It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Are you saying Malus' Law and/or the online calculator for it are wrong?
So why don't you wait until it's done before burdening us with your statements which have no math or predictive power to back them up?
It's a fact you provide no math or quantitative analysis to back up what you say, and then you contradict yourself by saying the math is already done and is correct.
originally posted by: KrzYma
" burdening us with your statements" ?? this is just your perception of what I'm saying...
about the math... well.. it is already done...
check the math for space-time...
the thing is.. it is correct, just the interpretation what it is causing it is WRONG !
The picture I have is one of you contradicting yourself. You say the math is done?
listen... gravity
I told you more than once, that +1 and -1 counts as 0 for charge, but it is 2 for the field density
I also told that the field density is related to the sped of EM propagation.
I have explained the so called "gravitational lensing" some hundred pages back here...
but you sill ignore this..
OK, so how does gravity work...
let say there is some big number of charged particles on the right. (big mass)
and some other charges on the left, but much less. (little mass)
so.. the gradient in the field goes from right decreasing to left.. get the picture ?
because EM propagates slower is higher E density than lower E density, and the ( let me use QM now so you can comprehend ) "photon distribution probability" has to be more on the right than the left... the "photons" are more on the right.
.. you still following ?
so the attraction between the charged particles goes more right than left, because they move "slower" in higher density, so they attract each other "longer" on the right than on the left...
do have the picture now ? ...all shifted to the right
this is gravity
I have no idea how this research is supposed to fit into your gravity from charges explanation when neutrinos don't have any charge but appear to have gravitational effects. Their mass is very small, but there are a lot of them.
Our results suggest that neutrinos make up between 3% and 5% of the total dark matter mass. This is sufficient to consistently reproduce a wide variety of observations – including the new gravitational lensing measurements.
I'm replying to this old post on relativistic mass, a topic that has come up several times in this thread, because I found an interesting video from Don Lincoln at Fermilab which talks about this and more or less agrees with what mbkennel says.
originally posted by: mbkennel
People don't use 'relativistic mass' any more. It was a mistake, even Einstein tried to stamp it out. The right idea is to modify Newton's laws appropriately, so that the relationship between momentum and velocity is not as simple.
I imagine the Feynman lectures will be around for a while and I don't see the relativistic mass being edited out completely, but maybe someday they might at least add a note about the concept being phased out. I also see the concept in other places, like this relativity calculator:
originally posted by: mbkennel
Have you read the Feynman Lectures on Physics yet?
As already mentioned Einstein objected to the idea that mass increases for an object in motion, contrary to what this relativity calculator says, but the misconception is understandable considering that some textbooks and physicists still hang on the the idea. #1 should be an increase in momentum and energy, instead of an increase in mass.
This was formulated by the German-American physicist and mathematician Albert Einstein (1879-1955) in his Special Theory of Relativity. Basically, an object in motion undergoes 3 relativistic changes:
1) An increase in mass
2) A contraction in the direction of travel (Lorentz Transformation) and
3) A "slowing down" of time. (Time Dilation)