Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by Chan Rasjid » Sat Dec 20, 2014 7:16 am

Hello,

Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid. When the next fundamental breakthrough in physics come, there would not be any way to accommodate Einstein's relativity theories - they had to be completely discarded. When that would happen is anybody's guess. In 50 - 100 years ?

I have uploaded some short articles to vixra.org that refute Einstein's relativity theories.

The Lorentz transformation fails Special Relativity (5 pages):
http://viXra.org/abs/1408.0077

Abstract:
The Special Theory of Relativity falls by the Lorentz transformation, the very foundation on which the theory rests. The application of the Lorentz transformation does not naturally give rise to projections in spacetime where the space coordinates still retain any relevance to the usual physical real length; the dilated time too may have no relevance to real time. The conclusion is that the Special Theory of Relativity is just an abstract mathematical model and not a theory in physics; it has no relevance to our physical world. As such, all empirical and experimental evidence that purportedly validate the theory become void and meaningless.

General Relativity Unequivocally Repudiated (4 pages with no mathematics):
http://vixra.org/abs/1311.0123

Abstract :The argument is given here that absolute time is a principle of our physical world. Any physical theory that violates this principle would be found to be invalid. So it is not surprising that special relativity is trivially repudiated by the Dingle observation. General relativity predicts gravitational time dilation. There have been claims of it being verified with cesium clocks - but it is no verification. Gravitational time dilation is unverifiable and it is only an internal logical contradiction of a theory. The argument is made that a physical theory is acceptable only if it is found to be valid for all clock-time type. Newtonian mechanics is clearly valid whether it is with pendulum-clock time or cesium-clock time; not a single failure was ever found. But general relativity's gravitational time dilation prediction is clearly contradicted with pendulum-clock time. It is presented here that the refutation of general relativity based on this contradiction is clearly founded on sound scientific principles and rigorous scientific reasoning.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by Chan Rasjid » Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:11 am

The Lorentz transformation cannot be the correct physical co-ordinate transformation.

The Lorentz transformation is what is called in mathematics a linear transformation and mathematics is the study of abstract systems and their constructs. Special relativity is basically the Lorentz transformation from which length contraction and time dilation for moving frames are deduced.

The event points in the domain R⁴ are mapped into the image points in another space R⁴ of the moving reference frame. The co-ordinates of E(x,y,z,t) and E'(x',y'z',t') are just basically real numbers, pure scalars by themselves; only through some acceptable manner could the scalars be associated with the standard units of quantities used in physics.

For a stationary observer frame A by itself, we could easily associate any event E(x,y,z,t) with real positions measurable through standard rods and standard clocks in the classical manner; it has always been done without any controversy. So any such events E may be termed real events. When the Lorentz transformation is invoked, we have :
LT : E(x,y,z,t) -> E'(x',y',z',t') ; E ∈ A, E' ∈ B

E is a real event in A through association with real rods and clocks; but that cannot be said about E' until we could make acceptable associations; before that, the co-ordinates of E' are still pure scalars. In fact the co-ordinates of E', when it is only an event which is the image under the Lorentz transformation, are only pure scalars; they cannot be associated in any manner with the measuring rods and clocks used in A.

The inertial frame B in itself, of course, is in all manner equivalent to frame A; real space co-ordinates and real time may be measured in B. But the projections of real events in A to B may not be naturally associated with real events in B. There is no natural principle that mathematical linear transformations also carry over associations of scalars with real quantities from the domain to the image.

In special relativity, it is routinely assumed (no question was asked) that x', y', z' are also, somehow, in meter and time t' is second - but they are not! They are only pure scalars without physical unit. So whenever such scalars are used in calculations which require real quantities, the calculations would all be meaningless.

Special relativity is only a mathematical model. It is not a theory in physics; it has nothing at all to do with physics which is about the real physical world. As such, there cannot be any empirical verification of special relativity as a theory.


Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by Chan Rasjid » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:25 am

The Lorentz transformation cannot be physical. What it means is that nature cannot be Lorentz invariant; nature can only be Galilean invariant.

Any theory that is Lorentz invariant would be invalid - this would not only be Einstein's special and general relativity theories, but also the very foundation of electromagnetism - the Maxwell's equations.

It seems electromagnetism needs a fundamental rewrite so that it is Galilean invariant.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

saul
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by saul » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:08 pm

Chan Rasjid wrote:The Lorentz transformation cannot be physical. What it means is that nature cannot be Lorentz invariant; nature can only be Galilean invariant.

