The Discreet Charm of the Discrete by Paul Halpern

Dear Sir,

Special Relativity is not only conceptually, but also mathematically wrong. This is what Einstein describes in his 30-06-1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies":

Einstein: We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:

3. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.

4. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.

Our comments: Here clock at A is the privileged frame of reference. Yet, he tells the opposite by denying any privileged frame of reference. Further, his description of the length measurement is faulty. 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.

His "mathematics" using the equation for the sphere is all wrong. For example, he has used equations x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2 = 0 and ξ^2 + η^2 + ζ^2 - c^2 τ^2 = 0 to describe two spheres that the observers see of the evolution of the same light pulse. Apart from the fact that the above equation of the sphere is mathematically wrong (it describes a sphere with the center at origin, whose z-axis is zero, i.e., not a sphere, but a circle), it also shows how the same treats time differently. Since general equation of sphere is supposed to be x^2+y^2+z^2+Dx+Ey+Fz+G = 0, both the equations can at best describe two spheres with origin at (0,0,0) and the points (x,y,z) and (ξ, η, ζ ) on the circumference of the respective spheres. Since the second person is moving away from the origin, the second equation is not applicable in his case. Assuming he sees the same sphere, he should know its origin (because he has already seen it, otherwise he will not know that it is the same light pulse. In the later case there is no way to correlate both pulses) and its present location. In other words, he will measure the same radius as the other person, implying: c^2t^2 = c^2 τ^2 or t = τ.

Again, if x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2 = x'^2+y'^2+z'^2-c^2 τ ^2, t ≠ τ.

This creates a contradiction, which invalidates his mathematics.

The data relating to receding galaxies are insignificant in cosmic scales. It is evident only in larger scales of galactic clusters and super clusters only. It is not evident in lesser scales. Just like the planets in the solar system while orbiting the Sun sometimes appear to recede from each others while their satellites remain unaffected, the receding galaxy phenomenon can be explained by a revolving Universe. It must be remembered that spin is a universal characteristic of all closed systems.

In various threads we have shown that gravity is not a single force that attracts, but a composite force that stabilizes and that it belongs to a different class that could not be coupled with other forces of Nature. The so-called gravitational constant is only a constant of proportionality whose value depends upon the masses of the bodies, the distances between them and the density of the medium that contains both. Thus, every time we measure its value precisely, we come up with different results. Similarly, the cosmological constant is only a constant of proportionality.

The Kaluza-Klein compactification and other "theories" relating to extra-dimensions are only figments of imagination. The term dimension is applied to solids that have fixed spread in a given direction based on their internal arrangement independent of external factors. For perception of the spread of the object, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the object must interact with that of our eyes. Since electric and magnetic fields move perpendicular to each other and both are perpendicular to the direction of motion, we can perceive the spread only in these three directions. Measuring the spread is essentially measuring the space occupied by it. This measurement can be done only with reference to some external frame of reference. For the above reason, we use axes that are perpendicular to each other and term these as x-y-z coordinates (length-breadth-height). These are not absolute terms, but are related to the order of placement of the object in the coordinate system of the field in which the object is placed. Thus, they remain invariant under mutual transformation. If we rotate the object so that x-axis changes to y-axis or z-axis, there is no effect on the structure (spread) of the object. Based on the positive and negative (spreading out and contracting in) directions from the origin, these describe six unique positions (x,0,0), (-x,0,0), (0,y,0), (0,-y,0), (0,0,z), (0,0,-z), that remain invariant under mutual transformation. Besides these, there are four more unique positions, namely (x, y), (-x, y), (-x, -y) and (x, -y) where x = y for any value of x and y, which also remain invariant under mutual transformation. These are the ten dimensions and not the so-called mathematical structures.

Randall-Sundrum "braneworld" hypothesis in which the observable universe is housed within a three-dimensional membrane, or brane, that is itself floating in a warped, higher-dimensional anti-de Sitter space, called the bulk is only figments of imagination without any tangible proof to support these views. The same is true for holons. Data from LHC has proved super-symmetric and brane-world models are wrong.

