Madam,
Your essay is quite thought provoking. However, we find some discordant notes not because of your approach, but because of the approach of mainstream physics that needs a re-look.
You say: "The mathematical space-time model is a construct giving a mathematical representation that fits well with observations of Image reality but is not a complete model of reality. Though it contains Mc Taggart's "A series of time", past present and future, it does not include "B series time", which is passage of time or change along a sequence spanning earlier to later. Used alone Space-time allows the possibility of time travel and associated paradoxes, is a completely deterministic static model that denies free will and does not allow causality due to non simultaneity of events".
One basic problem is that in mainstream physics, most terms are not precisely defined, but only an operational definition is given, which is often manipulated for proving different mutually inconsistent theories. We have briefly discussed this problem in our essay and elaborately discussed in various posts here. Regarding time and time travel, you may refer to those. Regarding Einstein's views, we have elaborately discussed below the essays of Mr. Castel, Mr. Granet and others. Relativity is a wrong description of facts due to the simple reason that if two frames of reference are not related by a much bigger frame of reference encompassing both, then the actions in each cannot be related to that of another. If both the frames of reference are related by a much bigger frame of reference encompassing both, then relativity vanishes. This is the A-time, B-time and C-time proposed by Einstein in his 1905 paper. Here C is the special preferred frame of reference. Thus, the relativity term simply vanishes. We have also shown that the length measurement system advocated by Einstein is wrong as described below:
Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper: "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", which became his celebrated paper on SRT. Here we quote from his paper and offer our views.
Einstein: Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:-
(a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.
(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with §1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated "the length of the rod".
In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be discovered by the operation (a) - we will call it the length of the rod in the moving system - must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod.
The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call "the length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system". This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it differs from l.
Our comments: The method described at (b) is impossible to measure by the principles described by Einstein himself. Elsewhere he has described two frames: one fixed and one moving along it. First the length of the moving rod is measured in the stationary system against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then the length is measured at a different epoch in a similar way in units of velocity of light. We can do this only in two ways, out of which one is the same as (a). Alternatively, we take a photograph of the rod against the backdrop of the fixed frame and then measure its length in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:
• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.
• 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 camera and the picture we get will be distorted due to the Doppler shift of different points of the rod. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).
Here we are reminded of an anecdote related to Sir Arthur Eddington. Once he directed two of his students to measure the wave-length of light precisely. Both students returned with different results - one resembling the accepted value and the other different. Upon enquiry, the student replied that he had also come up with the same result as the other, but since everything including the Earth and the scale on it is moving, he applied length contraction to the scale treating Betelgeuse as a reference point. This changed the result. Eddington told him to follow the operation as at (a) above and recalculate the wave-length of light again without any reference to Betelgeuse. After sometime, both the students returned to tell that the wave-length of light is infinite. To a surprised Eddington they explained that since the scale is moving with light, its length would shrink to zero. Hence it will require an infinite number of scales to measure the wave-length of light.
Some scientists try to overcome this difficulty by pointing out that length contraction occurs only in the direction of travel. If we hold the rod in a transverse direction to the direction of travel, then there will be no length contraction for the rod. But we fail to understand how the length can be measured by holding it in a transverse direction to the direction of travel. If the light path is also transverse to the direction of motion, then the terms c+v and c-v vanish from the equation making the entire theory redundant. If the observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod while moving with it, he will not find any difference what-so-ever. Thus, the views of Einstein are contrary to observation. Regarding the other points raised in your essay, we have discussed many in our essay. We will be happy to offer any clarification.
Regards,
basudeba
