Blog Ekkehard Friebe

Kommentare

1. herbert sommer 27. Oktober 2012 (18:14 Uhr)
   

   It is necessary to admit the existence of a preferred reference frame in order to rationally explain the physical circumstance called relativistic effects. Einstein´s special relativity theory obviously doesn´t represent a real scientific interpretation of it, but rather a metaphysical speculation about space and time based on the scientific work of Heaviside, Larmor, Poincaré and Lorentz, among others.

   The point of view of a preferred frame is gradually extending more and more, partly probably favoured by the discovery of the microwave cosmic background radiation. Among the physicists that share it, I have contacted with Lopez Ramos (University of Oviedo, Spain), Francisco.J.Muller (Florida International University, USA.), Nicholas Percival (NPA, USA.), Bruce Harvey (U.K.), and Dr. Albrecht Giese (Germany).

   The NPA (Natural Philosophy Alliance, USA.) has recently asked the International Physics Community about the Twin Paradox and, in view of the most ambiguous and unsatisfactory result, it has arrived at the conclusion that, from now on, the acceptance of a preferred frame has to be seriously contemplated in theoretical and experimental Physics.

   Many years ago, when I wrote my book on Relativity, I deduced the so called relativistic addition of velocities in a non-relativistic way, independently of the Lorentz-transformation, but indirectly confirming it, as both procedures arrive at the same result. It goes like this:

   When a measuring instrumental system S obtains the value c for the velocity of an object relativ to it, then an identical measuring system S´, moving relativ to it with velocity v faster in the same direction, should logically measure the value c-v for the same object. But in fact, in the case of light, it always absurdly measures the same greater value c. That means, that it systematically always measures larger values than the logically expected ones, Thus, generally u´ > u-v and hence u´= u-v+w, where w is the excess correction term.

   Now, from experience, we know that this correction term equals 0 for u´= 0, u = 0 and v = 0. So, it must be w = k.u´.u.v. And, beeing w dimensionally also a velocity, the proportionality factor k must be dimensionally equal to the reciprocal value of the square of a certain unknown velocity c, namely k = 1/c^2.

   So, w = (u.v.u´ ) /c^2 and u´= u-v + (u.v.u´) /c^2 or u´(1- u.v/c^2) = u-v.

   And, finally we get u´= (u-v) / (1- u.v/c^2), which is just the relativistic addition of velocities.

   This deduction reveals that the result doesn´t depend on the nature of the measured object (wave or particle), nor on the type of motion (projection or propagation) or on any kind of medium (aether), but only on the fact that a measuring system doesn´t behave the same way at different absolute velocities relative to the preferred reference frame of space.

   In agreement with Maxwell´s theory, Lorentz explained logically the alterations experienced by moving complex systems, leading to the observed distortion of measurements. He included in his reasoning an aether, which had no other qualities than unlimited extension and immobility, so that it was actually identical to space itself. He also mentioned the fact, that the distortion of measures due to the real changes in the measuring systems led to a reciprocal, symmetric and fictitious mutual appreciation of those relativ moving systems, and called it “corresponding states”.

   And this fictitious, symmetric relationship was all that Einstein erroneously believed that had to be considered and described . But, having thus disregarded in his theory the real dynamical causes described by Lorentz, he adopted as explanation Poincaré´s absurd kinematic interpretation of Lorentz´s “local time” as a desynchronizing light coordination of separate clocks by inexpert relativ moving observers.

   Doing so, and not admitting on the other hand any real alteration of moving rods or clocks, he didn´t realize that each observer could anytime bring his faulty synchronized clocks side by side close together and discover, that they were out of fase, thus invalidating the principle of relativity that he herewith aimed to justify, But Einstein´s argument is not only absurd, self-contradictory and false, but also insufficient to explain dynamically a relativistic result without a real length contraction and a real clock retardation. A clock coordination manipulated ad hoc by an observer can never be the physical cause of all the known experimental observed physical effects called relativistic effects.

   In his attempt to eliminate the aether, Einstein also incurred in the mistake of eliminating space too as a preferred reference frame, and contradicted himself reintroducing it thereafter in his second postulate as the natural frame “where light propagates with the same velocity in all directions”. .

   Besides many other objectable points, only this few considerations should suffice to reject Einstein´s interpretation of physical relativity as an incomplete, contradictory and conceptually faulty and non-scientific theory. If it still triumphally survives, it´s only because tecnologically Lorentz´s and Marcel Grossman´s mathematical background are hypocritically applied, while Einstein´s wrong conceptual arguments are academically supported and teached as one of the greatest achievements of human mind in history.

