Special Relativity as a Physical Theory (original) (raw)
Related papers
viXra, 2017
The theory of relativity’s concept o motion suggests that every observer must assume that his own frame of reference is always at rest; therefore, he must ascertain the state of the motion of all other entities in relation to his own frame of reference. In this article, we have shown that for every entity its own frame of reference actually behaves as if it is in the state of the absolute rest. Therefore, the motion of an entity has to be ascertained in relation to its own frame of reference. Thus, we have made only a slight but very significant change in the proposal of the theory of relativity. Our proposal is based on actual observations of how things behave.
2013
By examining the theory of relativity, we postulate that every massive particle specifies a space-time body frame in a universal entity, which may be referred to as ether. As a result, the four-dimensional theory of general accelerating motion is developed. It is seen that the relative motion of particles is actually the result of relative four-dimensional rotation of their corresponding space-time body frames. Consequently, the governing geometry of relative motion is non-Euclidean.
The theory of relativity of motion: A new approach
For more than a century, people's belief about special relativity and its formulas was, in fact, inaccurate, because Einstein fails by delaying in the wrong conception. However, one of these formulas is correct, by chance, but the others are incorrect. In the present approach, new expressions for time dilatation, composition of velocities, different masses (energy and inertial masses) and energy are demonstrated and presented theoretically and graphically in an exact and accurate manner, using exact equations of motion and good conception.
The word “mechanics” comes from the Greek word “μηχανή” (“mihaní”), meaning “of the nature of or pertaining to machines”, and in modern physics, is used in the sense of studying the material mechanical forces and their effects on material bodies. In Newton’s theory of gravity, notions of mechanical forces are applied to the understanding of ideas about the reasons for the movement of celestial bodies, and since the XVII century onwards, people began talking about “celestial mechanics”. However, with all due respect to the achievements of modern physics in the motion examination, a studious approach to the problem of motion could not have overlooked the shortcomings of the contemporary notion with which one attempts to encompass these phenomena. That is why this book was written: out of the need to examine the questions attempting to illuminate modern mechanics – and these are the questions of modes and causes of motions of terrestrial and celestial bodies – from a different point of view than the one provided in the modern physics textbooks.
An extensive review of Einstein's theory of special relativity and his writings from today's scientific and philosophical perspectives found that at the turn of the 20th century, the scientific and philosophical views were not sufficiently developed to understand the problems that physicists faced and that Einstein tried to solve with his theory. Regardless how brilliant a scientist he was, in his pursuit, Einstein was guided by incorrect philosophical views; views prevalent at that time. These views misled him into an incorrect method and unrealistic theory with circular definitions, inconsistencies in the explanations and principles that contradict those developed from the empirical evidence. In particular, this study found that neither Einstein nor Poincaré expressed sufficiently the " inertial frames of reference " (coordinate systems) in their respective relativity principles. They expressed them in terms of the uniform movement of translation instead of absence of external forces. Because of that they both overlooked that fields generated in one frame of reference cause forces at a distance in the other frames of reference turning them into noninertial ones. Thus, their respective principles of relativity cannot be valid for field-based processes when field is generated outside of the frame of reference. Einstein's use of his relativity principle for conditions when it cannot be valid, in combination with an incorrect idealistic ontological view of the term " Law of Nature " and insufficient rationalistic understanding of the term " time, " misled him into an incorrect method of developing his theory and to incorrect inferences of the other principles and concepts of this theory. Thus, the foundations of Einstein's theory of special relativity, his two postulates (principle of relativity and the invariance of velocity of light) as well as the relativity of simultaneity cannot be any longer justified. With that, Einstein's attempt to unify light and electro-magnetism with mechanics, his concept of light, space, time and the whole theory of relativity with its other consequences cannot correctly represent the realities of the physical world. Apart from the philosophical, conceptual and logical problems of this theory, the invariance of velocity of light is in serious need for the experimental verification or refutation. Although the technology of Einstein's time was insufficient to carry out such test, it is technologically feasible to do so today. Therefore, it is recommended, and it should be of the utmost importance, for physicists to carry out such a test today. V C 2014 Physics Essays Publication. [http://dx. Résumé: Un examen approfondi de la théorie de la relativité restreinte d'Einstein et de ses e ´crits, réalisé au travers des connaissances scientifiques et philosophiques actuelles, montre qu'a ` l'orée du 20 ième siècle, les visions scientifiques et philosophiques n'e ´taient pas suffisamment développées pour comprendre les problèmes auxquels les physiciens faisaient face alors quand Einstein essayait de les résoudre avec sa théorie. Quand bien même il fut un brillant scientifique, Einstein e ´tait guidé par une approche philosophique incorrecte, approche qui e ´tait courante a ` l'e ´poque. L'environnement philosophique d'alors l'a amené a ` développer une méthode incorrecte et une théorie irréaliste basée sur des assertions, des explications inconsistantes et des principes qui contredisent ceux développés a ` partir de l'e ´vidence empirique. Cette e ´tude montre, en particulier que ni Albert Einstein ni Henri Poincaré n'ont suffisamment approfondi les " référentiels inertiels " dans leurs respectifs principes de la relativité. Ils les ont définis par le mouvement de translation uniforme au lieu de les définir par l'absence de forces extérieures. Pour cette raison, ils ont tous les deux négligé le fait que des champs générés dans un cadre de référence provoquent des forces a ` distance dans les autres cadres de référence les transformant en noninertiels. Ainsi leurs respectifs principes de la relativité ne peuvent e ˆtre valides pour des processus basés sur le champ quand le champ est généré en dehors du cadre de référence. L'utilisation par Einstein de ses principes de la relativité dans des conditions qui ne peuvent e ˆtre validées, en combinaison avec une vision ontologique incorrecte et idéaliste du terme " Loi de la Nature " et une compréhension rationnelle a) pkos40@gmail.com 0836-1398/2014/27(3)/411/37/$25.00 V C 2014 Physics Essays Publication 411 PHYSICS ESSAYS 27, 3 (2014) insuffisante du terme " Temps " , l'amenèrent a ` développer sa théorie au moyen d'une méthode incorrecte et tirer des conclusions erronées sur les autres principes et concepts de sa théorie. Ainsi, les bases de la théorie d'Einstein sur la relativité restreinte, ses deux postulats (principe de la relativité et l'invariabilité de la vitesse de la lumière) ainsi que la relativité de la simultanéité ne peuvent plus e ˆtre justifiés. Avec cela, la tentative d'Einstein d'unifier lumière et e ´lectromagnétisme avec la mécanique, son concept sur la lumière, l'espace, le temps et toute la théorie sur la relativité y compris ses autres conséquences ne peuvent pas représenter les réalités du monde physique. Mis a ` part les problèmes philosophique, conceptuel et logique de sa théorie, l'invariabilité de la vitesse de la lumière a un sérieux besoin d'une vérification ou réfutation expérimentale. Mais si la technologie au temps d'Einstein e ´tait insuffisante pour mener a ` bien un tel test, c'est techniquement faisable de nos jours. C'est pourquoi, il est conseillé aux physiciens, et c'est de la plus haute importance, de procéder a ` ce test aujourd'hui.
On The Special Theory Of Relativity
Special Relativity Theory (SRT) has two postulates, one stating that the laws of physics are the same for all observers, and the other stating that the speed of light is the constant 186,000 miles per second, regardless of any reference frames. As a result of these postulates, SRT renders predictions such as: 1) No object can travel faster than 186,000 miles per second (the speed of light itself); 2) On approaching the speed of light, a moving object contracts in length in the direction of motion, while 3) a clock traveling with the object slows down; 4) The mass of an object multiplied by the square of the speed of light gives energy ( E mc2 ); i.e., mass could be converted to energy and vice versa; 5) Observers do not agree on the simultaneity of events - two events that are simultaneous for one observer might not be simultaneous for another. There are evident inconsistencies among these predictions. There is also a philosophical problem relating to the nature of reality. Could there be more than one reality in Nature; that is, can reality be subjective, and only a matter of interpretation? This paper explores the evident inconsistencies and the philosophical problem by developing arguments and providing numerical examples.
2003
Some authors have recently argued that an object's velocity is logically independent of its locations throughout time. Their aim is to deny the Russellian view that motion is merely a change of location, and to promote a rival account on which the connection between velocities and trajectories is provided by the laws of nature. I defend the Russellian view of motion against these attacks. Most physicists and philosophers believe that an object's velocity is a simple function of where it is located at what time: Velocity Principle (VP): An object's velocity can be identified with the first time derivative of its trajectory.