* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Time and Energy, Inertia and Gravity
Analytical mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Old quantum theory wikipedia , lookup
Jerk (physics) wikipedia , lookup
Fictitious force wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization group wikipedia , lookup
Hunting oscillation wikipedia , lookup
Faster-than-light wikipedia , lookup
Modified Newtonian dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Classical mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Rigid body dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Velocity-addition formula wikipedia , lookup
Matter wave wikipedia , lookup
Centripetal force wikipedia , lookup
Routhian mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Special relativity wikipedia , lookup
Newton's laws of motion wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Derivations of the Lorentz transformations wikipedia , lookup
Relativistic mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Time and Energy, Inertia and Gravity The Relationship between Time, Acceleration, and Velocity and its Affect on Energy, and the Relationship between Inertia and Gravity Copyright © 2002 Joseph A. Rybczyk Abstract Presented is a theory in fundamental theoretical physics that establishes the relationship between time and energy, and also the relationship between inertia and gravity. This theory abandons the concept that mass increases as a result of relativistic motion and shows instead that the extra energy related to an object undergoing such motion is a direct result of the affect that the slowing of time has on velocity. In support of this premise, new formulas are introduced for acceleration and used in conjunction with a relativistic time transformation factor to develop new equations for both kinetic and total energy that replace those of special relativity. These and subsequently derived equations for momentum, distance, acceleration, inertia, gravity, and others, establish a direct relationship between the presented theory and the principles of an earlier theory, the millennium theory of relativity. A final consequence of this theoretical analysis is the discovery of two new laws of physics involving acceleration, and the realization that a unified theory of physics is now possible. 1 Time and Energy, Inertia and Gravity The Relationship between Time, Acceleration, and Velocity and its Affect on Energy, and the Relationship between Inertia and Gravity Copyright © 2001 Joseph A. Rybczyk 1. Introduction This paper introduces a new physical science that bridges the gap between classical and relativistic physics. It provides the final piece of the puzzle started by Newton with his Principia1 in 1687, and expanded by Einstein with his Special Theory of Relativity2 in 1905. What will be shown is the true relationship between acceleration, time, and velocity, and the affect this relationship has on energy and thus our perception of other physical phenomena. We will see that time expansion is real and its affects on velocity and energy are real, but the affects on mass (see appendix A) and distance are only perceptual. We will accomplish this by evaluating and correcting the classical formula for acceleration, and employ the new formula together with a relativistic transformation factor to directly derive a correct equation for kinetic energy. This new equation replaces both the Newtonian and Einsteinian equations for kinetic energy and is subsequently used in the formulation of a new total energy equation that replaces Einstein’s famous E = MC2 equation. In the process, the limitations of the former formulas and equations will be clearly demonstrated and their replacements validated. The final results of this work are new equations for acceleration, momentum, kinetic and total energy, and transformation factors not directly dependent on velocity. With these new equations it is no longer necessary to distinguish between classical physics and relativistic physics. In their place is the beginning of a new physics from which future discoveries may be anticipated. 2. The Millennium Transformation Factor and Time Transformation In relativistic physics it is widely accepted and supported by evidence that time slows down in a moving frame of reference. The relationship of moving frame time relative to stationary frame time can be expressed by the time transformation formulas, t ` t c2 v2 c (1) and, t t` c c v 2 2 (2) Time Transformation where v is the relative velocity, c is the speed of light, t` is moving frame time relative to stationary frame time, and t is time in the stationary frame. In the given equations t and t` can be used to represent a unit of time, or an interval of time. Also of note is the fact that the more familiar Lorentz transformation factors, 2 v2 1 2 c 1 (3) and, v2 1 2 c (4) Lorentz Transformation Factors have been replaced by their respective millennium theory of relativity equivalents3 (see appendix B), c2 v2 c (5) and, c c2 v2 . (6) Millennium Transformation Factors In the past, these factors were normally associated with time and distance transformation. In the present work their use will be expanded to include modification of velocity and a numerical constant associated with acceleration. 3. Constant Time and Relative Time Defined There is often confusion about time transformation and the terms used to define stationary frame time vs. moving frame time. It should be understood that time in the moving frame is identical to time in the stationary frame. That is, time in both frames may be represented by the variable t. Thus time t is actually constant time, or time that increases at a constant rate. Time t` then is actually relative time, or time whose rate of increase is affected by relative motion. It is used to show that time t in the moving frame is slower than time t in the stationary frame. Or stated another way, that constant time in either frame has a reduced rate relative to constant time in the other frame as defined by the transformation formulas. From this point forward, it should be understood that when we say stationary frame time, we actually mean constant time t, and when we say moving frame time, we actually mean relative time t`. 