   I think that, without his special relativity theory, Einstein exhibited enough merits to deserve the Nobel prize, so that there is no need to continue the fraud of gloryfying any more his worthless errors to honour his memory. The present dogmatic teaching as a scientific truth of the mystic and erroneous idea that space and time themselves depend on the relative motion of a human observer deforms the mind of the young generations, making them believe any irrational ideology.

   Therefore, my point of view is that, as a most urgent need, the special relativity theory of Einstein ought to be recognized as faulty and rationalized in the sense of Lorentz. The actual existence of space itself as the most logical preferred reference frame, where electromagnetic and fotonic radiations are isotropic, as well as the reality of absolute motion in it and of real changes in the absolute moving systems has to be clearly admitted and teached this way by the mainstream of physicists, if they really are willing to avoid irrationality in science. But anyhow, probably because of sociopolitical and ideological reasons, the task of convincing them seems to be a very hard, wearisome and long-term one.

   I´m glad that there is someone who realizes that all that happens in relativistic Physics must be physical too, namely instrumental, and not the consequence of a wrong synchronization, as Einstein believed.

   The idea of space itself, as the unlimited extension totally occupied by an opinable, immovable and non-mechanical aether, makes both of them the only possible preferred reference frames needed for the rationalization of the observed experimetal facts. But, in my opinion, the notion of space is superior than that of aether, because it doesn´t need the aether for its definition, but the aether needs the previous concept and direct perception of space to be defined. Thus, space can be conceived without an aether, but not inversely. And, of course, because of their equivalence as reference frames, like space, such an aether cannot be dragged by any object.

   Therefore, Mr. Levy´s papers proving the need of a non-dragged preferred frame are welcome in the process of disclosing the absurdity of Einstein´s interpretation of reality and of the fallacious obstinacy of the physicist´s community to conceal the real physics that lay behind the apparent relativity of natural laws.

   After about a century of lasting critical objections, the physics community has received enough information to know that the relativistic, symmetric effects are the fictitious consequence of the real, physical asymmetric alterations of any object moving relativ to the rest frame of light propagation, namely the cosmic space.

   By now, every physicist should exactly know the following facts:

   1. That Einstein´s interpretation is only the incomplete second part of the Lorentz theory, namely the one dealing with the so called “corresponding states”. The omission of the first part, where Lorentz explained the influence of motion on the material properties of moving objects and the consequently resulting effect of apparent symmetric relativity, deprives Einstein´s theory of any physical relevance whatsoever.

   2. That his two postulates are not original of him, as the first postulate belongs to Poincaré, and the second to Lorentz and De Sitter.

   3. That, quite on the contrary to Lorentz´s constructive deduction from Maxwell´s theory, his from Poincaré literally copied interpretation of the “local time” to explain the relativistic effects as a consequence of a supposed wrong synchronization of clocks, and his absurd and arbitrary definition of simultaneity, identifying coordination with synchronization, are clearly unreal, false, insufficient and contradictory to his rejection of the light propagation frame as a preferred frame for any motion.

   4. That his doubtful deduction of the Lorentz transformation was absolutely innecessary, as it already had been first correctly deduced by Lorentz and Poincaré.

   5. That, if his theory enables to predict the experimental results obtained with distorted instruments, it is not because of its own merits, but just because it applies the original Lorentz´s equations purposely thought to obtain those results. Thus, as a matter of fact, its predictions are only possible because of Lorentz, not Einstein.

   6. That the clocks paradox is nothing but a self-contradiction with the main argument that only relative motions have physical relevance. In his theory, he continuously forgets about it and handles ambiguously the cocepts of motion and rest.

   7. That the predictions of Einstein´s theory are false in its symmetry. When, for instance, in an accelerator a muon travelling at nearly the speed of light has its mass and lifetime increased twenty times, as measured there, then in accordance to Einsteins theory it is equally true that the whole universe is travelling at nearly the speed of light with a twenty times increased mass, as measured by an observer at rest with the muon. And both realities, being caused by the same amount of energy. Or are there no two realities? Or only one (Lorentz is right)? Or none at all (Einstein´s theory is absolutely meaningless and physically irrelevant)?

   As it is easy to realize, Einstein´s interpretation of physical relativity is alltogether obviously a big nonsense. If I insist on that point, it is only because I think that nowadays in the twentyfirst century we cannot accept that because of ideological reasons an incomplete, contradictory and conceptually faulty, non-scientific theory be praised as one of the greatest achievements of human mind in history, while the scientific truth of the real effects on absolute moving objects is disregarded and even unfairly concealed.

   As I unquestionably prove in my paper on the rationalization of relativity in physics, the real, material changes in moving measuring systems are not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact, in view of the experimentally observed relativistic effects. The interested official imposition of Einstein´s faulty interpretation in detriment of the scientific truth must be energically opposed.

   http://ekkehard-friebe.de/blog/herbert-sommer-die-rationalisierung-der-relativitat-in-der-physik/

   To be rightly interpreted, I must declare that I feel no personal animosity against Einstein or those who share his point of view. Quite on the contrary. But I´m clearly against irrational arguments and the interested obstinacy in their official academic imposition, in spite of the numerous and very well founded objections expressed since more than 100 years. That´s what I disapprove.

   Many Nobel and first class physicists, like Lenard, Stark, Rutherford and Michelson, considered it to be absurd, nonsense, or even monstrous. And, in science, if something irrational is detected, it has to be clearly denounced and immediately rectified.

   Evidently, the acceptance of Einstein´s ideas doesn´t seem to have an intellectual, but rather an ideological and sociopolitical component. Let´s call it fashion, or cultural trend. So, like many otherwise intelligent religious believers, their supporters have been clearly indoctrinated for several generations, already at school and universities, by the official teaching institutions and media, making them believe that irrational (absurd) arguments may be scientifically true if their mathematical complement is consistent.

   I agree that we shouldn´t discredit them for that, but why do they systematically discredit and repress their critics the way they do?

   It is true that Einstein didn´t made of himself an idol. He was very modest, humble and friendly. He even admitted not to be the original father of the special relativity theory, but rather someone who had gathered in a single paper the dispersed work of several renowned colleagues. He wasn´t even sure that his own ideas would last for a long time. And fifteen years later, he even admitted the existence of an absolute space and an immobile, non-mechanical aether in it, which was identical in everything to Lorentz´s aether. With this tacit recognition of a preferred frame and absolute motion, Einstein actually gave up his own theory in favour of Lorentz, but surprisingly enough, this had no intellectual consequence at all among most physicists.

   It is not so that the scientific progress has meanwhile supplied better information. The logical thinking and the theoretical knowledge of Newton, Maxwell, Heaviside, Larmor, Fitzgerald, Lorentz and Poincaré was already available from the very beginning and it sufficed to realize that Einstein´s theory was non-original, incomplete, ambiguous, and conceptually erroneous and inconsistent. Those who accepted and still accept it cannot of course be discredited, because they otherwise are mostly very intelligent and respectable people, but their obstinate attitude certainly deserves some kind of qualification. Perhaps ideological obsession, professional convenience, dogmatic-mystic indoctrination?

   The word “absurd” is no insult. It only means the contrary to logical, reasonable thinking. And if anyone accepts Einstein´s interpretation of the physical relativistic facts, admitting that they occur only apparently, without any physical change of the measuring instruments, just because the observers adjust on purpose their clocks by means of light signals so that they always measure exactly the same relative velocity c, then he is clearlyaccepting absurd arguments, even if he doesn´t regard it so. But the actual fact is that most physicists have accepted and do still accept the irrational and contradictory arguments of Einstein´s involuntary erroneous interpretation of the physical relativistic phenomena. Why? Who knows.

   It is not only me, but also many respected physicists and historians, like E.T.Whittaker, think that Einstein borrowed his ideas from Lorentz, Poincaré and Cohn, among others. We only need look at the following lines, copied from a part of Poincaré´s lecture The Principles of Mathematical Physics, Congress of arts and science, universal exposition, St. Louis 1904, to discover remarkable similarities between Poincaré´s (1904) and Einstein´s (1905) postulates of the principle of relativity, and between the false synchronisation of moving clocks, used by Poincaré to explain the local time of Lorentz, and by Einstein, trying in vain to conciliate the evident contradiction between the experimental facts of the isotropic propagation of light in space and the failure to mesure by any means its real velocity relative to the observer´s measuring systems (identical relativity postulates in Poincaré and Einstein, no matter what they might have thought about their explanation in view of the isotropic propagation of light in a common space, equally postulated directly or indirectly by both of them in accordance with Lorentz´s source-independent, wave-like light propagation motion).

   Now, let´s see what Poincaré said in St.Louis (USA) in 1904:

   “(……..)

   “ The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a stationary observer as for an observer carried along in a uniform motion of translation; so that we have not and can not have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a motion”.

