Special Relativity Revisited

  • Thread starter spacetravel101
  • Start date
  • #26
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,226
34
Originally posted by spacetravel101
I've done my work with plastic scales.
Looks like the Mettler P1200 is a far cry from a "plastic scale."

http://www.angelfire.com/oh/ohiodeal/labmed/mettlerp1200.html

Bottom line, buddy, I think you've got some problems. I think you've got some hocus-pocus circuits thrown together that you don't really understand, and you're dropping them onto a scale full of metal and electronics and trying to make sense out of the readings. I think you're creating some magnetic or electric fields, and you have neither the intellect nor the equipment to quantify them.

You're also making claims for room-temperature superconduction based on the weight measured on a scale? I'm pretty sure you have not a clue how superconduction works.

- Warren
 
  • #27
spacetravel101
chroot:

There is too much to say in a short post and I'm not going to go into the details of my experiments. I'm not going to be another Podkletnov, for others to mess with.
 
  • #28
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,226
34
Originally posted by spacetravel101
There is too much to say in a short post and I'm not going to go into the details of my experiments. I'm not going to be another Podkletnov, for others to mess with.
You're here under your own free will. If you don't like scientific scrutiny, leave. File for a patent or something, and see what happens. Or maybe just live in a disheveled shack with no running water at the edge of town, stop shaving, spend all day tinkering with your capacitors and inductors like a cave man would tinker with an electron microscope, and tell yourself every day that you have outsmarted the vast scientific conspiracy which seeks to hide the truth. Good luck.

- Warren
 
  • #29
russ_watters
Mentor
19,875
6,296
Originally posted by chroot
Or maybe just live in a disheveled shack with no running water at the edge of town, stop shaving, spend all day tinkering with your capacitors and inductors like a cave man would tinker with an electron microscope, and tell yourself every day that you have outsmarted the vast scientific conspiracy which seeks to hide the truth.
Please don't be that guy, spacetravel101. There really are lots and lots of guys like that and they live dysmal lives because of an incomprehensible (to me) refusal to accept the simple and obvious truth that their ideas don't work. The more charismatic and internally honest ones become highly successful FRAUDS, but none ever produce any meaningful science.

No, the scientific community is not out to get you. No, there is no conspiracy by which flawed scientific ideas are perpetuated. No, our current understanding of science is not flawed in anywhere near the magnitude you suggest.

Also, PLEASE, please consider the irnoy of trying to prove theories wrong while refusing to learn what they actually say.
 
  • #30
QuantumNet
Originally posted by spacetravel101
QuantumNet:

I haven't gone that far yet. I need to make two things clear about my experimental results:

1. If I turn the circuit upside down the weight change is reversed.
2. The circuit requires both electric and magnetic fields, to generate weight change. If either is missing, then there is no weight change.

So I not sure that there is a straight forward relationship from charge to mass. Unless one includes moving charges that induce magnetic fields.

No, I haven't reached the point of being able to calculate gravitational constant.
Sorry, i'm from sweden: I go to bed early (based on your "referencesystem" ). I cannot stay in school and communicate as long as I want.)

I think this works (i based those earlier equations on relativistic energy, that's an integral of relativistic amount of motion:

Let's say that there is a resting amount of motion, mc (if you have read my messages, you know). Then mc would be mv/(1 - (v/c)2)½

We thereby get: (mc)2 = (mv)2/(1 - (v/c)2)

So: (mc)2(1 - (v/c)2) = (mv)2

and thereby: (mc)2 - (mv)2 = (mv)2

We divide both sides with m2:

c2 - v2 = v2

and thereby c2 = 2v2

which gives us c = (2)½v

And we have c/(2)½ = v.

Then there would be a longer time distance and thereby a longer room distance between mass and vacuum. There would be an increasing time distance and thereby roomdistance between vacuum and mass

(because of what minkowski claimed, the sum of the squared coordinates is always zero, if you include the time coordinate, funny somehow).

So if you derivate the einstein-relativistic (thats what we are talking here) massmultiple Mm(1 - (v/c)2)½
were the masses are constants

we get that, Mm * v/c2(1 - (v/c)2)½


divided with 4pi*r2 because of that the gravity must decrease sphearically, DIVIDED with two, because half of the fieldlines are "moving against" eachother.

v/c2(1 - (v/c)2)½ = 1/(c(2)½)(1 - 1/2)½ = 1/(2c)

So G/r2 can be aproximated to (1/2)(1/(2c))/(4pi*r2) = 1/(16pi*c*r2).

c should actually be cmedium.



We wanted, in one occation, the change of speed per timeunit between vacuum and mass. Thats what we got when we derivated the factor. Do you agree?

If you use cvacuum in the equation, you get an error of 0.55 percent on the gravityconstant.

This must be true.

I bet i'm right, the reason why it errors with 0,55 % is that light does not move as fast through the weights as through the air in the experiments they have made to calculate G.

G = 1/(16pi*cmedium) = 6,6360468235951809605265221253712e-11

The gravityconstant should tangent this value, due of the problems with lightspeed in the weights, if there is a very long radius between the two masses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
QuantumNet
I'm moving my theory to The Gravity Theory

Still under theorydevelopment. It's now even more simple.
 

Related Threads on Special Relativity Revisited

Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
70
Views
32K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
22
Replies
529
Views
30K
Replies
41
Views
5K
Replies
18
Views
4K
Replies
60
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
259
Top