And that is why is still considered true after 100 years I know. Nevertheless I have found theoretical inconsistencies and I also have found a totally new theory that seems to be right. It is under development and many things remains to be proven, still much work remains to be done, but is a good one...
I'm not confused, I have made some theoretical discoveries...
If GR doesn't treat rotating reference frames any better than they were treated classically, then it isn't "handling" them in the sense I was talking about (ie. that the same laws are valid in rotating and non-rotating frames).
If GR doesn't claim that the laws of physics are invariant with respect to transformations into rotating frames, it certainly cannot claim all reference frames are equally valid.
Do you have anything more than your own personal belief to offer? Because every indication is that this belief is wrong. Gyroscopes may detect an absolute state of rotation, but that is all they detect.
The "absolute" frame that would contradict special relativity is the unique reference frame in which the laws of physics would take their simplest form, which requires variance of the laws of physics with respect to transformations. If you're working on a different definition of "absolute" (eg. considering the CMB or centre of mass of the universe), fine, but it no longer has anything to do with relativity.
So what makes two different observations made by two different observers a contradiction in and of itself? I'd say it just made whatever was being observed frame (or observer) dependent.
You can't measure a rate of change with only one data point.
Can you give an example?
They "detect an absolute state of rotation" and you think this is irrelevant?
When I say that an absolute frame can be determined by gyroscopes directions and the center at the center of the Universe I'mnot defining "absolute frames" but just giving a way to determine them. Of course I propose that some laws are non-invariant. I present DE Broglie law as an example in part B of page cited at the head post.
There are some things that are not frame dependent. If I has a long bear I will have it in any frame of reference that I could be observed. Age is an intrinsic property of living individuals that cannot be frame dependent anyway. You cannot observe that something have happened in a frame of observation while not happening just changing the frame of observation.
Of course I can, just look at Lorentz transformation for time!
Of what? A law that is variant with respect to a transformation into a rotating frame? Just take either classical or relativistic mechanics. An object with no external forces acting upon it doesn't even obey Newton's first law in a rotating frame (see Coriolis effect).
As far as special relativity is concerned, yes (I don't really feel like defending a theory like GR that I don't understand).
They don't contradict Lorentz invariance, and therefore don't contradict special relativity. Relativity only denies absolute linear velocity. It says nothing about absolute angular velocity. The two are completely independent.
You have to show that the "absolute frame" you are determining is the same type of "absolute frame" relativity claims is undetectable. Otherwise, you don't have a case against relativity.
The de Broglie relations can be expressed as:
If I have a theory that claims that the existence of your long beard is frame dependent, my theory clearly would not fit observation and experience, but it could well be internally consistent.
This is the way things happen to be and what human intuition has evolved to expect. It is not a logical necessity.
Staring at an equation and deriving something based on physical measurements are not the same thing. How would your two twins measure their relative ageing rates?
From your link:
A rotational frame is an accelerated frame (non inertial) and of course "fictitious" forces are needed and used even in Classical Physics! In an accelerated frame every object must be considered as under the effect of the "fictitious" forces. The same happens in frames under gravitational fields.
Of course it is. Is obvious.
I repeat: you arrive at the same formula as me so where is the problem?
I don't say Relativity is "internally" inconsistent, I say it is physically inconsistent.
"Human intuition has evolved to expect???
So...?
So you've found Lorentz variant laws?
You did not arrive at:
So you can cite experimental results that are inconsistent with relativity?
Yes. Humans have evolved minds designed to cope with the world we live in as we see it. We did not directly experience curved space, reciprocity, wave-particle duality and so on in everyday life in the history of our species, so it's not surprising that we never evolved to consider them natural or obvious. They seem impossible, but in reality they just contradict a worldview you take for granted.
What makes it a necessity? Necessity for what, anyway?
Relativity doesn't contradict this. The descriptions of a phenomenon gets transformed from one reference frame to another, but the phenomenon remains the same.
So there is no problem with rotational frames in GR nor even in Classical Physics as you have said.
Don't you read properly the posts?
My equation is the same as that you called "simplified equation" and is derived directly from the Lorentz transform of distance (lenght). This is the right way to analize the variance or non-invariance of De Broglie law and it appears non-invariant.
Not for the moment. I made a theoretical work and have found Relativity THEORETICALLY inconsistent.
That the way Relativity defenders have to think. I don't believe it. I believe our intuitive perception of nature is right and Relativity is wrong.
I have said: "You cannot observe that something have happened in a frame of observation while not happening just changing the frame of observation."
There are some descriptions or observations that are frame dependent (like trajectory) but there are others like age that are not. As I said, for example if I have a bear at some time I will have it independently of the referential chosed to observe me.
I never said that you couldn't transform the laws of physics into a rotating reference frame. In general, you can do this for any arbitrarily twisted coordinate system (you can even use the Galilean transformation if you really want) - it just boils down to variable substitutions and a bit of algebra. The point is that the transformed laws generally don't take the same form in the new coordinate system as they do in the original inertial frame. The paragraph you quoted from Wiki supports this in the case of rotating frames.
I do, and no, it doesn't.
No it's not. If it was, you'd be able to point out specific flaws in my arguments [POST=1364647]here[/POST] and [POST=1364865]here[/POST] and [POST=1368821]here[/POST], rather than resorting to reflexive denial and contradiction. I, on the other hand, can point out the specific flaw in your reasoning: you are applying a formula of limited applicability where it isn't applicable. Unless you can find a flaw in the derivation I provided, the correct transformation of the wavelength is this one:
Relativity is an internally consistent and tested theory. It is only inconsistent with your own preconceptions. You aren't trying to observe and explain the laws of nature. You are trying to dictate what you think they should be.
There's no reason for our intuition to be naturally tuned to understanding nature on scales and in situations we don't encounter in everyday life.
I'm not claiming this is right or wrong. I am claiming it cannot be shown that the universe must obey this principle, not that we don't observe that it does. There's a difference.
Therefore, your notion that age is an "intrinsic property" of living beings is inconsistent with reality.
No it's not. The length contraction formula only works if whatever you're measuring the length of is at rest in one of the two frames you are considering. As you just worked out for yourself, the phase velocity of a de Broglie wave is never less than $$c$$ in any frame.
Which condition would that be?
Er, how can $$\frac{c^2}{v}$$ be finite and $$\frac{h}{\gamma m v}$$ be infinite for the same $$v$$?
Is not the same.
Look at your own formula:
And $$\lambda' = \frac{c^2}{v'} T$$ is also infinite if $$v' = 0$$, so where's the problem?
See this and this. The latter gives a whole list of trivial ways in which you can get "something" to travel faster than light in a way that isn't a problem for relativity.
Given that a particle's velocity is $$u$$ and mass is $$m$$ (and $$p = \gamma(u) m u$$, $$E = \gamma(u) m c^2$$) in a reference frame $$K$$, there are two ways of calculating its wavelength in a frame $$K'$$ travelling at velocity $$v$$ with respect to $$K$$.
But the concept of the "fictitius"forces enables for exmple the motion law: F=dp/dt have the same form. Is just that the forces are different when seen from different frames.