The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The debunking of the special and general theory of relativity:  (Read 833 times)

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
If there is one defining moment in the history of Modern Physics, it is perhaps Einstein’s formulation of the Theory of Special Relativity. In the scope of its reach and the effect on its audience it probably eclipsed the Solvay Conferences which few people were aware of.  In 1905 the young Einstein brought to a head many of the arguments that had raged in the Solvay Conferences, with the publication of his Theory of Special Relativity:

Some Background:
Galilean invariance or Galilean relativity states that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames. Galileo Galilei first described this principle in 1632 in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems using the example of a ship travelling at constant velocity, without rocking, on a smooth sea; any observer doing experiments below the deck would not be able to tell whether the ship was moving or stationary.
In 1905, Albert Einstein determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and that the speed of light in a vacuum was independent of the motion of all observers. This was the theory of special relativity. It introduced a new framework for all of physics and proposed new concepts of space and time. 

While it was taken for granted that a fixed frame of reference existed for Galilean invariance, in actual fact no such fixed frame of reference existed, although it is assumed that the sun or the stars could have served as a fixed frame of reference.  Einstein introduced the concept of the invariance of the speed of light in a vacuum as the fixed frame of reference for the Theory of Special relativity. This, given the context of the times, was a highly controversial thing to do. Since this subject deserves further elucidation, it will be taken up later.
Einstein then spent 10 years trying to include acceleration in the theory and published his theory of general relativity in 1915. In it, he determined that massive objects cause a distortion in space-time, which is felt as gravity.
Yet the basis that Einstein used to formulate his theory of General Relativity is hugely flawed because it had a faulty initial perspective of what the causative factors behind the force of gravity was.  The perspective that Einstein used to describe the force of gravity was that it was just another form of

acceleration. One of the best known examples that illustrates the Theory of General Relativity is that of the elevator in space.  To show that it was not necessary to have a large physical mass to reproduce the effects of gravity, Einstein used the example of an elevator in space. Imagine a person in an elevator far from any large physical body in space. The elevator is accelerating at exactly the acceleration of gravity (i.e., 9.8m/s2  ) then to a person in that elevator there would be no way of knowing whether he was in space or standing still on earth, all of the phenomena that he experienced on earth would be reproduced in the elevator. If he jumped, he would fall back to the floor of the elevator, if he threw an object into space it would fall to the floor of the elevator and if he dropped a handkerchief, it would float gently down to the elevator floor all exactly as would have happened if he had been on earth.         

The simulation can be extended to include a whole township living on the floor of the elevator,  that is totally unaware of living in an elevator in space as long as the elevator is accelerating. 
Yet, sorry to say, this is a completely false and distorted picture of gravity, it is not even close! Instead of the floor of the elevator imagine the township on the leading edge side of the earth that is accelerating around the sun. Fine they are enjoying the benefit of the acceleration of the earth around the sun and as a result they are being pressed to the surface of the earth. BUT if this reasoning is true, surely it follows as night follows day, that the people on the far side of the earthy, away from the side that is on the leading edge of the earth in its acceleration around the sun, should fall away and float off into space, since there is no accelerating force to press them to the earth! 
In short the Theory of General Relativity is based on a false premise and consequently its whole reasoning and conclusion must be wrong, there are no two ways about it. Sir Isaac Newton in his laws of motion has stated clearly and unequivocally what happens when two objects (M) and (m) in contact with each other are accelerated with an acceleration (g).  In such a situation both the Second and the Third Law of motion would come into force.  Newton's second law of motion can be formally stated as follows: The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object. While Newton’s Third Law of motion states that for every action there will be an equal and opposite re-action.    Suppose that (M) has a mass of 60 Kg and (m) has a mass of 20 Kg and that g = 4m/s2. Then the force can be calculated using the equation F = ma .