Any theory that is Lorentz invariant would be invalid - this would not only be Einstein's special and general relativity theories, but also the very foundation of electromagnetism - the Maxwell's equations.

It seems electromagnetism needs a fundamental rewrite so that it is Galilean invariant.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.
How do you intend on defining the meter and second? Distance is electromagnetic because we are electromagnetic in body and mind; solid meter sticks are held together with electromagnetics. Physical systems build with electric forces are Lorentz invariant. I see no reason to claim it is "unphysical".

Cheers -- saul

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by Chan Rasjid » Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:21 am

saul wrote:
Chan Rasjid wrote:The Lorentz transformation cannot be physical. What it means is that nature cannot be Lorentz invariant; nature can only be Galilean invariant.

Any theory that is Lorentz invariant would be invalid - this would not only be Einstein's special and general relativity theories, but also the very foundation of electromagnetism - the Maxwell's equations.

It seems electromagnetism needs a fundamental rewrite so that it is Galilean invariant.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.
How do you intend on defining the meter and second? Distance is electromagnetic because we are electromagnetic in body and mind; solid meter sticks are held together with electromagnetics. Physical systems build with electric forces are Lorentz invariant. I see no reason to claim it is "unphysical".

Cheers -- saul
Hello Saul,

That the electric force is Lorentz invariant is only true in the current electromagnetic theories. But our definition of the mass, meter and seconds need not rely on any theory of electromagnetism. We only need to postulate the same first postulate of special relativity:
"The laws of physics are the same in all inertia frames."
I cannot give a reason why the principle is good; it just seems reasonable otherwise there would not be coherency in building physics theories quantitatively.

The current SI definition would do. The second is defined. The meter is defined with respect to the distance covered by light in an interval of time. For length, even a standard solid rod would do. We define mass with respect to the mass of the Carbon 12 atom; Then length may be the rod of a pure graphite crystalline uniform rod of a certain mass, with a specified dimension ratio between cross-section area and length - then this length of the rod is the standard of length.

So we can have universal definitions of mass, length and time reproducible throughout the universe.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.
Singapore.

saul
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by saul » Wed Jan 28, 2015 6:44 pm

Chan Rasjid wrote:
saul wrote:
Chan Rasjid wrote:The Lorentz transformation cannot be physical. What it means is that nature cannot be Lorentz invariant; nature can only be Galilean invariant.

Any theory that is Lorentz invariant would be invalid - this would not only be Einstein's special and general relativity theories, but also the very foundation of electromagnetism - the Maxwell's equations.

It seems electromagnetism needs a fundamental rewrite so that it is Galilean invariant.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.
How do you intend on defining the meter and second? Distance is electromagnetic because we are electromagnetic in body and mind; solid meter sticks are held together with electromagnetics. Physical systems build with electric forces are Lorentz invariant. I see no reason to claim it is "unphysical".

Cheers -- saul
Hello Saul,

That the electric force is Lorentz invariant is only true in the current electromagnetic theories. But our definition of the mass, meter and seconds need not rely on any theory of electromagnetism. We only need to postulate the same first postulate of special relativity:
"The laws of physics are the same in all inertia frames."
I cannot give a reason why the principle is good; it just seems reasonable otherwise there would not be coherency in building physics theories quantitatively.

The current SI definition would do. The second is defined. The meter is defined with respect to the distance covered by light in an interval of time. For length, even a standard solid rod would do. We define mass with respect to the mass of the Carbon 12 atom; Then length may be the rod of a pure graphite crystalline uniform rod of a certain mass, with a specified dimension ratio between cross-section area and length - then this length of the rod is the standard of length.

So we can have universal definitions of mass, length and time reproducible throughout the universe.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.
Singapore.
Hi Chan thanks for your reply. The "current SI definition" and all the definitions you have eluded to for meters and seconds are electromagnetic in nature. Light is electromagnetic radiation. Crystalline graphite consists of nuclei and electrons held in place by electrostatic forces. That is why Lorentz invariance (a.k.a. special relativity) applies with respect to these quantities. We have defined it as such from the start.
Special relativity is a protocol allows us to describe space and time coordinates which are defined using properties of electromagnetism.

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by Chan Rasjid » Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:03 am

saul wrote: Hi Chan thanks for your reply. The "current SI definition" and all the definitions you have eluded to for meters and seconds are electromagnetic in nature. Light is electromagnetic radiation. Crystalline graphite consists of nuclei and electrons held in place by electrostatic forces. That is why Lorentz invariance (a.k.a. special relativity) applies with respect to these quantities. We have defined it as such from the start.

