Im Rahmen der Albert Einstein zugeschriebenen Relativitätstheorie ist der Zeitbegriff vollkommen in Unordnung geraten., Lesen Sie dazu die folgende Arbeit von Miles Mathis.
Quelle: http://milesmathis.com/time.html
Zitat:
A REVALUATION of TIME (and VELOCITY)
by Miles Mathis
I would like to offer here a definition of time that is as little abstract as possible. What we want, I think, is a definition that describes time as something that we measure. Only that. One might call it an operational definition. This definition is not an explanation of what time means (or has come to mean) philosophically or epistemologically. It is an explanation of what time is in our experimental or everyday use of it.
Den ganzen Beitrag lesen »
Schon frühzeitig hat die Mathematikerin Frau Gertrud Walton (U.K.) zur Unterstützung des Forschungsprojekts G.O. Mueller beigetragen. Inzwischen hat sie ihre Homepage „sapere aude“ wesentlich überarbeitet. Hieraus bringe ich nachstehend einen Auszug aus page two.
siehe: https://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/sapere-1.htm
G. Walton gibt hier eine vorzügliche Behandlung des Themas „Anschein oder Realität der Längenkontraktion und Zeitdilatation in der Speziellen Relativitätstheorie“, das derzeit in Internet-Foren anhaltende Diskussionen ausgelöst hat.
Zitat:
On the nature of relativistic effects
Note: Checking on a source revealed a discrepancy which, apart from deleting the offending item, I have solved by the wholesale demotion of all quotations to the status of summaries.
The reciprocal effect of length contraction and time dilation, which appears by logical necessity to emerge from the kinematic part of the special theory of relativity, has been variously explained as:
Den ganzen Beitrag lesen »
Ich nehme Bezug auf meinen Beitrag in diesem Blog vom 25. Februar 2010:
Nicolay Chavarga: SPECIAL RELATIVITY THEORY AND EXPERIMENT
und bringe jetzt eine weitere Veröffentlichung von Nicolay Chavarga,
Uzhgorod National University, Pidhirna Str., 46, 88 000, Uzhgorod, Ukraine
Zitat:
SPECIAL RELATIVITY THEORY
(??? ????????? ?? ???????)
Nikolay Chavarga
1. EINSTEIN’S SPECIAL RELATIVITY THEORY AND THE EXPERIMENT
Detailed analysis shows that in reality, the special relativity theory (SRT) is unable to explain the results of Michelson’s experiments. The simultaneity relativity (the difference in the chronometers’ indications on the division plate and mirror), forming its basis, influences only the results of measurement and calculation of the photons velocity, but it does not influence the motion of the photons themselves in Michelson’s device. Michelson’s experiments can be explained only by the real shortening of moving bodies, but it contradicts to the relativity principle.
Den ganzen Beitrag lesen »
Vor wenigen Tagen, d.h. am 22. Februar 2010, erhielt ich mit E-Mail nachstehende Arbeit von Nicolay Chavarga aus der Ukraine zugesandt.
Zitat:
SPECIAL RELATIVITY THEORY AND EXPERIMENT
Nicolay Chavarga, Uzhgorod National University, Pidhirna Str., 46, 88 000, Uzhgorod, Ukraine
chavarga@mail.uzhgorod.ua
It is shown that the special relativity theory is not confirmed experimentally. In fact, Michelson’s experiments demonstrate real shortening of moving bodies, experiments with moving muons demonstrate real deceleration of processes in the moving frame, and it means that the coordinate frames are not equivalent. Lorentz’s time transformation does not turn into Galileo’s time transformation at low motion velocities, therefore, special relativity theory does not correspond to Bohr’s principle. The dependence of a body’s mass on the motion velocity, and also connection of a body’s mass with its energy are confirmed experimentally, but have no relation to the relativity theory.
Keywords: special relativity theory, Lorentz’s transformations, Michelson’s experiments, Bohr’s principle.
Den ganzen Beitrag lesen »
Bezugnehmend auf den Beitrag „Mathematik und Mathematismus“ in diesem Blog bringe ich nachstehend eine weitere Stellungnahme zu dieser Thematik.
