earlier. http://www.mirit.ru/rd_2007en.htm#2.07

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Alvydas Here is a man who thinks similar to me. At least mentioned proportions of contraction of hard bodies he have found earlier. http://www.mirit.ru/rd_2007en.htm#2.07
Hmm.

 Here I have found some interesting relations with mentioned contractions. See picture: http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/9700/relationsm.png If sphere moves it's size contracts like middle spheroid. We may imagine that inside it there are many strings which represents total energy. Shorter strings represents bigger energy. So we may paint another (big) spheroid which represents total energy. Strings itself are proportional to square root of surface they point to. So we may consider sqrt(S0) and sqrt(S) proportional to total energy or mass of the first (static) and the second (moving) spheroids. If we count real surface of the third spheroid surprisingly we will find it bigger by factor 1/(1-v^2/c^2). Maybe just numerology, but still interesting. But maybe it can point to something real.
 Recognitions: Gold Member I'm sorry Alvydas, but I can't make heads or tails of your posts. They seem to be incoherent and just throw technical jargon around mixed with bad English, misunderstandings of science, and a tiny bit of math, none of which seem to have any relation to each other.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Alvydas Maybe just numerology, but still interesting. But maybe it can point to something real.
Actually, not the slightest bit interesting as Physics because it has no substance. It is as unlikely to "point to something real" as all the rest of your random ideas, I'm afraid.

Mentor
 Quote by Alvydas About Maths. When Einstein found his E = m0*c^2 (inner energy of mass) he made assumption that photon have mass p/c .
No he didn't. Enough of this: you're not here to learn, you're here to promote your crackpot idea. Thread locked.