Not only philosophers had their say in working out answers to the questions to this world but physicists as well. Although physics as a pure science of measuring is not entitled to such answers at all and although these answers should not be expected of it, the theories of the “queen of sciences“ had always strong philosophical aspects as well; because the basics of physics itself have been of a metaphysical nature down the line and have remained unapproachable to logical attempts of explanations. As a starting point physics has taken axioms and postulates, like “gravitation“, “nuclear force“, “interaction “, “positive and negative charge“, etc.. Many concepts of this kind have been given up, like for example the “material fluids of electricity“, because they soon proved to be
useless.
Fig.
131 When we are moving our boxed clock of light we see at once that the distances of the light are getting longer ... but that also extends the increment rate of a second (figure 131 – on the right). Our clock is suddenly operating slower. And since we already realised that this has to apply to all physical or atomic processes because of the internal causes for inertia, we can actually say in general: moved clocks go slower! We could also say: they “age“ more slowly because the time seems to go by more slowly. Of course, such a distinct kind of motion is not necessary to make clocks go slow. Since every kind of motion makes clocks go slower, this applies both to the acceleration of free fall in the field of gravitation and to the curving force which causes the effects of a force as well as an acceleration in the sense of deformation. Hence that means: clocks which are falling or clocks which are being deformed are also going slower. That is to say if our box is deformed to an egg shape on the vertical plane, the distance which the light has to cover becomes measurably longer as well. Hourglasses actually stop when they are falling down, what happens to pendulum clocks is easy to imagine – but the mentioned slowing-down factors affect all clocks. And of course not only clocks but all physical processes. When these factors are weaker, i.e. when there is less acceleration or deformation (curving force), clocks (or physical processes) go faster. And what we are concluding now has actually been verified by measurement: clocks on the surface of the Earth go slower than clocks on mountain tops because the curving force and thus the deformation are lower on the mountain than on the ground. And even the acceleration of free fall (the ratio of universal pressure to Earth pressure) is lower. We could also say: the clock on the mountain top “ages” faster. ^{3} Insiders have long since realised where our considerations are taking us. Already, the General Theory of Relativity is shining through all cracks. But before we jump right into the middle of things let’s observe our clock of light for a little while longer. From observing the movements in the cosmos we know that gravitation can economise energy very well and obviously consumes almost none. In fact this is not quite true but the movements within gravitational fields seem to relate to the motto: saving energy at every cost, even if it takes longer. Of course, there is no intention behind it but the effect results because the deformation or acceleration inevitably gets into conflict with inertia and because the energy consumption agrees with the magnitude of inertia. Thus as little inertia as possible, because it saves energy and optimises for instance the movement of a planet around the sun to the force-free orbit, to the apparently eternal revolution. On the ground our clock “ages” slower – and faster on the mountain top. But then it consumes less energy on the ground than on the mountain where its frequency is higher. Well, we already demanded: as little deformation as possible, as little energy consumption as possible, and everything as slow as possible because the oscillations of the atoms adapt to the spatial modifications all the easier... On the surface of the Earth this does not work in such an ideal manner. Here the deformation is strongest, the acceleration of free fall is high. The forces of inertia require a high consumption of energy. In fact the clock “ages” slower but at a high cost in energy. That makes the mountain top more tempting. The curvature is weaker, and the acceleration of free fall and the inertia are lower as well... Besides, the clock “ages“ very fast – but it still does not have an easy life despite all that because the energy consumption is not that small, neither. In addition there is the catch: somehow we have to get the clock to the mountain top! And when moving it to that place it is possible - as we found out – that it goes slower. Of course, we have to consider as well how long the clock remains on the mountain before it comes back. We could define the desirable ideal condition as follows: the medium distance between the ground and the mountain top including the deterioration in the balance because of transporting it to the altitude. Therefore, we have to move the clock and to such an altitude that it is ticking, i.e. that it is ”aging“, as fast as possible with the lowest possible consumption of energy. We are thus striving for a maximum aging of the clock. If we, let’s say, throw the clock up in such a way that it falls back after 2 seconds, we have to lend it such a speed that it rises exactly to an altitude of 4.90 metres before it falls back. In the balance of this mental experiment we see that the clock has aged “maximally” in this case, namely that it has achieved the optimum number of ticks at the slowest possible velocity and with the lowest possible energy consumption. Just the other way round, if we set the clock the task to rise for two seconds and turn back, it would be forced by the curving force and the pressure conditions to carry out exactly that motion which causes maximum ageing: it would rise to 4.90 metres^{4} and turn back there. And for the same reasons a planet finds the ideal orbit around the sun, namely according to the principle of maximum ageing. Because this is the only way that it can - teleologically speaking - sufficiently defy the grip of the curved spaced on its “mass”. The planet will thus not choose the direct way over the mountain top – but it will not fly around it either – the resulting way of optimum energy application will be a compromise – for example as shown in figure 131a. Of course, a planet does not “find” anything and it does not “choose” anything either but it is forced to take the easy way which will “deform” it the least – and that is the way between the two pressure forces or the two fields – that of the sun and that of the universe. And for reasons of deformation, an optimum velocity will result between these fields and the planet’s own inertia, that is to say one that is as slow as possible – because a higher velocity would already cause a greater deformation again. We could say the planet is idle or lazy, and we could postulate the “principle of cosmic laziness “ ^{5}^{ }because the planet presents the way which is easiest for it...
