Is Relativity the Holy Grail of Physics? by Robert Spoljaric

ps the maths aren't difficult ,you know it's just a language, thus of course it's not the number of words, signs or methods which are important ....but the real understanding of universal maths.You know the maths even for an other planet, with others creations,with other language,...shall be always the maths. The primes are the primes, the numbers are the numbers......here and everywhere in the universe , 1 is 1 .....it's just a kind of writing and interpretation.All people can invent a method in simply seeing the world around.....when newton has invented his equation about gravity,he simply writes his observations,The apple falls down, there is a distance between the apple, a spheroids hihihi, and the earth, an other spheroid,....and hop a constant and hop an equation of simple observation.....there and it's a secret, we can extrapolate with my spheres and mvV ...THUS AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE NEWTON LAW OF GRAVITATION BETWEEN TWO SPHERES....MORE THEIR ENTANGLEMENT OF SPHERES FOR THE FRACTAL.

PS We are all uniques, precious.....all complementaries,....if the vanity and others stupidities aren't inserted of course as others chaotic parameters.

What is the real intelligence if we take the sacred writings, just the fact to reject the bad, the evil.And the sincere desire of learning about love.......

Regards

Steve

Dear Robert,

I do appreciate your encouragement as well as your honesty.

R: "... you should (at least) reconsider your use of Newton's Second Law"

R: "...quantum mechanics would give way to a deterministic theory (God does not play dice). In terms of foundations that day has come,..."

If you were God, and you created the universe, wouldn't you leave yourself a cleverly disguised back door so that you could get back in if you wanted to? The Uncertainty Principle and appearance of dice might be a disguised back door. If so, then the physics community will not be able to produce a fully deterministic theory, not without bumping into God first.

As for Newton's equation, what do you call it when somebody comes along and writes down the frequency analogue to F = ma, and argues it both algebraically, and also on the grounds of (1) time dilation and (2) Doppler redshift?

Hello Jason,

Once again I have been hasty in my reply.

I hope not to alienate you with my comments, so please forgive me for my bluntness.

The foundations in my 'theory' are deterministic, but I have no doubt that probabilites and statistics will be used. For example, Bose derived Planck's Law by thinking of the radiation within the cavity as a photon gas. In terms of my essay , therefore, his was the first 'legitimate' derivation of Planck's Law.

My 'paradigm' of physics is different, and so I am not qualified to comment on your Shift Photon Equation, for you use concepts that do not apply. For example, Newton's Second Law is defunct in a 'massless' universe. Therefore, the 'F' in your Shift Photon Equation is meaningless. Instead, acceleration is accounted for by the 'equivalence identity' (a=g), which relates it to gravity. Finally, 'the Light' applies to matter and radiation, and cannot be mathematically differentiated, which necissitates using a=g to account for relative acceleration.

You should not give up on your idea, you may just need to think in terms of a different paradigm.

Please let me know what you think.

Robert

Hi Steve,

"He who seeks, know not. He who knows, seeks not" - Lao Tzu.

Perhaps we have an innate desire to know reality, and escape all illusions.

The question then is: What is reality?

The quote by Lao Tzu suggests that 'reality' cannot be expressed, only experienced. The Buddha also told his disciples not to waste time in idle speculation. The ego may be powerless to know reality as it is, that is, without some kind of symbolic representation. And if 'ultimate reality' is beyond all symbols, then science is preoccupied with studying an illusion! Will science ever reach the conclusion that reality, as presented to us by our physical senses, is an illusion, that is, our physical senses are deceiving us?

All the best to you Steve,

Robert

Hi Robert,

You're a good guy and your bluntness helps me to see what's really happening. I just finished responding to someone's argument against my point of view.

If you can find what they wrote,

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=28724&st=135&#entry476630

Where they said,

"F ~ (G M h f)/(c²R² − 2 G M R) ≈ (G M / R² )(h f /c²) = g (h f / c²)

which Pound and Rebka described the frequency change mechanism giving this value as the "appearant weight of the photon" in 1960."

My rebuttal is at,

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=28869&st=0&#entry477913

Which is all to complicating to find. In a nutshell, Repenner is arguing that a bunch of physicists decided that,

[math]m=\frac{hf}{c^2}[/math]

means that the mass is different for different observers, and that's too hard. So they wrote,

[math]m = \sqrt{\frac{E^2}{c^4}-{\frac{p^2}{c^2}}} [/math]

and figured they would all be dead before anyone noticed or had the audacity to question it.

When you're solving for mass, your solving for all the mass. You're not hiding some mass in the momentum term so its nice and constant for all observers.

No wonder Relativity doesn't make sense. :-D

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. :-)

Hello Jason,

Brilliant! Always go to the heart of the matter! Suitably interpreted your expression has merit. No need to waffle if its black and white.

I would strongly encourage you to familiarise yourself with the issues concerning 'tidal gravity' and Einstein's equivalence principle. The solution I present (if correct) in my essay is radical, but you may find it helpful in your own research. However, don't expect to have too many people to debate regarding my solution.

Robert

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