Relativity Theory is THEORETICALLY wrong!

[martillo]

I have found many new interpretations (I mean different physical phenomena to explain the same results) for well known experiments rather than the relativistic explanations!: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/new_interpretations/Summary_of_new_interpretations.htm
Someone will find the proper explanation on Gravity Probe B results at its time.

What is important now is that Relativity Theory is THEORETICALLY wrong as demonstrated in: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section1-1_Considerations_against_Relativity.htm

A new theory is NEEDED!

 

[(Q)]

A new theory is NEEDED!

Needed for what?

 

[przyk]

Hi martillo,

What is important now is that Relativity Theory is THEORETICALLY wrong as demonstrated in: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section1-1_Considerations_against_Relativity.htm

It doesn't look like your arguments have changed since the last time I saw them (except for one which seems to have disappeared). But anyway. I'll deal with your point (C) about gyroscopes now because it's fairly trivial:

Another consideration against Relativity is about the Foucault pendulum and the gyroscope behavior that is related to the conservation of the angular momentum of the bodies. If there is no special absolute referential then we may wonder: related to what referential are the directions determined by these apparatus fixed?

The answer is: relative to any inertial reference frame. Relativity denies the existence of a single, unique absolute frame, but it doesn't claim the opposite extreme: that all reference frames are indistinguishable and equally valid. The fact that things behave differently in rotating frames is obvious to anyone who's ever been on a merry-go-round or in a car turning a sharp corner, so you don't need to bring up pendulums, gyroscopes, or the Sagnac effect to prove this point.

STR claims that the laws of physics are invariant with respect to transformations in the Poincaré group. This includes boosts, translations, and fixed rotations (as opposed to rotating frames, where the angle of rotation is not constant), so you can see relativity as proposing a preferred set of reference frames if you like.

As for (A), I don't see why this:

We must also note that the rate of aging is different as seen in the mother-ship (velocity v) than seen by the twins (velocity w).

should be a problem for you (I'd expect ageing rates to be relative).

As for this:

This means that for each one the other twin is getting younger than himself.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but it isn't actually a contradiction. In general, $$\frac{\part a}{\part b}$$ doesn't necessarily equal $$\left( \frac{\part b}{\part a} \right)^{-1}$$ in mathematics.

There's nothing magical about reciprocity, so if you like I could come up with a though experiment that might make it seem more reasonable to you.

 

[martillo]

Hi przyk,

It doesn't look like your arguments have changed since the last time I saw them (except for one which seems to have disappeared).

Yes, thanks to some discussions in this forum I have realized that Relativity can be developed with constant mass. It's only necessary to redefine the momentum as p=γmv where γ=1/(root(1-v2/c2)). So the argument that mass is constant although considered true is not any proof that Relativity is wrong.

Relativity denies the existence of a single, unique absolute frame, but it doesn't claim the opposite extreme: that all reference frames are indistinguishable and equally valid.

Yes it does, General Relativity does. It even include any accelerated frame!

STR claims that the laws of physics are invariant with respect to transformations in the Poincaré group. This includes boosts, translations, and fixed rotations

Boosts, translations and fixed rotations relative to what??? You must consider a first basic reference frame to say that and which is it? That frame must not be accelerated to be an inertial frame but not accelerated relative to what?
It must exist a basic frame or a set of frames which we could call them to be at rest! Then you after can state that any frame having a boost, translation or constant rotation relative to them is an inertial frame.
You must consider that any frame obtained by a boost, translation or constant rotation from an accelerated frame will also be an accelerated frame.
Then once we accept that "rest" frames in the Universe exist just one of them selected by some property of the universe like possible symmetry would be the "privileged" absolute frame of the Universe.
Iknow it would not be easy to determine but I believe some day it will be.

As for (A), I don't see why this:

“ We must also note that the rate of aging is different as seen in the mother-ship (velocity v) than seen by the twins (velocity w). ”

should be a problem for you (I'd expect ageing rates to be relative).

As for this:

“ This means that for each one the other twin is getting younger than himself. ”

It may seem counter-intuitive, but it isn't actually a contradiction. In general, doesn't necessarily equal in mathematics.

There's nothing magical about reciprocity, so if you like I could come up with a though experiment that might make it seem more reasonable to you.

The problem is that ages are not relative! Age is directly related to all physiological phenomena that have haened to an individual in his history. You cannot say something has happened if one frame of observation is selected but that thing hasn't if another one is selected!
Suppose that in one frame of observation twin1 aged more than twin2 and so twin1 has a long bear while twin2 has not. That situation cannot change just changing the frame of observation. The fact that the twin has or not has bear cannot depend in the reference frame.
A consistent theory will give the same observation of that kind of things (which can be called Intrinsic properties) in any frame of observation. Otherwise is an inconsistent and a wrong theory!

 

[martillo]

(Q),

“ Originally Posted by martillo
A new theory is NEEDED! ”

Needed for what?

Well I think nobody wants to have to believe in a wrong theory. It could give wrong predictions and could make us think or even do something wrong.

 

[(Q)]

(Q),

Well I think nobody wants to have to believe in a wrong theory. It could give wrong predictions and could make us think or even do something wrong.

It hasn't yet. So, what's your point?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

It is just a theory.

 

[przyk]

Yes it does, General Relativity does. It even include any accelerated frame!

And it accounts for the pseudo-forces in those frames with the existence of a gravitational potential gradient and space-time curvature. I don't think GR handles rotating frames, though.

Boosts, translations and fixed rotations relative to what??? You must consider a first basic reference frame to say that and which is it? That frame must not be accelerated to be an inertial frame but not accelerated relative to what?

I suppose the short answer is to say that there's an absolute state of acceleration. Once you've detected an inertial reference frame (not very difficult), the Poincaré group gives you all the other reference frames with the same properties.

It must exist a basic frame or a set of frames which we could call them to be at rest! Then you after can state that any frame having a boost, translation or constant rotation relative to them is an inertial frame.
You must consider that any frame obtained by a boost, translation or constant rotation from an accelerated frame will also be an accelerated frame.

This gives absolute acceleration. Relativity denies absolute velocity. This, by the way, is exactly the way it was with Galilean relativity.

Just in case you didn't know, a "boost" is a transformation into a frame in relative motion. For example:

$$t' = \gamma (t - \frac{v}{c^2}x)$$

$$x' = \gamma (x - vt)$$​

is a Lorentz boost along the x-axis.

Then once we accept that "rest" frames in the Universe exist just one of them selected by some property of the universe like possible symmetry would be the "privileged" absolute frame of the Universe.

If the laws of physics are the same in an entire set of reference frames, you cannot attribute special properties to just one.

The problem is that ages are not relative! Age is directly related to all physiological phenomena that have haened to an individual in his history.

All this tells me is that relativity is incompatible with your own worldview. A theory only contradicts itself if it predicts (in two different ways) that one observer will make two contradictory observations.

In any case, the success of relativity is due to its history of making accurate predictions. If you like, you can imagine that your mother ship is in an absolute reference frame, claim that time dilation and length contraction occur relative to that frame only, and still show that the twins will observe exactly what relativity predicts they will. In this sense, you can consider relativity to be an illusion if you want.

You cannot say something has happened if one frame of observation is selected but that thing hasn't if another one is selected!

If an event occurs in one reference frame, it occurs in all reference frames. It's only a question of when.

Suppose that in one frame of observation twin1 aged more than twin2 and so twin1 has a long bear while twin2 has not. That situation cannot change just changing the frame of observation. The fact that the twin has or not has bear cannot depend in the reference frame.

The problem here is simultaneity. Two events that occur simultaneously in one frame do not occur simultaneously in all frames. Look at the equation for the Lorentz boost I posted above. Notice that t' is also a function of x. Again, you can call relativity of simultaneity "real" or "apparent", but it is possible to show that either one of the moving twins will "naturally" map out a reference frame related to your mother ship frame by a Lorentz transformation.

Imagine one of the twins moving in the +x direction at velocity v. Suppose he wants to place a clock in front of him, and another behind him. From the point of view of the mother ship, the clock he pushes forward will move faster than v, and so will dilate more than the twin. The clock he pushes back will move slower than v, and so will experience less time dilation. If the clocks were synchronized before our twin moved them, they won't be synchronized afterwards. But he'll think they're still in sync because of the difference in time it takes light to reach him from each of the clocks.

 

[przyk]

I'll address point (B) here.

Suppose there's a particle traveling at velocity v respect to a referential R. R’ is a referential fixed to the particle. In R De Broglie formula is λ = h/mv where m and v are the velocity and the mass of the particle as seen from R.

Now we consider a change to R’. λ as a wavelength is a distance. If we apply the Lorentz transforms to λ, at t=0 for simplicity, λ is enlarged by the denominator s = (1-v[sup]2[/sup]/c[sup]2[/sup])1/2. We will have in R’: λ’ = λ/s which gives us some finite value.

But what happens if we apply De Broglie equation in the same form in R’? The particle is at rest in R’, this means v’ = 0 and we would have λ’ = infinite which is in discrepancy with the result above.

The transformation of a wavelength (and distances in general) is not that simple. The expression of a wave (assuming unit amplitude and no phase) looks like this:

$$\cos(kx + \omega t)$$ (wavelength $$\lambda = \frac{2 \pi}{k}$$, period $$T = \frac{2 \pi}{\omega}$$)​

The inverse Lorentz boost along the x axis is:

$$t = \gamma (t' + \frac{v}{c^2}x')$$

$$x = \gamma (x' + vt')$$​

Substituting into the expression $$kx + \omega t$$ gives:

$$\gamma k (x' + vt') + \gamma \omega (t' + \frac{v}{c^2}x')$$​

This can be rearranged to give:

$$\gamma (k + \frac{v}{c^2}\omega) x' + \gamma (\omega + vk) t'$$​

So we can rewrite our wave as:

$$\cos(k' x' + \omega' t')$$​

where:

$$k' = \gamma (k + \frac{v}{c^2}\omega)$$

$$\omega' = \gamma (\omega + vk)$$​

You can see that it is perfectly possible for the wavenumber $$k$$ to be zero (corresponding to an infinite wavelength) in one frame and non-zero in another, provided $$\omega \neq 0$$. Where $$\omega = 0$$, $$k' = \gamma k$$, and we get the familiar length contraction formula for the wavelength:

$$\lambda' = \frac{1}{\gamma}\lambda$$​

 

[martillo]

(Q),

It hasn't yet. So, what's your point?

Well, you haven't but I believe there are some contradictions and inconsistencies and is what I'm presenting here.

 

[(Q)]

(Q),

Well, you haven't but I believe there are some contradictions and inconsistencies and is what I'm presenting here.

So, it is YOU personally who needs a new theory. Any particular reason why?

 

[martillo]

przyk,

I don't think GR handles rotating frames, though.

It does but the rotaton is treated the same as classically. If you have an object with a composed motion of linear velocity relative to an observer plus a rotation you just need to apply Lorentz Transform in the time varying plane of both, the observer and the object (that which also has the direction of the rotation) plus a classical rotation. It is a composed transform.

I suppose the short answer is to say that there's an absolute state of acceleration. Once you've detected an inertial reference frame (not very difficult), the Poincaré group gives you all the other reference frames with the same properties.

But this way you are accepting there is a special set of frames and is not what General Relativity says. When I'm referring to the frame that can be determined by pendulums and gyroscopes I'm referring to GR statement of no privileged frames of reference at all.

Relativity denies absolute velocity.

Yes and I believe it exist. We can just choose a frame with directions determined by gyroscopes far away from massive objects to ensure no gravitatonal effects and the center of the frame to be the center of the Universe which I believe must exist (although difficult to determine).
These way we can define rest frames in the Universe. One of them would be the Absolute Frame of the Universe which could be determined by some property of the Universe like symmetries in it.