Special relativity is a protocol allows us to describe space and time coordinates which are defined using properties of electromagnetism.
Hello Saul,

The characteristics of a good standard of units includes consistency and reproducibility. There is no need for any physics theory as a basis to support the standard of units. It does not matter if we have a theory of electromagnetism or Maxwell's equations; it is empirical consistency that matters. We can even assume we are in a weird age of Atlantis; we are exceptionally brilliant in conducting experiments, but dumb in theory.

When crystalline carbon graphite standard rods are produced and they happen to have a high degree of precision, then it is taken to be a good standard for length. The physics that cause the consistency does not matter. For it to be a universal standard, we just have to assume that the same standard is unchanging throughout the universe.

You would probably argue that we now know the theory behind how the standards come about - but that they are all electromagnetic and Lorentz invariant; that they have been designed in the first place following the protocol of special relativity.

But the Lorentz transformation is shown to deform the units of length and time so that they would not be compatible and consistent with the universal standards which are reproducible throughout the universe. It is this contradiction that makes the Lorentz transformation as just another abstract mathematical construct; it is invalid as a co-ordinate transformation for the study of mechanics of motion.

So, not only are Einstein's special and general relativity theory invalid, Maxwell's equations too are invalid.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.
Singapore.

saul
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by saul » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:59 am

Chan Rasjid wrote:
When crystalline carbon graphite standard rods are produced and they happen to have a high degree of precision, then it is taken to be a good standard for length. The physics that cause the consistency does not matter. For it to be a universal standard, we just have to assume that the same standard is unchanging throughout the universe.
If you take your graphite rod and put it different conditions it will of course change. An obvious example is if you heat it. A less obvious example is moving it closer to a massive object or applying an acceleration. Because we have explicitly defined it as 1 meter, as we move with the bar it is always 1 meter. However, somebody else who has not moved with us to the massive object or to our new velocity will see a bar that is no longer the same length as their 1 meter bar.

But the Lorentz transformation is shown to deform the units of length and time so that they would not be compatible and consistent with the universal standards which are reproducible throughout the universe. It is this contradiction that makes the Lorentz transformation as just another abstract mathematical construct; it is invalid as a co-ordinate transformation for the study of mechanics of motion.

So, not only are Einstein's special and general relativity theory invalid, Maxwell's equations too are invalid.
Let me try an analogy to your claim, my apologies as it is not perfect. Suppose I told you that RFC 791 is invalid. This is the protocol that specifies IPv4. Suppose I tell you that internet addresses are not four 32 bit numbers. Well, then what are internet addresses? If you have an IPv6 to replace the protocol with and can argue a reason to use it, then maybe we will pay attention. In this case you are probably not going to use language that RFC 791 is "wrong" or "invalid", but rather that you prefer to use another RFC for various reasons.

My point is that a protocol is not "wrong", it is simply one way to do things which has various advantages or disadvantages over another way. In the case of Maxwell's equations and special relativity we have a protocol for defining distance and time along with electric and magnetic fields. This protocol is internally consistent and used by everyone. Perhaps we can do better?


Cheers - saul

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by Chan Rasjid » Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:28 am

saul wrote:
Chan Rasjid wrote:
When crystalline carbon graphite standard rods are produced and they happen to have a high degree of precision, then it is taken to be a good standard for length. The physics that cause the consistency does not matter. For it to be a universal standard, we just have to assume that the same standard is unchanging throughout the universe.
If you take your graphite rod and put it different conditions it will of course change. An obvious example is if you heat it. A less obvious example is moving it closer to a massive object or applying an acceleration. Because we have explicitly defined it as 1 meter, as we move with the bar it is always 1 meter. However, somebody else who has not moved with us to the massive object or to our new velocity will see a bar that is no longer the same length as their 1 meter bar.
...
...
My point is that a protocol is not "wrong", it is simply one way to do things which has various advantages or disadvantages over another way. In the case of Maxwell's equations and special relativity we have a protocol for defining distance and time along with electric and magnetic fields. This protocol is internally consistent and used by everyone. Perhaps we can do better?

Cheers - saul
Hello Saul,

My article:
"The Lorentz transformation cannot be physical"
http://vixra.org/abs/1501.0156

Quote of a section:
Time Dilation of Special Relativity

The simple derivation of time dilation, which is a consequence of the Lorentz transformation, shows why it is wrong.

We assume A is the stationary frame as well as its own clock as event A(x,y,z,t); B moving with uniform linear motion with its own moving clock as event B(x',y',z',t')
The Lorentz transformation for time is:

t'=γ(t-vx/c²)
where γ=1/√(1 - v²/c²), (assume γ=10.0) .

The usual differential relation is :
Δt' = γΔt --- (1)

What (1) means is that the value of a clock tick in frame A as measured in frame B (the observer B stationary in B) is Δt' under the Lorentz transformation as required in special relativity. But this clock tick Δt' is larger (or dilated) as compared to Δt by a factor of 10.0 - the so called time dilation as found in special relativity.

We take the principle of relativity (a reasonable assumption) to be correct:

The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames

From this principle, a universal clock tick reproducible throughout the universe may be defined - all clocks have the same tick size (we may still follow the SI Cesium 133 standard). We could standardize clock ticks throughout the universe.

So what we have is that a stationary observer in B reading its own clock reads a universal tick of size Δt, the same undilated size, not the dilated size! But the size of the tick of clock A (now the moving clock relative to B) as measured in frame B is now the dilated size of Δt'; it is this value, Δt'=10 Δt, that gives rise to the supposed time dilation of special relativity.

But there is no natural principle that allow us to associate Δt' with anything physical - the Lorentz transformation only transforms pure scalars from A to pure scalars in B; Δt' is just a pure scalar that has yet to be associated with anything physical. But for frame B, the only possible physical measurement of a clock tick size is the one and only universal clock tick size Δt; so the value Δt' has no known association with anything physical - it is not a dilated clock tick equal to 10 Δt seconds! So time dilation of special relativity is only a fictitious phenomenon of motion arrived at only through a purely mathematical construct.

Also, the argument above is about time, not about clocks; only through agreement on using standard clocks to measure time would it be possible to build any coherent quantitative theory involving time as a variable. So what special relativity would have us believe is that time is relative - time runs differently depending on motion.

Of course, time dilation is patently silly. Anyone would have seen that there is reciprocity in the above argument; the roles of A and B could easily be reversed as the Lorentz transformation is symmetrical. This is basically what Herbert Dingle pointed out when he asked:

"Which of the two clocks runs slow ?".

None wanted to answer him. In the twins paradox, the only clock tick that is physical could only be the one and only universal clock tick that all clocks would observe and the astronaut twin would arrive home no younger that his earth-bound twin brother.

Quote Ends.

Saul, maybe you can let me know why the Δt' = 10.0 Δt is also in unit "seconds". Also under what standard of units is it some amount of "seconds".

Under Galilean relativity, there is no issue as there is no deformation of the units of length; the image under the Galilean transformation may also be the same SI meter - trivially.

According to your manner of argument, even your "special relativity...Maxwell's electromagnetism" being the "protocol" will also not work! You don't allow any way to set any determinate standard of units. You would even invoke being near massive matter, blackholes, uneven aether field strengths, inhomogeneous age of the universe, etc, that would cause the standard rod not keeping its 1 meter length. Even if the Δt' = 10.0 Δt is in seconds, how can we be sure that it is the same seconds as we may be nearing a blackhole. So your relativistic time dilation does not obey any determinate formula - it may be Δt' = 8.8 Δt seconds or Δt' = 12.3 Δt seconds (despite γ = 10.0). There is no way you could offer to formulate any well defined and determinate "Special Theory of Relativity".

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.
Singapore.

saul
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by saul » Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:09 pm

Chan Rasjid wrote:
Saul, maybe you can let me know why the Δt' = 10.0 Δt is also in unit "seconds". Also under what standard of units is it some amount of "seconds".

Under Galilean relativity, there is no issue as there is no deformation of the units of length; the image under the Galilean transformation may also be the same SI meter - trivially.

According to your manner of argument, even your "special relativity...Maxwell's electromagnetism" being the "protocol" will also not work! You don't allow any way to set any determinate standard of units.

Hi Chan -

Lets start simple again :) Do you believe that two clocks in relative motion will tick at the same rate?

Cheers --

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by Chan Rasjid » Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:14 am

saul wrote:
Chan Rasjid wrote:
Saul, maybe you can let me know why the Δt' = 10.0 Δt is also in unit "seconds". Also under what standard of units is it some amount of "seconds".

Under Galilean relativity, there is no issue as there is no deformation of the units of length; the image under the Galilean transformation may also be the same SI meter - trivially.

