Home  Forums  Reviews  Guides  Newsgroups  Register  Search 
Thread Tools 
Raheman Velji
Guest
Posts: n/a

/*
  A COLLECTION OF IDEAS  by Raheman Velji  * * * * [must use a fixedwidth font to view diagrams properly] * * * CONTENTS: (1) Inventions Two inventions which use "selfsufficient propulsion" as a mode of transportation. The term "selfsufficient propulsion" will be defined and it will be realized at the end of the section that "selfsufficient propulsion" will have a lasting effect on transportation (especially in space exploration). (2) Law of Conservation of Energy Two examples which clearly demonstrate that the Law of Conservation of Energy is wrong. (3) Absolute Frame of Reference First, this section will demonstrate that special relativity is wrong. Then, it will amend special relativity by introducing the concept of an "absolute frame of reference". This section also discusses a possible method for determining the "absolute velocity" of an object. (4) Work This is a continuation of the previous section. The discussion thus follows by considering "absolute velocity" (that is, velocity measured relative to the "absolute frame of reference"). Dark matter is shown to be a result of the fact that relative velocity can surpass the speed of light. An explanation as to why our Universe is expanding is hypothesized. (5) Extras: (1) Absolute Velocity: This section discusses a different method for determining the absolute velocity of an object. (2) Electricity: This section analyzes the idea of electricity using "impulses". This section isn't revealing like the previous ones. Instead, the only reason I am including this section is because at the end we derive the correct equation for the change in time between electron collisions. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\  (1) INVENTIONS  //////////////////////////////// Inventions: 1) The Seesaw Newton Motor 2) The Simple Newton Engine Devices that use "selfsufficient propulsion" work on Newton's law that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction." The idea is to harness the "action" and eliminate the "reaction", or convert the "reaction" into useable energy. Thus, within the device, the "reaction" is lost allowing the "action" to propel the device. All devices that use "selfsuffiecient propulsion" work without affecting the environment. That is, they don't need a road to push off of like cars, they don't have to push air like planes or spew out gases like space shuttles. Thus, they get the name "selfsufficient propulsion" because they are selfsufficient. In other words, you can put a box around the entire device and the box would move, and nothing would enter or exit the box, and the device itself wouldn't react with the environment that comes inside the box. It only reacts to the environment in the box, which it creates, which it uses to propel itself. (I propose that any device that uses selfsuffiecient propulsion should have the name "Newton" added to its fullname so that we remember how it relates to Newton's third law. Whether this convention should be followed is debatable.) Whether the Seesaw Newton Motor or the Simple Newton Engine are feasible is uncertain. However, the idea of "selfsuffiecient propulsion" will have a lasting effect on transportation (especially in space exploration). * [must use a fixedwidth font to view diagrams properly] ============================ ===1) The Seesaw Newton Motor============= ============================ Top view: M1aM2a <front electromagnets m1 \ \ /\ \  o <seesaw  \ forward \ \ m2 M1bM2b <back electromagnets Ideally, "M1a", "M1b", "M2a", "M2b", "m1", "m2" are all electromagnets. (Some of the electromagnets can be changed into permanent magnets where it is deemed fit.) "M1a", "M1b", "M2a", and "M2b" are fastened to the base, while "m1" and "m2" are connected to a "seesaw" whose pivot ("o") is connected to the base. (It is possible to construct this without the back electromagnets.) The way this invention works is somewhat hard to explain. Here is a simplified version: When "M1a" and "m1" are nearly touching an electric current is sent through "M1a", "M1b", and "m1". "M1a" should repel "m1" while "M1b" should attract "m1". Thus, both "M1a" and "M1b" will experience a force in the forward direction, while the seesaw swings around bringing "m2" close to "M2a". As "M2a" and "m2" are close now, an electric current will pass through "M2a", "M2b", and "m2". "M2a" should repel "m2" while "M2b" should attract "m2". Again, the electromagnets connected to the base, "M2a" and "M2b", will experience a force in the forward direction while the seesaw swings back to its starting position to repeat the cycle. Since all the electromagnets that are connected to the base experience a force in the forward direction, the entire device will be propelled forward as the seesaw keeps swinging about. Notice that the seesaw does *not* rotate, it simply moves back and forth, like a seesaw. It should be noted that as the seesaw swings about, a bit of the "backward" energy of the electromagnets on the seesaw will be conveyed to the base via the pivot, thus slowing down the entire device. That loss of speed, though, is negligible. The above explanation of the workings of the Seesaw Newton Motor is incomplete. One must understand the following: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The main idea of the Seesaw Newton motor is to harness the "action" by converting the "reaction" into useable energy. When the front electromagnets, back electromagnets and the electromagnet on the seesaw are activated, the front and back electromagnets experience a "positive" force by being forced forward. The electromagnet on the seesaw, however, experiences a "negative" force as it moves in the backward direction. One must get rid of the "negative" energy of the electromagnet on the seesaw. If the "negative" energy is not rid of, then it will somehow be transferred to the entire device, thus not allowing the device to gain velocity. The Seesaw Newton Motor does not only get rid of the "negative" energy, it in fact uses it to propel the device further. Consider the following scenario: a Seesaw Newton motor at rest, and setup similar to the diagram above. Now, let us initiate a current through "M1a", "M1b", and "m1". The electromagnets on the base ("M1a" and "M1b") will experience a "positive" force by being forced forward. The electromagnet on the seesaw ("m1"), however, will experience a "negative" force by being forced backward. However, at the other end of the seesaw, the electromagnet ("m2") seems to be approaching the front electromagnet ("M2a") and receding from the back electromagnet ("M2b"). Thus, at the other end of the seesaw, when those electromagnets are activated, the repulsive force between the electromagnet on the seesaw and the front electromagnet will be greater, thus propelling the device further forward. Also, at the other end of the seesaw, when those electromagnets are activated, the attractive force between the electromagnet on the seesaw and the back electromagnet will be greater, again propelling the device further forward. The fact that both magnets ("M2a" and "M2b") experience a greater forward force is due to the the initial "negative" energy of the electromagnet on the seesaw ("m1"). Thus, both the "action" and the "reaction" are harnessed to propel the entire device forward. Thus, in a sense this invention is more effective than a space shuttle because it harnesses both the "action" and "reaction", unlike a shuttle which only uses the "action". If both "action" and "reaction" are to be harnessed, one must ensure that the electromagnets on the seesaw should not hit either the front electromagnets or the back electromagnets. That is because any collision will slow the forward motion of the entire device. It may seem that if the seesaw swings so hard that "m1" hits "M1a" or "m2" hits "M2a" then the force of the collision will cause the base to experience a force in the forward direction. This is wrong. Only the "forward momentum" of the seesaw will "push" the base forward. However, when the seesaw electromagnet hits the front electromagnets, the entire seesaw will stop moving and the "backward momentum" of the electromagnet on the seesaw will be conveyed to the base via the pivot. Thus, any collisions are undesirable. One must avoid collisions by ensuring that the electromagnets are activated such that the seesaw never has a chance to collide. Thus, input sensors would need to be used to calculate the speed of the seesaw so that the electromagnets can be perfectly timed to avoid collisions. By avoiding collisions, both "action" and "reaction" are harnessed. Notice that for this invention to actually move the electromagnets must be very strong and the entire device must be light. Otherwise, the device will stay in the same spot and just wiggle about instead of moving. In any case, this invention can definetely compete with devices that use ion propulsion. Also, the entire Seesaw Newton Motor can (with a battery) be put into a box and the box would move without interacting with the environment outside the box. Thus, it moves using "selfsufficient propulsion". ============================ ===2) The Simple Newton Engine============ ============================ The Simple Newton Engine works using "selfsufficient propulsion". The engine is a cylinder with a piston in it. The piston may require wheels to move inside the cylinder. \\\\\ Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The main idea of the Simple Newton Engine is to harness the action by getting rid of the reaction. How do we get rid of the momentum of the reaction? One way is by using friction, which is discussed in "Step 3". The idea is to force the piston in the backward direction, down the cylinder. Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the cylinder will then experience a force in the forward direction. This force is ideally created by using electromagnets. Let us say that there is an electromagnet on the piston ("#") which repels the magnet ("X") that is connected to the front of the cylinder. (Also, one could make this similar to a Linear Induction Motor, with the piston as the projectile.) Sideview (crosssection):  ___cylinder    \/ /  #X <magnet ("X") forward > \  /\  __piston ("#")  <start ///// STEP 1: \\\\\ Now, activate the electromagnet on the piston. So the piston, which is repelled by the magnet, moves down the cylinder as the magnet and the cylinder accelerate forward.  ___ The magnet and the cylinder   move forward...  \/ >  /   # X  \  /\ <  __ ...as the piston moves backward  through the cylinder <start ///// STEP 2: \\\\\ In fractions of a second, the piston will have arrived at the back of the cylinder. The piston must be stopped before it slams into the back of the cylinder because, if it does then the energy of the piston will cancel out the forward velocity that the cylinder has gained. So, the energy of the piston must be removed (by friction, e.g. brakes on the wheels) or harnessed (a method which converts the "negative" energy of the piston into something useable). If friction is used to stop the piston, the friction must cause the piston to lose velocity in decrements; should the brake make the piston stop abruptly, then the "negative" momentum of the piston will be transferred to the cylinder. Consider the following analogy: if I'm on a bike and I stop abrubtly by pushing down hard on my brakes, I (my body) will go hurtling forth until I hit a wall. In the presence of gravity, I might hit the ground before I hit a wall, but the point remains the same. However, if I push on my brakes and slowing come to a stop, I can avoid being thrown forward. And moreover, by coming to a stop slowing, the momentum of me and the bike is dissipated as heat, and perhaps sound. Thus, in the Simple Newton Engine the "reaction" is lost due to friction (as heat and possibly sound) while the "action" is harnessed to propel the cylinder forward.     /   # X  \  /\  __The piston must be stopped before  it hits the back of the cylinder <start ///// STEP 3: \\\\\ When the piston has reached the end, and has been brought to a stop, it must then be moved to the front of the cylinder, perhaps by hooking it to a chain which is being pulled by a motor. Perhaps the piston can slowly move back on its wheels towards the front of the cylinder. Or perhaps the piston can be removed from the cylinder when it is being transferred to the front, and thus leave the cylinder free so that another piston can "shoot" through the cylinder.     /  # X  \    <start ///// Return to STEP 1: \\\\\ The piston has been returned to the front. Overall, the engine has moved and gained velocity. Now it is ready to restart at STEP 1.     /   #X  \    <start ///// Also, like the Seesaw Newton Motor, the entire Simple Newton Engine can (with a battery) be put into a box and the box would move without interacting with the environment outside the box. Thus, it uses "selfsufficient propulsion". It should be noted that the Simple Newton Engine creates a small amount of force for a relatively minute amount of time. In my mind, it would only be effective if many are used simultaneously. For example, I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard for the Simple Newton Engine to have a burst of 5N for a tenth of a second. Building a unit of ten thousand of such Newton engines would create a combined force of 5000N, assuming that the engines can "reload" in 0.9 seconds. The real problem is getting a good forcetomass ratio (acceleration); if you can get acceleration greater than 10 m/s² then you can pretty much launch any vehicle, no matter how massive, into space. If the vehicle is too massive, then all you need to do is add more individual engines to the unit, and eventually it should lift off the ground. If such high accelerations cannot be made, then I'm sure this invention can compete with ion propulsion.  Magnetic Propulsion for the Simple Newton Engine: Crosssection: mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmm ____ mmmmm < "m" are magnets mmmm /WWWWWW\ mmmm mmm /W/ \W\ mmm mm /W/ mm \W\ mm m W mmmm W m < "W" is a wire coil m W mmmmmm W m m W mmmmmm W m m W mmmm W m X forward mm \W\ mm /W/ mm (into paper) mmm \W\____/W/ mmm mmmm \WWWWWW/ mmmm mmmmm mmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm If the magnets "m" are arranged such that the field is perpendicular to the wire, and if a current is set up in the wire coil, then the wire coil will either move forward or backward. This could be applied to the Simple Newton Engine; the wire coil would be the "piston" and the magnets would be part of the "cylinder". \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\  (2) LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY  ////////////////////////////////  _________________________   semi __\ ___ _________________  permeable /     material   (dialysis    tubing)         * <\        turbine    tube B >   (contains     perfluoro     octane)         < tube A     (contains  _________________  water)    ________________________ /\ \_ semipermeable material (dialysis tubing) Tube A contains 250ml of water. Tube B contains 750ml of perfluorooctane. Tube A and tube B are connected to each other by dialysis tubing, which is a semipermeable material. Water can permeate through the dialysis tubing, but perfluorooctane can't. Due to osmotic pressure, the water in tube A will pass through the dialysis tubing entering tube B. Since water is insoluble in perfluorooctane, and since water is less dense than perfluorooctane, the water will rise to the top of tube B. The water that has risen will permeate through the dialysis tubing at the top of tube B. Once enough water has accumulated at the top of tube B, it will fall, turning the turbine, and returning back into tube A. Notice that this dynamo didn't require any input energy, and it will continue to work, creating electricity by turning the turbine (and generator, which is not shown), so long as the perfluorooctane does not seep into tube A through the semipermeable material. Eventually, the perfluorooctane will seep through the dialysis tubing, and so this invention is not a perpetual motion machine. But how can this dynamo generate electricity without any input energy? First, let's observe that the water at the top of tube B has a gravitational potential energy. When it falls, the gravitational potential energy is realized and is converted into electricity by the turbine (and generator, which is not shown). But how did the water initially get its gravitational potential energy? It got its gravitational potential energy by being displaced upward in a fluid (perfluorooctane) that is more dense than it. Thus, we must conclude that insoluble objects immersed in fluids that are more dense gain gravitational potential energy by being displaced upwards. However, where is that energy coming from? By the Law of Conservation of Energy, something must lose energy so that another can gain energy. Since we cannot find anything losing energy, we must conclude that the Law of Conservation of Energy is wrong, and that gravity creates forces which then create/destroy energy; in this case it created energy in the final form of electricity. As mentioned before, enough perfluorooctane will eventually seep through the dialysis tubing causing the level of the liquid in tube B to lower such that the water cannot escape through the top of the tube. And so, the turbine will stop spinning. At such a point we can easily "unmix" both liquids by pouring all the liquid into a tall cylinder. If we leave the two liquids in the tall cylinder for awhile then the water will accumalate at the top and the perflourooctane will gather at the bottom. We know that originally there was 250ml of water. So, we need only take the top 250ml of liquid (water) from the cylinder and put it into tube A; the rest of the 750ml of liquid (perfluorooctane) can be dispensed back into tube B. Thus, this dynamo can continually produce electricity; when the turbine stops turning because the two liquids mix, then we need only unmix the two liquids and restart the dynamo. Notice again that this dynamo creates electricity without using any input energy! Some may argue that we used energy to unmix the two liquids. That is true, *but* even though we used energy to unmix the two liquids we did not *give* the two liquids energy. That is, two liquids in separate beakers have the same amount of energy as the same two liquids in the same beaker. We can conclude by noting that energy is being created/destroyed all around us. Gravity and magnetism are prime examples. Both create forces. The immediate effect of the forces on the system is nothing (the vectors of the forces cancel each other out). However, after the immediate effect, and after a minute amount of real time, the forces will do work on the system. If "positive work" is done, then the system will gain energy. If "negative work" is done, then the system will lose energy. Should these forces be sustained for a longer duration of real time, then the forces might be found to have not done any work on the system (that is, it added the same amount of energy that was removed). Whether "positive work" is done or "negative work" is relative.  Suppose we have two magnets with likecharges "q" and "q0". The space between the two charges is "r". Let the potential energy between the charges be "U". Consulting a physics textbook we find that 1 q*q0 U =   4*pi*E r where "pi" equals 3.14 "E" is the permittivity of free space As the two magnets are moved closer to each other, potential energy will be gained and kinetic energy will be lost. As the two magnets move away from each other, potential energy will be lost and kinetic energy will be gained. Say, initially, that both magnets are far apart. Now, let us do work by moving the charges closer together. When we are done and the magnets are close to each other, the potential energy will have increased. The increase will be equivalent to the work we did pushing them together. Now, let's say that we took two hammers and pounded both magnets until they lost their magnetism. Then, the potential energy between the two magnets will dissappear. Thus, the system has lost energy without any part of the system gaining energy. Thus, we have demonstrated that the Law of Conservation of Energy is wrong. Let me recap: First, we did work to move two repelling magnets together. Thus, we lost kinetic energy while the magnets gained potential energy. We then destroyed the magnetism of the magnets, thus losing the potential energy. Thus, allinall, we lost energy. This idea, which works on magnetism, can also be applied to gravity. Consider two stationary gaseous planets, both made entirely of deutrium. Let's do work on the planets, increasing the gravitational potential energy between the planets, by moving them apart. The increase in gravitational potential energy will be equivalent to the amount work we did separating the planets. Now, let's say that the deutrium of both planets began to fuse by the following equation: deutrium atom + deutrium atom => helium atom + neutron + 3.27 MeV (from http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html) (It is true that I didn't include the initial energy to start the fusion. However, the above equation is properly balanced, so we do not have to consider the initial energy required.) Now, it is obvious that mass is being converted into energy. Since the masses of both planets are decreasing, the gravitational potential energy between both planets will also decrease. Thus, the work we did moving the planets apart (which is now graviational potential energy) will diminish. We have again demonstrated that the Law of Conservation of Energy is wrong. Let me recap: First, we did work by moving the two planets apart. Thus, we lost kinetic energy while the planets gained gravitational potential energy. We then converted some of the mass of the planets into energy. Thus, we lost mass and in the process we lost gravitational potential energy. Thus, allinall, we lost energy. (One might oversimplify the above to say, "What goes up does not *necessarily* come down.") Or, since mass and energy are interchangeable, what if the mass of both planets suddenly converted into energy. I don't know exactly how this could happen, but nonetheless, it is within the realm of possibilities. Thus, the mass of both planets would dissappear and so, the gravitational potential energy would also dissapear. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\  (3) ABSOLUTE FRAME OF REFERENCE  ////////////////////////////////  I will take an example out from a physics textbook and show how it is wrong, and how its failure is due to the fact that special relativity is wrong. (The various failures of Special Relativity are well described at the following website: http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/Relativity.html) The chapter we are considering is "Relativity of Time Intervals" in the book "University Physics". There are two people, Stanley and Mavis. Stanley is standing on the Earth while Mavis is sitting on a train. Now, there is a flashlight secured on the floor of the train and there is a mirror on the ceiling of the train. The mirror is secured such that it will reflect the light from the flashlight directly back down to the floor of the train. Let's do a little experiment and have the flashlight send a flash of light towards the mirror and time how long it takes for the light to return back to the flashlight. *let "tM1" be the time elasped as timed by Mavis during the experiment *let "tS1" be the time elasped as timed by Stanley during the experiment *let "v" be the speed at which the train is travelling at relative to the Earth *let "d" be the distance between the flashlight and the mirror Stanley and Mavis should both start and stop their clocks at the same time to properly time the experiment. In order to do that in the real world is very difficult, and perhaps it is not possible (I'm not sure). But that does not mean in any way that we cannot consider it on paper; on paper, we just need to assume that the light from the experiment reaches both Mavis and Stanley instantaneously. Now, Mavis views the light emenating from the flashlight, travelling upward to the mirror, and getting reflected back to the flashlight. mirror> #### ___       "d"   flash  __ light> ^^^ Thus, (1) "tM1 = 2d/c" Meanwhile, Stanley sees a flash of light emanate from the flashlight. It then moves upward and to the right where it meets the mirror and gets reflected downward and to the right. Then it hits the floor where the flashlight is. mirror> #### ___ /\  / \  "l" / \ "l"  "d" / \  / \  flash / \ __ light> ^^^ ^^^ __________ "v*tS1" *where "2l" is the distance that Stanley observes the light to have travelled Thus, (2) "tS1 = 2l/c" and (3) "l² = d² + (v*tS1/2)²" I will leave it to you to verify that using equation (1),(2) and (3) we can derive: (4) "tS1 = y*tM1" *where "y" equals "1/(1(v/c)²)^½" That's how the physics textbook leaves the subject. However, what if on the Earth Stanley had a contraption similar to the one that Mavis has on his train. Let's give Stanley a flashlight which is fastened to the ground (Earth) and a mirror that is a distance "d" from the ground. Let's do our little experiment again except this time on Earth; let's have the flashlight send a flash of light towards the mirror and time how long it takes for the light to return back to the ground. *let "tM2" be the time elasped as timed by Mavis during the 2nd experiment *let "tS2" be the time elasped as timed by Stanley during the 2nd experiment Notice that "d" is the same because we built both our contraptions the same way, and "v" is the same because it is the *relative* velocity between both the train and the Earth. This time we will get: (5) "tS2 = 2d/c" and (6) "tM2 = 2l/c" and (7) "l² = d² + (v*tM2/2)²" Again, I will leave it to you to verify that using equation (5),(6) and (7) we can derive: ( "tM2 = y*tS2" Now notice that in equation (4) and equation ( the values of the elasped time need not have any correlation with our two little experiments! That is, in equation (4) the value "tS1" is determined by the value of "tM1" which could be anything. Likewise, in equation ( the value of "tM2" is determined by the value of "tS2" which again could be anything. So it is obvious that equation (4) can reduce to (9) "tS = y*tM" and equation ( can reduce to (10) "tM = y*tS" *where "tS" is a period of time measured by Stanley and "tM" is a "corresponding time" measured by Mavis By "corresponding time", I mean that if Stanley and Mavis could both start and stop there clocks at the same time, then Stanley would measure an amount of time "tS" to have passed and Mavis would measure an amount of time "tM" to have passed. Again, the fact that it may be difficult to get both guys to start and stop their clocks at the same time does *not* mean in any way that we cannot discuss it on paper. It's obvious that equation (9) and (10) are incompatible because they both work *only* when "v" equals zero. The general reason why the equations are incompatible is because, despite what Special Relativity dictates, there is an *absolute* frame of reference (some may call it a *preffered* or *unique* frame of reference). And so it follows that there is absolute velocity; absolute velocity is a velocity measured relative to the absolute frame of reference. The exact reason why both equations are incompatible will be discussed afterward. For now you must be asking, if there is an absolute frame of reference then how can we find out where it is? Consider the following experiment:  (WARNING: It will be shown later that this experiment is prone to errors.) Say we want to find the absolute velocity of a space ship. (This is very similar to Einstein's "Train" ThoughtExperiment.) In the middle of the space ship we will have a switch. The switch is connected to two wires; one wire leads to the front of the space ship while the second wire leads to the back of the space ship. At the front and back of the space ship are flashlights and timers. When the switch is activated a current will be sent through the wire to cause both flashlights to emit a flash of light. When they emit a flash of light the timers will commence timing. The flash of light from the front will be directed toward the back of the ship while the flash of light from the back of ship will be directed toward the front. Each timer will stop when it observes a flash of light coming from the other side of the ship. *let "tF" be the time measured by the timer at the front of the ship *let "tB" be the time measured by the timer at the back of the ship *let "l" be the length of the ship *let "v" be the absolute velocity of the ship (assuming "v" is in the forward direction) These two equations are obvious: "tF*c = l + tF*v" "tB*c = l  tB*v" Solving the above equations we get an equation which determines the absolute velocity of the ship: "v = c * (tFtB)/(tF+tB)" Notice that the velocity "v" is in one dimension only. Supposing the area around the space ship is Euclidean then one need only do this experiement in two more directions to obtain the absolute netvelocity (each direction must be perpendicular to the previous ones). Now, as mentioned above, this experiment is prone to errors. This method of finding the absolute velocity of an object works only assuming that during the experiment: (1) the space ship does not change inertial frames of reference and (2) the absolute frame of reference does not change inertial frames. You may be inclined to think that so long as the space ship does not *feel* an acceleration it will not change inertial frames of reference. You are wrong; it is possible to change inertial frames without feeling acceleration! Consider a spherical ball suspended in space. From the point of view of the absolute frame of reference the ball is moving in the right direction at a velocity "v" and it is rotating clockwise at a velocity "v". Now, let us say that there is an ant on the ball. When the ant is on the top of the ball it is travelling at an absolute speed of "2v"; when the any is on the bottom side of the ball is travelling at an absolute speed of "0". You are changing inertial frames of reference when you experience a change in absolute speed. Thus, the ant is changing inertial frames. But notice that he does not *feel* accelertation. From the point of view of the absolute frame of reference the ant is constantly accelerating and decelerating from a speed of "2v" and "0". However, the ant does not *feel* an accelertation. Now, you might say that this is all good because above, during the experiment to determine the absolute velocity, we used a space ship instead of using, say, a train on Earth. However, this is foolish because the space ship might be in a part of space that is "rotating" similar to the way the Earth rotates. It is impossible for us, on Earth, to *feel* the accelerations and deccelerations of the rotations of the Earth. Thus, it is impossible for us to ensure that the space ship above does not change inertial frames of reference. And it goes without saying that we cannot ensure that the absolute frame of reference does not change inertial frames, which is another barrier in the determination of absolute velocity. (On the side: Notice that the rotating Earth is nearly in perpetual motion. Suppose we have a spherical planet made of metal rotating in space. That planet is in pertual motion!; it will continually rotate forever, so long as it is not disturbed. Notice that it will continually rotate because the motion causes a force which then again causes motion, etc.)  I propose that when a velocity is measured relative to the absolute frame of reference then we call that velocity an "absolute velocity". Also, if acceleration, force, work, kinetic energy, time, etc., is measured from the absolute frame of reference then it too will gain the prefixword "absolute". Now, one can add the prefixword "relative" to velocity and acceleration. (For instance, if two objects are at rest, their relative velocity is "0".) Absolute relative velocity and absolute relative acceleration can be determined by making observations from the absolute frame of reference or by using the Doppler effect. (It should be noted that the Doppler effect only works when the absolute relative velocity is less than the absolute speed of light. (We will discuss that fact in more depth in the next section.)) Now, I propose that when velocity, distance, time and acceleration are measured using the equation "d=vt" or "v=at" then the term should gain the prefixword "apparent". The reason for the need of the prefixword is because the equations "d=vt" and "v=at" are false. They are false because time dialates and, as it will be shown in the next section, acceleration dialates.  Now let us return to the problem with Stanley and Mavis at the beginning of this section. Remember the following equations: (9) "tS = y*tM" (10) "tM = y*tS" Now, both equations ((9) and (10)) are incompatible; either one of the equations is true or they are both invalid. This goes against the Principle of Relativity which is "the laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame of reference." Thus, we see the need for an absolute frame of reference. I propose that the equation for time dialation works only when the velocity is an absolute velocity, that is, the velocity is measured relative to the absolute frame of reference. (In all honesty I have no good reason to believe that the rate at which time passes differs depending on your inertial frame of reference. Nonetheless, at this point I'll assume it is true.)  Remember Einstein's "Train" ThoughtExperiment? A train is travelling at a velocity of "v" relative to the ground. One man is standing in the center of the train and another man is standing outside. Now, when each man sees the other standing directly in front him through the window a flash of lightning stricks the front of the train and the back of the train. Let's say that "v" is an absolute velocity. Now, the man on the ground will observe the flashes of light to occur simultaneiuosly. However, the man on the train will observe the flash of light from the front before he observes the flash of light from the back. But from his position the light from the front and the light from the back traversed the same distance! This means that he will view the speed of the light from the front to be faster than the absolute speed of light while the light from the back will be slower than the absolute speed of light! Relativity is right in saying that the speed of light is constant BUT it is only constant when measured from the absolute frame of reference. If you are in an inertial frame that is not at rest with the absolute frame of reference then you may very well observe light not to be a constant. That is, apparent speed of light can differ widely while the absolute speed of light remains constant. Einstein purports that as speed increases lengths contract and masses get larger. This is wrong! There is no reason to believe that either is true because one can use a similar argument like the one used above against time dialation (as was shown in the above experiment with Stanley and Mavis). However, it may be true that lengths *appear* to be shorter; the only way to confirm that is by experiments. Masses, however, do not increase as speed increases; however, momentum increases as speed increases. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\  (4) WORK  ////////////////////////////////  Two terms introduced in the previous section are used in this section: "absolute velocity": a velocity that is measured relative to the absolute frame of reference. "absolute relative velocity": the relative velocity between two objects typically measured by using the Doppler effect. any time "absolute" preceeds a term that means that the term was measured from the absolute frame of reference; e.g. "absolute effective general work" is effective general work measured from the absolute frame of reference. This section also assumes two things: (1)time does dialate with respect to absolute speed (2)the absolute frame of reference does not change inertial frames of reference  Once one has realized that energy is not conserved, the big question that arises is how did something so obvious allude us, and for so long. The answer to that has many reasons. One reason is that we did not define work intuitively. I will now attempt to rectify that.  First, let's realize that force has two equations, or rather, that it can be observed in two different ways. First, there is "ineffective force": f_i = pA where "f_i" is ineffective force "p" is pressure "A" is area And then there is "effective force": f_e = ma where "f_e" is effective force "m" is mass "a" is acceleration It should be noted that force equals mass multiplied by acceleration only when we look at the world in Newtonian terms. Effective force is ineffective force which is allowed to cause a change in kinetic energy.  Consider the following scenario: two classmates, Jack and Jill, both able to hold a onekilogram brick. Naturally, holding that brick on Earth is approximately equivalent to maintaining a force of 10 Newtons. Let's say that Jack held his brick for 20 seconds, and Jill held her brick for 2 seconds. Now, without using any scientific jargon, who did the most work? Jack obviously did more work than Jill. Thus, *intuitively*, work should equal force multiplied by time.  Notice, that this means that work done on an object does not necessarily have to cause a change in kinetic energy. On the contrary, even if you placed a book on a table work is being done; the table is maintaining a force, and likewise, the book is maintaining a force. The force of gravity is causing stress between the two at the atomic level. Work, in general, does not require a change in kinetic energy. Thus, I call the following the equation for "general work": W_i = f_i*t where "W_i" is general work "t" is a period of time  I propose that the real unit for work (that is, general work, which is force multiplied by time) should be "P", for Prescott, Joule's middle name. Thus, one prescott equals one newton second. I relegate the old, traditional meaning for work to the term "productive work".  Now, work defined as it is today (productive work) is wrong intuitively, but nonetheless, it is a *VERY* *USEFUL* "measuring tool". It calculates "useful" work, where usefulness is defined as causing an object (I use that term very loosely) to be displaced in a certain direction. Power calculates the rate at which this "useful" work is happening. I should make it clear that any form of work can be considered useful or useless depending on the situation and its application.  Of course, just as force has "effective force", work has "effective work". The term "effective" means that the work is allowed to cause a change in kinetic energy. Thus, we can have "effective general work" and "effective productive work"; "Effective general work" is general work that is allowed to cause a change in kinetic energy and "effective productive work" is productive work that is allowed to cause a change in kinetic energy. If the work (general work or productive work) does not cause a change is kinetic energy then the work is called "ineffective work". To find out effective general work, take the term "f_g" and make it effective, that is, change it into "f_e". And thus: W_g = f_g*t W_e = f_e*t = ma*t where "W_e" is effective general work And since in Newtonian mechanics v = a*t where "v" is velocity we can simplify the equation for effective general work to the following: W_e = mv In Newtontonian mechanics, momuntum is equal to "mv". Thus, in Newtononian mechanics, effective general work causes a directily proportional change in momentum.  From the previous section we know that there is an absolute frame of reference. Allow a guy named "watcher" to inhabit the absolute frame of reference. Consider a space ship with a captain in it. The space ship is travelling at an absolute velocity of "v". Then the captain turns on his thrusters accelerating the ship in the direction of the velocity. The force on the ship is "f_g". He leaves the thrusters on for an amount of time "dt", an infinitesmal amount of time as measured by himself. In the eyes of the watcher the space ship will experience a force "f_g" (in agreement with the captain) for a period of time "dtA". Now, "dt" does not equal "dtA". That is because, due to Relativity, we must take into account the dilation of time. dtA = y*dt where "y" is equal to "1/(1v²/c²)^½" "c" is the speed of light "dtA" is a period of time measured by the watcher ("A" stands for "absolute") "dt" is the period of time measured by the captain Now, since we had a force for an infinitesmal amount of time, only an infinitesmal amount work is accomplished. Thus, in the watcher's eyes the thrusters are doing an amount of work equal to "dW_g": dW_g = f_g*dtA = y*f_g*dt Again, let us allow general work to become effective, that is, let's allow the general work to cause a change in kinetic energy. However, we cannot just replace "f_g" with "f_e". This is because effective force does not always equal "ma" in Relativity. But, we will allow "f_e" to equal "ma" here, and it will be justified later. So, dW_e = y*f_e*dt = y*ma*dt where "dW_e" is an infinitesmal amount of effective general work Since, a*dt = dv where "dv" is an infinitesmal amount of velocity Thus, we get the equation: dW_e = yma*dt = ym*dv The above equation means nothing now but it will be important in the next paragraph.  I have found the following equation in "Introduction to the Relativity Principle" by Gabriel Barton (pg. 189): ya = 1/m ( F  1/c² V(V.F) ) where "F" is the vector for force "V" is the vector for velocity let "µ" be the angle between force and velocity measured in radians, "0 <= µ <= pi" The above equation can be rewritten as ya = F/m ( 1  v²/c² * cos(µ) ) Observe that "F = dW_g/dt", where "dW_g" is an infinitesmal amount of general work So, ya = dW_g/dt/m ( 1  v²/c² * cos(µ) ) yma*dt = dW_g ( 1  v²/c² * cos(µ) ) In the above equation "dt" is being measured in the moving frame. So we can use the equation in the previous paragraph. That is: yma*dt = ym*dv = dW_e And so, dW_e = dW_g ( 1  v²/c² * cos(µ) ) To be clear, in the above equation "dW_g" is an amount of general work which is allowed to become effective as measured in the moving frame. "dW_e" is an amount of absolute effective general work, in other words, it is effective general work measured from the absolute frame of reference. From the above equation, we can infer many things: Acceleration, just like time, dialates; that is, it changes with respect to the absolute velocity. As absolute velocity increases and as the angle between force and absolute velocity decreases the effectiveness of general work changes depending on the direction of the general work. (1) If the general work is in the direction of the absolute velocity ("0 <= µ <= pi/2") then the general work is less effective because "dW_e < dW_g". Thus, in such a situation we will say that the general work is "subeffective". This means that we cannot have an absolute velocity that surpasses the speed of light because general work losses its effectivity when absolute velocity nears the speed of light. (2) If the general work is in the opposite direction of the absolute velocity ("pi/2 <= µ <= pi") then the general work is more effective because "dW_g < dW_e". Thus, in such a situation we will say that the general work is "supereffective". (3) If the absolute velocity is zero or if the angle between the force and absolute velocity is 90 degrees then "dW_g = dW_e". In such a situation we will say that the general work is "exactlyeffective". Remember that above we allowed "f_e" to equal "ma"; we can now realize that "f_e" equals "ma" only when general work is exactlyeffective. When general work is subeffective then "f_e < ma" and when general work is supereffective "f_e > ma". Notice that you could just as well say that as absolute velocity nears the speed of light the effectiveness of a force to create an acceleration in the direction of the absolute velocity diminishes. On the other hand, as absolute velocity nears the speed of light the effectiveness of a force to create an acceleration in the *opposite* direction of the absolute velocity greatens. What this means is that it is easier to slow an absolute velocity than it is to increase an absolute velocity. That is, it is easier to slow down than to speed up.  Even though we can never have an absolute velocity greater then the absolute speed of light, we can still have an absolute relative velocity that surpasses the absolute speed of light. Consider two space ships both at rest with respect to the absolute frame of reference. Let one ship accelerate till an absolute velocity near the speed of light is reached. Then, the other ship should accelerate in the *opposite* direction till it reaches an absolute velocity near the speed of light. The absolute relative velocity should now be greater than the speed of light. Perhaps dark matter is what is observed when two objects have an absolute relative velocity that surpasses the absolute speed of light. The light from each body of mass would reach the other mass, however, since the absolute relative velocity is greater than absolute speed of light, the frequency of the light would be an imaginary number, thus making the masses "dark". It is a wellknown fact that the Universe is expanding and so there is a lot of matter receding away from us. And so, there ought to be a lot of matter which have a relative velocity with us higher than the absolute speed of light, which would thus explain the fact that there is a lot of dark matter out there. Thus, we cannot see dark matter because the frequency of the light we receive is imaginary.  Let us hypothesize for a moment: let us say that gravity is the result of particles called gravitons. Also, let us assume that these gravitons have a frequency, just like light. Now, let us assume that the Big Bang theory is true. So, at some point there was a huge amount of energy confined to a small point in space. Time started and this point of energy exploded. Now, the energy will leave the explosion in all directions. Remember, above, that we explained that dark matter is the result of two objects which have an absolute relative velocity higher than the absolute speed of light. Well, now we've assumed that gravitons also have a frequency. Thus, the frequency of gravitons between two objects which have an absolute relative velocity higher than the absolute speed of light is an imaginary number! Let us assume that that means that gravity's force is ineffective between those two objects. That may be the reason why our Universe is expanding; perhaps the masses in the Universe are rushing away from each other so fast that gravity is rendered ineffective because the frequency of the gravitons become an imaginary number. Just a thought..  Now, I would like to point out that the "rulers" we use to "measure" various things, such as time, acceleration, velocity, force, work, energy, etc., are subjective. For things such as time, accleration and velocity, the way we measure the three is obvious and it is trivial to examine them. However, force, work and energy are much different. For instance, let's consider ineffective force. We know that as pressure increases so does ineffective force increase. We also know that as the surface area that is being pushed by the pressure increases, so does ineffective force increase. Now, we say that ineffective force equals "pA" where "p" is pressure and "A" is the affected surface area. However, we could just as well say that ineffective force equals "3*p²A^½". We can say that because it follows the rule that as pressure increases so does ineffective force increase and as the affected surface area increases so does ineffective force increase. However, the way that the equations are defined right now makes handling them easy. We could apply the same argument to kinetic energy and momentum. Notice that that is why we can observe both kinetic energy and momentum as being the result of effective work. Kinetic energy and momemtum increase as velocity increases and as the affected mass increases. Thus, we can measure kinetic energy as the result of effective productive work ("½mv²") or we can measure momentum as the result of effective general work ("mv"). (To be accurate, kinetic energy equals "½mv²" and momentum equals "mv" only when we look at the world in Newtonian terms or when absolute velocity is near zero.) Also notice that velocity is relative. It is true that there is "absolute velocity" but that does *not* mean in any way that velocity is not relative. I should make it very clear that velocity is *always* measured relative to some frame of reference, even absolute velocity is relative; absolute velocity is velocity measured relative to the absolute frame of reference. Now, kinetic energy and momentum is what effective work accomplishes. Both, effective productive work and effective general work, as seen above, increase as velocity increases. But since velocity is relative, then kinetic energy must also be relative. Now, you can measure ineffective force, ineffective work and potential energy from any point in the Universe and come up with the same value. However, measuring velocity, acceleration, kinetic energy and momentum is relative, that is, the value you get will vary. The value can vary even if you make the measurement in the same place at the same time! To illustrate: measuring kinetic energy depends on two things: (1) the relative velocity of the object you're measuring and (2) the velocity at which you would say you are travelling at. (We are assuming here that you and the object are not changing inertial frames). Thus, if I were skydiving and was in freefall such that I had reached my terminal velocity, I could say (1) that I have kinetic energy because I am hurtling towards the Earth which is at rest and has no kinetic energy or I could say (2) that the Earth has great kinetic energy because I am at rest and it is rushing towards me. Both measurements above can be made in the same position at the same time and they are both right; it just depends on how you want to look at things. Thus, like velocity is relative, so too is effective work (kinetic energy and momentum). \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\  (5) EXTRAS  //////////////////////////////// (1) Absolute Velocity (2) Electricity ============================ ===1) Absolute Velocity================ ============================  Here is another way to determine absolute velocity. It is more complicated then the method in the section titled "Absolute Frame of Reference". I originally figured this method and I didn't have the heart to erase it and so I left it here as an "extra".  Now, as mentioned in the above section, this experiment is prone to errors. This method of finding the absolute velocity of an object works only assuming that during the experiment: (1) the space ship does not change inertial frames of reference, except for the times the space ship intentionally moves frames and (2) the absolute frame of reference does not change inertial frames.  Start with two space ships. Inside one space ship is a "sender" and in the other is a "receiver". The space between both ships should be sufficiently large. Also, to start off with, both ships are in the same frame of reference, that is, initially, both ships view each other as being stationary. Now, the sender's job is to send signals  flashes of light  to the receiver at regular intervals. Let us say that the sender sends a signal every "t0" seconds, "t0" being measured by the sender. It is the receiver's job to receive the signals and observe the amount of time elasped between signals. Initially, since the receiver and the sender are in the same frame of reference the receiver will measure the time between signals to be "t0", agreeing with the sender. Now, the receiver will have to choose to either accelerate towards the sender or away from the sender. Thus, the receiver will attain a velocity of "v" towards the sender or away from the sender. "v" is the relative velocity between the receiver and sender and can be measured by the receiver by using the Doppler Effect. Since the velocity of the receiver changed, the rate at which time passes as observed by the receiver will also change. So now let the time that passes between signals as observed by the receiver be "tR". Now, we cannot simply compare "tR" with "t0". This is because the receiver is travelling at a velocity relative to the sender and so there will be a "lag" in the time that the receiver measures. This lag is due to the fact that the receiver has changed positions when measuring the time between signals. The change in the receiver's position between signals is "tR*v". So, the time it will take the signal (which is a flash of light) to traverse the change in position is "tR*v/c", which we will call the lag. If the receiver is approaching the sender, then the receiver must add the lag to "tR" to obtain the correct change in time between signals. On the other hand, if the receiver is receding away from the sender, then the receiver must subtract the lag from "tR" to obtain the correct change in time between signals. We will call "t1" the corrected change in time between signals as measured by the receiver. Now, we can compare "t1" with "t0". But first, let's look at the equation for Relativity's "time dialation": "tM = 1/y * tA" * where "tM" is the change in time measured in a "moving frame" that is travelling at a velocity "v" ("M" stands for "moving") * where "tA" is the change in time measured at rest with the absolute frame of reference ("A" stands for "absolute") * where "y" equals "1/(1(v/c)²)^½" Observe that when the velocity is equal to zero the rate at which time passes is the fastest. (Thus, observers measure moving clocks to run slow.) Thus, if "t1" is greater than "t0", the receiver is getting closer to the spot where the velocity relative to the absolute frame of reference is zero. On the other hand, if "t1" is less than "t0", then the receiver must turn around and head in the opposite direction because he is getting further away from the spot where the velocity relative to the absolute frame is zero. To find the *exact* spot where the velocity relative to the absolute frame of reference is zero, the receiver will have to move about many times until he finds a spot where the recorded time between signals (adjusted for the lag) is greatest. Notice that we only figured out the point where the velocity is zero compared with an absolute frame of reference on *one* axis. Assuming that the space around both the sender and the receiver is Euclidean, one must redo this experiment in three directions  each perpendicular to one another  to find out the exact location where velocity is zero compared with an absolute frame of reference. This method to determine where the absolute frame is requires that the space ship with the sender must not change inertial frames of reference. Also, this method to determine where the absolute frame is requires that the absolute frame does not change inertial frames. If the absolute frame is "moving about" inertial frames then the receiver will have trouble zeroingin on the spot where the measured time between signals is greatest. ============================ ===2) Electricity=================== ============================ Now, I am going to apply work using prescotts on an electrical circuit. (Prescotts are discussed in the section titled "Work".) The only reason I am including this section is because at the end we derive the correct equation for the change in time between electron collisions. *************************** Let's find the average drift velocity:  A is the crosssection of the wire (m²) n is "free" electrons per unit volume (electrons/m³) e is the magnitude of charge of an electron (1.602 * 10^(19) C/electron) v is the average drift velocity of the electrons (m/s) I is the current in the wire (C/s) dq is an infinitesimal amount of charge (C) dt is an infinitesimal amount of time (s) dN is an infinitesimal number of electrons (electrons)  (1) dq = e*dN dN = nAv*dt (2) dt = dN/(nAv) (1)/(2) dq/dt = e*dN/(dN/nAv) I = enAv v = I/(enA) *************************** Let's find force:  W_j is the Work in Joules (N*m) f is the force (N) s is the distance (m) V is the voltage (N*m/C)  W_j = F*s dW_j = F*v*dt dW_j/dt = F*v V*I = F*v V*I F =  v = VenA  P is pressure (Pa)  F V =  enA P =  en So we can say that "voltage is the electromagneticpressure (created by an EMF source) per density of charge." Notice that the pressure supplied by an EMF has nothing to do with the length of the circuit. A battery hooked to a 1meter circuit of 1cm² wire uses the same pressure to start a current as a similar battery hooked to a 10000meter circuit of similar wire! ***************************  W_i is the Initial Work (in Prescotts) (N*s) (the work done to start the electrical circuit) t is a duration of time (s) m_e is the mass of an electron (9.109 * 10^(31) kg/electron)  W_i = F*t = VenA*t Notice that in this case "W_i" does not equal "m_e*v". This is because over the period of time "t", which is greater than the average change in time between electron collisions, the acceleration of the electron is hindered when the electron loses its energy during a collision. ***************************  U is Initial Work (in Prescotts) per Coulomb (N*s/C) Q is an amount of charge (C) p is the resistivity of the wire (ohm*m) l is the length of the wire (m)  U = W_i/Q = F/I = (VenA)/(V/R) = enAR = enA*(p*l/A) = enpl Thus, we can say that "U" is a constant for any given circuit. So, given any circuit, a constant amount of work is done to move a coulomb along the circuit. ***************************  µ is Initial Work (in Prescotts) per Coulomb*meter (N*s/(C*m))  µ = dU/dl = enp So, the rate at which work is done per unit distance depends on the material. ***************************  t_c is the change in time between electron collisions (s)  Each electron gains "m_e*v" of energy before it makes a collision and losses it's energy. The collision will take place in "t_c" seconds. "U" is the amount of work to move a coulomb "l" meters along the wire. And, in "l" meters, there will be "l/(v*t_c)" number of collisions. So, l m_e*v  *  = U v*t_c e l*m_e  = enpl t_c*e m_e t_c =  e²np which is correct. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ //////////////////////////////// by Raheman Velji http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(EMail Removed) August 11, 2005 you can also view this paper (and updated versions) at... ....http://www.angelfire.com/un/rv or a less updated copy can be found at... ....http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion2/rahemanvelji 




Raheman Velji 


 
Thread Tools  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
create collection of collection  Hemant  ASP .Net  1  10222009 03:04 PM 
Collection problems (create Collection object, add data to collection, bind collection to datagrid)  Øyvind Isaksen  ASP .Net  1  05182007 09:24 AM 
Sorting the Collection(java.util.Collection) of Elements  Pradeep  Java  2  01242007 02:33 PM 
Adding to collection from controlDesigner only produces end tag for the collection.  Don  ASP .Net Building Controls  0  07222005 09:31 PM 
STL  an algorithm for finding a collection within a collection?  Dylan  C++  5  03222005 01:31 AM 
Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000  2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc..
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc. 