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

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

Hi Gurcharn,

My project does not entail exposing of fallacies of SRT per se as you seem to think. I made the above statement to you (and quoted back by you) because your paper is seemingly dedicated to expose fallacies of SRT, and I pointed out that your position can be made stronger by the derivation of LT by a dynamic interpretation of Galileo's principle of relativity (as opposed to Einstein's kinematic principle).

Why people hang on the SRT despite all the contradictions is because there in no other viable alternative theory, that explains relativistic phenomena in a consistent manner. You must understand that even Lorentz finally gave up his position

If you read my paper carefully, you will find that it is giving an alternative to SRT, based on first principles. It shows that the reason why SRT arose in the first place is because of the Problematic concepts in the Newtonian foundation. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

"We may note that among the problematic foundational concepts created by Newton that have congenitally infected RT and QM are a) the primacy of the concepts of space and time, b) representation of bodies as mass-points without internal structure, c) consideration of centrifugal force as a pseudo-force, d) the closed system with the consequent inability to account for inflow and outflow of energy between the system and the field etc. e) Not recognizing that it is by the two quantities of energy (Mc2 and pc) fusing together to form a system that motion occurs. f) the omission of the fact that a fraction of the applied energy of motion pc gets usurped for the co-movement with the location. g) Not developing the theory with state changes of energy as the basis of its physical geometry. With these congenital foundational problems being inherent in these two progeny theories as well, it should be obvious that revamping of physics must begin from where the problems originated".

By rectifying all the above problems, I have forged a theory that covers the physics of motions of bodies for all velocities - 0

Excuse me. The system seems to reject "less than" "greater than" symbols. So I have re-adjusted the script and trying again.

Continuing:

By rectifying all the above problems, I have forged a theory that covers the physics of motions of bodies for all velocities - zero less than v less than c. The "GDE transformation" is applicable to any velocity, unlike Newtonian mechanics (v very much less than c) and SRT (v tends to c). And there is a vast middle ground uncovered by any theory. Lorentz transformation completely breaks down for experiments done on earth at velocities u approximating to u = 30 k/s = 0.0001c. Therefore data for experimental proof of the validity of the GDE transformation of my theory already exists. It is a matter of analyzing the data of particle accelerator experiments carried out during the last century at various velocities of particle v for the range 0.0001 c to c. This analysis will show that the conformity of result to LT starts deteriorate around v = 0.5c. Then it goes down the tube from then on exponentially and totally breaks down at v tends to 0.0001c.

I wish you the best with your experiment. Have you tried contacting Tom Phipps? He will have the ability to do the experiment for you. (Or you may even try Chandra Roychoudhury at the Photon Lab, U.Connecticut). My suspicion is that you will end up proving Einstein postulate to be correct.

The reason is that photons don't behave like matter particles. They change frequency and not velocity in confronting constraints. Hence the velocity of light both ways will be the same. Since for local light the change of frequency is in terms of TDE only, you will not even detect a change of frequency (linear Doppler shift) related earth's orbital motion in the two directions. I would really like to know the results of your experiment. It will help my above views.

Best regards,

Viraj

Dear G S Sandhu,

Thank you for your kind words. I agree with you! In the background of overwhelming odds (and noise) our collective message that something is wrong with physics needs to resonate in mutual support to be heard and considered.

You write, "The fact that mathematics mainly deals with dimensionless numbers, distinguishes its domain from that of physics. Physical dimensions provide an important linkage between mathematical representations and physical reality."

I agree with that. And used the same idea in the past to differentiate the difference. Just this realization should forewarn physicists that math alone cannot illuminate physical reality. With physics we have 'measurements' which require 'benchmark comparison' and lead to 'relative quantities' (to the benchmarks) having 'units' and scaled by proportionality constants that acquire units.

The empty physical space of Physics is an oxymoron. Though I have no problem with the idea of empty space in math, I have serious problem with such in physics. Physical existence requires 'something' to fill the existing space. So how can empty space exist?

In the endnotes to my essay, "The Metaphysics of Physics", I mathematically prove the following proposition: "If the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave". This puts the CSL Postulate in contradiction with the Photon Hypothesis. But it also shows that space is not empty. But must be filled by a medium of propagation. In my work that medium is the 'quantity eta' (Planck's constant is such a quantity, for example). As a propagating wave through a medium, the speed of light will indeed be absolute and independent of the 'source'. And since all measurements of the speed of light can only be done 'locally' to the medium of propagation, that absolute speed of light will also be independent of all observers; since all observers are 'local' to the 'ether' medium and so will be at rest with the medium. So no need to Postulate CSL. This becomes a 'mathematical certainty' and a 'physical reality'.

But, in my opinion, the biggest problem with the misuse of math in physics is the Spacetime continuum GR and Cosmology use to model the physical universe. One important result to come out of my continuous derivation of Planck's formula for blackbodies is a proportionality relation between entropy and time. Specifically, ΔS = kνΔt , where k is Boltzmann's constant and ν is frequency (or 'rate of evolution' is more closer to the 'truth' - both positive OR negative real number). Relating this to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, this leads to the following rewording of the Second Law: "all physical events take some positive duration of time to occur". Thus, the Second Law specifies 'physical time' to be 'duration' Δt and NOT 'instantiation', t .The 'event points' of Spacetime, therefore are not representative of the physical universe. And this, in my view, may account for the discrepancies between Cosmology and Thermodynamics. The 'dark energy and matter' needed to fill in an accelerating inflationary universe may be a consequence of assuming physical events are instantaneous. Each moment of a particle, for example, traveling on a smooth worldline in Spacetime is a physical event that requires some duration of time to occur. It does not occur at an 'instant' t, as Spacetime assumes. And this may account for all that 'missing energy' that has lead physicists to a patchwork of theories to account.

I appreciate all your efforts to point out false and misleading assumptions in physics. All the best for a successful contest,

Constantinos

Hi Gurchan,

About Tom Phipps, look for "Acausal Absorber Theory" under the following article:

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html. If your experiment is doable he will be most interested in it, to prove the constancy of light speed. Tom Phipps tephipps@sbcglobal.net,

You may also contact Greg Volk the.volks@comcast.net at the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA). Greg (or the NPA) does not have the facility to do your experiment but Greg has plenty of contacts. You can also by joining NPA put your essay/ other papers in NPA website, since the content coincides with their thinking.

Chandra Roychoudhry is the Organiser of 'Nature of Light' conference with SPIE. He is bound to have a lot of contacts who might be interested in your experiment.

chandra

Best of luck,

Viraj

Dear Sandhu

Thanks for your very kind appreciative remarks on my essay.

Your ideas about assessment make a lot of sense. I have been wondering about it. It would be better if something like what you suggest were made obligatory: entrants who don't assess several other essays might somehow be penalised, so the assessment process would be performed properly.

At this stage, the FQXI organisers are not likely to change procedures, so this won't happen.

Anyway, best wishes

Alan H.

Singh, I appreciate your comments on my essay and I was impressed with your use of mathamatics and logic to show deficiencies in our current theory of relativity. In fact, the reason it took me so long to respond to your post is that I was motivated to do a great deal more work by your essay. I was sympathetic to your argument that we need a foundation that does not depend on an inertial frame. I posted a new paper entitled "Gravity in an expanding universe". There is a heading late in the paper entitled "In a relativitic universe is anything constant?" that I would like your comments on if you have time.

Dear Gene Barbee/ Gurchan,

You wrote to Gurchan Sandhu: "I was sympathetic to your argument that we need a foundation that does not depend on an inertial frame".

My paper not only shows the way to work motions of particles without reference frames, it explains all relativistic phenomena under this new foundation.

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

(Note my essay in the competition is handicapped because the diagrams have not come out proper and FQXi rules do not permit any changes. Therefore I am attaching the essay separately as well.

I am copying what I wrote to Sergey Fedosin yesterday:

HERE IS HOW TO SEE THE PROBLEM OF MOTION OF A PARTICLE WITHOUT THE USE OF THE ERRONEOUS FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEM OF REFERENCE FRAMES AND FALLING INTO KINEMATICS.

It is done by developing an anlogy between thermodynamics and particle mechanics.

------------------

0. The zeroth law of motion is that,

a) In the motion of a particle it occurs by way the fusing on its intrinsic energy Mc2 and the applied energy of motion (pc). The fusion takes place by both quantities of energy losing fractions of energy in equal proportion - thus each quantity of energy gets scaled down by the factor  (gamma).

After this fusion has occurred, the scaled down quantities of energy are: net intrinsic energy Mc2/gamma and net energy of motion pc/gamma = Mvc, where gamma = 1/(1- v2/c2)1/2

b) The converse of the fusion theorem is that when a quantity of energy X is to break up into two parts aX and (1-a) X, the original energy X gets scaled up by a factor ' (gamma)' so that the parts become equal to (gamma)'aX and (gamma)'(1-a) X,

(Note: In my essay I have explained the physics of fusion and fission interactions)

1. In a system of particles moving relative to their common centre of mass, the energy of motion of the centre of mass cannot be made use of to make discrete changes in the particles relative to each other.

(Applied to earth, we earthlings cannot tap energy from the orbital motion of the earth for terrestrial use. 'Impossibility of the perpetuum mobile of the first kind)

This is analogous to the first law of thermodynamics.

2. In applying energy of motion (pc/gamma = Mvc) on a particle within a co-moving the system of particles (about their centre of mass), it is impossible to for the particle to acquire a motion of velocity v, relative to the other co-moving particles to the full extent of the net energy (Mvc) applied.

This is analogous to the second law of thermodynamics. (Carnot's cycle - see my essay p. 4 last para)

2a. The conversion of the applied net energy Mvc must occur with respect to the energy level of relative to which the motion of the common centre of mass occurs.

Recognizing that energy Mvc also possesses inertia Mv/c2, this energy too must move in common motion with the centre of mass (at velocity u). For this common motion it requires Mvc to break up and dedicate the fraction (Mvc).u/c. Hence the balance energy would be Mvc( 1-u/c). From zeroth law (b) this fission causes the energy of motion to scale-up by the factor gamma'= 1/(1- u2/c2)1/2 at the moment of fission.

Hence the energy that remains for motion relative to the centre of mass is Mvc(1-u/c)/(1-u2/c2)1/2.

Consequently the displacement of the particle relative to another particle (co-moving with the centre of mass) is: x' = vt(1- u/c)/(1-u2/c2)1/2 --------------(1).

At Newtonian velocities v/c tends to 0, hence x' tends to(gamma)'vt. Since for a particle moving relative to a lab frame on earth(gamma)' = 1.000000005, for terrestrial displacements at Newtonian velocities (v/c tends to 0), the scaling up of the displacement due to ' has gone unnoticed and in practice we have formed the convention

x = vt.-------------(2)

When very accurate measurements are made for particles moving at near light velocities v/c tends to1, the effect of the scaling up also has come to the notice. Then the equation (1) takes the appearance of

x' = (x -ut)/(1- u2/c2)1/2 -----------------------(3) (Lorentz transformation).

Equation (3) is valid only for very fast moving particles. When the velocity of a particle reaches the range 0.5c the results start to significantly deviate from the equation. When it reaches the value of earth's orbital velocity, the equation (3) breaks down totally.\

Unlike (3) Equation (1) provides accurate results for all velocities between low (Newtonian) velocities to near light velocities. This can be tested by analyzing the results of all the particle accelerator experiments carried out in the last 100 years.

Best regards/ Viraj

--------------------

Please see my essay: Have you seen any explanations for the following anywhere a) the mechanism through which gamma-factors arise. b) are you aware that there are two gamma-factors involved in the motion of a particle and why? c) from where the energy for the centrifugal force comes? d) The process which causes internal processes of particles to slow down? e) Why matter particles cannot reach the velocity c? f) why it requires momentum gammaMv for a particle to move with momentum Mv? f) Physical basis of Lorentz transformation? g) Have you come across a single equation with is applicable for the motion of a particle at any velocity (very slow or near light)? The story does not end there, there is many more things explained under the new foundation but I could not squeeze in everything within 25,000 characters that FQXi permitted.Attachment #1: 2_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc

Dear Gurcharn,

Your differentiation of physics entities and mathematical constructions in physics is a good base to find ways to overcome some problems of fundamental theory. I agree with you in the question that constancy of speed of light is a convention in STR. See about it in Extended special theory of relativity. I think the properties of physical space mostly dependent on the gravitons fluxes because of their great energy density, as it pointed out in my essay. It seems the property of elasticity of space is only first step to reality.

Sergey Fedosin

Length contraction is the standard miracle but there is also length elongation in special relativity. Without length elongation, special relativity predicts that the bug from the bug-rivet paradox is both dead and alive:

"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Brian Clegg: "Here's the scenario. We've got a table with a 10mm deep hole in it. At the bottom of the hole a beetle is happily beetling about, unaware that we are about to fire a rivet into the hole. The good news is that the shank of the rivet, the bit that will go into the hole, is only 8mm long, leaving room for our (rather small) beetle to feel safe and snug. (...) Let's follow the event from the beetle's viewpoint. Down comes the rivet and slams into the table. At the moment before the impact the rivet is still just 5mm long as far as the bug is concerned. But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. It will then send a counter wave back up the rivet and after a degree of shuddering will eventually settle down as an 8 mm rivet in a 10 mm hole. Too late, though, for that bug. Isn't physics great?"

John de Pillis: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."

Pentcho Valev