Jump to content

# I got the first post!!

## Recommended Posts

The proper title of this post should be: How to induce relativistic effects in a stationary object.

I will be the first to admit the impracticality of this approach. However, I found it interesting enough to post.

Consider a mass m oscillating at frequency w and amplitude A. The oscillation is described simply by:

x = A sin(wt)

v = Aw cos(wt)

a = -Aw^2 sin(wt) = -w^2 x

F = ma = -mxw^2

U = kinetic energy = .5 mv^2 = .5 mA^2 w^2 cos^2(wt)

E = potential energy = -[integral] F dx = -(-mw^2 [integral] x dx) = -(-.5 mw^2 x^2) = .5 m w^2 A^2 sin^2(wt)

Etot = total energy = E + U = .5 m w^2 A^2(sin^2(wt) + cos^2(wt)) = .5 m w^2 A^2

vavg = average velocity

Etot = .5 m vavg^2

vavg = sqr(2 Etot / m) = sqr(2(.5)m w^2 A^2 / m) = wA

m*avg = average relativistic mass = m0 / sqr(1 - (v/c)^2) = m0 / sqr(1 - (wA/c)^2)

Thus, by vibrating or oscillating an object, its mass should increase slightly, and there should be minute time dilation effects. However, in practice, it would probably be too small to measure.

##### Share on other sites

Wow read this article:

A sub which can sneak up to a large aircraft carrier undetected.. holy smoke! That, for sure scared some people in the DOD.

##### Share on other sites

Timelord

There is a natural anomaly that does appear to have relativistic effects. These anomalies are scattered all over the planet. Most of them get the nickname of gravity hill. Where objects appear to role uphill. Another effect is that objects appear to become smaller as they approach the center of the anomaly. If length is altered, then time should also be altered, if Einsteins assumption that time and length are inseparable. It just fascinates me that right here on our planet, there are things that we cannot explain with our science.

But never the less the anomalies are stationary. If someone does figure out how to control the dimensions of length, the concept of negative length could become a reality. No mans land for most mathematicians. It is purely hypothetical. But ask yourself the question: What would an object look like if its length became negative?

It does take one back to basic assumptions. Are we made up of time and length? Or do we just sit in a sea where time and length are externally applied?

##### Share on other sites

There is a natural anomaly that does appear to have relativistic effects. These anomalies are scattered all over the planet. Most of them get the nickname of gravity hill. Where objects appear to role uphill. Another effect is that objects appear to become smaller as they approach the center of the anomaly. If length is altered, then time should also be altered, if Einsteins assumption that time and length are inseparable. It just fascinates me that right here on our planet, there are things that we cannot explain with our science.

If you're referring to so-called "mystery spots", I can assure you they're only illusions popularized for the sake of local tourism.

##### Share on other sites

Timelord

If you're referring to so-called "mystery spots", I can assure you they're only illusions popularized for the sake of local tourism.

I can tell you haven't been to one of these anomalies. Take a camera, take a ruler, take a level. See for yourself firsthand. I have my pictures. I am convinced the dimensions of length change in these anomalies. If you really think it is all illusion, then you need to come up with some real science to explain it away.

##### Share on other sites

einstein, not too long ago, there was this road close to where i live that folks felt like their car would roll uphill. the news ran a story about it and found out that it was actually a downhill slope. it just looked and felt like it was going uphill.

##### Share on other sites

I can tell you haven't been to one of these anomalies. Take a camera, take a ruler, take a level. See for yourself firsthand. I have my pictures. I am convinced the dimensions of length change in these anomalies. If you really think it is all illusion, then you need to come up with some real science to explain it away.

I've been to the Santa Cruz "mystery spot". It's rubbish. Anyway, this forum is for real science, right? Mystery spots don't count.

##### Share on other sites

Timelord

I've been to the Santa Cruz "mystery spot". It's rubbish. Anyway, this forum is for real science, right? Mystery spots don't count.

I'll disagree with you of course. I don't think you took your camera when you went to the Santa Cruz Mystery Spot. But I took mine. Here are a couple of shots I took about ten years ago at the Santa Cruz Mystery Spot.

The photos have never been modified. The two children are standing on level ground. The guide verified this for us by placing a level across the two rectangular concrete slabs on the ground. The guide also placed a ball on one of the wood planks to show that the ball has no tendency to roll either way. To me, these pictures are facts. I want to understand how mother nature does this. This appears to be the stationary relativistic condition you started this thread with. Of course you need an open mind to proceed.

##### Share on other sites

I recommend the "New Science and Alternative Energies" forum.