Both the blocks are being pushed in the direction of the arrow. Thus the force being exerted  F = g(M+m) – gm = 4  x 80 = 320  – (20 x 4 = 80) = 240kN .  What is happening is that as the two objects M and m are being accelerated, m is pushing back on M with a force equal to gm so the net force is equal to gM and not to g(M + m).  As can be seen these forces have little to do with gravity. Newton was never able to explain the causative factors behind the force of gravity yet he was able to unequivocally state that the causative forces of gravity must clearly extend to the very heart of the stars and the planets without in anyway suffering the slightest diminution of force, Einstein’s general relativity clearly does not make the cut.
There is little wonder, given these circumstances that Einstein did not receive the Nobel prize in recognition for either the Theory of Special Relativity or for the Theory of General Relativity.
Returning once more  to the Theory of Special Relativity and the principle of the speed of light being constant or invariant. There exists a huge controversy over this and although the Principle of the speed of light being constant gained wide spread acceptance in the world of physics and among physicists as well as among the general public at large, the controversy remains. The problem is as follows:
Take any normal solid object into space and accelerate it by the application of a force. It can be found that the object can be accelerated to any desired speed depending on the force applied to it. Sounds like common sense?   Yet the same principle does not apply to a wave ! The speed with which a wave can travel depends solely on the medium through which it is travelling, it cannot travel any slower or faster!  In order to explain this in a little more detail.
For instance take the example of two cars; car (a) at 60 kmh and car (b) at 30 kmh  approaching each other from opposite directions at a distance of 10 Km. Their combined speed would be 60kmh + 30 kmh = 90 kmh. This can easily be verified by calculating at what point the two cars would meet if they maintain the same constant speeds. Since the distance between them is 10 Km, it will take 10/90 = 0.111 hours for the two cars(a) and (b) to meet. During this time Car (b) would have travelled 3.33 Km and  car (a) would have traveled = 6.6666 Km  Thus the time taken for  the two cars meet is the time calculated according to their combined velocities 60 kmh and 30 kmh = 90 kmh.  The same kind of relationship holds true in general for any two bodies moving with respect to each other.  If two people (a) and (b) are walking towards each other from an initial starting distance of 1 km and their speeds respectively are 5 kmh and 3 kmh, then their speed with respect  to each other is 8 kmh and to verify this it is found that if they continue to maintain these same speeds that they will meet after 7.5 minutes, during this time (a) would have travelled 0.625 Km, and (b) would have travelled  0.375 Km. making a total of 1 Km.

 Yet coming back to the first example take car (a) travelling at 60 kmh is 1 km distant from car (b) travelling at 30kmh. Suppose that at this time car(a) activates a siren and also suppose that the speed of sound is  340m/s . At what time will the sound reach car(b) supposing that car(a) and car(b) continue to approach each other at the same speeds.  Would Galilean transformations apply and the combined speed with which car(a) and car(b) together with siren sound be 16.6m/s + 340m/s + 8.3m/s = 365m/s approx and they would meet at 1000/365 = 2.75 seconds. The answer is NO. Because the speed of sound is invariant in a medium it means that it does not obey Galilean transformations, thus the time taken for the sound of the siren to reach car (b) would be 1000/340  = 2.95 secs. During this time car (b) would have travelled 24.5 m approx.
Exactly the same situation applies to light as applies to sound. Therefore if we take two beams of light (a) and (b) situated 300,000 Km  apart and directed towards each other. The beams of light (a) and (b) are switched on at exactly the same time . They will intercept each other  not after 0.5 second , which is what would happen if Galilean transformations held true and the cumulative speed of the two beams of light were 600,000 km/sec, but after 0.25 seconds, each beam of light travelling at 300,000 Km/sec no more , no less. 


It was this fact that the Nobel Prize  committee obviously took exception to, how can one dismiss the idea of a medium ( the aether) on the one hand and upgrade the status of the invariance of the speed of light in a vacuum to an immutable principle of physics on the other without giving any explanation as to why the speed of light was invariant.  Result NO NOBEL prize for special relativity. The only problem is that most physicists seem to have forgotten this controversy and put down the fact that Einstein did not win the Nobel prize for either of his theories of relativity because of petty jealousies on the part of the Nobel Prize Committee!
That is all very well state the physicists but isn’t it true that Maxwell’s equations seem to indicate that no aether is required in order for electro-magnetic waves to propagate. Yet those self same physicists would have to admit that although an aether was not needed for the propagation of electromagnetic waves , electric and magnetic fields that permeated every part of the entire  Universe were required ! So not one aether but two all pervasive fields, one electric and the other magnetic. Why not, say proponents of the aether, have a single field , namely the aether , that possesses electromagnetic properties ?   Surely, since neither the electric field or the magnetic field seems to possess medium like properties that would account for the invariance of the speed of light, the concept of an aether is valid.

