SPECIAL RELATIVITY THEORY by Nikolay Chavarga
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.
Results of experiments with muons testify to the real deceleration of processes in the moving frame, and it contradicts to the relativity principle, too.
Analytically, and on the concrete examples, it is shown that the SRT is not agreed with Bohr’s principle, since in case of low velocities, Lorentz’s time transformation does not turn into Galileo’s transformation, and many other facts.
Dear reader! Slow, unprejudiced, thoughtful and attentive reading this article will take quite a lot of force and time, but it will economize even more – it will free you from reading an tremendous quantity of relativistic literature.
2. SOLITON SPECIAL RELATIVITY THEORY
A new Special Relativity Theory is proposed on the basis of supposition, that all “hard” elementary particles are three-dimensioned soliton formations of the light-carrying environment, and photons are soliton formations limited only in two coordinates. The theory is free from paradoxes, it is agreed with all experiments (related to the relativity theory) known nowadays.
3. RELATIVITY THEORIES ON x-t-DIAGRAMS
The way of representation of events on x-t-diagrams for Galileo’s relativity theory, and also for the theories, in which the division value of the axes of space and time coordinates depends on the motion state, is stated. The comparison with Minkowski’s diagrams is given.
4. MODERNIZED MICHELSON’S INTERFEROMETER
It is shown that Fizeau’s experiments on the investigation of photons dragging by the environment moving with respect to the device can be explained through the assumption that analogous dragging of photons also takes place, when optical environment is moving with respect to the ether. Scheme of modernization of Michelson’s interferometer, supposedly capable of registering the fact of a device motion with respect to the light-carrying environment, is proposed. The appropriate estimating calculations are made.
5. ON THE PROBLEM OF THE PHYSICAL SENSE OF THE WAVE EQUATION’S Y–FUNCTION
The energetic interpretation of the y–function, which is based upon the assumption that all elementary particles are soliton formations of an electromagnetic field, is proposed. The norming condition for the energetic interpretation of y–function is proposed.
With only “probably” a theory cannot be made up. Even if it is correct empirically and logically, in its own depth it is false. A.Einstein
6. THE UNCERTAINTY RELATION FOR SOLITONS
The uncertainty relation is obtained in the supposition, that a photon is a soliton formation, and the photon’s length coincides with its wavelength.
In principle, it may be found out that the quantum theory is incorrect in its present form… If some time it is proved, that the uncertainty relation is incorrect, then we would have to expect the total reformation of the physical theory. J.B. Marion [1, p.609].
(Zitatende)
Den Originaltext zu diesem Zitat finden Sie hier!
Beste Grüße Ekkehard Friebe
- 21. April 2010
- Englischsprachige Kritik der Relativitätstheorie
- Kommentare (1)
Auch ich bin der Meinung, dass die SRT von Einstein die als relativistisch bezeichneten physikalischen Erscheinungen in keiner Weise erklären kann. Nur die Annahme wirklicher Längen-, Trägheits- und Massenänderungen der absolut bewegten Körper können eine vernünftige, physikalisch begründete Erklärung liefern.
Was mich aber immer wieder wundert, ist der Widerwille oder die Unfähigkeit so vieler Menschen, darunter der meisten Physiker, gegenüber der Vorstellung einer wirklichen, materiellen Längenkontraktion absolut bewegter Körper, sowie gegenüber der so intuitiven und anschaulichen Vorstellung des damit verbundenen absoluten leeren Raumes.
Warum finden sie es denn ganz natürlich, dass ein Körper sich ohne jede äussere Krafteinwirkung bei der Abkühlung verkürzt und können dasgleiche bei der absoluten Bewegung im Raum nicht begreifen? Wobei es sich in beiden Fällen um ein Zusammenrücken der Gleichgewichtsorte entgegengesetzt wirkender Kräfte handelt, deren Abstände die Länge des Körpers bestimmen.
Was die Abkühlung durch die Abnahme der Potentialenergie der inneren Kräfte bewirkt, wird bei der absoluten Bewegung durch die Verzögerung der ständigen Gleichgewichtseinstellung dieser Potentiale bei dem dauernden Ortswechsel des bewegten Körpers verursacht. Dadurch verkürzen sich die Abstände zwischen den Gleichgewichtsorten der entgegengesetzten Kräfte und damit die Gesamtlänge des bewegten Körpers, ohne dass irgendwelche äussere Kraft einwirkt. Ist das wirklich so schwer zu verstehen?
