Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space by Gurcharn Singh Sandhu

GS,

I will study the sections you are speaking of. As for equation (24), can you work out how you got your answer? I am not algebraically following you. I can't get your answer. If 2GM/c2r1 then [math]2e_{rr}=\frac{1}{1-2GM/c^2r}-1\approx -\frac{1}{2GM/c^2r}-\frac{2GM/c^2r}{2GM/c^2r}= \frac{-1-2GM/c^2r}{2GM/c^2r}\approx\frac{-GM/c^2r}{GM/c^2r}[/math] so that [math]e_{rr}\approx -\frac{1}{2}[/math] and doesn't work either to get your answer.

Regards,

Jeff Baugher

GS,

Sorry, forum was leaving out my other equation. I was getting [math]2e_{rr}\approx\frac{1}{1}-1=o[/math]. Even if you choose [math]2e_{rr}=\frac{1 \oplus 2GM/c^2r}{1-(2GM/c^2r)^2}-1 \approx 1\oplus 2GM/c^2r-1[/math]

how are you then justifying that this equation isn't still approximately 0 instead of GM/c^2r if 2GM/c2r

I reread your essay.

It is interesting to consider what is the strength of the relativity compared with the Poincaré theory, or Umov theory (I don't know this interesting story): what is the characteristic that help the human revolution? I think that your reasoning is right: the strength of the revolution is in the world of ideas because we have not maps (mathematical description) of the physic frontier.

I think that the abstract mathematical construct like wave function (visible interference fringe) and four dimensional coordinate (perihelion precession of Mercury) have a direct observable measure but I think that your idea is more deep: I understand that now, in this age, we use a construct that must change in some thousand years (in an other mathematical frame), with a simpler description that is true like this (if it is so, that is interesting).

When you say that the laws of Nature exist independently from the coordinate system, then you say an interesting thing (that I don't notice in the first reading): the laws are true for each system, considering all the transformation, and apparent forces.

I have ever used a different synchronization, using the reflections time along AB, then I must to make some calculation to verify all (I understand that in [9] c+Uab is an approximation, because the velocity cannot be greater of c).

I voted your essay some day ago, like all the other, but I make a quickly read: each essay merit a reading for the innovative idea, but my vote are not ever generous.

Saluti

Domenico

Dear G S Sandhu

Ron Hatch holds views quite similar to yours on inertial reference frames, Galilean velocity addition and a compressible ether with stress and strain.

In his seventies now, Ron is a GPS consultant and is probably still part of the company he co-founded. He is an engineer with a string of accomplishments without an advanced degree.

Ron had a website with his papers, but took it down after Gravity Probe B did not confirm a result he had predicted. As I recall it had to do with gyroscope precession. My impression was that his prediction was made rashly. From what little I understand, the effect would only be of second-order and should be unobservable.

Ron is a proponent of an exponential metric which is the subject of my essay. By the way, I doubt if he believes a metric has any existence beyond mathematics any more than I do.

Hatch presumes from the beginning an exponential "scale factor" which functionally replaces the metric in simple situations like free fall. The purpose of my essay is to derive the exponential metric from Newtonian potential energy and special relativity. Special relativity and the corresponding part of what Hatch calls Modified Lorentian Ether Theory (MLET) give the same result for the relevant quantities.

Thank you very much for your comment on Ernst Fischer's essay. You exposed a problem with balancing the energy for Mach's principle. To me energy is of primary importance and I like to investigate possibilities - even if they might involve spooky action at a distance.

All the best

Colin

Dear Sandhu,

Your work is interesting; mostly I agree with your critics. There are some points as well (on SR), on which I have some different view (particularly, I see M-r Minkowski more "guilty" than Einstein) Nevertheless, it seems just impossible to discuss it right here because the deal is about "so heavy" theme that requires pages and time.