It is high time scientists come out of the mania of chasing a mirage and start re-writing a new physics based on the data available at present. We have an alternate model derived from fundamental principles by which we can explain the "creation event" to evolution of forces to structure formation and evolution.

Regards,

basudeba.

For me you are the two best, you merit to win.

Best Regards to both of you.

Steve

Paul,

I suppose it wouldn't be a wave, if there was no distance between peaks. Frankly I have no problem with it, as I do feel the singularity based Big Bang theory is a misinterpretation of data and has required some rather far fetched patches to repair, but I go into that in my essay. I think we can explain the effect of both expansion and gravitational contraction as effects of that quantum foam, but that the foundational state is the vacuum, not the point.. This is starting to get a bit off topic though. I would have to say that a singularity based cosmology would have to presume an analog universe, since it would emerge from that singular entity.

Time will tell on this, though. So far, they have found galaxies as old as 13.2 billion lightyears out and it takes quite a bit of physical calisthenics to figure out how something that large could have formed in 500 million years, but I find it is a waste of time to argue, so I'm waiting until they find something 500 million lightyears further out.

PS, Congratulations on making the finalists.

Dear Paul,

I just wanted to personally thank you for making a concerted effort to read and respond to many of the essays. Many of the authors with similar credentials to yours, didn't seem to make much of an effort. I is always nice to get positive feedback from someone such as yourself. I realize that everyone is busy and have other obligations, that makes your efforts all the more commendable. I didn't realize, until becoming an author, myself, how exhausting a process it is to evaluate the myriad of different ideas contained in the essays. This is an obligation I took seriously regardless of the bio of the author. It is obvious that you considered it seriously also. Congratulations, on making it to the judging, but after reading your essay, I considered it a foregone conclusion.

Have a great day,

Dan

Dear Paul,

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top ten placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the top front runners btw:

Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

Best wishes,

Alan

Dear Paul,

Congrats for standing fifth on the list.If you have done that it is bacause of the simplicity and originality with which your essay appealed to the participants.

Thanking you once again

Sreenath.

Sir,

Newton's law was also "one of the most successful theories in modern physics and has been verified again and again". Then should we continue with it alone? If not, your reply is not justified. It is not science, but superstition. We expect you to be a scientist and not superstitious.

We may be wrong. But as a scientist you must prove it wrong. Simple denial is no science. Kindly prove where we are wrong.

Incidentally, we are not alone in finding fault with SR. A growing number of scientists the world over are supporting our views. In fact a large number of participants in this competition have accepted our views. You will find it at various threads.

Hence kindly explain which part of our view is wrong and how? Otherwise, kindly accept our views in true scientific spirit.

Regards,

basudeba.

Hi Paul,

Yes, the idea needs a fuller expansion but I'm confident it can explain them all away. As to the orginal quandry of Mercury's orbit, this can be explained by the 'inclination hypothesis' i.e. that gravity is stronger towards the plane of rotation of a celestial body. I'm working on it at this moment.

Kind regards,

Alan

Dear Sir,

We asked a specific question: "kindly explain which part of our view is wrong and how?" It is still unanswered. If we are correct, then your description is wrong. Hence kindly reply to our query specifically.

The time dilation report with the atomic clock experiment was fudged and there is proof for this since the original records are still available in the Archives. The Eddington's expedition report was also fudged and sometime ago it was a much debated topic. The other experimental results can be explained differently. Relativistic mass increase is based on the concept of inertial mass increase, which has never been verified. Thus, it is still a postulate. Thus, you are relying only on wrong notions.

Please do not take it as our arrogance. We are discussing foundational questions. Hence our foundations must be strong. Hence kindly prove us wrong or discard your wrong notions.

Regards,

basudeba.

Paul,

No fair salting the discussion with facts.

Tom