In Revision of Relativity

In Revision of Relativity by Tom Milner-Gulland (25th February 2003)
http://www.geocities.com/gulland68/In_Revision_of_Relativity.htm

Zitat:

Recent papers have cast considerable doubt on the reliability of the empirical evidence to support general relativity. The aim in this paper is to present a broad-ranging critique of theory of relativity, exposing its logical inconsistencies, yet showing also how the use in the general theory of the idea of geodesic (a misnomer by this account) may have considerable potential for making predictions for increase in a body's mass with increase in velocity, even under the concept of absolute time. The focus in the main is on the relativistic conceptions of time and motion; the Einsteinian conceptions of time, relative motion and non-Euclidean geometry are rejected, to the effect that the principle of relativity can be seen to be untenable. The final section develops a novel conceptualisation of the cosmos, designed to arrive at a depiction of the conservation of energy in a macroscopic context. That general relativity (GR), of 1916, is based upon the earlier special relativity should not necessarily mean that all its elements are untenable if special relativity (SR) is fundamentally flawed. Einstein formulated SR on the uncontested premise that momentum is invariably conserved in natural processes. The first postulate, or principle of relativity (common equivalence among all inertial reference frames, of physical processes) Brown (1967) traces to a 1902 work by Poincar?. The second postulate (common constancy among all inertial frames, of c) was inherited from the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electromagnetism. Evidently the latter was problematic in the context of GR since, as Dingle (1972) notes, Einstein says at the beginning of his 1916 paper, ?It will be obvious that the principle of the constancy of velocity of light in vacuo must be modified? (p.175). Relativity can barely be understood as a congruous sequence of ideas; Essen, 1971 (p.23), remarks that ?Einstein makes implicit assumptions that are additional to and contrary to his two initial principles? and points out further that Einstein gives no logical reasoning in his switching between the apparent effect and the physical, in the transition between SR and GR (p.20). An introduction to some fundamental issues and an innovatory field One chief area of dispute, for which this account will seek to propose a solution by way of a consideration of concepts introduced in GR, resides in the possibility that a body?s mass will increase with increase velocity. Believed by many modern physicists not to hold, the mass transformation is inferred from the equation E=mc?. The latter equation appears to have been posited initially by Poincar? in 1900 (Brown, 1967); why it should ever be deemed integral, as opposed to incidental to the conceptual innovation of SR, is unclear. If integral it indeed is, the issue of whether or not a mass?s energy content includes translational kinetic energy would seem pivotal. If the mass transformation holds, then physical processes can serve to distinguish between reference frames, since the gravitational attraction between masses will vary with a system?s velocity. If photons are physical entities, the fact that relative motion between an emitter and a reflector has no effect on light?s speed when it is reflected back to its source is incongruous with kinematics. In that the fundamental constants of nature are set rigidly in a balance to which material properties must conform, this can be seen to yield issues associated with the idea of space-time geodesic. Geodesics, we shall establish, can be conceived as a conditioning that renders kinetic energy immediately forceful. This can be understood as follows. A body?s kinetic energy does not of itself have a bearing on its material constitution, yet the acquisition of any other form of energy (save gravitational field energy, which we shall deal with through the same analysis) would so affect it, through the action of force. Logically, therefore, when a body acquires kinetic energy, such energy must be represented in a magnitude of force, over and above that which it exerted initially (as through gravity), that it exerts upon all other masses in the cosmos. This effect we shall seek to investigate in the final section. However, it is significant that the energy embodied in a photon and the rate of occurrence of electron transitions (oscillation) in atoms, are bound in a relationship that is responsive to the emitting body?s acquisition of kinetic energy. It is in virtue of the prevalence of this relationship that the apparent flaw in Einstein?s conception of time has been overlooked. The confusion has evidently arisen through the fact that the fundamental constants perform the same operation of balancing energetic quantities that they would were it that the energy of a single photon was in reality kinetic energy (as is intrinsic to all material particles) and from the point of view of a receptor, the energy will increase or decrease in relation to the phenomenon that Einstein considered to be the variable flow of time. It should be remembered that the reality of space as anything more than a synthesis of the mind, laden with metaphors in the form of observable effects, has yet to be established. In view of this, where gravity is observed to affect the properties of a photon, it should be considered to signify the action of a locally exerted force (gravity) upon all matter in the cosmos, the consequences for photon properties being a mere metaphor for the entirety of this effect. Accordingly, Brown (1967) deprives Einstein of great credit even for the idea of gravitational red shift, asserting that it follows from Mach?s principle. In the Minkowsky idea of the space-time geodesic, which was adopted in GR, time-like geodesics of free particles are conceived to exist in a conformal relationship with the null-geodesics of light (Disalle, 1995). Fundamentally, both an increase in velocity and also an increase in strength of gravitational field exerted upon a body are associated with the dilation of the average time span between electron transitions in its atoms, the latter measure being taken in relativistic physics as the basic unit of time. Objections have been expressed by Dingle, 1972, who considers it improper to interpret particles as clocks (p.34), and Essen, 1971 (p.7, p.13), who views variations in such so-termed time as the mere changing of units employed. Dingle, echoing Brown (1967), is concerned with the 'clock paradox' in SR wherein, if motion is purely relative, two clocks can both run slower than each other (p.34). Essen articulates that the two sets of pulses emitted (and received reciprocally) by each such clock, constitute a single cycle of events (cf. p.14), and if differential ageing between individuals (as can be substituted for clocks) occurs by virtue of a change of units rather than velocity itself, ?symmetry no longer exists and the relativity postulate is not valid?. Einstein did concede that there was a conflict with the principle of relativity (Brown, 1967) and his eventual explanation in terms of accelerations has been shown by Brown (1967) to be fallacious, as, for example, these could be made insignificant by the time span of the experiment. (Zitatende)

Lesen Sie bitte weiter unter:

In Revision of Relativity
http://www.geocities.com/gulland68/In_Revision_of_Relativity.htm



Beste Gr??e Ekkehard Friebe