Dear Sir,
We understand your anguish at the direction taken by physics, as we have met many distinguished professors who felt like you. We also feel the same way. But then it is our duty to contribute whatever we can to rectify the system. The final outcome is not in our hands, though! In fact Dr. Kirakosyan wondered in our thread how we are fighting thousands of Professors.
We do not see mathematics as "the language of absolute space and absolute time". We consider mathematics as the science of accumulation and reduction of numbers, which is a characteristic of all substances that exist in space and time. SR begins with a wrong note of measuring lengths of moving objects. Two possibilities suggested by Einstein were either to move with the rod and measure its length or take a photograph of the two ends of the moving rod and measure the length in the scale at rest frame. However, the second method, advocated by Einstein, is faulty because if the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to his formula. If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift.
The concept of relativity is valid only between two objects. Introduction of a third object brings in the concept of privileged frame of reference and all equations of relativity fall. Yet, Einstein precisely does the same while claiming the very opposite. In his June 30th, 1905 paper, he treats the clock at A as a privileged frame of reference for proving synchronization of the clocks at B and C. Yet, he claims it is relative!
In response to the first query on our essay, we have given proof that the experiment that is said to have proved time dilation is a hoax. The GPS result can be attributed to density variation between outer space and the Earth's atmosphere that changes the refractive index leading to slowing down of light. The same is true for particle accelerator experiments that are contained in high flux magnetic tubes. When driving a car, the speedometer reading and the actual kilometer readings do not match. It is always slower due to air friction. In the thread of Dr. Reed and many others, we have proved conclusively without contradiction that equivalence principle is wrong description of reality.
Division by zero is not infinity. Division of two numbers a and b is the reduction of dividend a by the divisor b or taking the ratio a/b to get the result (quotient). Cutting or separating an object into two or more parts is also called division. It is the inverse operation of multiplication. If: a x b = c, then a can be recovered as a = c/b as long as b ≠ 0. Division by zero is the operation of taking the quotient of any number c and 0, i.e., c/0. The uniqueness of division breaks down when dividing by b = 0, since the product a x 0 = 0 is the same for any value of a. Hence a cannot be recovered by inverting the process of multiplication (a = c/b). Zero is the only number with this property and, as a result, division by zero is undefined for real numbers and can produce a fatal condition called a "division by zero error" in computer programs. Even in fields other than the real numbers, division by zero is never allowed.
Now let us evaluate (1+1/n)^n for any number n. As n increases, 1/n reduces. For very large values of n, 1/n becomes almost negligible. Thus, for all practical purposes, (1+1/n) = 1. Since any power of 1 is also 1, the result is unchanged for any value of n. This position holds when n is very small and is negligible. Because in that case we can treat it as zero and any number raised to the power of zero is unity. There is a fatal flaw in this argument, because n may approach ∞ or 0, but it never "becomes" ∞ or 0.
On the other hand, whatever be the value of 1/n, it will always be more than zero, even for large values of n. Hence, (1+1/n) will always be greater than 1. When a number greater than zero is raised to increasing powers, the result becomes larger and larger. Since (1+1/n) will always be greater than 1, for very large values of n, the result of (1+1/n)^n will also be ever bigger. But what happens when n is very small and comparable to zero? This leads to the problem of "division by zero". The contradicting result shown above was sought to be resolved by the concept of limit, which is at the heart of calculus. The generally accepted concept of limit led to the result: as n approaches 0, 1/n approaches ∞. Since that created all problems, let us examine this aspect closely.
Now, let us take a different example: an = (2n^2 +1) / (3n + 4). Here n^2 represents a two dimensional object, which represents area or a graph. Areas or graphs are nothing but a set of continuous points in two dimensions. Thus, it is a field that vary smoothly without breaks or jumps and cannot propagate in true vacuum. Unlike a particle, it is not discrete, but continuous. For n = 1,2,3,...., the value of an diverges as 3/7, 9/10, 19/13, ...... For every value of n, the value for n+1 grows bigger than the earlier rate of divergence. This is because the term n2 in the numerator grows at a faster rate than the denominator. This is not done in physical accumulation or reduction. In division, the quotient always increases or decreases at a fixed rate in proportion to the changes in either the dividend or the divisor or both.
For example, 40/5 = 8 and 40/4 = 10. The ratio of change of the quotient from 8 to 10 is the same as the inverse of the ratio of change of the divisor from 5 to 4. But in the case of our example: an = (2n^2 +1) / (3n + 4), the ratio of change from n = 2 to n = 3 is from 9/10 to 19/13, which is different from 2/3 or 3/2. Thus, the statement:
limn→∞ an = {(2n^2 +1) / (3n + 4)} → ∞,
is neither mathematically correct (as the values for n+1 is always greater than that of n and never a fixed ratio n/n+1) nor can it be applied to discrete particles (since it is indeterminate). According to relativity, wherever speed comparable to light is involved, like that of a free electron or photon, the Lorentz factors invariably comes in to limit the output. There is always length, mass or time correction. But there is no such correcting or limiting factor in the above example. Thus, the present concept of limit violates the principle of relativistic invariance for high velocities and cannot be used in physics.
The problem of division by zero that has led to "renormalization" because the result is supposed to be infinity is erroneous and contrary to mathematical principles. If you divide 20 by 5, then what you actually do is take out bunches of 5 from the lot of 20. When the lot becomes empty or the remainder is below 5, so that it cannot be considered a bunch and taken away further, the number of bunches of 5 are counted. That gives the result of division as 4. In case of division by zero, you take out bunches of zero. At no stage the lot becomes zero or less than zero. Thus, the operation is not complete and result of division cannot be known, just like while dividing 20 by 5, you cannot start counting the result after taking away three bunches. Conclusion: division by zero leaves the number unchanged.
Regards,
basudeba
