Is Relativity the Holy Grail of Physics? by Robert Spoljaric

Hello Jason,

I am happy you wrote back, as I seem to be making a lot of 'enemies' with my posts. Honestly, I would have preferred to keep my opnions to myself, and let the paper speak for itself. Alas, the temptation to get a reaction from the 'experts' is sometimes too great. But I am trying to be stronger!

You are correct, mass is replaced by angular frequency in the relativistic Light. In fact, you can use the generalised Compton wavelength as a 'bridge' to go from the classical to the non-classical expressions. Ultimately, that must be done, for taking the derivation to its logical conclusion (a=g)leaves no mass at all!

Of course, you know I cannot agree with that second expression using mass.

Why waste time arguing with others. You are an imaginative person, who likes technology, and so here is something to distract you. How do particle ACELERATORS work if a=g? Does that not suggest that charged particles are being ACCELERATED due to electomagnetism warping space-time, that is, electro-gravity?

All the best,

Robert

Hi dear Robert,

I beleive Lao tzu and Siddartha Gottama are right. We see only a part'very weak it's our walls and limits,even our domains of analyzes) of the universal reality, furthermore it evolves this reality....it exists like an ultim aim in the physicality,..... the sphere and all its spheres,quant.and cosm.at the perfect equilibrium between all "mass spheres systems".

This sphere is in optimization.It's a hope I think this physicality in improvement.

Regards

Steve

Hi Robert,

I'm curious, how do you know you're making enemies? You seem very amiable. Although physics right now is a mathematical thicket of mathematical monstrosities. I've taken a weed whacker to the Invariant Mass over at PhysForum.com. Trust me, the weeds don't like me very much over there.

I discovered another problem with what their teaching physicists these days. When a skydiver falls, she loses potential energy and falls faster (gains kinetic energy). When a photon falls (into a black hole) it blue shifts. But there is no spectral potential energy term that relates photon energy to gravity. Yet gravity DOES act on light; that's why black holes are black.

Hello Jaosn,

How do I know I'm making enemies? Either my essay is not being read, or it is misunderstood and I'm written off as a crackpot, or it is being read happens to be understood and cannot be faulted. For example, imagine the seeming audacity of a nobody claiming to refulte Quantum Mechanics with a logical counterexample, and further claiming General Relativity is premature? It MUST be a joke, right?

What is lacking in my essay are details. But I consider that positive, for if the derived foundations (the Light and Equivalence Identity) leave no room for doubt, then physicists have a firm foundation upon which to build. My job is done.

Robert

Robert,

I'm with you. I completely understand how you feel and what you're facing.

Anyway, I'm writing up the momentum versus power for the shift photon. It's going to take a lot of work to get all the kinks out of it. If you want to see, email me at wulphstein@gmail.com. It's not even close to finished yet.

Hello Jason,

Agreed, we are all in the same boat when it comes to challenging the status quo.

I am fairly thick, so maybe you can clarify for me. The accepted wisdom today is that in General Relativity the velocity of light varies 'globaly' - bends and accelerates - but not locally (inertial frames - straight lines and constant speed). This is consistent if rulers and clocks vary with posision. There is a problem with this in terms of accounting for 'tidal gravity.' that is, the equivalence principle is not strictly consisten with 'tidal gravity,' and physicists are trying to graple with it. I beleive my essay answers that question.

I like your idea about frequency and gravity. Maybe you would like to think of the 'frequency of matter' and gravity. For example, if the 'rest-frequency' at a certain height above a body is constant (no kinetic energy), and then in free fall happens to decrease as its kinetic energy increases (by conservation of energy), does that mean that if its frequency were to increase (with no input of energy - by a miracle perhaps) during its free fall, that its kinetic energy must decrease, by conservation of energy? Such 'miraculuous-matter' would then be impervious to gravity merely by maniputing its own frequency!

Keep up the good work, and I will be happy to read - but not critique - your creativity. The approach I took in my paper was to be the greatest sceptic, and try and demolish it, that way I was able to iron out the kinks and clarify it - to my satisfaction at least!

All the best my borther in arms,

Robert

Dear Robert,

It's you and I against the status quo. I'm over at,

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=28869&st=60&#entry478105

as Mazulu. It's gotten bloody. I basically told them that they're all too scared of ridicule to be innovative. It's a snake pit over there and I am tired of being patient. It's on....

Hi Robert,

I just debated two opponents, one into a retreat and the other into capitulation. I've streamlined my argument down to this.

1. What does frequency shift require? A time dilation between two reference frames A and B.

2. How does one get two inertial reference frames to have a time dilation between them. By assuring a gravitational potential energy difference between A and B.

Shift photons are expected to carry a gravitational potential energy

[math]U = -h\Delta f[/math]

Hello Jason,

Holy cow, grasshopper! Remember patience is a virtue! Einstein had to wait for the Compton effect before his 'light-quanta' hypothesis gained general acceptance.

Robert

Patience? I ain't got time for patience. :-)

Hi Robert,

I know that the Equivalence Principle makes the g-force caused by gravity equivalent to g-force caused by vehicular acceleration (which is different from coordinate acceleration). Also, inertial mass and gravitational mass are considered identical. Was there another interpretation that you thought of?

By tidal gravity, I think you mean the gradual change in the gravity field versus change in the radial distance (normally associated with black holes). I know that their looking for moving gravity waves. I don't know if they've detected any.

Hello Jason,

I know you are busy 'waging battles on all fronts' so just to clarify: Inertial mass and gravitational mass must be identical to satisfy the Equivalence Principle, and so they are ASSUMED to be identical in General Relativity.

Before I continue, I should perhaps mention that where SR and GR have been compared and empirically tested, GR has always shown to be correct. The big question in GR with respect to 'foundations' is described below.

The Equivalence Principle basically asserts that small, freely falling frames in the presence of gravity are equivalent to inertial frames in the absence of gravity. So as you fall freely, towards say a black hole, you are weightless, and it seems as if there is no gravity in your vicinity. But the Equivalence Principle ignores tidal gravity, which also stretches you from head to foot and squeezes you from the sides (spaghetification). However, if you were the size of an ant you would experience less tidal gravity, than if you were the size of a whale. The question is, then, just how small must a freely falling frame of reference have to be, to justify ignoring tidal gravity completely? Or is the existence of inertial (gravity-free) frames never justified?

I hope that answers your question.

Robert

Hello Jason,

Sorry typo. The last question should ask if inertial frames are EVER justified?

Robert

Hi Robert,

I suppose free fall isn't so free if there is tidal gravity pulling your spaceship apart.

Well, they suspended me for the second time on that website. There is definitely some hostility against anyone who tries to be innovative in ways they don't like.

Gravitational redshift and time dilation describe the frequency shifting of light in a gravity field. All I said was, let's try it backwards. If we synthesize a frequency shift photon in the right way, maybe we can get back gravity.

And they practically strung me up.

Hello Jason,

There was a reason I brought the issue up with you. What's important (as I show in my essay) is that inertial frames are fictitious, and thus gravity is everwhere. As such, what is there left to debate regarding SR? Keep that in mind the next time you are tempted to go for the jugular regarding SR! The irony of my essay is that it is truer to GR, than GR itself!

I mentioned 'miracle-matter' and energy-conservation to you in a post. That may be the explanation for Jesus walking on water - care to be accused of blasphemy? Anyway sorry to hear about the forum.

Robert

Hi Robert,

I left my dent at the physforum. What else can I do there? If it were not for physics, we would be easily swayed from one delusion to the next. Admittedly, there are lots of crazy crackpot ideas out there. I am trying to build the scientific foundation of my ideas. If you know anything about Hamiltonian Mechanics, let me know.

The miracles of the Bible do tend to suggest the right way to go with respect to physics. The Bible doesn't talk about time travel or identical multiple universes. Water to wine, sticks to snakes, physical healing are transformational phenomena. Walking on water suggests the control of natural forces. I believe in God, the paranormal, UFO's. I'm just one man trying to help make the world a little better.

Hrllo Jason,

You are a GOOD man trying to help make the world a better place!

Everyone here is doing their best to grasp the 'mind of God'.

Was Einstein a 'crackpot' for opposing QM? Would we today have the phenomenon implied by Bell's inequality to think about, were it not for his efforts to bring physicists 'back to reality?' If a recognised genius was shunned by the majority, how much more difficult is it for us who don't even have letters to their name? It really is an uphill climb.

You would be surprised to learn just how little I know, and the fact that my interest in physics is largely gone, that is, I have moved on to other questions of a 'spiritual/mystical' nature. That is what I meant by 'My job is done' in a previous post.

I am sorry I cannot help you regarding HM, but Dr. Klingman is a true gentleman and a scholar, he may be the one to ask.

Robert

Hang in their Robert. Don't leave us now! I do understand what you mean by losing interest in physics. And yet, it's an ideology unto itself. It's hard to break through the well entrenched thought processes. Go explore your spiritual path. Then, come back when you're ready.

Hello Jason,

This essay has a long history, the version you are reading is the clearest one I have written. It is deeper than anyone suspects. But having been with the paper for as long as I have, the novelty of it has long worn off.

What makes my essay unique is that it shows that mass is an illusion. It thus mutually excludes EVERY theory that uses mass. Therefore, either I am dead wrong, or physics is in need of a paradigm shift. As I mentioned, if correct then physicists have a firm foundation upon which to build. I leave the details to others more capable than myself.

You have a gift for asking intelligent questions, and coupled with your curiosity that makes you a true physicist. However, do not neglect your intuition, for intuition and intellect are allies in the search for truth.

My 'spiritual path' entails knowledge that comes from personal experience. As Lao Tzu said: He who speaks, know not. He who knows, speaks not.

I thank you for your encouragement, and wish you success in the contest.

Robert