##### Share on other sites

Thanks for trying TimeLord. Thanks Raul, RMT everyone else who helped get this section. Too bad the 1st thread was defaced.

Those paint shakers in the hardware store... It might be fun to see how fast they move back and forth, and then try to figure out how long you have to leave a paint can there for it to experience 1 second of time dilation. There's lots of fun things like that to figure out here if people will let us...

##### Share on other sites

The impracticality of this approach arises from the fact that an object can only withstand so much mechanical stress. What if it was a single particle oscillating so fast, instead of a crystal lattice? Then it might be more practical. Yet it would surely require significant energy input to achieve. I'll try some more calculations.

##### Share on other sites

Einstein,

I am really somewhat dismayed that you would introduce these decidedly NON-scientific photographs into this new "Real Science" forum so quickly. The reason I say these photographs are non-scientific is because there is absolutely NO method of quantification inherent in these photos. None whatsoever. All is subjective, NOT objective. They are merely optical illusions, which are furthered by the angles of other objects in the photo (such as the fence boards and the cement blocks). And how quickly this optical illusion would vanish if each child had a measuring tape on their bodies in both photos!!! I ask you to think about the seemingly 3-D paintings that are often sent around in emails. In the photographs we see some WILD situations that look real (3-D). But when viewed from other angles we see they are nothing more than paintings that an artist with a VERY good understanding of depth perception had painted specifically to fool your eye. I will see if I can find some and post one in this reply (later).

The two children are standing on level ground.

But you certainly cannot VERIFY that with the photos, can you? Therefore: NON-scientific.

The guide verified this for us by placing a level across the two rectangular concrete slabs on the ground.

First of all: show me (i.e. show us in the photo). Second of all: Do you believe it is impossible to alter a level to make it read level when in fact it is not? And what about the CAMERA itself taking the photo? Do you know that IT was level?

The guide also placed a ball on one of the wood planks to show that the ball has no tendency to roll either way.

Again... do you know how "loaded dice" work? The same principle of an unbalanced spherical mass can be applied to fool you. How can you be so sure you were not fooled, Einstein?

To me, these pictures are facts.

No, they are optical illusions. They do not become FACTS (at least scientific ones) until there are elements within the photo that are QUANTIFIED... as in, adding measuring tapes to each child to show they are the same height in both photos.

This appears to be the stationary relativistic condition you started this thread with. Of course you need an open mind to proceed.

And this is why I am ALWAYS tentative in the way you describe what you witness when you do your experiments, Einstein. You seem to be too easily taken in by what you SEE (or think you see). You accept it as fact (as you state here) and then go off looking for some way to explain what you have taken as fact. Instead, part of having an "open mind" is to NOT have it "so open" that you accept things as fact just because your perception tells you it is true. As I have always said, there are INNUMERABLE ways for your perception to be deceived. If there were not, people like David Copperfield, Criss Angel, or another other magician wouldn't be able to continually fool our perceptions.

RMT

##### Share on other sites

Impractical yeah, but I'd still like to know. An 'exotic' paint can from a special hardware store that has a paint shaker that moves the paint can like so : x = A sin(wt)

##### Share on other sites

RMT

I am really somewhat dismayed that you would introduce these decidedly NON-scientific photographs into this new "Real Science" forum so quickly.

We obviously have a difference of opinion here. I've read through the entirety of your post. It does appear you have closed your mind to the subject matter I've presented as real science. The photos depict exactly what I saw. I would accept that my eyes could be optically fooled. But that doesn't explain how the camera could be fooled as well. There is a noticeable size discrepency of the children as they switch places. I would invite you to place a crooked fence in your back yard just to see if you could duplicate this kind of effect. Then take some pictures and show us all. Good luck.

##### Share on other sites

E you should have started a NEW THREAD to talk about your pictures. What you did here was hijack this thread.

Thus, by vibrating or oscillating an object, its mass should increase slightly, and there should be minute time dilation effects. However, in practice, it would probably be too small to measure.

Your pictures have nothing to do with the TimeLord's post.

TimeLord, I'm sorry if thinking of the small particle as a paint can is pointless. I like to visualize small particles as being very large. Mass doesn't matter for time dilation right?

I'd like to know how to figure out the equation that outputs total TD experienced (by a particle) if it's velocity is defined by something like Aw cos(wt) after t seconds. So, I tried to replace the v in time dilation equation with your v and it just doesn't look right. I don't know enough math. How close am I?

time dilation i want = t / (sqrt(1-((Aw cos(wt)^2 / c^2)))

##### Share on other sites

Mass doesn't matter for time dilation right?