According to your manner of argument, even your "special relativity...Maxwell's electromagnetism" being the "protocol" will also not work! You don't allow any way to set any determinate standard of units.

Hi Chan -

Lets start simple again :) Do you believe that two clocks in relative motion will tick at the same rate?

Cheers --
Hello Saul,

The Dingle question has been debated for over a century and if it could be resolved, it would have been. You and I here trying to continue this century old debate would make us look foolish in this forum with decent esteem members - unlike in sci.physic.relativity where expletives are considered a valid mode of argument! From the manner you have challenge my post, it does not seem you belong to the latter category of scientists. Of course, you could insist that the Dingle question has been completely resolved by the relativists camp. If it is so, I'll offer no comment.

The Covenant of Physical Reality

The question of physical reality is governed by a covenant. Such a covenant has existed since the time of Euclid of Alexandria and was accepted universally and was never questioned. It is an essential nature of the method of scientific inquiry. Concerning what constitutes a physical quantity - the criterion is measurablity; a quantity is measurable by an experimenter; or that a condition could be obtained, even conceptually, so that the quantity is measurable.

The above definition of the covenant regarding the determination of what constitutes physicalility is complete and absolute; it has been the norm for thousands of years and never was there any controversy. If such a covenant would not be accepted, then there could not be any sensible discussion concerning what are physical quantities and what are fictitious. If anyone offers a new age way to displace a practice that have been working for thousand years of scholarship, he has to convince us about the merit of the replacement before we could adapt our scientific habits to this new paradigm.

Let's examine how an abstract number may be used and be associated with physical reality. Man knows how to count since the day he ate the apple from the forbidden tree (albeit, those apples in that tree are, by definition, uncountable!). He round up some number of chickens and came up with the number 7; as those chickens could run around and also flap their wings, there was no dispute whatsoever concerning "chickens are not real" - so we have the convention of saying "7 chickens".

When Euclid was studying geometry, he would also come up with numbers like 2 3/8; he used a string to measure the diameter of a circle and ran back to his measuring rod to ascertain the length of the string. After that he appended the word "cubit" to the number 2 3/8 and wrote "2 3/8 cubit" - and he declared:
"Eureka! I have discovered the way to do a real physical measurement !"

No one disputed Euclid made a great advance in experimental science nor that his "2 3/8" was unphysical - Euclid was clearly making efforts, doing physical work, even employing a tool he invented called "the rod"! So, ever after, a number could become associated with a real physical quantity and it was given a formal name "length". Euclid was even said by some to be the father of modern metrology.

Then Euclid was challenged to do a measurement of the size of a bird flying in the air. He called a hunter who used an arrow and brought the bird down and after some "...strings...running ...the rod..." he offered as answer the figure "20 3/4 cubit". The challenger could not dispute that the number "20 3/4" was unphysical - the dead bird was right in front of him! Also Euclid was seen "working" - something definitely physical. The challenger too was amenable to Euclid's explanation that the size of a dead bird was as the size of the live bird that was moments ago flying through the air; in other words, a bird in flight does not have a size that was either contracted nor enlarged as compared to a sitting still bird (people were simple and innocent back then and were not arrogantly argumentative). So Euclid won the challenge and became a celebrity for establishing a method of measuring the size of a bird in flight.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid,

saul
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by saul » Fri Jan 30, 2015 7:26 pm

Hi Chan -

Thanks for pointing me to read more about Herbert Dingle. He seems like he was a bright fellow and added important counterarguments to the era. I probably agree with him (and would say the same as he said) about modern cosmologists. I'm not sure what you mean by the "latter camp".

As for my views on clocks in relative motion, it makes intuitive sense to me that they would not tick at the same rate, because the process which controls the rate of ticking is electromagnetic and hence depends on what I will call here to save time the aether pressure. Not only does it make intuitive sense but it is also well observed, especially through the use of muon decay in cosmic ray showers and other particle decays in accelerators.

Dingle's point about "A's clock looks slower to B while B's clock looks slower to A" is indeed a tricky one. For me it helped to consider two extremely long trains in relative motion, each with a clock in every car facing out and visible to the other train. The clocks in a given train are all synchronized. Looking out from one train, an obvserver will see that the clocks in the other train are not synchronized, as they were not synchronized in his frame of reference. He will also find that following a given clock in the other train it appears to be slower. This is symmetric and consistent. Another example of a similar phenomenon is perspective.. A sees B take up a smaller area of the visual field as they move apart, while B also sees A take up a smaller area.