On W=mc^2. It is more important for me that Einstein have realized/interpreted right cognitive meaning of it (in mine opinion). Who have deduced it first - there are different views that I cannot exclude.

Regards,

George

Hello G.S.

Very good essay. Thanks.

The one thing I like of A.E. is his approach to see the truth of more than one observer. To me SR is about that.

It is an observer dilemma and not a physical dilemma.

A problem to me in GR is C. The idea of a vacuum is false. It is just an assumption. Also in outer space (seen from off earth) there is no real vacuum.

Another problem with SR, but also in other theories, like the one you mentioned, is C2. The squaring is derived from the calculation but not taken into account as number. Even when C is constant and absolute the final conclusion should be: C2 = C, like 1^2 equals 1. Because this is left out, C2 should be seen like a nominator of dimension, by which C2 is a field instead of a direction (Line).

Well, enough. I think in coming time a lot more physicists will break down the holy grail of A.E and his SR. Your thesis is a good start.

Congratulations.

with warm regards

Jos Hoebe

Gurcharn,

You wrote: "Further, a rod of length L0 will be seen to be of different lengths L1, L2, etc. when viewed from different IRF moving parallel to the length at different velocities. Hence, we may conclude that the length contraction in SR is an apparent effect, induced by the assumed constancy of the speed of light 'c' in all IRF in relative motion. This implies a logical flaw in the second postulate of SR."

Correct. But Einsteinians couldn't care less and develop the absurdity further. They teach that, since the rod is measured to be shorter, it can even be trapped inside a shorter container - e.g. an 80 m pole can be gloriously trapped inside a 40 m barn:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol35_no1/vol35_no1_2.pdf

"Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Dear Mr. Gurcharn,

Thank you so much for taking the time and the trouble to read my essay and for posting a comment about it.

As you kindly requested of me, I have now attempted to read your essay, however, due to the dismal fact that I am not particularly well educated, I am afraid I did not understand a good deal of it. It did seem to be exceptionally well written and its presentation was clear and succinct. The section on "dimension analysis" did intrigue me, especially your assertion that numbers are dimensionless.

As best as I can tell, one real appearing Universe can be perpetually occurring in one real here for one real now while performing in one real dimension once. All real stuff has always to remain in one real dimension, although that one real dimension can have three abstract aspects. There is only one real 1 of anything once. There is only one real 1 of everything once.

Mathematicians constantly reuse the symbolic number 1 without ever paying any mind to the abstract absolute logical imperative of a defined once. If a real Universe can only use one real one of anything once, Mathematics has to have an inbuilt flaw because the only symbolic 1 that would have had any plausibility would have been the very first 1 that was ever constructed once.

I do wish you well in the contest.

Dear Sandhu,

Congratulations. You wrote a very good essay with a criticism of Relativity. The content of your essay is important for our time. SR and GR should stay in the past as a false theory cause they contain wrong notions about space and essence of time.

Best regards,

M.A. Gaisin

Hello Gurcharn Singh Sandhu

This is actually a response to your post to Geoffrey Haselhurst. I hope this is an appropriate way to send it.

You write to Hazelhurst:

You say, "what we call empty space is in fact full of waves". In your opinion, what are the physical properties of this empty space that facilitate the creation or propagation of waves in it? Which parameter is supposed to oscillate in these waves?

My essay, The Place of Geometry in Physics, is about a possible answer. That is its main topic. I hope you find it satisfactory.

Best wishes

Alan Hutchinson.

Dear Gurbachan,

I have read your excellent paper and I am in general agreement with your views. There are some areas that I see differently. The point that is most important in your argument, as I see it is your disagreement with the first postulate - 'Special' Principle of Relativity'. In addition to the relevant dynamical point you raise about the angular momentum and kinetic energy with respect to the barycentric frame, there is also another point that I would like to make because this is the key to the dynamic explanation of the so-called Lorentz transformation. (This you will understand from the last section of my paper).