Correct. Of course, getting a larger mass to the same velocity is more difficult...

I'd like to know how to figure out the equation that outputs total TD experienced (by a particle) if it's velocity is defined by something like Aw cos(wt) after t seconds. So, I tried to replace the v in time dilation equation with your v and it just doesn't look right. I don't know enough math. How close am I?

time dilation i want = t / (sqrt(1-((Aw cos(wt)^2 / c^2)))

Close.

dt* = dt0 / sqr(1-(Aw cos(wt)/c)^2)

That's the instantaneous time dilation. The average time dilation over many periods of oscillation would be:

dt* = dt0 / sqr(1-(Aw/c)^2)

So if you look at the oscillating object over a very short time scale (<= 1/w), you will see the instantaneous time dilation. But for high frequencies, you will see only the average value.

##### Share on other sites

I post this in the interest of solid science...

It does appear you have closed your mind to the subject matter I've presented as real science.

This is an oft-used accusation by people who want someone to believe something exotic, before they simply ask for enough data to ascertain if it can be explained by more mundane phenomena. There is a quote about "open minds":

'An open mind, like an open window, should be screened to keep the bugs out' --Virginia Hutchinson

IOW, a mind that is "too open" is just as stagnant in progression as one that is not "open enough".

The photos depict exactly what I saw. I would accept that my eyes could be optically fooled. But that doesn't explain how the camera could be fooled as well.

There are any number of ways to explain that which DO NOT require exotic phenomena (i.e. "stationary relativistic condition"). The simplest is that a photo is a 2-dimensional representation of a 3-dimensional reality. I know you are aware that as one reduces dimension, information is lost and thus paradoxes become more likely. There are large numbers of documented illusions which you can perceive in a photo and live. Here is one, and there are many others at this site:

There is a noticeable size discrepency of the children as they switch places.

That is a subjective assessment. Science does not stop there and begin to make conclusions. Rather, science BEGINS there and starts taking objective measurements. As I mentioned, measurements of the children in the photo would ascertain if what you are perceiving is actually true.

I would invite you to place a crooked fence in your back yard just to see if you could duplicate this kind of effect. Then take some pictures and show us all. Good luck.

And this highlights the differences in our approaches. Where I will draw on existing knowledge, and perform mathematical exercises to achieve a model to see if it can be explained, you will want to try to replicate WHAT YOU ARE PERCEIVING as true. Both methods have their place, but science gives the nod to attempting to explain anomalies with validated theories before one assumes something unique.

And this, IMO Einstein, is where I see that your mind is a bit "too open" sometimes. I have mentioned this before... that you tend to wish to adopt "exotic" descriptions of what you think you are seeing, before you have even attempted to explain what you may be seeing with accepted science. This is a defacto setup of "confirmation bias". Many do this, and it leads to your "inner voice" talking to you in the manner that would wish for you to confirm your "exotic" descriptions. The cautious approach, as I have explained, is where a scientist will use all existing knowledge BEFORE they begin to consider an anomaly. It maeks the distinction between the "experimenter" and the "researcher".

RMT

##### Share on other sites

Again, in the interest of solid science, I offer:

This last article talks about something that all "high time" and especially instrument-rated pilots know about how your senses (not only visual) can be fooled:

All cockpits carry an "artificial horizon," essentially a leveler, that pilots use when the real horizon is not visible. It is the only clue to the horizon when the cockpit is tilted -- as the chair was tilted in the laboratory. Pilots are trained to ignore the visual context of the cockpit and fasten their eyes on the leveler.

Unfortunately, they don't always follow that rule, said Prinzmetal, adding that planes have crashed because the pilot thought he was flying level when actually he was at an angle.

The human sensory system is FAR from perfect and EASILY fooled. Science proved this truth long ago and continues to validate it.

RMT

##### Share on other sites

Ok, this is a 1st try at a Perl script, how close did I get? Some units I'm probably wrong about, some I didn't even know what to guess and I left them out.