Definition of General Relativity:
General relativity is a metric theory of gravitation. At its core are Einstein's equations, which describe the relation between the geometry of a four-dimensional, pseudo-Riemannian manifold representing spacetime, and the energy–momentum contained in that spacetime.  Phenomena that in classical mechanics are ascribed to the action of the force of gravity (such as free-fall, orbital motion, and spacecraft trajectories), correspond to inertial motion within a curved geometry of spacetime in general relativity; there is no gravitational force deflecting objects from their natural, straight paths. Instead, gravity corresponds to changes in the properties of space and time, which in turn changes the straightest-possible paths that objects will naturally follow. The curvature is, in turn, caused by the energy–momentum of matter. Paraphrasing the relativist John Archibald Wheeler, spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.

The above definitions would only hold true if the invariance of the speed of light is unexplained in terms of natural phenomena.
                                                                                                             
« Last Edit: 19/05/2016 10:48:21 by McQueen »


 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
The invariance of the speed of light is simple to explain; the speed of light is the ground state of the universe.

The speed of light is analogous to sea level, which is the same zero state for all the water of the earth, whether the water begins in the clouds, mountains, mountain streams, lakes, rivers, city streets after a rain, etc. No matter where the water begins its potential ends at sea level.

If we decided to define the top of a small hill as the ground state; earth, because this is easier for us to take measurements, then sea level will appear to have a negative potential. If someone else chooses to use the top of the highest mountain, they would assume sea level has an ever higher negative potential. Yet when we let the water go in each place, all different potentials zero at sea level. 

Everyone is stumped. The solution is sea level or C-level is the same for all, because it is the absolute ground state, with all other references; inertial, having a positive potential. T

One can see this consistent C-level in our universe. There is a net conversion of matter to energy and not a net conversion of energy into matter in our modern universe. The direction of potential is inertial; matter, to energy; C-level.

Gravity causes space-time to contract in the general direction of the speed of light reference; point-instant. Gravity move mass toward C-level reference. The other three forces lower potential and give off energy at the speed of light; C-level.

Even the universal red shift reflects movement back to C-level. At the speed of light we would we see a point-instant universe. This means the only wavelength of energy we can see would be infinite wavelength energy. Smaller wavelengths would be less than a point which is not mathematically possible. The red shift, by lengthening wavelength is moving all energy in the direction of infinite wavelength; back to C-level.

The solve the problem for why the speed of light is constant in all inertial references. It also unifies more that the forces of nature. On the down side, the acceptance of this premise means what we currently are doing is building a castle in the air. Our choice of zero reference contains potential relative to sea level, making it harder than it has to be.

The status quo sort of calls the lake on the hill the ground state. People begin to notice the water in the lake is magically gaining energy; dark energy or energy from another dimension. Everything in the universe is going back to C-level, with many competing paths. I should get the Nobel Prize. I can use the money.
« Last Edit: 19/05/2016 12:19:49 by puppypower »
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
No-one is denying that the theory of General Relativity is beautiful both mathematically and figuratively.  Imagining the Universe as a kind of meta-physical nautilus shell, delicately winding around itself and giving rise to all kinds of special effects such as falling objects gaining acceleration, and moving objects travelling on pre-determined trajectories, is even more evocative and pleasant than “Lucy in the sky with diamonds’.  Till the theory has a more solid foundation, it seems to me that the more prosaic ‘earthier’ solution of light being constant because it is travelling through a medium seems to me to be more acceptable.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: puppypower
The invariance of the speed of light is simple to explain; the speed of light is the ground state of the universe.
That statement is meaningless. Also your analogy is totally flawed. The invariance of the speed of light cannot be proven nor explained in simpler terms. That's why it's an axiom.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums