The Final Theory

[mojassty]

Like I said before, I haven't studied GR analytically, so I can't supply you with a mathematical equation regarding the effects of time dilation on an accelerating body. However, that doesn't change the fact that Special Relativity only applies to non-accelerating bodies. Einstein knew that special relativity wasn't applicable to non-inertial reference frames, which is why he went on to develop General Relativity and the equivalence principle.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by polemotheos

Should I tell you Einstein was the one that used this "thought experiment" to prove Special Relativity?


Don't you think it is intresting that there is always an acceleration or deceleration in this thought experiment?

This is an unfounded assumption I am sure your willing to retract.

Could you show me the acceleration time dilation equation which supports your comments. I am sure there is no such equation so your welcome to retract.

Look, one of the twin's HAS to turn around, or the two can never get back together to compare their ages. The only way to turn around is to accelerate. Its not an unfounded assumption, he HAS to turn around, or they can't possibly meet up again. This breaks the symmetry of the situation. If you wish to see mathematical handling of hte twin paradox, private message me.
-Will

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by polemotheos

If this is true you have experimentally disproved his theory. Can you try the inverse of your last experiment. Provide a larger sphere which is the same weight. Can we get someone else to check Erasmus00's work?

I may disprove his theory mathematically (feel free to check my work);

Here is his equations which he does not provide;

s(t) = (y0 - 7.7X10^(-7)*t^2*(R1 + R2))/(7.7X10^(-7)*t^2 + 1)

Where y0 is the initial distance between the surface of two bodies, R1 is the radius of one body and R2 is the radius of the other.


d/dt [s(t)] = v(t)

= v0 - (2*(R1 + R2 + y0)*t*7.7X10^(-7))/(7.7X10^(-7)*t^2 + 1)^2

Where v0 is an initial velocity.


d^2/dt^2 [s(t)] = d/dt [v(t)] = a(t)

= (2*(R1 + R2 + y0)*(3*7.7X10^(-7)*t^2 - 1)*7.7X10^(-7))/(7.7X10^(-7)*t^2 + 1)^3

To evaluate his function lets look at t0 the initial time.

a(t0) = -2*(R1 + R2 + y0)*7.7X10^(-7)

Notice that in Newton's theory as the distance increases (/R^2) the acceleration do to gravity decreases.

However in the Final Theory as the distance increases, y0, so does the acceleration do to expansion. At infinite distance there is infinite acceleration.

I think now I understand why he says in his latter chapters why he thinks some satellites are slowing down as they leave the solar system. Infact he suggests the satellites will return.


Just incase anyone wants to know the "authority" appeal. I am an inventor and study on my own and have never finished a degree in college because of finding college inefficient and often a waste of time.

peace,
Mars

I measured G to within about 10% of the accepted value, after I switched the one ball weight, I was within 12% of G, and close to my original measurement. My uncertainity was about 3% of G, so the two values are well within each other. I cannot do the inverse, as I've disassembled the balance I built, and I don't see a need to build it again.
-Will

[polemotheos]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Look, one of the twin's HAS to turn around, or the two can never get back together to compare their ages. The only way to turn around is to accelerate. Its not an unfounded assumption, he HAS to turn around, or they can't possibly meet up again. This breaks the symmetry of the situation. If you wish to see mathematical handling of hte twin paradox, private message me.
-Will

When you quote me you pull my words out of context. So your comments are not a response to what I said. Consider what I said in context;

Originally Posted by mojassty

Since the twin in the spaceship underwent more severe acceleration, he/she was affected more by the time dilation.

This is an unfounded assumption I am sure your willing to retract.

Please notice that the claim that 'acceleration causes time dilation' is what I am questioning.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by polemotheos

I think GR is disproved by it's own illogic;

The Final Theory page 326:

The Twin Paradox thought experiment states that, if one of a pair of identical twins embarks on an extended space mission at near light-speeds for many years according to our Earthbound timeframe, the mission would only seem to have lasted perhaps a few hours for the astronaut twin. This is because Special Relativity Theory states that time slows down dramatically for anyone traveling at near light-speed relative to a stationary observer, yet runs at the same unchanging rate for the observer; so, upon returning to Earth, the astronaut would be much younger than the twin who stayed home.