Anyway thanks for your thoughts, I do enjoy discussion of Lorentz invariance :) cheer -- saul

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by Chan Rasjid » Mon Mar 09, 2015 1:47 am

Hello,

It seems there would be great difficulties to claim special relativity is invalid. Gordon Kane, a particle physicists, in one of his books says that special relativity has been fully integrated into the Standard Model. All the laboratories in the world are "relativistic"; all mass, momentum and energy are relativistic. Insisting that they stop using special relativity is as good as asking them to stop working.

A paper may found through the internet search:
"TheLongHistoryOfTheMass-energyRelation2006.pdf"
Hartwig Thim.

It clearly shows velocity dependent mass with the Lorentz factor and E = mc² were derived before 1904 using purely classical principles - nothing to do with special relativity nor the Lorentz transformation. Einstein's attempt to derive it based on his two postulates were shown to be invalid; probably no one has done it since.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

User avatar
rnboyd
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:57 am
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by rnboyd » Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:25 am

Thanks for all this Chan :)

I have been saying similar things for more than a decade, but very few people can lift their heads out of the religious cult that is Einstein's version of relativity, in order to see the actual facts about Einstein's version.

As you say, there is nothing physical about Einstein's version of relativity. The only place it makes any sense is inside ones head. This is why Einstein himself once said, "Relativity theory can never be proved by any manner of physical experiment." Why did he say this? Because he knew quite well the his version of relativity has nothing to do with anything physical. Galilean relativity is the correct understanding, and it holds valid for any velocity, from zero velocity to an infinite velocity.

I wrote an article a long time ago regarding the fact that Einstein's version of relativity fails all of Popper's Criteria. You can find that article here: http://worlds-within-worlds.org/publica ... search.php and here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Empiri ... eality.pdf

I am really happy you have found another of the fatal flaws in Einstein's version of relativity, being the linear Lorentz transformation. And I am delighted that you have provided references as well as mathematical arguments. It turns out that 4 of the the 15 nonlinear projective Mobius transformations (aka "bilinear" transformations) are also valid for any velocity from zero to infinity.

Isn't that interesting :)

So, for that, Tony Smith and I were nominated for the Nobel Prize. (Didn't get though. Oh well.)

Thanks for your contributions Chan :) You've made my day :)

Neil
The subquantum unfies all the sciences.

scowie
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:31 am

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by scowie » Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:59 pm

Since this thread has been brought back to life...

If we are gonna drop Einsteinian Relativity (certainly a good idea!) we are also gonna have to drop the postulates on which it is based. Now, you might think that the first one can't possibly be dropped: "The laws of physics are the same in all inertia frames." The problem with this postulate is the way it is interpretted. It is assumed that light must behave the same down here on earth as it does in deep intergalactic space and that any velocity with respect to anything beyond the walls of your laboratory is irrelevant. These assumptions couldn't be any further from the truth. There is a key experiment that refutes them, one that Relativity's followers tend to turn a blind eye to, the Michelson & Gale experiment. This is similar to the Sagnac experiment but using the rotation of the earth itself rather than a rotating apparatus. It tells us that, within earth's sphere of influence, light is entrained to move at a fixed speed with respect to the non-rotating centre of the earth (and *not* to the observer!). From the observer's frame of reference, light travels faster in a westerly direction than it does in an easterly direction, due to the earth's rotation. If you try to define the length of a metre in terms of the time light takes to travel it, then your meter rod is a different length depending on how it is oriented or the line of latitude at which it is located, and it would be shorter east-to-west than it is west-to-east! Such nonsense is what Einsteinian Relativity gives us.

To bring some sanity to the prodeedings you would have to define your metre using a rod that is co-moving with the centre of the earth, i.e. located at the poles. Then you need to accept that light's velocity varies from your frame of reference depending on what your velocity is with respect to this local absolute frame, the non-rotating centre of the earth. There is obviously no universal absolute frame, just a local one. The logical explanation for this is that the electromagnetic fields of the earth's charged particles are entraining light and creating a pseudo-ether. At some point out in space, the earth's pseudo-ether will hand over to the sun's, and as a result of earth's motion with respect to the sun, we get a component of aberration that is a very real bending of light, in addition to the apparent bending that results from earth's rotation. When light passes through a transparent medium, the electromagnetic fields of the medium are in competition with those of the whole earth, hence the relevant frame that light moves against (not at c, obviously) is one that lies between the centre of the earth and the frame of the medium (hence what we see in the fizeau experiment).

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests