Re: Experimental facts contra relativizy in present form.
- From: funk420 <funk420@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 01:04:47 -0700
On Aug 31, 3:42 am, "Josef Matz" <josefm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Relativity theory has a lot of misconceptions.
The first was the discovery of the background radiation.
The background radiation only is isotropic in a preferred
frame locally. Relativity in the present form does rigurosly deny this
point.
Not true. The Center of Earth frame is also a preferred frame
locally. These are simply inertial frames of reference, there is
nothing in Relativity theory that says no inertial frames of reference
exist or that these frames cannot be detected. The frame of CMBR
isotropy is just such a frame.
A preferred reference frame always can
be constructed by the fix stars this point also was known to Einstein
ignoring this thread of classical mechanics..
Together with the discovery of the backround radiation arose the question
what is our absolute velocity in spoace.
The background radiation on earth is isotropic and the deviation of the
fluctuations is less than 1 promille.
From this it can be concluded that our absolute velocity is less than 1000
km /s.
What is absolute about this velocity? You could also calculate our
motion with respect to the galactic center, with respect to nearby
stars, etc...
Another point that comes out as an inlogic in relativity are the laws for
the emission of radiation of relativistic bodies.
A moved body emitts unisotropic thermal radiation. This result of special
relativity is inlogic because according to special relativity
the same body emits isotropic radiation in his rest frame. The unisotropy is
physical fact. A near c body emitts only forward radiation.
Without an absolute frame of reference you have ghost physics. Different
occurances for the same thing shat should be unique.
Not to say that this result of SR withspeaks the first postulate of SR. SR
in its present form is inconsistent.
Isotropic radiation looks anisotropic when you are moving towards it.
That is handled well by special relativity.
SR mechanics and statistical mechanics is based on the Eigentime concept.
How can one grow up a roomtime concept when at each point
where matter comes together not only one time exists Bring hundred
relativistic atoms together in 1 point in the universe and you have hundred
different times at this point.
SR many particle mechanics without gravity as in Landau Lifschitz is based
on the Eigentime concept. But this concept is in cnflict with the roomtime
concept of GR.
The next point is the dicovery of superluminal signal and enery transport in
vacuum for evanescent light waves. Those waves exist for example within
the vacuum gap of a double prism when on the infall prism the total
reflection condition is fulfilled. If you bring another prism in the near, a
certain amunt of light tunnels through. The vacuum gap is almost instantly
passed by the signals and photons.
Instant effects are denied by relativity. Their existance shows that the
universe has everywhere the same time !
GR breakes with this discovery. GR is wrong. Einstein himself would say that
today.
But SR then is no complete theory anymore. SR and GR formed a unit together.
Bad is that moderated groups deny physical dicussions around this facts.
SR is partly wrong because both principles it is based on are wrong. The
existance superluminal signal and energy transfer breakes the second
postulate.
I think you'll find that no signal or energy is transferred
superluminally in the experiment you are referring to. Some people
suggest a signal can be passed superluminally using quantum
entanglement a la EPR but I'll believe it when I see it.
And a further remark: The velocity dependance of mass is a physical fact.
But here the lab time not the eigentimes s taken to plot the experimental
results.
This shows that the eigentime hocus pocus in relativistic (SR) point
mechanics as figured out in Landau Lifschitz is mistaken.
Relativity theory is wrong. The present theory must be overworked.
Discussions around that are not allowed in the so called high scientific
moderated groups.
Theoretical physics is at the end therefore.
I see a large amount of discussion of the experimental limits of
relativity theory, and not just in the newsgroups but also in
respected journals. You're right there are some elements of quantum
mechanics that seem to not fit in well with relativity but I think
there is some hope, all is not lost :)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Experimental facts contra relativizy in present form.
- From: Josef Matz
- Re: Experimental facts contra relativizy in present form.
- References:
- Experimental facts contra relativizy in present form.
- From: Josef Matz
- Experimental facts contra relativizy in present form.
- Prev by Date: Experimental facts contra relativizy in present form.
- Next by Date: Re: Is it theory A or theory B?
- Previous by thread: Experimental facts contra relativizy in present form.
- Next by thread: Re: Experimental facts contra relativizy in present form.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