Das ist nicht eine erklärende Hypothese, sondern eine durch die Maxwellschen Gleichungen richtige Beschreibung der Eigenschaften zentraler Kraftfelder. Die verzögerten Potentiale sind gerade die Lösungen dieser Gleichungen. Und bisher hat Niemand ihre Richtigkeit in Frage gestellt.
Es ist kaum zu glauben und doch so, dass die heutigen Physiker etwas so auffallend ignorieren, was Lorentz und die meisten bedeutenden Physiker seiner Zeit so leicht beherrschten.
Ich bin deshalb sehr überrascht in Chavarga´s Artikel beim Absatz 4.2 Folgendes zu lesen:
“ Michelson’s experiments can be also explained by Fitzgerald – Lorentz’s shortening hypothesis. The problem consists only in finding out the physical cause of the bodies’ shortening. If it is a constantly acting external force, then, firstly, it must be tremendous in its quantity and, secondly, it must brake the body moving freely in the vacuum, so that the inertia law will not be carried out. In such conditions of motion, the planets would have fallen on the stars long ago, etc. Due to the mentioned difficulties, the question remained without answer for a hundred years.”
Obwohl Chavarga in der Zusammenfassung seines Artikels ausdrücklich behauptet, dass der Michelson- versuch nur durch die materielle Längenkontraktion des bewegten Interferometers erklärt werden kann, scheint er in diesem Absatz seine Unkenntnis und die aller Physiker über die Ursache der Kontraktion zuzugeben.
Weiss denn tatsächlich Keiner etwas über die retardierten Maxwellschen Potentiale, oder will man es nicht wissen, um die Existenz des absoluten Newtonschen Raumes nicht zugeben zu müssen ?
Das ist heute die ganz grosse Frage, die unumgänglich geklärt werden muss, denn nur durch ihre fortdauernde Nichtbeachtung kann eine so irrationale Theorie wie die SRT von Einstein weiter bestehen!
Herbert Sommer
*************************
Anschliessend füge ich mein Internet-Brief an Nicolay Chavarga hinzu:
Dear Prof. Nicolay Chavarga:
The subject of this e-mail is as follows.
Historically and scientifically a great injustice and a big error has been committed towards the great physicist Hendrik Antoon Lorentz..
For forty years I have been fighting solitary against this historical injustice and scientific error by means of articles in newspapers, the publication of a book and personal interviews with leading physicists. In the last weeks I have contacted more than thirty leading physicists of German speaking physical institutions. Only two of them were kind enough to give an evasive answer.
And now, I apply to you hoping to be properly attended, considering that I´m acting in favour of a scientific truth and of a great physicist. I kindly expect from you to find among your staff, your students, or elsewhere, someone well-disposed, competent and prepared to consider with interest my arguments and to read, comment and discuss the herewith enclosed paper on my proposal for a Rationalisation of Relativity in Physics.
The enclosed paper aims to show how Physical Relativity should be teached at school in a way that does not collide with common sense and is true in its statements like Lorentz´s theory does. Unfortunately I only have available a German and a Spanish version. Should an English version be absolutely necessary, please let me know.
And now, let´s get down to the subject:
Among all of the many interpretations of the so called relativistic behaviour of matter and energy, there is only one that is true and, on the other hand, there is one which is the worst that can be imagined by human mind. The true and historically first one is the properly called Relativity Theory of Lorentz. Properly, because it physically and rationally truly explains the really observed relativistic phenomenon consisting in a systematic experimental failure in determinig the real velocity of light relativ to any measuring device.
This theory accepts the well established intuitive notions of space and time, starts with the likewise well established Maxwell equations for central force fields and, by means of their retarded potentials, rigorously deduces everything in the most rational and realistic way, including the real contraction of matter and force fields, not by means of any acting force, but as a consequence of the retardation of potentials and the subsequent continuous relocation in space of the equilibrium positions among the constituent parts of any absolutely moving system with respect to space. This continuous retarded relocation brings the equilibrium positions in motion closer together than they are at absolute rest. The resulting contraction, like in the case of a temperature length contraction, does not need any force to act on the moving body.