Zitat:
Mathematics is not the language of Physics
Pages in this module:
1. What’s the point, Euclid?
Den ganzen Beitrag lesen »
Der Abschnitt Mathematik aus dem Kapitel 2, Fehler-Katalog der Dokumentation der Forschungsgruppe G. O. Mueller ist damit abgeschlossen. Mir scheint es aber in diesem Zusammenhang wichtig, nochmals an meinen Eintrag vom 21. August 2009 in diesem Blog zu erinnern, siehe nachstehend:
Zitat:
„Kritische Untersuchungen zur allgemeinen Elektrodynamik”
Wussten Sie eigentlich, dass bereits vor hundert Jahren, genau genommen im Jahre 1908, der Schweizer Wissenschaftler Walter Ritz beispielsweise folgende kritische Aussagen zur Allgemeinen Elektrodynamik von Maxwell (Maxwellsche Gleichungen) in französischer Sprache veröffentlicht hat?
– „Die Theorie lässt unendlich viele Lösungen zu, die alle den gesetzten Bedingungen entsprechen, aber der Erfahrung widersprechen und z.B. zu einem perpetuum mobile führen.”
– „Actio und reactio sind nicht gleich, und diese Ungleichheit widerspricht der Erfahrung.”
Den ganzen Beitrag lesen »
Nachstehend bringe ich eine sehr gründliche kritische Analyse der Speziellen Relativitätstheorie von Milan R. Pavlovic, Jugoslawien.
Zitat:
Milan R. Pavlovic
EINSTEIN’S THEORY OF RELATIVITY – SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION?
The main subject of this book is a critical analysis of the special theory of relativity as a scientific theory, which, above all, is concerned with questions connected with time, space, mass and energy and with the relationship between time and space, and mass and energy.
According to the theory of relativity time and space are mutually dependent and the contraction of space and the dilatation of time originate with motion as real physical processes.
The book demonstrates that the dilatation of time and the contraction of space are not real physical processes, but nothing more than mathematical games which are not in accord with the laws of physics and even with the declared principles of the theory of relativity.
Den ganzen Beitrag lesen »
Zur Ergänzung der Ausführungen von Günther Baer in dem Beitrag:
4.6 Das undefinierbare “Inertialsystem” und die Ursache der Trägheit
aus dem Buch: “SPUR eines JAHRHUNDERTIRRTUMS”
bringe ich nachstehend eine Arbeit von Professor Dr. Paul Marmet, Kanada.
Zitat:
The Collapse of the Lorentz Transformation
Paul Marmet – The Breakdown of the Lorentz Transformation
Abstract.
Following the observation that the velocity of light with respect to a moving observer appears constant in all frames, independently of the velocity of the moving frame, Lorentz proposed a transformation of coordinates of space and time to allow for the velocity of the moving frame. However, we show that the solution found by Lorentz, does not lead to a constant velocity of light. On the contrary, we show that the Lorentz solution is an average velocity between light traveling in two directions, and that the velocity of light in each direction is never equal to the velocity c just as with the Galilean coordinates. The difference between the Galilean transformation and the Lorentz transformation is that, in the latter, the average velocity is constant after two light paths, traveling in opposites directions. This result is certainly not compatible with the general definition of a velocity in physics.
Den ganzen Beitrag lesen »
Mit Bezug auf den Beitrag:
Henning Lundsgart: “The Theory of Relativity – a mistake build on wrong precondition”
bringe ich nachstehend eine weitere Arbeit von Henning Lundsgart, Dänemark 2005.
Zitat:
Genesis
The theory of Big Bang has long been accepted of the Vatican and the Churches as the scientific edition of Genesis (The Creation Account), because it all in this way started with Light. As, in the meantime, the theory of Big Bang is not valid within the framework of natural science, it cannot possibly be in the theology. Thus it becomes evident that an alternative is needed.
Maybe the following, that contrary to the Theory of Big Bang is unscientific, could be contemplated. Astronomers and astrophysicists presume that stars are created from nebulas mainly consisting of hydrogen (and a little helium). The energy which made the stars luminous came from an atomar process which transformed hydrogen to helium. All the other elements, of which globes, moons and asteroids etc. consist, was subsequently produced by later processes. So far, so good. But from where came the hydrogen?
Den ganzen Beitrag lesen »
Mit Bezug auf den Beitrag:
Henning Lundsgart: “The Theory of Relativity – a mistake build on wrong precondition”
bringe ich nachstehend eine weitere Arbeit von Henning Lundsgart, Dänemark 2005.
Zitat:
The Theory of Big Bang
— a mistake build on wrong precondition —
Introduction
The theory of Big Bang is about the creation and the expansion of the Universe. According to this theory, it all started with a very small object, far smaller then a pinhead, which exploded and send its contents out in all directions. This explosion is called Big Bang, and from the contents of this the whole known Universe with stars and globes came into being. The proof that the Universe came into being this way and still expand is to be found in a displacement of the spectral lines in the starlight, towards the red end of the spectrum, and called redshift.
Den ganzen Beitrag lesen »