Precise computational proof that Relativity is corrected by realizing that the lost added momentum is not added mass, but instead it is added angular momentum.
;-j
lavender orchid
Posts : 858 Join date : 2010-07-16
Subject: Re: Relativity Revised Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:25 am
let's see if i got this right ....
Jonathan Ainsley Bain :SPOCK: - Ship's physicist.
Posts : 257 Join date : 2013-02-14
Subject: Re: Relativity Revised Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:51 am
So, if time slows down as one approaches the velocity of light, then there is zero time at the velocity of light
then
a photon would not be able to move as it would experience infinite time
lavender orchid
Posts : 858 Join date : 2010-07-16
Subject: Re: Relativity Revised Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:39 am
Ready for a mind-bending news story that will forever change your perception of life? Quantum physicists in Israel have successfully entangled two photons that don’t exist at the same time. They create one photon and measure its polarization, destroying it — they then create another photon, and though it never coexisted with the first, it always has the exact opposite polarization, proving they’re entangled.
Don’t worry if you have a little trouble trying to bend your head around this: Quantum mechanics, almost by definition, is completely different from our own perceptions and experiences, which are governed by classical mechanics. Believe it or not, quantum mechanics actually has no problem with the behavior demonstrated by the Israeli physicists — entanglement was never a tangible, physical property, and this experiment is a perfect example of why it’s sometimes very naive to boil quantum ideas into classical analogies.
Entanglement is a state where the state of two quantum particles (photons, for example) are intrinsically and absolutely linked. Quantum particles, due a principle called quantum superposition, exist in every theoretically possible state at the same time. A photon, for example, spins horizontally and vertically (different polarizations) at the same time. When you measure a quantum particle, though, it fixes on a single state. With entanglement, when you measure one half of the entangled pair, the other half instantly assumes the exact opposite state. If you measure one photon and it’s vertically polarized, its entangled sibling will be horizontally polarized.
Quantum entanglement, between photons that never coexist [Image credit: Science]
Quantum entanglement, between photons that never coexist [Image credit: Science] As for how the Israelis entangled two photons that never coexist, the technique is rather complex. They start by producing two photons (1 & 2) and entangling them. The first photon (1) is immediately measured, destroying it and fixing the state of the second photon (2). Now a second pair of entangled photons (3 & 4) is created. They then use a technique called “projection measurement” to entangle 2 and 3 — which, by association, entangles 1 and 4. Even though photons 1 and 4 never coexisted, they know the state of 4 is the exact opposite of 1.
As we’ve covered before, entanglement seems to occur instantly, even if the particles are on opposite ends of the universe. This experiment shows how entanglement exists through time, as well as space — or, in scientific terms, the non-locality of quantum mechanics in spacetime.
Does this experiment have any implications, beyond its use as a sublime example of the weirdness of quantum mechanics? As always with quantum entanglement, there is a possibility that “projection measurement” could be used in quantum networks. Instead of waiting for one half of the entangled pair to arrive at its destination (along a normal fiber optic network), this two-pair approach would allow the sender to manipulate his photon instantly. As Anton Zeilinger, a quantum physicist not involved with the study, tells Science: ”This sort of thing opens up people’s minds and suddenly somebody has an idea to use it in quantum computing or something.”
Now read: Quantum entangled batteries could be the perfect power source
Research paper: arXiv:1209.4191 - “Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted”
Jonathan Ainsley Bain :SPOCK: - Ship's physicist.
Posts : 257 Join date : 2013-02-14
Subject: Re: Relativity Revised Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:41 am
lavender orchid
Posts : 858 Join date : 2010-07-16
Subject: Re: Relativity Revised Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:46 am
so isn't there a huge gap between the elegant theories and the wild wild experiences of the empirics? and how is it all packaged into adequate communications, here in the virtual part of the universe? \!!
Subject: Re: Relativity Revised Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:18 am
The e=mc^2 part is fine, its the movement of matter through space and time that Einstein et al got wrong
o well
if it was commonly accepted to ignore the contrafictions as regards relative mass, etc for the last 100 years or so
its unlikely that many will be able to see the errors that i have pointed out
but just to be brief:
if mass is relative to an objects 'rest mass' and relative velocity states there is no such thing as rest
then that is a blatant contradiction
Jonathan Ainsley Bain :SPOCK: - Ship's physicist.
Posts : 257 Join date : 2013-02-14
Subject: Re: Relativity Revised Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:55 am
lavender orchid wrote:
so isn't there a huge gap between the elegant theories and the wild wild experiences of the empirics? and how is it all packaged into adequate communications, here in the virtual part of the universe? \!!
To put it simply: Relativity has so many errors of blatant contradiction in it so that a single simple explanation would never suffice. My article shows it to be false in more ways that can even be easily counted.
Here is one example : if the mass of an object is dependent on its velocity, and its velocity is relative to any number of objects in the universe, then the mass of the object can have almost any value depending on which object we measure it relative to.
So the mass of the object is different depending on perspective.
But because its gravitational effect is dependent on its mass this would in turn mean that objects are moving differently depending on which object they are moving relative to.
This is a totally impossible scenario.
I resolve the issue by showing that the mass of the object is not relative to its velocity, instead the loss in momentum as it approaches the velocity of light is simply converted into angular velocity:
This is why everything in the universe spins...
But you need to read both the critique and the solution to fully appreciate how my answer resolves so many problems with relativity, and answers countless other questions too.
It does so immaculately: and it is backed up by real time algorithms which just need to be clicked and observed.
The answer to dark matter and Rubin's problem being one of more than a dozen such applications.
None of it is all that complex. It just takes a bit of concentration.
;-j
lavender orchid
Posts : 858 Join date : 2010-07-16
Subject: Re: Relativity Revised Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:22 am
concentrates on concentration ....
\!!
Jonathan Ainsley Bain :SPOCK: - Ship's physicist.
Posts : 257 Join date : 2013-02-14
Subject: Re: Relativity Revised Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:38 am
So i suppose, since the world has believed the error called relativity for the last 100 years i should not expect it to be able to recognize it when the error gets fixed...
lavender orchid
Posts : 858 Join date : 2010-07-16
Subject: Re: Relativity Revised Fri Jul 25, 2014 11:23 am
Subject: Re: Relativity Revised Thu Aug 21, 2014 10:53 am
Quote :
A benediction (Latin: bene, well + dicere, to speak) is a short invocation for divine help, blessing and guidance, usually at the end of worship service.
Dear God, please help the world to recognize that i have fixed Einstein's and Feynman's errors.
ps and then some
lavender orchid
Posts : 858 Join date : 2010-07-16
Subject: Re: Relativity Revised Fri Aug 22, 2014 7:38 am
Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:17 pm
so isn't there a huge gap between the elegant theories and the wild wild experiences of the empirics? and how is it all packaged into adequate communications, here in the virtual part of the universe? \!! 
http://www.reuters.com/news/oddlyEnough