This is the output of the script. I ran it twice, the first time with \$t = 1 (second?) and the 2nd time was 2 seconds.

mass of 1 kg

frequency of 10 Hz

Amplitude of 1 m

After 1 second...

x = -0.54402111088937

v = -8.39071529076452 m/s

a = 4.35216888711496 m/s/s

F = 4.35216888711496 N

U = 24

E = 24

Etot = 4

vavg = 10 m/s

mavg = 0.707106781186547 kg

tdi = 0.577350269189626 s

tdavg = 0.707106781186547 s

\$t=2

mass of 1 kg

frequency of 10 Hz

Amplitude of 1 m

After 2 second...

x = 0.912945250727628

v = 4.08082061813392 m/s

a = -7.30356200582102 m/s/s

F = -7.30356200582102 N

U = 24

E = 24

Etot = 4

vavg = 10 m/s

mavg = 0.707106781186547 kg

tdi = 1.41421356237309 s

tdavg = 1.41421356237309 s

#!/usr/bin/perl

\$m = 1; # kg

\$w = 10; # Hz

\$A = 1; # m

\$t = 1; # s

\$c = 313000000; # m/s

while (1) { \$line = ; eval(\$line); &calc(); }

sub calc {

\$x = \$A * sin(\$w * \$t);

\$v = \$A * \$w * cos(\$w * \$t);

\$a = -1 * (\$w ^ 2) * \$x;

\$F = -1 * \$m * \$x * (\$w ^ 2);

\$U = 0.5 * \$m * (\$A ^ 2) * (\$w ^ 2) * (cos(\$w * \$t) ^ 2);

\$vavg = \$w * \$A;

\$E = 0.5 * \$m * (\$w ^ 2) * (\$A ^ 2) * (sin(\$w * \$t) ^ 2);

\$Etot = 0.5 * \$m * (\$vavg ^ 2);

\$mavg = \$m / sqrt(1 - (\$w * \$A / \$c) ^ 2);

\$tdi = \$t / sqrt(1 - (\$A * \$w * cos(\$w * \$t) / \$c) ^ 2);

\$tdavg = \$t / sqrt(1 - (\$A * \$w / \$c) ^ 2);

print qq~mass of \$m kg

frequency of \$w Hz

Amplitude of \$A m

After \$t second...

x = \$x

v = \$v m/s

a = \$a m/s/s

F = \$F N

U = \$U

E = \$E

Etot = \$Etot

vavg = \$vavg m/s

mavg = \$mavg kg

tdi = \$tdi s

tdavg = \$tdavg s

~;

}

##### Share on other sites

Close. In perl, ^ is the XOR operator; use ** for exponents. I cleaned up the program & added units:

#!/usr/bin/perl

\$m = 1; # kg

\$A = 1; # m

\$t = 1; # s

\$c = 313000000; # m/s

\$pi = 3.14159265358979;

while (1) {

print "Mass [kg]: ";

\$m = ;

chomp \$m;

if (\$m == "") { exit; }

print "Frequency [Hz]: ";

\$freq = ;

chomp \$freq;

if (\$freq == "") { exit; }

\$w = 2*\$pi*\$freq;

&calc(\$m,\$w)

}

sub calc {

\$m = shift;

\$w = shift;

\$x = \$A * sin(\$w * \$t);

\$v = \$A * \$w * cos(\$w * \$t);

\$a = -1 * (\$w ** 2) * \$x;

\$F = -1 * \$m * \$x * (\$w ** 2);

\$U = 0.5 * \$m * (\$A ** 2) * (\$w ** 2) * (cos(\$w * \$t) ** 2);

\$vavg = \$w * \$A;

\$E = 0.5 * \$m * (\$w ** 2) * (\$A ** 2) * (sin(\$w * \$t) ** 2);

\$Etot = 0.5 * \$m * (\$vavg ** 2);

\$mavg = \$m / sqrt(1 - (\$vavg / \$c) ** 2);

\$tdi = \$t / sqrt(1 - (\$v / \$c) ** 2);

\$tdavg = \$t / sqrt(1 - (\$vavg / \$c) ** 2);

\$per = 100 * (\$mavg - \$m) / \$m;

print qq~

mass of \$m kg

frequency of \$freq Hz (\$w rad/s)

Amplitude of \$A m

After \$t second...

x = \$x m

v = \$v m/s

a = \$a m/s/s

F = \$F N

U = \$U J

E = \$E J

Etot = \$Etot J

vavg = \$vavg m/s

mavg = \$mavg kg

tdi = \$tdi s

tdavg = \$tdavg s

Average mass increase: \$per %

~;

}

Example output:

Mass [kg]: 100

Frequency [Hz]: 10000000

mass of 100 kg

frequency of 10000000 Hz (62831853.0717958 rad/s)

Amplitude of 1 m

After 1 second...

x = -6.59310333966933e-008 m

v = 62831853.0717957 m/s

a = 260285286.952149 m/s/s

F = 26028528695.2149 N

U = 1.97392088021786e+017 J

E = 858.043897335502 J

Etot = 1.97392088021787e+017 J

vavg = 62831853.0717958 m/s

mavg = 102.077855846659 kg

tdi = 1.02077855846659 s

tdavg = 1.02077855846659 s

Average mass increase: 2.07785584665892 %

In this example, we see that a 100 kg mass vibrating at 10 MHz should gain about 2 kg of mass. Of course, the amplitude is 1 m, which is very impractical. At more realistic values of A, the mass increase is negligible.