4. The New Kinetic Energy Equation Although the classical equation for kinetic energy seems to be supported by the evidence for low values of velocity, it is refuted by the evidence for high values of velocity in the area that represents a significant fraction of the speed of light. At the other end of the spectrum is the relativistic equation that seems to be supported by the evidence for velocities that are a significant fraction of light speed, but as will be shown later, is not representative of very low velocities in the area of classical physics. In fact, in both the real and theoretical sense, neither equation is truly correct at any velocity. The causes by which this happened are as follows: 1. Relativistic effects were unknown during the development period of classical physics. The problem is then compounded by the manner in which the classical kinetic energy equation is normally derived that in turn obscures its true meaning. 2. The relativistic effects, when discovered, were then used in an indirect derivation for the new kinetic energy equation that in turn obscured the true meaning that equation. 3 To avoid such problems we must derive the classical equation in a manner that makes its true meaning unambiguous. Then with our knowledge of relativity it becomes possible to correct the equation in such a manner as to make it properly represent the physical laws of nature along the entire range of valid velocities. In classical physics the following formulas are given for momentum, and constant acceleration: Where p is momentum, m is mass, and v is velocity, we are given, p mv (7) Where a is the rate of constant acceleration, and t is the time interval, we are given, v at (8) v t (9) and therefore, a And lastly, where d is the distance traveled by an object under constant acceleration we are given, d 1 2 at 2 (10) Although these equations provide satisfactory results for Newtonian levels of velocity, none of them are truly correct at any velocity. For the moment we will defer treatment of the momentum equation and proceed with the equations for constant acceleration. That is, if relativistic physics is a correct model for physical phenomena, then all of these equations and others to follow, including the classical equation for kinetic energy will have to be modified. Until now, however, no one has been successful in figuring out how it could be accomplished. The problems are many, and involve a very difficult analysis due to circular relationships that involve many interdependent variables. To proceed we must first decide the order in which the variables will be used. Additionally, we will need to make certain assumptions that appear to be 4 reasonable and in agreement with the evidence. And finally, we must assure that the resulting circular arguments are self-enforcing throughout the analysis and lead to correct final results. The first assumptions to be made involve the classical formulas for constant acceleration. The evidence shows that relative velocity increases asymptotically and therefore equations, 8 and 9, cannot be correct for constant acceleration. If the rate of acceleration, a is constant, and time t increases at a constant rate, then the instantaneous velocity v, given by equation 8, will also increase at a constant rate. Such a result is of course inconsistent with the evidence and therefore in disagreement with the principles of relativistic physics. On the other hand, where v is the instantaneous velocity, ac is the rate of acceleration, and t` is the time interval, our analysis will show that, v act ` (11) and, ac v t` (12) Constant Acceleration are the correct formulas for constant acceleration. That is, since t` increases asymptotically at the same rate as v, the rate of acceleration will remain constant as the velocity increases toward c. To verify this, in a computer math program for example, we will first need to derive different forms of equations 11 and 12, those that do not depend on the variable t`. This is because, as seen in equation 1, time interval t` is itself dependent on the value of v. Such treatment, however, must be deferred to a later point in the analysis. The forgoing is an example of the circular dependency commented on earlier. The subscript c in the preceding equations is needed to distinguish between constant acceleration and relative acceleration, which occurs simultaneously and is defined by, v ar t (13) and, ar v t (14) Relative Acceleration where ar is the rate of relative acceleration. These are nothing more than correct versions of equations 8 and 9 respectively, rewritten to show their true meanings. Thus, if t increases at a constant rate, and if v is asymptotic, ar the rate of acceleration relative to the stationary frame will decrease as the velocity increases toward c. For consistency with the modifications used in equations 11 and 12, we must also modify the associated distance formula given in equation 10. This gives us, d 1 act `2 2 (15) where the travel distance is denoted by the variable d. This change, however, is insufficient for arriving at a correct formula for the distance traveled by an object or particle under constant 5 acceleration. One of the problems involves the constant, ½. This constant is also affected by the asymptotical nature of velocity. That is, as c is approached, further increases in velocity approach 0. Thus, the distance traveled approaches vt`, and not ½ vt`. If this were the only consideration, we would modify the constant ½ so that its value approaches 1 at a rate that is consistent with the rate that v approaches c. But there is another factor to consider. One involving the energy required for the acceleration, and this too affects the required modification. In the interest of clarity, this modification is best deferred to a later part of our analysis where such modification can be more easily understood. Now, by using the right sides of equation 7 (p = mv) and equation 15 we can formulate a new formula where the temporary variable ka = momentum over distance traveled by an object under constant acceleration. Thus we have, 1 ka (mv) act `2 2 (16) By substituting v/t` from equation 12 (ac = v/t`) for ac in the above equation, we obtain, ka mv 1v 2 t` 2 t` (17) which simplifies to, ka 1 2 mv t ` 2 (18) Now, since the classical formula for kinetic energy is, k 1 2 mv 2 (19) we can state, 6 k ka t` (20) and by substitution get, 1 2 mv t ` k 2 t` (21) The reason for deriving the kinetic energy equation