If the laws of physics are the same in an entire set of reference frames, you cannot attribute special properties to just one.

I'm talking about special properties of the Universe and not of the laws of the Universe.

All this tells me is that relativity is incompatible with your own worldview. A theory only contradicts itself if it predicts (in two different ways) that one observer will make two contradictory observations.

A theory also contradicts itself if two different observers make contradictory observations what is present in the presented problem.

The problem here is simultaneity. Two events that occur simultaneously in one frame do not occur simultaneously in all frames.

The crossing event of the twins after the symmetrical travel gives only one event to be measured by all the frames in the instant when the center of all the frames coincide. This avoids the problem of the relativity of the simultaneity. This is one of the important features of the problem.

 

[martillo]

(Q),

So, it is YOU personally who needs a new theory. Any particular reason why?

Yes, I just want the truth.

 

[martillo]

przyk,

...and we get the familiar length contraction formula for the wavelength:
λ’ = (1/γ)λ

(copy/paste didn't work for the formula)
First note that the right equation is λ’ = γλ since the lenght observed by the frame "at rest" (λ) must be smaller than the lenght observed by the moving frame: the contraction must be λ < λ’ .
Second, you just arrived at the same formula as me so where is the problem???

 

[przyk]

(copy/paste didn't work for the formula)

Hit "quote" to reply. By the way, I'm using $$\TeX$$ (added to the forum a few months ago) to typeset formulae. There's a thread about it [THREAD=61223]here[/THREAD], in case you find it useful.

First note that the right equation is λ’ = γλ since the lenght observed by the frame "at rest" (λ) must be smaller than the lenght observed by the moving frame: the contraction must be λ < λ’ .
Second, you just arrived at the same formula as me so where is the problem???

The more general formula is:

$$\frac{1}{\lambda'} = \gamma \left( \frac{1}{\lambda} + \frac{v}{c^2} \, \frac{1}{T} \right)$$​

where $$T$$ is the period of the wave.

$$\lambda' = \frac{1}{\gamma} \lambda$$ is true only if the period $$T$$ (in the unprimed frame) is infinite.

$$\lambda' = \gamma \lambda$$ is true only if the period $$T'$$ (in the primed frame) is infinite.

The general relation between $$T$$ and $$T'$$ is:

$$\frac{1}{T'} = \gamma \left( \frac{1}{T} + v \frac{1}{\lambda} \right)$$​

I'll respond to your other post when I have time.

 

[(Q)]

(Q),

Yes, I just want the truth.

That would be your own, personal, self-gratifying truth?

Will that so-called truth be of any use to you? What do you expect to gain?

 

[martillo]

(Q),

That would be your own, personal, self-gratifying truth?

Yes, it is self-gratificating to find at least part of a truth.

Will that so-called truth be of any use to you?

I don't have a practical use for now but it is all under development and something can surge...

What do you expect to gain?

I used to dream to gain some things, it was a good incentive while having a hard work taking much of my time... but now I don't expect anything. I will receive just what others really would want to give, it all depends on the value it would have for otherones not for me.

 

[Singularity]

That would be your own, personal, self-gratifying truth?

Will that so-called truth be of any use to you? What do you expect to gain?

i am sure this exactly what the greatest scientist were told by the orthodox community, so stop being narrow minded.

 

[(Q)]

I don't have a practical use for now but it is all under development and something can surge...

What is under development? What will surge?

I used to dream to gain some things, it was a good incentive while having a hard work taking much of my time... but now I don't expect anything. I will receive just what others really would want to give, it all depends on the value it would have for otherones not for me.

Others already have found value in the existing theory. In fact, it works very well, with solid experimental results. What makes you think you will provide any more value?

 

[martillo]

(Q),

What is under development? What will surge?

You should take a look at the main page: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics

Others already have found value in the existing theory. In fact, it works very well, with solid experimental results. What makes you think you will provide any more value?

Well, a right theory has more value than a wrong theory.