On the other hand, the worst theory is the ambiguous, contradictory, incomplete, unphysical and most irrational interpretation improperly called Special Relativity Theory of Einstein. Improperly, because it does not in any way explain physically the phenomenon but makes of it a starting dogmatic principle in an unsuccesfull attempt to avoid the real physical changes caused by the absolute motion. It tries to explain by means of an absurd human synchronisation of clocks, already proposed by Poincaré, and an ad hoc invented, relative motion-dependent structure of space and time, the Lorentz transformation of coordinates and the consequent apparent independence of the relative velocity of light with respect to the motion of the measuring device as well as the likewise apparent, incompatible results of the mutual measurement of systems in relativ motion.
These consequences of real effects, not properly understood by Einstein, were philosophically attributed by him to certain supposed, inconceivable properties of space and time that nobody before him had discovered in all the past centuries and that had to replace our wrong traditional concepts of these intuitive notions.
Well, now something really incredible happened: it is just this worst of all possible theories the one that to the detriment of Lorentz´s theory has been declared by the scientific world as the right one and has been almost religiously glorified as one of the greatest achievements of human mind. If it had not actually occurred, one would never believe that it really could happen.
But fortunately, a growing criticism towards Einstein´s point of view and several new scientific evidences are now offering new possibilities to the rehabilitation of Lorentz in this aspect. There is no doubt that Lorentz´s interpretation will be sooner or later recognized as the right one, and when this moment arrives it would be very nice that your Institute be leading the change.
For instance, consider please the following facts:
1. Lorentz referred any motion to an abstract ether as the reference system for the propagation of electromagnetig radiation. But, considering that this abstract and uniform ether completely filled all the cosmic space and was at rest in it, any motion relative to it became also a motion relative to space and hence an absolute motion.
Now, the most recent cosmophysical results assign any body in Universe a given velocity relative to a uniform, isotropic radiation background at rest in space. In consequence, these velocities relative to a uniform background filling all space may be equally well considered relative to space itself and so be properly called absolute.
This new cosmophysical fact that assignes the Solar System an absolute velocity of 368 km/sec clearly confirms the absolute motions of Lorentz´s theory and contradicts Einstein´s position against an absolute space, absolute motions and a privileged absolute frame of reference.
2. The experimental observed retardation of earth-orbiting atomic clocks and of the decay time of high speed accelerated particles confirms the real retardation of time-dependent, internal processes in absolute moving bodies predicted by Lorentz´s theory and contradicts Einstein´s position against real retardation of natural processes in such real moving systems.
3. The real, non-dynamical contraction of absolute moving bodies theoretically predicted by Lorentz´s theory has been veryfied with extreme accuracy using high precision interferometers, in evident contradiction to Einstein´s theory that denies any real contraction caused by the state of motion.
4. The real increase in the mass of absolute moving bodies predicted by Lorentz´s theory is experimentally verified in all particle accelerators in contradiction to Einstein´s theory which considers it an apparent result produced by the relative motion of differently synchronized measuring systems.
These few examples should be sufficient to invalid Einstein´s theory which, by the way, is no physical theory at all, as the Wikipedia clearly expresses it as follows:
“In short, the slowing of time and the contraction of space are consequences of choosing a consistent set of definitions for length and simultaneity, coupled with the postulate that the speed of light is the same in all directions for all observers. Being a consequence of definitions, these contractions are not a consequence of any underlying dynamical laws“.
Being no physical theory, but evidently a mathematical construction based on philosophical arguments, Einstein´s version should never have supplanted in Physics the true physical theory of Lorentz. And if the Mathematics in Einstein´s theory are right it´s only because they proceed from the correct Lorentz´s transformation equations.
Even the mathematical expression of the General Relativity Theory is essentially the Lorentz transformation generalized for non-uniform motions by Einstein´s friend Marcel Grossmann.
All this needs to be careful reconsidered and corrected. But in order to achieve it, one ought to convince first himself and next the public opinion of the rightness of Lorentz´s theory, namely that the apparent symmetry of measuring systems in relative motion is precisely the metrical, mathematical consequence of the real, physical asymmetry of these systems due to their different absolute motions. For this noble enterprise I offer my insignificant collaboration and ask nothing more in return than to be heard on this question.
Thanking you in advance, I remain
Yours sincerely
Herbert Sommer