in this manner is to make it clear what the various variables and constant represent. This last version of the equation can now be evaluated from a relativistic perspective and corrected to properly represent all values of velocity, v. At this point it is necessary to call upon the millennium transformation factor, previously introduced as expression 6. Referring now to figure 1, we can compare the relativistic motion of a particle to the Newtonian motion when a constant force is applied. Whereas in Newtonian motion the velocity increases without limit, in relativistic motion the velocity increases asymptotically as the object approaches the speed of light c, and of course the speed of light is never exceeded. From what we understand about relativistic effects, the transformation factors 3 through 6, are mathematical definitions of the behavior. If time slows down in the moving frame of reference, it is not unreasonable to assume that this slowing of time directly affects the velocity of the moving object. Thus, as velocity increases, time slows down causing further increases in velocity to require increasingly greater amounts of energy. With respect to kinetic energy this is a paradoxical contradiction of Newton’s second and third Laws of motion. Since kinetic energy is a direct function of velocity it would increase at a slower rate along with the velocity increases when at the same time it must increase at an increasingly greater rate along with the energy causing the acceleration. Obviously it cannot do both. Of the two choices, reason and experience support the view that the kinetic energy must always equal the input energy. If we now refer to the classical kinetic energy equation 19, we can see there are only two variables to choose from should we wish to modify the formula to bring it into conformance with the evidence. The choices are, mass and, velocity. Einstein made what appeared to be a reasonable choice at the time and selected mass. If mass increases with velocity, it would explain the observed behavior. This, it will be shown, appears to have been the wrong choice and at very least results in an anomaly that is well hidden in the E = Mc2 equation, but is very apparent in the resulting relativistic kinetic energy equation, K = Mc2 - Moc2. But even more than this, as the analysis continues the evidence builds in favor of the new theory thus challenging the very premises upon which Einstein’s equations are founded. It will be shown now, that neither variable should be modified. This is not to say that the kinetic energy equation itself should not be modified. 7 v Newtonian motion v=c relativistic motion t FIGURE 1 The velocity of a particle starting at rest when a constant force is applied. Referring back to figure 1, and also to equations 12, 15, and 21, (repeated below) it can be seen that equation 21 must be modified in such a manner as to offset the relativistic effect that the motion has on velocity. v ac t` (12) 1 d act `2 2 (15) 1 2 mv t ` 2 k t` (21) That is, if equation 21 is to produce the correct result for kinetic energy, the experienced relativistic effect on velocity must in the mathematical sense, be reversed. The obvious conclusion is that we must factor the velocity by the reciprocal millennium factor, expression 6. If we are right, however, we must also factor the fractional constant, ½, in equations 15 and 21. This conclusion is supported as follows: We can assume from equation 15 that the distance, d, traveled by an object under constant acceleration should = ½ act`2. Referring to equation 12, we can see that this is the same as saying distance ½ vt`. In other words, the distance traveled by an object under constant acceleration should = ½ times the velocity, v, achieved for the interval, t`, during which the acceleration takes place. However, when we study the relativistic motion curve in figure 1, we can see that as velocity increases toward c, there is less and less change in velocity over an interval of time. Stated another way, as velocity increases toward c, the distance traveled by the object approaches vt`, and not ½ vt`. This implies that the constant ½ should increase toward a value of 1. But since at this point, v, is not only near the value of c but, with our first change, its value is being dramatically increased by the millennium factor, the constant 8 ½ must actually be modified to decrease rather than increase in order to compensate and bring the final result into agreement with the evidence that supports relativity. When these changes are properly implemented, the distance will progress toward vt` as correctly assumed while at the same time the resulting kinetic energy equation is a correct equation for all values of v. Proceeding now with the necessary modifications to equation 21, we derive, 1 c 1 c v2 c m v 2 2 c v 2 t ` 2 k , t` (22) which reduces to, k mc 2v 2 c c2 v2 c2 v2 . (23) Kinetic Energy This equation replaces both, the Newtonian and Einstein’s equations for kinetic energy. (see appendix C) With it, and other equations presented in this work, there is no longer a need to differentiate between classical and relativistic physics. For convenience purposes, this new physics will be referred to as millennium physics from this point forward. 5. The New Total Energy Equation If we now add the internal energy term, mc2 to equation 23, we arrive at the millennium equation for total energy that replaces Einstein’s E = Mc2 equation. Thus, where E is the total energy for an object or particle in motion, E mc 2v 2 c c v c v 2 2 2 2 mc 2 , (24) Total Energy produces a correct result for all values of v. In view of these findings, it is no longer appropriate to refer to mass, m, as a rest mass, or for that matter the term, mc2 as the rest energy of an object. As can be seen, mass appears to be unaffected by velocity. (This assumption will be explored further in section 11.) Nonetheless, the present theory is in agreement with the relativistic concept that matter does contain internal energy as defined by the expression, mc2. 