   “(……..)
   “ Indeed, experiment has taken upon itself to ruin this interpretation of the principle of relativity; all attempts to measure the velocity of the earth in relation to the ether have led to negative results. This time experimental physics has been more faithful to the principle than mathematical physics; the theorists, to put in accord their other general views, would not have spared it; but experiment has been stubborn in confirming it. The means have been varied; finally Michelson pushed precision to its last limits; nothing came of it. It is precisely to explain this obstinacy that the mathematicians are forced to-day to employ all their ingenuity.
   Their task was not easy, and if Lorentz has got through it, it is only by accumulating hypotheses.
   The most ingenious idea was that of local time. Imagine two observers who wish to adjust their timepieces by optical signals; they exchange signals, but as they know that the transmission of light is not instantaneous, they are careful to cross them. When station B perceives the signal from station A, its clock should not mark the same hour as that of station A at the moment of sending the signal, but this hour augmented by a constant representing the duration of the transmission. Suppose, for example, that station A sends its signal when its clock marks the hour 0, and that station B perceives it when its clock marks the hour t. The clocks are adjusted if the slowness equal to t represents the duration of the transmission, and to verify it, station B sends in its turn a signal when its clock marks; then station A should perceive it when its clock marks t. The timepieces are then adjusted.
   And in fact they mark the same hour at the same physical instant, but on the one condition, that the two stations are fixed. Otherwise the duration of the transmission will not be the same in the two senses, since the station A, for example, moves forward to meet the optical perturbation emanating from B, whereas the station B flees before the perturbation emanating from A. The watches adjusted in that way will not mark, therefore, the true time; they will mark what may be called the local time, so that one of them will be slow of the other. It matters little, since we have no means of perceiving it. All the phenomena which happen at A, for example, will be late, but all will be equally so, and the observer will not perceive it, since his watch is slow; so, as the principle of relativity requires, he will have no means of knowing whether he is at rest or in absolute motion.
   Unhappily, that does not suffice, and complementary hypotheses are necessary; it is necessary to admit that bodies in motion undergo a uniform contraction in the sense of the motion. One of the diameters of the earth, for example, is shrunk by one two-hundred-millionth in consequence of our planet’s motion, while the other diameter retains its normal length. Thus the last little differences are compensated. And then, there is still the hypothesis about forces. Forces, whatever be their origin, gravity as well as elasticity, would be reduced in a certain proportion in a world animated by a uniform translation; or, rather, this would happen for the components perpendicular to the translation; the components parallel would not change. Resume, then, our example of two electrified bodies; these bodies repel each other, but at the same time if all is carried along in a uniform translation, they are equivalent to two parallel currents of the same sense which attract each other. This electrodynamic attraction diminishes, therefore, the electrostatic repulsion, and the total repulsion is feebler than if the two bodies were at rest. But since to measure this repulsion we must balance it by another force, and all these other forces are reduced in the same proportion, we perceive nothing. Thus all seems arranged, but are all the doubts dissipated? What would happen if one could communicate by non-luminous signals whose velocity of propagation differed from that of light? If, after having adjusted the watches by the optical procedure, we wished to verify the adjustment by the aid of these new signals, we should observe discrepancies which would render evident the common translation of the two stations. And are such signals inconceivable, if we admit with Laplace that universal gravitation is transmitted a million times more rapidly than light? “
   Please, notice that in 1904 Poincaré considered that Lorentz had finally succeeded in the satisfactory and correct dynamical explanation of the physical relativity. And that, against Einstein´s interpretation, the false synchronisation of clocks is insufficient to achieve a complete relativistic effect. Many additional, physical alterations of the moving systems are unavoidably needed for it. Thus, already more than one year before its publication, Einstein´s theory was tacitly invalidatet as physically impossible by two of the top contemporary scientists, Lorentz and Poincaré. Why then have, in spite of it, most physicists, during more than hundred years, not accepted this unquestionable scientific evidence, and still don´t? It can only be understood as a sociocultural or sociopolitical, ideological phenomenon, if we reasonably discard generalized stupidity.
   It is a black spot in the history of science that, for ideological reasons, an irrational theory and its corresponding irrational semantic are beeing officially favoured and promoted in detriment and concealment of the real scientific evidence and physical fact of the influence of real motion on the physical properties (length, mass, rate of internal processes, etc.) of material objects. This represents an inadmissible, arbitrary obstruction of scientific knowledge and progress.
   Why do I think that Einstein copied his two postulates?. In the first place, because he himself admitted in a public speech having combined in his theory the theory of Lorentz and the principle of relativity of Poincaré so as to make them mutually compatible. And in the second place, because it becomes evident from the simple comparison of the corresponding statements.
   Some years after Lorentz and Poincaré, Einstein affirmed the same, no more and no less, namely that the laws of nature – including the velocity of light – are the same in all inertial systems (Poincaré), and that light propagates isotropically like a wave in its medium, independently of the motion of its source (Lorentz). Einstein called this medium space and Lorentz called it aether, but they were totally equivalent among each other, as that abstract, non-material aether was supposed to fill completely all the space and be at absolute rest in it.
   I have read Mr.Levy´s papers with great interest, as they confirm my conviction about the absolute motion and its influence on the physical parameters of the moving systems

   Herbert Sommer

Einen eigenen Kommentar schreiben

Hinterlassen Sie eine Antwort

Name

Email (wird nicht veröffentlicht)

Website

Erlaubter XHTML-Code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>