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

While your arguments about angular momentum and kinetic energy are valid, they trivialize this argument by insisting that a) energy is relative and b) laws of physics (meaning Newton's second law holds) in all inertial frames. Their argument is based on the position that the differential coefficient of the velocity of a particle will remain invariant, with respect to any IFR.

Einstein has taken the dynamic content out of Galileo's principle of relativity and made a fake imitation of it. And this is why a dynamic explanation for the Lorentz transformation can not be offered by SRT.

I would like you to consider the following.

In his book "Dialogue Between The Two Chief World Systems" in the chapter on Second Day (157 pages in all) he takes example after example and showed that the reason why the effects of motion of a place (i.e. observer's location) in uniform motion cannot seen by the observer is because the observer and the observed objects (in motion relative to the observer) shared a COMMON MOTION with that place.

Galileo started off his discussion on the principle of relativity in the following way: "Then let the beginning of our reflections be the consideration that whatever motions comes to be attributed to the earth must necessarily remain IMPERCEPTIBLE to us and as if non-existent, so long as we look only at terrestrial objects; for as inhabitants of the earth, WE CONSEQUENTLY PARTICIPATE IN THE SAME MOTION" (p. 114).

"The cause of all these correspondences of effects is the fact that the ship's motion is common to all the things contained in it" (p. 187).

In Galileo's relativity, (as opposed Poincare's version), it is the relative motion between the objects, that remain unaffected by motion of the place (Local reference frame), and not the discrete motion per se of a given object.

Newton brings this out clearly in his statement of the principle of relativity: Newton wrote the principle of relativity (in Principia, Corollary V) as follows: "The motions of bodies included in a GIVEN SPACE are the same AMONG THEMSELVES, whether that space is at rest or moves uniformly forwards in a right line without any circular motion" (p. 20).

"Motion of bodies ....among themselves" means motions RELATIVE to one another, and not the motion of each body relative to the given space. (According the Galileo's principle Relative motions between bodies remain invariant, but not discrete motions of individual bodies).

Poincare started to twist Galileo's tail from 1900 to insist that a) there is no common motion with the local frame b) Motion of each body remained unaffected by the motion of the local frame. (This is the basis of equivalence of all reference frames). In 1904 St. Louis Speech he announced his Principle of Relativity. (According to Poincare's principle, discrete motion of each body remains invariant. "Motion of A BODY is independent of the motion of the system")

Einstein dropped Galileo-Newton principle of relativity and grabbed hold of Poincare's principle. The rest is history of confusion for 100 years.

I think the dynamic explanation of LT by the restoration of Galileo's principle will be important to prove the fallacy of the notion of equivalence of all IFR.

I would like to hear your comments.

Best regards,

Viraj

Dear Gurcham Singh Sandhu,

You provided almost no references to those many who also dealt with the topic you are focusing on. Hopefully you will appreciate the references 5, 6, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 in my essay.

My Fig. 5 refers to 28. I consider it the first obviously plausible and quantitatively confirmed explanation for the unexpected null-result of the experiment by Michelson and Morley. The implications should be known.

Any objections?

Best,

Eckard

Gurcharn

I liked your nicely written critique of relativity, agreeing with most but with one big caveat; In logic, nothing can be proved illogical if just one case exists in which it may be logical Astonishingly I've found such a case for the SR postulates. I hope you may study it in my essay and comment.

It actually proves most of you other points correct, but the assumption that rigid objects even 'appear to contract' (never evidenced) incorrect. Contraction and dilation would apply to time signals, waves, strings of photons and compressible bodies on acceleration, (between inertial states) and = Doppler shift.

Interestingly it shows that an absolute ultimate frame is logically possible AS WELL as local ones. The hierachical compound structure of logic is applied directly to real inertial 'frames' as real spaces with real spatial limits. It does take some concentration to assimilate! I hope you can do so and give me your views.

Well done, and best of luck.

Peter