9 6. Comparison of the Millennium Equations with the Relativity Equations Under close evaluation it will be seen that the relativity equation for kinetic energy becomes erratic at low values of v. This behavior is apparent at velocities as high as 100,000 km/hr and becomes very noticeable as the velocity drops below 1000 km/hr. It continues to intensify as the velocity drops below 100 km/hr, and at approximately 16-20 km/hr, the equation produces a result of zero. Obviously then, this equation is not reliable at those velocities where most of our experience resides. There we have to rely on the Newtonian equation for accurate results. The Newtonian equation, however, is non-relativistic and therefore losses accuracy as the velocity increases. Subsequently, neither equation provides a good program for analyzing the entire range of velocities. To make matters worse, it is unclear where reliance on the Newtonian equation should end and reliance on the relativity equation should begin. Comparison of Energy Equations 1400 1200 Kinetic Energy 1000 800 Rybczyk Einstein 600 400 200 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Km per hour 35 40 45 50 Figure 2 Comparison of the millennium kinetic energy equation to the special relativity equation. 10 Figure 2 is an actual graph comparing the millennium kinetic energy equation to the relativity equation for velocities below 50 km/hr. At these velocities, and with the 15 decimal place precision used, the millennium curve is indistinguishable from, and therefore synonymous with, the Newtonian curve. Very evident in the graph is the erratic behavior of the relativity equation as previously discussed. Interestingly, analysis of the two total energy equations shows the millennium results to be identical to the relativity results throughout their entire range. The reason for this is simple. At the lower end of the scale, the kinetic energy is insignificant in comparison to the internal energy, mc2 accounted for in the equations. Thus the relativity equation for total energy obscures the fact that the kinetic energy result is erratic at low velocities. Since the internal energy is also a component of the millennium equation, and since it is very significant at low velocities, both, equations will produce the same values for the level of precision used. On the other hand, at the upper end of the scale, the kinetic energy component is the most significant component of both equations. And, as was alluded to earlier, at the higher levels of velocity, the relativity kinetic energy equation becomes increasingly less erratic. Therefore, it is not surprising that both total energy equations produce identical results. 7. The New Momentum and Distance Equations Referring back to equations 16, 20 and 22, (repeated below) it should be remembered that the top of the right side of equation 22 represents momentum over distance traveled. 1 1 ka (mv) act `2 (16) 2 k c 1 ka t` c v2 2 t ` 2 k (20) c m v 2 2 c v t` (22) Therefore we can place the top of right side of equation 22 = to pd, where p is momentum and d is the distance traveled by an object or particle under constant acceleration. 1 pd 1 c c2 v2 c m v 2 2 c v 2 t ` (25) Now we can rearrange the right side of the resulting equation and separate the momentum component from the distance component as follows: 11 c c 1 pd mv v c c 2 v 2 1 c2 v2 2 2 c v t ` (26) By removing the left component on the right side of the equation and placing it equal to p, we obtain the equation for momentum. mvc p c2 v2 Momentum (27) Here Einstein was only partially correct. Although the most apparent difference between the new millennium equation and the older relativity equation is the use of the millennium factor in place of the Lorenz factor, there is a more important difference. In the millennium equation it is the velocity that is operated on by the factor. In Einstein’s equation it is the rest mass that is operated on. This of course is a profound distinction between the two theories and will be discussed further in section 11. If we now take the remaining component from the right side of equation 26 and place it = to d, we have one form of the distance equation for an object under constant acceleration, 1 d 1 v c c c2 v2 t` (28) c2 v2 which simplifies to, d cvt ` c c v 2 2 . (29) Distance based on v and t` Since, v = act`, for an object under constant acceleration, by way of substitution in equation 29, we obtain, 12 d cact `2 c c (act `) 2 2 . (30) Distance based on ac and t` This gives us an alternate form of the equation for distance traveled by an object under constant acceleration. To arrive at an equation that uses constant time t instead of relative time t` we need only to substitute the right side of equation 1 for t` in equation 29. After simplification we arrive at, d vt c 2 v 2 c c v 2 (31) 2 Distance based on v and t This gives us our final form of the millennium equation for the distance traveled by an object under constant acceleration. 8. The New Constant Acceleration Equations Now that we understand how the velocity of an object under constant acceleration is affected by the millennium factor, we can formulate new equations for constant acceleration that do not rely on moving frame time. As stated earlier in section 4, equations such as equations 11 and 12 have limited practical application because of the interdependency between velocity and moving frame time. What we need are equations that use stationary frame time, such as will be developed now. Given the relationships of equations 1 and 11, (repeated below) t ` t c2 v2 c (1) and, v act ` (11) we can substitute the right side of equation 1 for t` in equation 11 to obtain, v act c2 v2 . c If we now solve for the variable v, we obtain, 13 (32) v actc c 2 act 2 (33) Instantaneous Velocity based on ac and t where, v, is the instantaneous velocity of an object or particle under constant acceleration. This is an important equation. By breaking the direct link between v and t` it allows for the type of analysis given in the addendum. Such analysis not only allows us to verify the many assumptions of the presented theory, but also permits a direct comparison of the new kinetic and total energy equations to those of special relativity over an unlimited range of masses, velocities, and acceleration rates. Many such analyses were used to verify the validity of all of the assumptions presented in this work. If we now solve equation 33 for the variable ac we arrive at its variation for finding constant acceleration that also does not rely on moving frame time. ac vc t c v 2 (34) 2 Constant Acceleration based on v and t It should be noted that equations 33 and 34 do not invalidate equations 11 and 12. They are simply the respective constant time equivalents of those two equations. It should also be noted that in regard to the millennium transformation factor it should normally not matter how velocity v is arrived at. That is, it is not normally necessary to make a distinction between the velocity of uniform motion and the instantaneous velocity arrived at through constant or relative acceleration. Uniform motion is after all, the final result of acceleration. 9. Consistency with Newton’s Second Law of Motion According to Newton’s second law of motion, where F is the applied force, the relationship between force and the acceleration of an object or particle is given by, F ma, (35) while according to the present theory, ac taken from equation 12, and ar taken from equation 14, are expressed as, ac v t` ar (12) 14 v t (14) The question is, which form of acceleration, ac or ar is intended by Newton’s force equation? Most, if not all, textbooks, even those of a higher level intended for scientists and engineers do not make a distinction here. The practice has been to use the classical version of equation 14 even when constant acceleration is explicitly stated. This is because at Newtonian levels of velocity, t and t` have essentially the same value. On the other hand in disciplines such as particle physics or theoretical physics where such distinction is necessary, an appropriate switch is made to relativistic physics. In millennium physics it is recommended that the appropriate form be used at all times. This permits the investigation of physical phenomena throughout the entire spectrum of velocities and acceleration rates without concern about which branch of physics is appropriate. Continuing now, for constant acceleration, by way of substitution we can then state that, F mac (36) and, v F m . t` (37) Constant Force Since it is found through mathematical modeling on a computer that v/t` is indeed a constant, this relationship between force, mass, and acceleration is consistent with the present theory. In accordance with the present theory, an object under constant acceleration does not experience an increase in mass. Thus, if the acceleration is constant, and the mass is constant, the applied force is constant. Because of time expansion, however, it does require greater amounts of energy than can be attributed to velocity alone to maintain a constant force on an object undergoing significant acceleration. In other words, a small amount of energy, in a frame of reference that is moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light, is equal to a large amount of energy, as defined by the energy equations, in the stationary frame of reference. This is a phenomenon of which there are countless analogies in everyday life, involving only Newtonian physics. Consider for example a bullet fired from a gun. If you are in the frame of reference in which the gun was fired and tried to stop the bullet with your hand, you couldn’t because of its large amount of kinetic energy. Yet, if you were moving ahead of the bullet at, say, one kilometer per hour faster than the bullet, you would have no trouble at all of stopping it. That is, in your frame of reference the bullet has very little kinetic energy. Relativistic effects on energy are nothing more than an extension of this principle. The only thing that makes it appear strange is that we are approaching light speed, the standard of measure by which time itself is gauged. This causes time to slow down, which in turn causes required energy increases, to maintain a constant rate of acceleration, to be greater than that predicted by the classical principles of Newtonian physics. In view of these findings, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the new acceleration equations 11 through 14 are worthy of elevation to the status, “laws of acceleration.” This recommendation was the subject of a paper subsequent to the original version of this revised work. 10. The Connection Between Inertia and Gravity In accordance with Newton’s first law of motion: An object at rest tends to remain at rest, and an object in motion tends to continue in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force. This property of matter that causes it to resist any change of its motion in either 15 direction or speed is referred to as inertia, which is in turn used to define mass. It will now be shown that such property can be expressed mathematically. Thus, where Ir is the rest inertia of an object or particle and m is its mass we can state, I r m. (38) Rest Inertia This simple acknowledgement that Newton’s first law actual refers to the rest inertia of the object or particle in question allows us to establish the relationship between inertia and gravity, or inertial force and gravitational force. If we now combine this formula for rest inertia with one that defines motion inertia, we will have a complete formula for inertia. As it is, formulas for motion inertia already exist. They are the momentum formulas 7 and 27. Such formulas express Newton’s first law with respect only to the contribution that motion has on inertia. Whereas the rest inertia is always a factor regarding total inertia, momentum is a factor only when motion is involved, but it is by far the most prominent factor even at relatively low velocities. Thus where I is the total inertia, the complete formula for inertia is, I I r p. (39) Total Inertia By substituting the right sides of equations 38 and 7 for Ir and p respectively, we obtain, I m mv (40) giving, I m(v 1) (41) for what could be called the classical version of the formula. We can derive the relativistic form of the formula by using equation 27 instead of equation 7 for p in the above substitution. Thus we obtain, I m mvc c v 2 2 (42) giving, vc I m 1 2 2 c v (43) Total Inertia for the relativistic form of the formula. Now we are ready to establish the relationship between inertia and gravity. Where g is the acceleration of gravity, G is the gravitational constant 6.6720·10-11, and r is the distance to the center of gravity, the Newtonian formula for gravity is, 16 g G m . r2 (44) If we now solve the two inertia equations, 41 and 43, and the above gravity equation for the variable m, we get respectively, m I v 1 m (45) I vc 1 c2 v2 (46) m gr 2 G (47) If we then place the right side of the inertia equation, 45 