A Collection of Ideas

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Raheman Velji, Aug 13, 2005.

  1. /--------------------------------------------------------------------*
    | --------------| A COLLECTION OF IDEAS | by Raheman Velji |
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------*

    * * * [must use a fixed-width font to view diagrams properly] * * *

    CONTENTS:

    (1) Inventions
    Two inventions which use "self-sufficient propulsion" as a mode
    of transportation. The term "self-sufficient propulsion" will be defined
    and it will be realized at the end of the section that "self-sufficient
    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 "self-sufficient 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 "self-suffiecient
    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
    "self-sufficient propulsion" because they are self-sufficient. 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 self-suffiecient propulsion should have
    the name "Newton" added to its full-name 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 "self-suffiecient propulsion" will have a
    lasting effect on transportation (especially in space exploration).

    * [must use a fixed-width font to view diagrams properly]

    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    =-=-=-1) The Seesaw Newton Motor=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

    Top view:


    M1a---M2a <--front
    electromagnets
    m1
    \
    \ /\
    \ ||
    o <--seesaw ||
    \ forward
    \
    \
    m2

    M1b---M2b <--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 set-up
    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 "self-sufficient propulsion".

    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    =-=-=-2) The Simple Newton Engine-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

    The Simple Newton Engine works using "self-sufficient 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.)

    Side-view (cross-section):

    | ___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
    "self-sufficient 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 force-to-mass
    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:

    Cross-section:

    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)
    | | |
    |____________|____________|

    /|\
    \_ semi-permeable
    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 semi-permeable 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 semi-permeable 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 like-charges "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, all-in-all, 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.phy-astr.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, all-in-all, 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:

    (8) "tM2 = y*tS2"

    Now notice that in equation (4) and equation (8) 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 (8) 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 (8) 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" Thought-Experiment.) 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 * (tF-tB)/(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 net-velocity (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 prefix-word
    "absolute".

    Now, one can add the prefix-word "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
    prefix-word "apparent". The reason for the need of the prefix-word 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" Thought-Experiment? 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 one-kilogram 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/(1-v²/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 "sub-effective". 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 "super-effective". (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
    "exactly-effective". Remember that above we allowed "f_e" to equal "ma"; we
    can now realize that "f_e" equals "ma" only when general work is
    exactly-effective. When general work is sub-effective then

    "f_e < ma"

    and when general work is super-effective

    "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 well-known 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 sky-diving and was in free-fall
    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
    zeroing-in 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 cross-section 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 electromagnetic-pressure (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 1-meter circuit of 1cm² wire
    uses the same pressure to start a current as a similar battery hooked to a
    10000-meter 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


    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, Aug 13, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Raheman Velji

    Robert Baer Guest

    This spammer needs to get an education.
    Robert Baer, Aug 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Monte Comeau

    Intermittent connectons: Any ideas?

    Monte Comeau, Feb 7, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    656
    mikeFNB
    Feb 7, 2005
  2. Jon
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    431
    =?Utf-8?B?QkFS?=
    Feb 22, 2005
  3. mikester

    VPN user authentication ideas

    mikester, Feb 18, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,263
    mikester
    Feb 25, 2004
  4. IHateSpam

    Any ideas why this is happening ?

    IHateSpam, Feb 23, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    396
    IHateSpam
    Feb 23, 2004
  5. John Caruso

    Dog-slow 2621...any ideas why?

    John Caruso, Apr 30, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    3,562
    Hansang Bae
    May 14, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page