Gurcharn,

You wrote: "Further, a rod of length L0 will be seen to be of different lengths L1, L2, etc. when viewed from different IRF moving parallel to the length at different velocities. Hence, we may conclude that the length contraction in SR is an apparent effect, induced by the assumed constancy of the speed of light 'c' in all IRF in relative motion. This implies a logical flaw in the...

view entire post

Gurcharn,

You wrote: "Further, a rod of length L0 will be seen to be of different lengths L1, L2, etc. when viewed from different IRF moving parallel to the length at different velocities. Hence, we may conclude that the length contraction in SR is an apparent effect, induced by the assumed constancy of the speed of light 'c' in all IRF in relative motion. This implies a logical flaw in the second postulate of SR."

Correct. But Einsteinians couldn't care less and develop the absurdity further. They teach that, since the rod is measured to be shorter, it can even be trapped inside a shorter container - e.g. an 80 m pole can be gloriously trapped inside a 40 m barn:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/bar
n_pole.html

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol35_no1/vol35_no1_2.pdf

"Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

view post as summary

Dear Gurbachan,

I have read your excellent paper and I am in general agreement with your views. There are some areas that I see differently. The point that is most important in your argument, as I see it is your disagreement with the first postulate – ‘Special’ Principle of Relativity’. In addition to the relevant dynamical point you raise about the angular momentum and kinetic...

view entire post

Dear Gurbachan,

I have read your excellent paper and I am in general agreement with your views. There are some areas that I see differently. The point that is most important in your argument, as I see it is your disagreement with the first postulate – ‘Special’ Principle of Relativity’. In addition to the relevant dynamical point you raise about the angular momentum and kinetic energy with respect to the barycentric frame, there is also another point that I would like to make because this is the key to the dynamic explanation of the so-called Lorentz transformation. (This you will understand from the last section of my paper).

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

While your arguments about angular momentum and kinetic energy are valid, they trivialize this argument by insisting that a) energy is relative and b) laws of physics (meaning Newton’s second law holds) in all inertial frames. Their argument is based on the position that the differential coefficient of the velocity of a particle will remain invariant, with respect to any IFR.

Einstein has taken the dynamic content out of Galileo’s principle of relativity and made a fake imitation of it. And this is why a dynamic explanation for the Lorentz transformation can not be offered by SRT.

I would like you to consider the following.

In his book “Dialogue Between The Two Chief World Systems” in the chapter on Second Day (157 pages in all) he takes example after example and showed that the reason why the effects of motion of a place (i.e. observer’s location) in uniform motion cannot seen by the observer is because the observer and the observed objects (in motion relative to the observer) shared a COMMON MOTION with that place.

Galileo started off his discussion on the principle of relativity in the following way: “Then let the beginning of our reflections be the consideration that whatever motions comes to be attributed to the earth must necessarily remain IMPERCEPTIBLE to us and as if non-existent, so long as we look only at terrestrial objects; for as inhabitants of the earth, WE CONSEQUENTLY PARTICIPATE IN THE SAME MOTION” (p. 114).

“The cause of all these correspondences of effects is the fact that the ship’s motion is common to all the things contained in it” (p. 187).

In Galileo’s relativity, (as opposed Poincare’s version), it is the relative motion between the objects, that remain unaffected by motion of the place (Local reference frame), and not the discrete motion per se of a given object.

Newton brings this out clearly in his statement of the principle of relativity: Newton wrote the principle of relativity (in Principia, Corollary V) as follows: “The motions of bodies included in a GIVEN SPACE are the same AMONG THEMSELVES, whether that space is at rest or moves uniformly forwards in a right line without any circular motion” (p. 20).

“Motion of bodies ….among themselves” means motions RELATIVE to one another, and not the motion of each body relative to the given space. (According the Galileo’s principle Relative motions between bodies remain invariant, but not discrete motions of individual bodies).

Poincare started to twist Galileo’s tail from 1900 to insist that a) there is no common motion with the local frame b) Motion of each body remained unaffected by the motion of the local frame. (This is the basis of equivalence of all reference frames). In 1904 St. Louis Speech he announced his Principle of Relativity. (According to Poincare’s principle, discrete motion of each body remains invariant. “Motion of A BODY is independent of the motion of the system”)

Einstein dropped Galileo-Newton principle of relativity and grabbed hold of Poincare’s principle. The rest is history of confusion for 100 years.

I think the dynamic explanation of LT by the restoration of Galileo’s principle will be important to prove the fallacy of the notion of equivalence of all IFR.

I would like to hear your comments.

Best regards,

Viraj

view post as summary

Dear G S Sandhu,

Thank you for your kind words. I agree with you! In the background of overwhelming odds (and noise) our collective message that something is wrong with physics needs to resonate in mutual support to be heard and considered.

You write, “The fact that mathematics mainly deals with dimensionless numbers, distinguishes its domain from that of physics. Physical...

view entire post

Dear G S Sandhu,

Thank you for your kind words. I agree with you! In the background of overwhelming odds (and noise) our collective message that something is wrong with physics needs to resonate in mutual support to be heard and considered.

You write, “The fact that mathematics mainly deals with dimensionless numbers, distinguishes its domain from that of physics. Physical dimensions provide an important linkage between mathematical representations and physical reality.”

I agree with that. And used the same idea in the past to differentiate the difference. Just this realization should forewarn physicists that math alone cannot illuminate physical reality. With physics we have 'measurements' which require 'benchmark comparison' and lead to 'relative quantities' (to the benchmarks) having 'units' and scaled by proportionality constants that acquire units.

The empty physical space of Physics is an oxymoron. Though I have no problem with the idea of empty space in math, I have serious problem with such in physics. Physical existence requires 'something' to fill the existing space. So how can empty space exist?

In the endnotes to my essay, “The Metaphysics of Physics”, I mathematically prove the following proposition: “If the speed of light is constant, then light propagates as a wave”. This puts the CSL Postulate in contradiction with the Photon Hypothesis. But it also shows that space is not empty. But must be filled by a medium of propagation. In my work that medium is the 'quantity eta' (Planck's constant is such a quantity, for example). As a propagating wave through a medium, the speed of light will indeed be absolute and independent of the 'source'. And since all measurements of the speed of light can only be done 'locally' to the medium of propagation, that absolute speed of light will also be independent of all observers; since all observers are 'local' to the 'ether' medium and so will be at rest with the medium. So no need to Postulate CSL. This becomes a 'mathematical certainty' and a 'physical reality'.

But, in my opinion, the biggest problem with the misuse of math in physics is the Spacetime continuum GR and Cosmology use to model the physical universe. One important result to come out of my continuous derivation of Planck's formula for blackbodies is a proportionality relation between entropy and time. Specifically, ΔS = kνΔt , where k is Boltzmann's constant and ν is frequency (or 'rate of evolution' is more closer to the 'truth' – both positive OR negative real number). Relating this to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, this leads to the following rewording of the Second Law: “all physical events take some positive duration of time to occur”. Thus, the Second Law specifies 'physical time' to be 'duration' Δt and NOT 'instantiation', t .The 'event points' of Spacetime, therefore are not representative of the physical universe. And this, in my view, may account for the discrepancies between Cosmology and Thermodynamics. The 'dark energy and matter' needed to fill in an accelerating inflationary universe may be a consequence of assuming physical events are instantaneous. Each moment of a particle, for example, traveling on a smooth worldline in Spacetime is a physical event that requires some duration of time to occur. It does not occur at an 'instant' t, as Spacetime assumes. And this may account for all that 'missing energy' that has lead physicists to a patchwork of theories to account.

I appreciate all your efforts to point out false and misleading assumptions in physics. All the best for a successful contest,

Constantinos

view post as summary

Hi Gurchan,

About Tom Phipps, look for “Acausal Absorber Theory” under the following article:

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissident
view.html. If your experiment is doable he will be most interested in it, to prove the constancy of light speed. Tom Phipps tephipps@sbcglobal.net,

You may also contact Greg Volk the.volks@comcast.net at the Natural...

view entire post

Hi Gurchan,

About Tom Phipps, look for “Acausal Absorber Theory” under the following article:

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissident
view.html. If your experiment is doable he will be most interested in it, to prove the constancy of light speed. Tom Phipps tephipps@sbcglobal.net,

You may also contact Greg Volk the.volks@comcast.net at the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA). Greg (or the NPA) does not have the facility to do your experiment but Greg has plenty of contacts. You can also by joining NPA put your essay/ other papers in NPA website, since the content coincides with their thinking.

Chandra Roychoudhry is the Organiser of ‘Nature of Light’ conference with SPIE. He is bound to have a lot of contacts who might be interested in your experiment.

chandra

Best of luck,

Viraj

view post as summary

Dear Gene Barbee/ Gurchan,

You wrote to Gurchan Sandhu: “I was sympathetic to your argument that we need a foundation that does not depend on an inertial frame”.

My paper not only shows the way to work motions of particles without reference frames, it explains all relativistic phenomena under this new foundation.

Please see: ...

view entire post

Dear Gene Barbee/ Gurchan,

You wrote to Gurchan Sandhu: “I was sympathetic to your argument that we need a foundation that does not depend on an inertial frame”.

My paper not only shows the way to work motions of particles without reference frames, it explains all relativistic phenomena under this new foundation.

Please see: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

(Note my essay in the competition is handicapped because the diagrams have not come out proper and FQXi rules do not permit any changes. Therefore I am attaching the essay separately as well.

I am copying what I wrote to Sergey Fedosin yesterday:

HERE IS HOW TO SEE THE PROBLEM OF MOTION OF A PARTICLE WITHOUT THE USE OF THE ERRONEOUS FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEM OF REFERENCE FRAMES AND FALLING INTO KINEMATICS.

It is done by developing an anlogy between thermodynamics and particle mechanics.

------------------

0. The zeroth law of motion is that,

a) In the motion of a particle it occurs by way the fusing on its intrinsic energy Mc2 and the applied energy of motion (pc). The fusion takes place by both quantities of energy losing fractions of energy in equal proportion – thus each quantity of energy gets scaled down by the factor  (gamma).

After this fusion has occurred, the scaled down quantities of energy are: net intrinsic energy Mc2/gamma and net energy of motion pc/gamma = Mvc, where gamma = 1/(1- v2/c2)1/2

b) The converse of the fusion theorem is that when a quantity of energy X is to break up into two parts aX and (1-a) X, the original energy X gets scaled up by a factor ’ (gamma)’ so that the parts become equal to (gamma)’aX and (gamma)’(1-a) X,

(Note: In my essay I have explained the physics of fusion and fission interactions)

1. In a system of particles moving relative to their common centre of mass, the energy of motion of the centre of mass cannot be made use of to make discrete changes in the particles relative to each other.

(Applied to earth, we earthlings cannot tap energy from the orbital motion of the earth for terrestrial use. ‘Impossibility of the perpetuum mobile of the first kind)

This is analogous to the first law of thermodynamics.

2. In applying energy of motion (pc/gamma = Mvc) on a particle within a co-moving the system of particles (about their centre of mass), it is impossible to for the particle to acquire a motion of velocity v, relative to the other co-moving particles to the full extent of the net energy (Mvc) applied.

This is analogous to the second law of thermodynamics. (Carnot’s cycle – see my essay p. 4 last para)

2a. The conversion of the applied net energy Mvc must occur with respect to the energy level of relative to which the motion of the common centre of mass occurs.

Recognizing that energy Mvc also possesses inertia Mv/c2, this energy too must move in common motion with the centre of mass (at velocity u). For this common motion it requires Mvc to break up and dedicate the fraction (Mvc).u/c. Hence the balance energy would be Mvc( 1-u/c). From zeroth law (b) this fission causes the energy of motion to scale-up by the factor gamma’= 1/(1- u2/c2)1/2 at the moment of fission.

Hence the energy that remains for motion relative to the centre of mass is Mvc(1-u/c)/(1-u2/c2)1/2.

Consequently the displacement of the particle relative to another particle (co-moving with the centre of mass) is: x’ = vt(1- u/c)/(1-u2/c2)1/2 --------------(1).



At Newtonian velocities v/c tends to 0, hence x’ tends to(gamma)’vt. Since for a particle moving relative to a lab frame on earth(gamma)’ = 1.000000005, for terrestrial displacements at Newtonian velocities (v/c tends to 0), the scaling up of the displacement due to ’ has gone unnoticed and in practice we have formed the convention

x = vt.-------------(2)

When very accurate measurements are made for particles moving at near light velocities v/c tends to1, the effect of the scaling up also has come to the notice. Then the equation (1) takes the appearance of

x’ = (x –ut)/(1- u2/c2)1/2 -----------------------(3) (Lorentz transformation).

Equation (3) is valid only for very fast moving particles. When the velocity of a particle reaches the range 0.5c the results start to significantly deviate from the equation. When it reaches the value of earth’s orbital velocity, the equation (3) breaks down totally.\

Unlike (3) Equation (1) provides accurate results for all velocities between low (Newtonian) velocities to near light velocities. This can be tested by analyzing the results of all the particle accelerator experiments carried out in the last 100 years.

Best regards/ Viraj

--------------------

Please see my essay: Have you seen any explanations for the following anywhere a) the mechanism through which gamma-factors arise. b) are you aware that there are two gamma-factors involved in the motion of a particle and why? c) from where the energy for the centrifugal force comes? d) The process which causes internal processes of particles to slow down? e) Why matter particles cannot reach the velocity c? f) why it requires momentum gammaMv for a particle to move with momentum Mv? f) Physical basis of Lorentz transformation? g) Have you come across a single equation with is applicable for the motion of a particle at any velocity (very slow or near light)? The story does not end there, there is many more things explained under the new foundation but I could not squeeze in everything within 25,000 characters that FQXi permitted.

view post as summary