##### Share on other sites

RMT

You have posted another interesting reply. But you still appear to be one sided. I think this following statement you made appears to make my case.

And this highlights the differences in our approaches. Where I will draw on existing knowledge, and perform mathematical exercises to achieve a model to see if it can be explained, you will want to try to replicate WHAT YOU ARE PERCEIVING as true. Both methods have their place, but science gives the nod to attempting to explain anomalies with validated theories before one assumes something unique.

My only concern with what you have to say is "Validated Theories". And I do believe that might be what is wrong with the scientific approach. A theory is not a fact. And you know that. Somewhere along the way an assumption is made that just cannot be validated. Yet the theory is based on that assumption. So logically a theory can be a strong possibility. But it can never be fact.

There is also another approach which I find kind of comical. Prove it wrong. How can it be wrong if the proof uses assumptions along the way? Anyway I have adopted a different approach. Prove it wrong and prove it right. In other words two opposing theories. That is what we have here. Your argument seems to hold water if you base all your observations in the crooked house. There is no horizontal or vertical visual reference in the house. Even the references you cited off the net use the crooked house as an attempt to convince any visitor that it is just an illusion. A trick of the human mind. But you'll notice my pictures aren't taken in the crooked house. And to this date, I haven't found anyone with an explanation on how this visual effect occurs away from any perceptual cues that can cause this effect within our minds. You'll notice all your references don't mention any of the altered perceptions outside the crooked house. If it doesn't fit the theory, just sweep it under the carpet. That's the part I'm interested in. The under the carpet observations. Because the under the carpet observation could be explained using Einstein's time dilated reference frame. Am I the only one that has made this connection? It's just noneuclidean space with a bit more curvature than we are accustomed to seeing. My opinion. My theory. As to the cause of this effect? Just some local nuclear material experiencing a mass change probabaly deep in the ground.

You never mentioned if you've been to the Mystery Spot. But the day I was there, there was a woman, that verified that those wooden boards, on the concrete slabs, were level. She pulled a small level out of her purse, and walked over to the boards, just to verify for herself, that the guide was not trying to trick us all. The guide asked her if she had been there before. She said yes, she was a school teacher. Her level also showed the boards were level. As I recall one board was right on and the other board was slightly off. Just look at my pics. I was very careful. You'll notice the boards are horizontal, and I am right in the middle as I take the shots. So you can reference off those boards when you look at the pics. But thanks to the internet you can go there from your armchair. It's not quite the same. But this following clip I found on youtube depicts exactly what I saw:

I don't care what you say RMT, seeing is believing. This is a stationary relativistic reference frame.

##### Share on other sites

Haha! I can't believe I forgot about ** vs ^ That's not the first time I forgot and I doubt it'll be the last.

Thanks for the fixes and units

So I want to know how long a particle (or paint can) has to oscillate before it's clock will be 1 second behind mine. I'm not sure what the term should be, I'll use "cumulative time dilation" for now?

cumulative_dt* = dt0 - dt*

cumulative_dt* = dt0 - (dt0 / sqr(1-(Aw cos(wt)/c)^2))

I don't know if that's how to do it, but if it is, I still want dt0 on the left, I have no idea how to do that hehe... By now there's gotta be some software that can rearrange a math equation using drag and drop, no?

##### Share on other sites

This borders on the phylosophical end of the time discussion, but my take is that any shift in time, no matter how miniscule, is world changing.

By shifting just a millisecond, you have changed the "Now" for the object in relation to the now for everything around it.

Get back to the basics, one of the oldest debates is whether future and past truly exist, or if there is truly only the "Now". If there is only the "Now" then you have just jumped worlds by shifting the tinyest bit.

If you can prove the time jump forward and reverse, and still have the object in the same relative universe, then you have proven the existance of forward and back time's existance.

These are no small feats!

##### Share on other sites

I've always thought that past, present, & future coexist simultaneously. This, however, is not a point easily proven.

I think of all of space and time throughout eternity as a book which we read one letter at a time. The other pages do not cease to exist just because we don't focus on them. We just filter out all but a miniscule detail of the information available to us in order to ponder its meaning intensely.

But this last point is, indeed, philosophical. For that I apologize.

##### Share on other sites

×
×
• Create New...