equal to the right side of the gravity equation, 47 and solve the resulting equation, first for g and then for I, we obtain, g G I 2 r v 1 Ig (48) r 2 v 1 . G (49) This gives us the classical formulas that relate inertia to gravity. To gain confidence in the correctness of these two formulas we need simply to substitute the right side of equation 41, in place of I in equation 48. Since equation 41 is, I = m(v + 1) it should be obvious that the terms, (v + 1) will cancel and we will end up with the equation for gravity (44) originally given. Doing similar, using the right side of the relativistic inertia equation, 46 with the right side of the gravity equation 47 and solving first for g and then for I, we obtain, g G I vc 1 r 2 2 2 c v (50) vc r 2 1 c2 v2 . Ig G (51) Gravity and Inertia for the relativistic form of the equations that relate inertia to gravity. Since we know that classical formulas are not completely valid it is the relativistic formulas, 43, 50, and 51 that we are most concerned with. As before, if we substitute the right side of equation 43 in place of I in equation 50, the terms enclosed in brackets will cancel and we will again end up with the equation (44) originally given for gravity. This proves that the values we initially assigned to inertia are not only consistent with Newton’s laws of motion, but are also consistent with his universal law of gravitation. 17 The analysis just completed will be used in the following section as one of the proofs that mass does not increase as a result of motion. 11. The Mathematical Proofs Proof 1. Where k is kinetic energy, p is momentum, d is the distance through which ac acts, and t` is the time interval, the formula for kinetic energy can be expressed as, k pd . t` (52) Kinetic Energy For analysis purposes this equation can be expressed in its expanded form as, 1 c c mv v c c2 v2 c 2 v 2 1 2 2 c v k t` t ` (53) Since this equation produces the same results as Einstein’s equation for kinetic energy it is not unreasonable to claim that it is supported by the same evidence that supports the latter equation. For similar reasons, it can be further claimed that the momentum component of this equation is also supported by the evidence. With this in mind, if we now examine the composition of this equation we can draw certain conclusions from it. 1. If the momentum component is valid and the overall equation is valid, it is then reasonable to assume that the distance component is also valid. 2. Since there is no mass element m in the distance component, and since the interval t` element disappears when the equation is simplified, there can be no question as to the fact that the millennium factor operates on the velocity element v in this component of the equation. 3. In view of the above observations one is then left to explain by what rationale do we wish to claim that the millennium factor in the momentum component is operating on the mass m element and not the velocity v element in that component? In plain words, why should velocity be treated differently in one component as opposed to the other? 18 4. It could be argued that since t` remains an element of the distance formula when it is used separately, it is actual t` that is operated on in this component of the kinetic energy equation. That is, it is only an illusion that it is the velocity operated on when t` cancels out of this component in the kinetic energy equation. However, if that is the case then the distance formula is converted to a constant time formula as shown in equation 54 below: 1 d 1 vt c (54) c2 v2 That is, t` acted upon in such manner is converted to t as shown by equation 2 (repeated below): t t` c c v2 2 (2) However, although equation 54 is correct in the mathematical sense, it is exactly that, a conversion. Equation 54 does not truly represent the physical laws of Nature any more than Newton’s laws do when constant time is used in place of relative time. It is simply a conversion for purposes of mathematical convenience like all of the other conversions given here. Although, unlike Newton’s laws, the conversion given here is correct for all velocities, like Newton’s laws it misleads us, and thus does not accurately portray the physical laws of Nature. It has been shown throughout this work that only relative time t` is truly correct whenever relative motion and its associated relationships are defined. Proof 2. In the analysis on inertia and gravity in section 10, it was shown that the results fundamentally agree with Newton’s laws of motion and his law of universal gravitation. Yet the analysis clearly shows that gravity is unaffected by relative motion. It is reasonable to conclude therefore that Einstein’s theory involving the effect velocity has on mass is invalid. In Einstein’s relativity, mass and energy are seen to be interchangeable in recognition of the apparent effect velocity has on mass. But if mass represents a given quantity of matter then such assumption means that matter increases as a result of relative motion. And if matter increases, so must its gravity. The validity of such assumption was found to be false in the inertia, gravity analysis. Perhaps one of the reasons the effect motion has on velocity was overlooked in favor of an effect on mass is because of the apparent interdependency velocity has on itself when the transformation factor is applied to velocity instead of mass. That is, velocity is represented within the transformation factor. This is another of the problematic circular dependencies discussed earlier in this paper. In this case the 19 problem is not so much one involving the functionality of the math, but rather one involving comprehension. As it turns out, this problem is easily remedied. For that matter, the transformation factors used to this point appear to be nothing more than a misleading form of the true transformation factors involved. This problem is further discussed and resolved in the next section. 