The first half of this paper is devoted to review of the
Special Relativity Theory (SRT) and General Relativity Theory (GRT) and how
they differ from Newton’s
works. They are compared with Newton’s
works because of our proven space program which uses and confirms his
works. Einstein’s works revert back to Newton’s
laws for the cases dealing with some transition speed less than the SOL, but
his works profoundly change representation of time and distance measurements
and his gravity from action at a distance (Gravitational Force Field [GFF]) to
a field. It is difficult to understand
how Einstein’s works can question the quantitative terms (Newton’s)
that have been empirically deduced through our space program. The second part of the paper introduces and
develops a new energy concept.
Repetition is the best way to learn and much repetition is
needed when dealing with the abstract thought process involved with the SRT and
GRT. The object of this article is to
challenge the reader about the SOL. Is
it a universal constant (a tenet of the SRT) or not? It is definitely a constant value but does
its constant value change from medium to medium, in which, it is
traveling? If it is considered a
universal constant then its value is the same for all media of travel.
It is common knowledge that light travels at different
speeds in different materials and is wavelength sensitive. It is dispersive in nature. The reader will be introduced to a new
concept that suggests that the SOL is an inverse function of the Gravitational
Force Field (GFF) in both the macroscopic world as well as the microscopic
atomic and molecular world. The new
concept is an energy equation that has been derived from an atomic concept. From the new concept, the SOL is mathematically
derived as a variable.
E = mc2, time is relative; distance is
relative; what does this all mean? These are all terms that relate directly to
Einstein's SRT. For the average person
and/or scientist to understand the works of Einstein is a task. There are a lot of standard semantics
shrouded in mysteries, which can be deciphered in various ways. Research continues today to prove or disprove
some of Einstein's work.
It is important to make a statement about his famous
equation (E = mc2) from the beginning. It is valid and had been derived from the
established fact of physics that e/m (e = electronic charge, m = mass of
electron) is a function of speed (v).
This change is attributed to the mass (m). The e/m measurement is considered as a root
of E = mc2 (see Note following).
It can be demonstrated that Newton’s
laws and mass varying with speed were used by Einstein to develop his famous
equation.
Most of Einstein's works and contributions have proven
themselves. His contributions to Quantum
Physics are beyond reproach. He won his
Nobel Prize for explaining the photo electric-effect. His greatest contribution has authored
Nuclear energy as we know it. His
questioning mind is beyond reproach. The
following note helps understand the derivation of his famous equation
Note
The famous equation E = mc2 (E is energy, m is a
change in mass, and c is the SOL) is not being questioned. It can be derived by treatment of Newton’s
second law F = d(mv)/dt and the acceleration of a particle. The force (F) on a particle being accelerated
from rest in a constant electric field (ε one dimensional an in positive x
direction) is εe. The dependence of
mass on velocity has been experimentally derived as,
m = m0/(1 - v2/c2)1/2
And by substitution: F
= εe = d(mv)/dt = m = m0 dv/dt /(1 - v2/c2)1/2
Reference 1, section 1-8, page 15 "Mass-Energy Relation" gives a full treatment for
developing E = mc2 from the above substitution (see also explanation
in the Prologue of this WEB site). It
also shows how it reverts back to Newton's
equation for v2/c2 << 1.
His famous equation and its derivation is not contingent
on the SOL being a universal constant as he postulated. Einstein's relativity work is an attempt to
extend and combine the work of Newton
and Maxwell. This paper reviews in a
cursory fashion the works of Newton,
Maxwell, and Einstein. Newton's
works were 200 years old and Maxwell works were approximately 40 years old when
Einstein began the development of his work.
The history can explain the motives leading to the theories of relativity.
The ideas presented in this paper are not new. They are presented in a way that hopefully
appeals to all. Many common sense
examples are used to show how the SRT seems to deny the objective real world of
measurements. Because of this denial,
conclusions are reached that do not agree with common sense. And adding to the problem, much of the
literature in dealing with relativity theory is stereotyped. There are key phrases and semantics that have
a tendency to keep everything mysterious.
This paper is an attempt to remove some of the mystery and the barriers
that stand in the way of understanding.
The GRT leans heavily on time and distance concepts
(dilation and contraction) of the SRT.
If the SRT is valid then time and distance are non-linear and the
Cartesian coordinate system is no longer graphically representative. A new coordinate system that is curved is
necessary and is the basis for Einstein's 75 mathematical (Riemanian geometry)
formulas. The necessity for the GRT is
addressed in Section 10 following a full explanation of the SRT. It is hoped that the treatment of the SRT
gives the reader enough background and good a grasp to decide about the
credence of the GRT.
What are the tenets of the SRT and what makes them
challenging and intellectually curious?
There are two: the first presents
no problems and says that there is no such thing as absolute rest (the
Principle of Relativity which was introduced by Newton). The second postulated by Einstein says that the
SOL is a universal constant and relative to nothing (an initial condition). Before anyone can understand the
ramifications of this second statement, it is necessary to understand what
relative speed is or is not. It is
necessary to understand measurements of time and distance and how they apply to
the works of Newton, Maxwell, and
Einstein.
The second tenet of the SRT also dictates measurements
(for time and distance) that are subjective and appear to lead to a subjective
unreal world. The concepts of relative
speed are said not to apply when measuring the SOL. The works of Newton,
Maxwell, and Einstein address the situation.
1.
Newton's
works disagree with the SRT.
2.
Maxwell's works state that the SOL is a constant and
show how it varies.
3.
Einstein’s postulated that the SOL is a universal
constant (because an experiment investigating a reference datum for the SOL had
failed, but there had been no data backing his postulate). It is inconsequential whether his postulate
came before or after the Michelson/Morley experiment. It did add credence to what he had postulated.
The scientific world has formed opinions and in some cases
formulated a solution with key words to discourage any questioning of the
theories of relativity. Much of the
literature addresses Einstein’s theories as gospel, implying that they cannot
be challenged. If the reader enjoys an
intellectual comfort zone about Einstein’s theories, skip reading this paper
because it is going to challenge one of the tenets of the SRT. The key postulate of the SRT stated by
Einstein is: The SOL is a universal
constant. And because of this
statement, time and distance measurements in the real world are
challenged. A methodical principle of
transformation and permutation must be given for time and distance because the
mathematical physical knowledge of nature and its presentation as a true
reality are denied by the SRT.
The scientific community has undertaken great efforts to
obtain certitude, consistency, and accuracy for its measurements. In fact, there is a science called metrology
that deals with this problem. Standards
are set up and maintained very carefully and this constitutes the objective
real world of measurement, as we know it.
This paper addresses measurements. All measurements are referenced to standards defined
by the scientific community and these standards include time and distance. In comparing any reference systems of
measurement, a distinction between physical determinations and judgments must
be made. The time and distance
definitions (standards) cannot change because they are definitions. They are a reality; they have been
experienced and depended on in the development of the objective real world of
science.
Measurements are as good as the instrument being
used. It is assumed that modern technology
affords precise measurements of time and distance. Time and distance are especially being
addressed because the nature of speed (velocity) is distance divided by time.
The works of Newton
and Maxwell fit into this world of measurement.
There is no problem with measuring changes in velocities or of measuring
a finite fixed velocity of electromagnetic waves. Einstein's works have a problem measuring
time and distance when dealing with electromagnetic waves (SOL).
If the reader enjoys mental challenges in these areas,
continue on. It is strongly suggested
that a review of the SRT and its basic concepts are in order. A thorough understanding of relative speeds
and their relation to the SRT is necessary to better appreciate how they are
being questioned.
What is relative speed?
In its simplest form speed is distance traveled divided by time. An everyday life example is the speedometer
of a car which measures number of miles (distance) per hour (time). If someone is traveling on a freeway, other
cars and their relative speeds can be observed.
If a car passes another car, it can be said that it is traveling faster
than the one it passes. And vice versa
the car passed can be said to be moving slower.
These statements are about relative speeds and if one had a stopwatch
one could measure the amount time it took for the autos to pass each
other. These cars passing each other follow
a definite set of laws, which are the work of Newton. i.e.
Assume that you are doing 60 MPH in your car and you pass a car that is
doing 40 MPH and subsequently you pass a car doing 50 MPH (assume identical
cars) and for each incidence you record the amount time to pass. It is found that it takes less time to pass
the former than it does to pass the latter.
It is simple enough and will be reviewed more times in order that the
reader thoroughly familiar with the concept.
Next a big leap to measuring the relative speed of
electromagnetic waves is attempted.
Suppose that there are sophisticated instruments for measuring the speed
of a light burst passing the above autos.
The SOL was investigated and first measured by Maxwell. Imagine a burst of light (like a bullet from
a laser) passing by your auto when you are doing 60 MPH and this same burst of
light passes by an identical auto next to you that is doing 70 MPH. You have a timing device to measure how long
it takes for the burst of light to pass you and likewise the other auto has an
identical timing device for making the same measurement with respect to itself. Since the autos are traveling at different
speeds, one would think that the two times recorded would be different as it
was in our previous experiments involving the cars.
This experiment could actually be performed because there
are sophisticated timing devices that measure with accuracy down to and
approaching zero time. Light speed is a
constant in our gravitational system, but to tag it as a universal constant
(according to Einstein; treated later) makes it relative to nothing. If this is true, then the times measured in
this light burst experiment are equal.
Common sense dictates that the clocks or the dimensions in the two
vehicles are not going to change because of a 10-MPH speed difference. It also
conflicts with Newton’s works and
caused confusion besides not agreeing with common sense.
According to Newton
only changes in speed can be measured unambiguously. As another example, consider two observers
traveling side by side in different vehicles.
One observer is traveling at 10 MPH and the other observer is traveling
at 20 MPH. Both observers look up and
see an airplane flying overhead. The
plan is to measure the ground speed of the plane. Both observers have the same reference point
and identical stopwatches. After observing
the plane and collecting the necessary data they find that their calculated
individual speed of the plane differs by their own ground speeds. Nothing is different about this
straightforward measurement and the results are as expected. Now if either observer notices that the plane
changes speed (either accelerates or decelerates), the change in speed recorded
by both observers is the same independent of their relative speeds. This example has been simple and to the point
to show relative speeds and absolute accelerations. The treatment is hardly comprehensive. The reader can find a comprehensive treatment
in reference 2.
The next question is; how does the electromagnetic
radiation of Maxwell fit into Newton’s
system? What if, in the above
experiment, it was a light beam instead of an airplane? Radiation (light) had been measured
(Maxwell’s work) to have a finite speed and it is a constant speed. But is it a universal constant (an initial
condition) and what is its reference?
More examples about relative speeds are presented when
explaining the SRT. It is hoped that the
reader is becoming familiar with relative speeds. If there is difficulty with this concept,
seek a reference. It is the key to
understanding the SRT.
In an attempt to resolve the SOL controversy for the
scientific world (Maxwell had proven that light is electromagnetic radiation),
scientist hypothesized that the SOL must be measure relative to the medium
through which it propagates. It was
thought that electromagnetic radiation had a media of transmittal (or which to
vibrate) just as sound vibrates in air.
The media was postulated and bore the name ETHER. It was imagined as a
massless, frictionless fluid filling all of space uniformly. It was also reasoned that the surface of the
earth couldn't always be at rest relative to the ETHER because of its travel through space. It was thought that precise measurement of
the SOL relative to the earth’s surface should reveal the velocity of the
earth’s surface relative to the ETHER. The plan was to name the ETHER the reference frame of absolute
rest. To make the measurements, an
experiment was set up by Michelson and Morley.
The experiment was to compare two light beams, one of the beams was a
reference beam and the other beam was sent in a direction that was retarded by
the ETHER enveloping the earth. If the plan worked a phase difference would
be detected when the two beams were compared.
The experiment failed.
What were the consequences of this failed experiment? Scientist wanted a frame of reference for the
SOL so that Maxwell’s works would be compatible with Newton’s
relative speeds and absolute accelerations.
The only way that they do not coexist is if the SOL is universal
constant or an initial condition. Today
there are instruments and experiments that can remove all doubt.
Since the experiment of Michelson-Morley supposedly
failed, the scientific world was back to square one. Einstein attacked the question of a frame of
reference for the SOL. He embarked on a
campaign to explain the failed experiment.
He said that the ETHER did
not exist and hence there was not a frame of absolute rest and he defined
the SOL as a universal constant (relative to nothing or effectively an
initial condition and itself a reference).
The ETHER may or may not
exist and is still being questioned by some scientist. However, it must be understood just what is
meant by, the SOL is a constant but is not a universal constant or an initial
condition. There is a big
difference. One of the most obvious
demonstrations of the SOL changing is in water, where a stick in the water
looks offset because of the SOL difference in air and water. The SOL
in air and in water is different but is constant in their own media. A comprehensive approach to better understand
the SOL in the scientific world today is being presented because upon it
depends an understanding of the SRT.
Light speed presented in Optics changes
whenever a new media of travel is encountered.
In general a train of light waves are partially reflected and they
change direction as they cross the boundary surface or change from one medium
to another medium. The change in
direction is said to be a refracted wave.
Every material has an index of refraction.
The index of refraction of a medium is the
property usually tabulated rather than the SOL (SOL) in the medium. The ratio of the sine of the angle of
incidence to the sine of the angle of refraction is equal to the ratio of the
velocities in the two media.
It is expressed mathematically by Snell’s
Law.
Snell’s
Law
n
sinα = n’ sinα’
Where α and α’ are the angles
between a light beam and the normal to the interface between the two media of
indices n and n’. The index of
refraction n = c/v where “c” is the
SOL in space and is probably the upper limit for SOL in space 186,000
mi/sec. It is a reference for but there
is nothing magic about it. It is a way
of comparing the speed of electromagnetic radiation. It follows that v/v' = n'/n, where
"v" is velocity of propagation in one medium and "v'"
represents the velocity of propagation in the other medium. In this case "c" represents some
upper limit of the velocity of light (i e the SOL in our atmosphere compared to
the velocity in some substance).
The scientific community is programmed to
think of "c" as the SOL in space and as a "universal
constant" that applies wherever it is measured. The SOL of space is an upper limit and it is
a constant for that medium as determined by Maxwell. Constant values for the SOL change contingent
on the medium (e.g. SOL in water compared to SOL in our atmosphere etc., etc.).
The constant speed of electromagnetic waves
is derived from Maxwell’s equations for speed in a vacuum. The constant “c” is the ratio of unit size
between electrostatic and electromagnetic systems and is a universal
truth. While it cannot be denied that
“c” is a universal truth, it does not make the SOL a universal constant in all
media of travel. The speed of electromagnetic
waves in space is a constant and in the same manner, the waves are a constant
of a different value in other media.
This speed is not defined as a universal constant for all media of
transmittal but varies according to electric permittivity and magnetic
permeability and is incorporated in the laws of optics.
According to Optics, SOL also changes
whenever a new media of travel is encountered by the wave. Trains of light waves are partially reflected
and change direction as they cross the boundary surface (one medium to
another). The change in direction is
defined as a refracted wave. In addition,
we have seen that Snell’s law expresses it mathematically. It is important because it points out another
variable for the SOL that was unknown when there was controversy about a
reference for it.
Maxwell’s works, equations, electromagnetic
waves and speed of the waves were all a precursor to Optics. The governing definitions and laws of Optics
had not yet been formulated. There were
many contemporary scientists who had an understanding of optics and light and
who attempted to measure its characteristics but they had enough to do in understanding
Maxwell’s works. The same can be said
about Einstein postulating SOL as a universal constant and putting restrictions
on time and distance.
It is an established fact that the SOL in a
material substance depends on wavelength and hence its index of refraction is
also a function of wavelength.
"v" varies according to f x l or
velocity equals frequency times wavelength.
For a medium change frequencies do not change. Therefore the wavelength must change. And any substance that offers resistance to
SOL displays dispersive properties for light with an index of refraction that
is a function of wavelength. A prism separates
white light into its components of red through violet. Deviation of a prism increases with
increasing index of refraction and the index of refraction is a function of
wavelength. Thus violet is deviated the
most and red least. The SOL in water is
1/4 of that in our atmosphere giving an offset to objects in water because
wavelength is 1/4 of that in the atmosphere (For further explanation the reader
is referred to any physics book on Optics that deals with reflection and refraction
of light waves).
The frequencies of light we observe, whether
in a vacuum or other medium, are functions of velocity and wavelength, v = fl. It is not a simple function of E = hf. All media that allow the transmittal of light
or electromagnetic radiation are dispersive in nature. The SOL in all substances depends on
wavelength and all media offer some resistance to flow or transmittal of electromagnetic
radiation. All media have a dielectric
constant and a magnetic permeability, which cause the SOL to change. Besides working out a constant for the speed
of electromagnetic waves, Maxwell recognized the speed dependence on the
electric and magnetic properties of the media.
He incorporated and explanation for them in his work. These properties (dielectric constant) and
(magnetic permeability) cannot be divorced from wavelength changes because of
the resistance they offer to flow. They
are intrinsic to electric fields and magnetic fields, respectively. They are an integral part of the wave
equation derived from Maxwell’s equations.
Relationships are presented as a matter of
review and are very much part of electromagnetic radiation and its
variation.
c (vacuum) = 1/square
root ofÎ0m0, Î0
is the dielectric constant (space)
m0
is the magnetic permeability (space)
Zintrinsic = square root of m/Î, 377 ohms for free space
c/v = square root of Îm/Î0m0, Where
v represents the speed
of
radiation in different media
These relationships assume "c" is a
universal constant with all values for the variation of light speed referenced
to it. In various media, the wavelength,
frequency, and radiation speed will differ according to the variations
predicted by these equations. These
considerations show that the SOL varies and a conversion exists for all media
of travel. And from optics, it can be
stated that SOL is a function of the media (can be space, water, various glass
types, planets stars, etc.) in which it travels. Light can also be resolved, dispersed and
undergo interference which constitutes SOL variation. .The variation of the speed is characterized
and dependent on the index of refraction of the media.
7. Historical
Developments
In studying or obtaining information, what happens when
credibility breaks down? What happens,
when it becomes apparent that what is understood does not agree with common
sense? Eventually there is a break
through or new information and a new clarity come about.
Physics in its study of matter and energy is related to
physical reality and is defined for real events, entities, or state of
affairs. It is the totality of real
things. In the physics world, man has
discovered and pronounced theories that are normally backed with empirical data
in the macroscopic world. Many theories
are pronounced after the fact because some phenomenon has been detected that is
new and is awaiting an explanation. Some
of the theories of quantum physics were the direct result of phenomena that
could not be explained by classical physics (work prior to 1900).
Newton gave
the word "force" a precise meaning, and above all, made it the cause
of motion. It became the cause of all
change in the universe. Force is an abstract
term but it can be felt just as we can feel matter. Newton's
forces were coupled to atoms and molecules and as a result are involved in
mechanization as well as man's efficient use of his muscles.
Prior to Newton's
work, motion of planets, heavenly bodies, etc. could not be predicted. Newton's
laws triumphed because of their usefulness.
Science was finally explained in precise mathematical terms and is in
use today. Science no longer could
intimidate man; man was no longer on the bottom rung. Through Newton's
works, man had finally accomplished explanations that were previously explained
by Astrology and the occult.
Newton
expressed his laws in quantitative terms.
His math was able to forecast what would work and what would not and
could be verified or falsified. His laws
were empirically deduced and continue today in our space program. His single most deductive discovery was his
law of gravitational attraction. He made
no assumptions about the cause of gravitational attraction and he did not
speculate about what was happening between the attracting bodies.
The Quantum Physics married the wave and particle theories
(ref. 1). Particle physics was
considered because it was found that Newton’s
laws no longer held in the microscopic world.
His second law, F = ma was replaced with the Shroedinger wave equation
at the atomic level. A wave equation was
necessary because it was found that atomic particles reacted with
electromagnetic waves. Other
developments leading to this included the quantizing of energy by Planck to
explain the inconsistency of radiation vs. frequency. Einstein used Planck’s quantum (E = hf) idea
as an explanation, with some modification, for the photoelectric effect.
Our space program uses and confirms laws of Newton. Even though the gravity value for each planet
is different, the value in each case is derived from the same set of universal
laws (Newton’s) and is measured in
the same manner. Mathematically, Gravity
is the second derivative of distance with respect to time (where: D = 16T2).
Maxwell’s equations are a work of art and are the
cornerstone of electrodynamics. The
development led to the measurement of the finite SOL, radiation, radio waves,
etc. The big question and controversy
among the scientist of this time was, does this finite speed of the radiation
have a reference?
Einstein's presentation was also bolstered by mathematics
but was quite a contrast to Newton
and Maxwell's work. Newton's
works could be expressed in words and demonstrated graphically and his theory
of gravitation was confirmed with reams of astronomical observations and
experiments. Einstein's works were words
and math formulae (75 to be exact). Most
of the text was to explain the mathematics.
Einstein's papers expressed little practical utility but they did agree
with most of Newton's work.
Newton’s
system dealt with changes in velocity and Maxwell’s system dealt with constant
velocity. Newton
and Maxwell’s works are based on mathematical physical knowledge of nature and
their presentations are true realities in the objective physical world. Einstein attempted to fit these systems
together because he felt that they were incompatible and could not
coexist. His work preempted the real
world of measurement by making time and distance subjective to the system in
which they are measured.
There have been some theories presented by guess and
conjecture because of previous studies.
The scientist took the challenge to hunt and to prove these theories. Many of the planets were predicted before
they were discovered. The transistor was
made a reality after all the theoretical groundwork was laid. All of Quantum Physics was developed and
created through a series of experiments and a collection of data (ref.1). Measurements and data that agreed with common
sense in the objective real world backed these discoveries. Einstein's work and his attempt to extend Newton's
work did not. If it is shown that Einstein's
postulate is not true then the SRT’s time and distance (contraction or expansion)
losses its power. It then turns out that
all the mental gymnastics associated with the SRT is just a precursor to a new
development. However whatever the new
development might deny has to be preempted by that which takes its place.
As background information it can be said that the SRT
deals with something that is relative to nothing. What does this mean? The consequences of these concepts are many
and will be pursued further. The SRT
postulates that every observer must perform his own measurements in his own
frame of reference; his house, his planet, or his galaxy. There is no such thing as absolute rest
(today it is possible to create a point of absolute rest with respect to the
earth via a synchronous satellite). It
is further stated that the common ground of measurements is that everyone
everywhere, regardless of his state of motion will obtain the same answer if he
attempts to measure the SOL.
Relative speeds in Newton’s
system were acceptable and in Einstein’s work they were questionable and
dependent. If the reader is unfamiliar
with what relative speed means, he is urged to become very familiar with Newton’s
works and relative speeds (see reference 3).
A good grasp on these concepts is essential. The reader is referred back to Section four
of this paper.
A review of relative speeds is revisited here with two
more examples. First think of a man
shooting a gun while positioned on a moving train. Newton’s
law can show that if a man shoots at a target that the train is approaching,
the velocity of the bullets is increased by an amount equal to the velocity of
the train. Next, consider a gun being
shot at a stationary target from a stationary platform and then the same target
being shot at from a platform that is moving toward the target. Which bullet will reach the target first?
FIGURE 1
The second example is of two identical space ships (same
dimensions) traveling in space (Figure 1).
The velocity of space ship #1 is greater than the velocity of space ship
#2 and these velocities are uniform and less than the SOL. Consider an instant in time when ship #1 is
just overtaking ship #2 as depicted in Figure 1. The two ships are identical and have
identical equipment for measuring the SOL.
Just at the instant the ships are lined up, a burst of light enters the
ships in a direction of their velocities.
The plan is to measure the amount of time it takes for the light to
traverse L1 and L2 respectively.
Both ships contain a ruler and a timing device. Before leaving earth, the rulers on space
ship #1 and space ship #2 calibrated with the same dimensions and the timing
devices were synchronous and kept time in the same way. Think of the ships as targets moving away
from a light source here on earth. The
light sources are fixed and synchronous and their bursts of light arrive at
point A just as ship #1 is overtaking ship #2.
From our previous example of bullets on the train and
those presented in Section 3, one would suspicion that the amount of time for
the burst of light to traverse space ship #1 should take longer than for the
burst of light to traverse the same distance in space ship #2. The light burst entered each ship at the same
time and ship #1 is moving away from light burst faster than ship #2. As an analog, the bullets can be considered
as the burst of light and the space ships are the targets moving away from the
light burst. No matter what the speed of
the light is, it seems that the answers we receive for the speed of the light
burst must be different by an amount determined by the relative speeds of the
two space ships.
No! According to
the SRT, the answers that must be obtained are equal because the SOL is
relative to nothing. How can we obtain
the same answer for the given conditions of the two ships moving at different
speeds? Obviously the SOL is a constant
and equal in this particular measurement system. The measurements that have been made must
show a difference of the relative speeds of the two ships according to Newton’s
work. If the above answers are equal, it
is necessary that physical attributes of the timing device, the length
measuring device or dimensions of one of the space ships have to change. If it is assumed that the dimensions of
distance and time have been scaled or changed in space ship #1, we have entered
an unreal world of objectivity where the time measuring devices, distance
measuring device and/or the dimensions of the system, in which they are measured
must change. If this is true, a system
of standards for each system must be defined.
The above concepts do not prove that time and distance
have changed as defined by the scientific community (their standards). Maybe the measuring devices or the dimensions
of the system change (still not proven).
We have already considered that great care was used in setting a
measuring system that is always certain, consistent and repeatable. If it is assumed that the tenet (SOL a
universal constant), the intellect dictates that the mathematics are not right
(time and distance must change or the dimensions of the system must change to
ensure that the postulate holds).
What does it all mean (I believe it was mathematical and
intellectual necessity)? These new
abstract thoughts have changed our previously gained knowledge of
experience. A new conceptual language is
expressed that enters another system of meaning. The new system of meaning presents the
subjectiveness of time and distance on the speed of the reference system. Time and distance have been taken from the
physical world and put in the world of mathematics and appeals to intellectual
necessity rather than changes in the real world and common sense. Time definition and length definition are
standards that do not change.
The tenets of the SRT set up an intellectual demand for a
new coordinate system that will incorporate the subjectivness of time and
distance changes. If time and distance
are questionable, it can be stated that Euclid’s
geometry and that coordinate system are in trouble.
TENET #1: There is
no such thing as absolute rest. It says
that all inertial frames of reference are treated equally. It is interesting to note that today a
synchronous satellite can be positioned that is at absolute rest with respect
to some point on the earth. It can be
held precisely to a fixed position electronically. The SOL can be measured at a fixed point on
earth from the synchronous satellite and compared with the same measurement
made from a moving satellite (Remember in the Michelson/Morley experiment a
point of absolute rest for measuring the SOL was being sought. The experiment failed. It is inconsequential whether Einstein postulate
came before or after the failed experiment. The experiment lent credence to his postulate that
SOL was a universal constant).
TENET #2: The SOL
is a constant (universal) and relative to nothing. It is not the purpose of this paper to design
the experiments for these measurements from absolute rest with those that are
moving. Technology has all the tools for
obtaining the necessary data to disprove this tenet. The article on this site “Speed of Light”
offers a suggestion for measuring SOL.
Is it possible to escape from this unreal, non-absolute
world of measurement back into the real world of objective measurements? It is important that it be accomplished
without denying any of the proven work of physics. In order to be progressive, any new concepts
must extend our knowledge and understanding of the subject matter. Following the consideration of the GRT in section
10, a new frontier is presented, in which, an attempt is being made to put all
measurements back in agreement with common sense.
An opposite viewpoint could have been taken. The SOL is relative and is not an initial
condition and that Newton’s works
and Maxwell’s equations hold in their entirety.
E = mc2 and does not depend upon the characteristics of the
universal constancy of the SOL and the GRT must be reconsidered. This is a drastic change and challenges the
intellectual comfort zones of some people.
Please read on and see if you like a General
Theory of Relativity (GRT)
One purpose of the GRT leans heavily on the SRT for its
justification. Einstein also understood
that the SRT left questions unanswered and he covered his tracks by postulating
his GRT. It attempted to explain away
those characteristics created by his SRT that encountered difficulty fitting
into the real world. It is curious that in
all the literature, any problem dealing with the GRT relates to the tenets for
the SRT.
New developments and the discovery that the tenets of the
SRT are not cast in cement indicate the possibility that the general theory
must be changed or replaced. It does not
change questions raised by the theories.
This paper is not attempting to shoot down Einstein's works. It is meant to trace, in a logical and
historical manner, the thought processes to better understand how the theories
fit in the real world today. In this
process questions have been raised.
According to the literature, the acceptance of the GRT is
a new coordinate system that is curved with a fourth dimension of time. This coordinate system is the direct result
of an intellectual necessity brought about by the SRT (non linear distance and
time). Measurements of space and time no
longer agreed with common sense and they required change. The tenets of the special theory are here
being questioned and denied in order to release a subjective space and time.
Another purpose for the GRT was to eliminate the need for
Newtonian action a distance required for Newton’s
law of gravity. Einstein’s gravity was
based on field contact action. Particles
of matter were supposed to be guided by contact with curve space instead of being
attracted by distant bodies (Newton). Inertial and gravitational systems were equal
and are known and explained as the Principle of Equivalence (Field Contact
Action). In this system, somebody
standing on a balance in a windowless enclosure is unable to tell with
certainty that the weight measured on the scale of balance, is caused by the
attraction of the earth, or is and inertial force due to upward acceleration in
weightless space. In this system gravity
is not spared. It too becomes
relative. In Newton’s
world, gravity and inertia are separate entities. Inertia is the resistance to a change in
force in the gravity force field.
Field contact action, according to Einstein’s gravity, cannot
produce simultaneity as in Newton’s
work because of the finite time required for changes to be recorded. The field lines are the media of transmittal
for the force field and with a media of transmittal nothing can happen in zero
time. In the far action system of Newton
a media of travel is not necessary allowing simultaneity of actions and
reactions. Mutual interaction between
the bodies (sun, planets, particles etc.) does exist.
Einstein’s world is somewhat like induction in an electric
circuit. Current in one element causes
an effect (voltage) in another element and a finite time is required. With Newton’s
gravity all elements equally contribute to the field of force. There is normally one key element of matter
(in our solar system it is the sun).
However, it is multiple actions between all elements of matter in the
force field. Interaction and the
recipient of its effect are felt by all elements at once. A sudden change in one is instantly felt by
the force field and affects all. It is
an energy force field that can only be changed by an addition of another
body. In Einstein’s system the addition
of another body simply changes field lines of the system and changes how bodies
can travel. These changes require a
finite time barring simultaneity.
Einstein predicted that light beams are bent and he
suggested an experiment, which was carried out.
The light beams do actually bend (which denies his postulate that the SOL
is a universal constant because if light can change speed and doesn’t travel in
a straight line then it has a component of acceleration).
If it is assumed that the tenet (“c” a universal
constant), the intellect dictates that the mathematics are not right (time and
distance must change or the dimensions of the system must change to ensure that
Einstein’s postulate holds).
If “c” = ds/dt = a
constant
Then d2s/dt2
= 0 = acceleration of light
but light is known
to bend under certain circumstances
therefore it has a
component of acceleration
What does it all mean?
It is a mathematical and intellectual necessity. The SRT necessitates new abstract thoughts
that want to change our previously gained knowledge of experience.
When light waves
pass from medium to medium, they change speed and direction and bend sharply as
anyone can see by observing a stick or an object in water. A much smaller effect is observed as function
of gravity force fields when light travels in space. It is assumed that the media near the sun is
much different (somewhat rarefied) compared to other parts of space (simple
optics explains this). The sun is
mentioned, because the experiment involved light from a star bending, contingent
on the proximity of its path with respect to the sun. Fermat’s law predicts that light takes the
path (affected by its media) that requires the least amount of time.
Subsequently, Light vs.Gravity will be treated and related
to a new concept. The bending of light,
besides being a function of the media it travels in, is also an inverse
function of Gravitational Force Field (GFF).
In lieu of the demands for a new coordinate system (Einstein’s world),
it is suggested that the scientific community investigate again the tenets of
SRT. It is hoped that the reader is
becoming convinced that the SOL is a constant in different gravitational
systems but it is not a universal constant (an initial condition).
Gravitational red shifts verify and exploit the same
causes for the bending of starlight.
Shifts of wavelengths in materials coming from the sun are compared with
shifts of wavelengths of the same material here on earth. Can it also be said that ruler’s contract and
clocks run more slowly because the SOL is universal constant? This particular aspect has already been
treated in the example of measuring the SOL for the space ships.
In 1958 black holes were postulated and offered as another
proof of GRT. It is believed that a
black hole is a collapsed star that possesses so much gravity that light cannot
pass through it. In the development to
follow, energy and SOL will be shown to be an inverse function of Newton’s
gravity, which produces the same results because anything divided by infinity
is zero. Demands for complex
explanations can be displaced and replaced leaving the scientific community
with a better look at ordinary realities.
The explanation of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit has
to do with a space-time continuum that is convenient and in the vicinity of the
sun. The new coordinate system demanded
by the special theory is used to explain it.
The “curved