This thought experiment is considered to show a concrete example of the "time dilation" effect that follows from the equations of Special Relativity. However, on closer examination, the very paradox introduced by Special Relativity Theory is also undone by the same theory. Since "everything is relative" in Special Relativity Theory, it is just as valid to consider the astronaut to be stationary while the Earth speeds away at near-light-speed. There would be an initial difference between these two views since the astronaut would feel an absolute initial acceleration as the spaceship fired it's rockets to gain speed, but thereafter this completely relative view of who is traveling and who is stationary is not only supported but also demanded by Special Relativity Theory. Therefore, as the Earth now coasts away at near-light-speed it would be the astronaut who ages while sitting in a stationary spaceship, while only a few hours pass on the speeding Earth. But how can two completely different physical outcomes result from the same space mission simply because of how we think about it? Clearly this is not a true physical paradox, but merely a logical oversight in an attempt to lend validity to the fanciful claim of "time dilation."

Special relativity never gives rise to a contradiction, it is in fact mathematically consistent, or else no one would use it And there is a difference between the astronaut and the guy on Earth. The astronaut accelerates, which he can measure and feel. That breaks the symmetry.
-Will

[polemotheos]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

I measured G to within about 10% of the accepted value, after I switched the one ball weight, I was within 12% of G, and close to my original measurement. My uncertainity was about 3% of G, so the two values are well within each other. I cannot do the inverse, as I've disassembled the balance I built, and I don't see a need to build it again.
-Will

How many digits of G?

You got a different measurement after switching the ball weight. If you kept the same weight and measured it again are you saying you could have gotten 12% of G? That is your percision is +or- 3%?

I am guessing your not going to give me the numbers to actually verify your experiment? Are you able to understand what I am asking for?

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by mojassty

Like I said before, I haven't studied GR analytically, so I can't supply you with a mathematical equation regarding the effects of time dilation on an accelerating body. However, that doesn't change the fact that Special Relativity only applies to non-accelerating bodies. Einstein knew that special relativity wasn't applicable to non-inertial reference frames, which is why he went on to develop General Relativity and the equivalence principle.

Thats not entirely true. Working within the framework of SR, one can deal with accelerations. The 4 vector approach of minkowski works well for it, in fact. GR is simply a gravitational theory.
-Will

[mojassty]

I didn't know that. All I've learned about Special Relativity has been the Lorentz transformations, and we didn't apply them to a scenario with accelerating bodies. Thanks for the correction.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by polemotheos

How many digits of G?

You got a different measurement after switching the ball weight. If you kept the same weight and measured it again are you saying you could have gotten 12% of G? That is your percision is +or- 3%?

I am guessing your not going to give me the numbers to actually verify your experiment? Are you able to understand what I am asking for?

How much raw data do you need? I can send you the graphs I linear fit for G, as well as the raw data if you like. I measured first 5.99 *10^-11 m^3 kg^-1s^-2. plus or minus .167*10-11 (same units).
After I replaced my second sphere, I got 5.88*10^-11 plus/minus .169 *10^-11 (same units). I think the accepted value is 6.67300 *10^-11(same units).

I should note that I gave up trying to get a better measurement when McCutcheon would not or could not give me a measure for the size of the effect I was looking for, and I had wasted enough time.
-Will

[polemotheos]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

How much raw data do you need? I can send you the graphs I linear fit for G, as well as the raw data if you like. I measured first 5.99 *10^-11 m^3 kg^-1s^-2. plus or minus .167*10-11 (same units).
After I replaced my second sphere, I got 5.88*10^-11 plus/minus .169 *10^-11 (same units). I think the accepted value is 6.67300 *10^-11(same units).
-Will

Thanks what are the radius's of the balls? What are there masses? How accurate are the masses? How accurate are the radius's?

Mars