12. Acceleration Based Time Transformation Formulas Once the fundamentals of relativistic behavior are sufficiently understood, the following order of simultaneously occurring phenomena seems to be self-evident: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Energy is required in application of force. Force causes acceleration. Acceleration causes time to slow down. The slowing of time reduces the rise in velocity, and thus the rate of acceleration. A reduction in the rate of acceleration implies a reduction in the magnitude of the force. An increase in energy is therefore needed to maintain the force and thus the acceleration. Apparent in the above analysis is the fact that acceleration and not velocity causes time to slow down. It is also apparent then, and rather obvious, that the slowing of time requires the use of energy whereas, in the absence of an outside force, uniform motion does not. Since any velocity, however, is actually the instantaneous velocity resulting from acceleration, its use in the transformation factor though possibly misleading is nonetheless correct. Nevertheless, it could be of benefit to develop transformation factors that use the rate of acceleration over an interval of time instead of the velocity achieved during the interval. Such development may be accomplished as follows: By taking the right sides of the velocity equations 11 and 32 and placing them equal to each other we obtain, act ` act c2 v2 . c (55) Since v = act`, (equation 11) we can substitute the right side of this equation for v in the above equation to arrive at, act ` act c 2 (act `) 2 . c (56) If we solve equation 56, first for t` and then for t we obtain the following two equations for time transformation: 20 c t ` t c 2 (act ) 2 (57) and, t t` c c 2 (act `)2 (58) Acceleration Based Time Transformation Thus, for finding relative time t` we have equation 57, and for finding constant time t we have equation 58. (Note the change of signs.) These of course could also have been arrived at by substituting act` for v in equation 2 at the beginning of this paper. From equations 57 and 58 above we can deduce the following new transformation factors that do not directly rely on velocity: (I.e., the two factors used above and their reciprocals) c c (act ) 2 2 (59) and, c 2 (act `) 2 c (60) Stationary Frame to Moving Frame Transformations (61) and, c 2 (act ) 2 c (62) Moving Frame to Stationary Frame Transformations c c (act `) 2 2 It should be noted that because the time variables t and t` are included in these four factors, only two, 59 and 60, are useful for time transformation. 13. The Contradictions of Special Relativity It is well known that the controversy over special relativity has never ended. Although many of the arguments against it may be flawed in the scientific sense they are often correct in the logical sense. The problem with special relativity is that contrary to scientific claims there are no true cornerstones in it. Everything is dependent on everything else. From the purely scientific line of reasoning this may appear to make sense because after all, all things are relative. But this line of reasoning is actually in itself scientifically unreasonable. With it we are led down a road of endless contradictions. It appears that there are absolutes in the universe after all. It is just that these absolutes are different than we originally assumed. The existence of matter, for example is absolute, and if mass is a true measure of a quantity of matter, then the true mass is also absolute. Whereas all things do appear to have a relative value they also have an absolute, or constant value. For example, if a second of constant time in one frame of reference is the measure of a certain amount of atomic activity in that frame, then under identical conditions, that same amount of identical atomic activity represents a second of constant time in any other frame of reference. This is the absolute value of time. Relative time, on the other hand, is simply the relative value of absolute time in one reference frame to the absolute time in another reference frame. The same is true of mass. If mass represents a given quantity of matter in one reference frame, then under identical conditions it represents the exact same quantity of matter in any other reference frame. This then is the absolute value of mass. 21 In the presented theory the contradictions of special relativity do not arise because there is an acceptance of absolutes. Matter and energy are absolutes and are not interchangeable with each other. Such are the cases with the momentum and kinetic energy associated with matter. Matter has physical existence and energy does not. Since energy has no physical existence, it can only be measured indirectly by its effects on matter. If energy had physical existence it should be measurable directly. For example, we should be able to measure potential and kinetic energy without regard for the matter that is causing it. The opposite is actually true. We can determine energy only by measuring the effects it has on matter. Force as treated in general relativity is yet another enigma we have to deal with. In the case of inertia, it is regarded as a fictitious force, or fictitious representation of gravitational force. But then at the same time, gravitational force is shown not to be a real force at all. Space curves around massive objects or bodies of matter. So we are left with a fictitious representation of something that does not truly exist. While it is true that force does not exist in the physical sense, it does indeed exist. Like energy it is actually a measured of an effect on mass and is not directly measurable independent of those effects. Gravitational force, for example, is a measure of the effect gravity has on matter. And gravity, although we little understand it, does in fact exist. The evidence to that effect is overwhelming, yet for some reason we feel compelled to disprove it. Objects enter into orbit, naturally only by chance, or when accomplished by man, only with a great deal of effort. It also takes effort to remove an object from orbit. But it takes no intervention on our part whatsoever for an object to fall to earth. Does this sound like curve space influencing the outcome? No, it is gravity doing exactly what it does, and whether we understand it or not, it does in one manner or another exist. 14. Conclusion The evidence presented here strongly supports the view that mass is not affected by acceleration. The evidence shows convincingly that only those things that are a function of time are affected by the slowing of time. This includes velocity and acceleration. Mass is a function of the quantity of matter contained in an object, and this quantity is not a function of time. These conclusions are not only sensible and logical, but they appear to be self-evident. Time and distance (space), however, have no physical presence and it appears equally self-evident that their quantitative values are interdependent on the activity (motion) of the matter upon which they are referenced to. Even here, it appears that only the variance of time is a real fact of Nature. It was pointed out in the millennium theory of relativity that the shrinking of distance is not a real effect but rather a perspective effect related to the slowing of time. Thus it appears that even distances have constant, or absolute values in addition to relative values. Whereas gravity appears to be unaffected by inertia it is itself a force that causes acceleration. And since acceleration causes time to slow down it is equally apparent that gravity indirectly affects the relative nature of time. This relationship between gravity, acceleration and relative time are worthy of further exploration in a future work. Of equal importance here, is the direct link established between the present theory and the millennium theory of relativity. This connection was established throughout the analysis and provides strong supporting evidence as to the validity of both theories. Also of importance here is unifying role that time variance plays in both theories. This suggests that time may be the unifying element of all physical science. 22 Appendix A. For the purpose of this paper mass is defined as an absolute quantitative measure of matter. Mass is detectable through either its gravitational, or inertial force which have been conveniently set equal to each other at the earth’s surface by use of the gravitational constant G. To be useful as a quantitative measure, however, it is recognized that apparent changes of mass due to changes in velocity or gravitational field must be taken into account. Thus it is recognized that even on earth, variances of the gravitational field or the experience of g forces imposed by acceleration cause only an apparent change of mass, and not a real change. True mass in the sense meant here is that which is experienced in an isolated system outside of any gravitational field. In such a system it is the inertial resistance such mass offers to acceleration. B. In the millennium theory of relativity it is shown that the millennium factor is directly derived from the evidence. By use of the same evidence the Lorentz factor can also be arrive at but requires more mathematical steps. Thus, the Lorentz factor and its reciprocal are simply another form of the millennium factor and its respective reciprocal. If one wishes to go through the exercise, the Lorentz factors can be used in place of the millennium factors throughout the analysis including in equation 22. After simplification, the resulting equation will be unchanged from that given as equation 23. C. Although equation 23 may appear a bit more complicated then the special relativity counterpart, one is reminded that K = Mc2 - Moc2 is really an abbreviated form of, K M oc 2 1 2 v c2 M oc 2 . Similar is true for the special relativity total energy equation, E = Mc2 which in the unabbreviated form is, E M oc 2 v2 1 2 c . Note: This is an MSWord Office 2000 document. MSWord must be in the print layout view to view equations, figures 1 and 2, and the addendum. The addendum was copied over from a Mathcad file to show the method used in verifying mathematical results. 23 Addendum Addendum - Time and Energy, Inertia and Gravity - J. Rybczyk - February 14, 2002 c 299792458 c . .00000000001732 ac a c. t. c v c 2 v 100000000000 = 0.866019052628739 v . 60 c t. t1 c 2 a c.t t 2 mo v t 1 = 5 10 c kn 1. 2 n = Newton, r = Rybczyk, e = Einstein 2 m o.v 2 2 m. c . v kr 2 c. c ke k n = 3.370282486553152 v m o.c c 2 v 10 kr 19 k r = 8.98715633073946 10 k e = 8.98715633073946 10 c kr 19 2 ke 2 ke =1 = 2.666588443727394 kn Total energy 2 2 m. c . v Er c. c = 2.666588443727394 kn 2 2 m o.c 10 19 2 v 1 2 mo Note: t 1 used in place of t` due to s/w program unreliability in handling variables with prime designators. km/hr 1000 kinetic energy m 2 2 = 934653529.6646437 1000 2 v 2 m. c c 2 v 2 2 m o.c Ee 2 1 v c E r = 1.797470811810764 10 20 Er 2 E e = 1.797470811810764 2 10 =1 Ee 20 Momentum m. v . c p r c 2 p r = 5.192 10 v p e 11 m o.v 2 1 p e = 5.192 10 v 2 c 2 11 p r =1 p e Distance from acceleration c.v .t 1 d 1 c c 2 2 c.a c.t 1 d 2 v 2 c Distance from uniform motion. c d u 2 a c.t 1 v.t d 3 2 d u = 2.596 10 v . t. c 2 c 2 c 19 Constant acceleration v 1 a c.t 1 c 2 a c.t 2 2 v 2 d 1 = 8.654 10 v 1 = 2.596 10 8 v 2 = 2.596 10 8 a c1 18 d 3 = 8.654 10 18 a c2 v 1 t1 2 t. c 24 a c1 = 0.005 v.c a c2 = 0.005 v 2 18 d 2 = 8.654 10 a c = 0.005 a c. t. c v 2 v Relative acceleration v ar v r a r. t t v r = 2.596 10 m = 1 10 8 a r = 0.003 3 Constant force m. a c F1 F 1 = 5.192 F2 v m. t1 F1 F 2 = 5.192 =1 F2 Inertia and Gravity Ir m I1 Ir pr v.c m. I2 c G g1 6.6720 . 10 11 r m G. 2 r 2 1 v 2 14 I3 c g 2. 2 I 2 = 5.192 10 11 I2 G. g2 I1 =1 I2 2 r . 2 14 g 2 = 6.672 10 v.c c 2 r . 11 1000 g 1 = 6.672 10 v.c I 1 = 5.192 10 1 v 2 1 v 2 I 3 = 5.192 10 G I2 11 g2 =1 I3 =1 g1 Transformation factors e1 1 v c 2 2 1 c r3 c 2 1 e2 2 c 2 c r1 2 v c c c 2 a c.t 1 c 2 r5 2 a c. t 1 2 c r6 c e 1 = 0.5 r 1 = 0.5 r 3 = 0.5 r 5 = 0.5 e2=2 r2 =2 r4 =2 r6 =2 e1 =1 r1 e2 r2 e1 e1 =1 r3 =1 c r2 2 2 v 2 c r4 a c.t v 2 e2 r4 e2 r6 25 a c.t c = 1.000000000000001 r5 = 0.999999999999999 2 =1 2 REFERENCES 1 Isaac Newton, The Principia, (1687) as presented in Physics for Scientists and Engineers, second addition, (Ginn Press, MA, 1990) and Exploration of the Universe, third edition, (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NY, 1975) 2 Albert Einstein, Special Theory of Relativity, (1905) as presented in Physics for Scientists and Engineers, second addition, (Ginn Press, MA, 1990) and Exploration of the Universe, third edition, (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NY, 1975) 3 Joseph Rybczyk, Millennium Theory of Relativity, Unpublished Work, (2001) Time and Energy, Inertia and Gravity Copyright © 2002 Joseph A. Rybczyk All rights reserved including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form without permission. Note: If this document was accessed directly during a search, you can visit the Millennium Relativity web site by clicking on the Home link below: Home 26