Fig.131a When we think of a clock instead of a planet, it will show us the way of maximum ageing because it evades the centre of the temporal mountain and denies the temporal valley at the edge – we could draw two different conclusions from that: either the clock changes its operation (which is the case) or the mass in the centre dilates time somehow – which would certainly be a bold assumption. When we now think of a metre rule instead of the clock which, as we know, contracts because of the inertia, we would measure a circuit around the centre with this metre rule. This circuit would be a bit bigger than the diameter would make us expect. If we did not know about the contraction of the metre rule, we could establish that obviously the space around the centre must have “expanded” – which is not correct in truth. But if we took the expansion of time and space as a starting point, we could soon find out that both effects could not exist independent of each other (E=space/time²!), that time and space would always expand together (or curve or whatever) – and it would soon occur to us to use the simplified standard concept “space-time“. In this way we could deduce the motion of the planets from one single basic assumption, namely from the expansion of space-time - which would be just as adroit as it would be misleading. Because we certainly know that the clock is really and truly going wrong and the metre rule is really and truly contracted. This thwarts the adroit standardisation and makes retardation or acceleration of clocks, changes in scales, and motions of bodies, etc. exist next to each other without any connection. And that in a space which - from a universal point of view - remains Euclidian but in which mass fields let their oscillations loose on each other in a spherical (or “curved“) manner. Well, in fact we have never lost track of the fundamentals of the repulsion principle and still we did not describe anything else but the scenario of the General Theory of Relativity. From that we selected the concepts “interval“, “cosmic laziness“, and “maximum ageing“ and were able to integrate them into our ideas without any problems. Obviously Einstein demonstrated something very real with his GTR to that kind as if he had not noticed the players in a ball game and attributed the puzzling movements of the ball to the mysterious properties of space and time. In doing so he simplified these phenomena to space-time. We did not go so far because we discovered that there are really shortened metre rules and clocks which go wrong – and that this cannot have anything to do with either the properties of space nor with those of time. (By the way, it does not matter if one chooses the one or the other variant, both opinions explain the phenomena of gravitation without contradiction. In addition, in the GTR it is sometimes appropriate to consult both opinions when making calculations.) For us, the players of the ball game, that is to say the extensive impulse fields of the apparent masses, are the true explanation for the movements of the ball. That Einstein could capture these movements in his equations without knowing the causal background is all the more an ingenious achievement considering that he based this theory on absolutely wrong fundamental assumptions. It is worthwhile to look at it from Einstein’s perspective: The General Theory of Relativity requires a completely new comprehension of space and time. When the physical space has been Euclidian until then (in Newton’s mechanics) or at least flat (in the SToR), (almost) arbitrarily curved spaces are admitted in the GTR. In order to put this particular suitability into effect Einstein established a series of postulates. From the SToR he took the space-time concept as four-dimensional differentiable “manifold” and with that he generalised the Euclidian space. This space-time is curved by the presence of energy (e. g. in form of matter). This means that its internal geometry is changed – whatever this means. In any case all physical processes are influenced by this curvature.
Main foundation for Einstein’s considerations was actually the postulate of equivalence of inert and heavy masses; this principle of equivalence is therefore an important supporting pillar of the GTR. Einstein discovered that acceleration and gravitation are undistinguishable in certain
situations.
Fig.131b
In an elevator accelerating upward (a), the same gravitational effects should occur as in a gravitational field (b). The passenger is allegedly not able to distinguish if the floor of the elevator approaches the “falling” object or if the object is attracted to the floor by a gravitational field. A beam of light (c) crossing the upward moving elevator describes a curve towards the floor – because of the equivalence principle the same is to be expected in the gravitational field (d). Fig.131c
In the gravitational field of the Earth, the two objects would not fall down parallel but radially in direction to the centre of the Earth. Unlike the accelerating elevator, leads in the gravitational field would not hang down parallel. When one took notice of this contradiction, one got resourceful with the “excuse“ that the elevator would have to be just small enough to make the leads appear to be parallel – for an exact science this is a rather sloppy
argumentation.
Fig.131d
In any case, the GTR is not a satisfactory explanation of gravitation but only a complicated method of calculation in which it is even impossible to speak of a strict, mathematical derivation at all because of the many arbitrary assumptions. Still, in an astonishing way it reflects a reality which remained hidden to Einstein. When the attractive force of two bodies is calculated by means of the GTR, the result is: no attraction! And that is exactly as it
is!
This constant and many more which contain the second power of the velocity of light as well as the velocity of light itself are indispensable for the solution of Einstein’s field equations. But that should not surprise us
particularly. “The GTR has nothing to do with reality...!“ But it has. It describes a gravitational cause “from the inside”, so to speak, which lies on the “outside” (just as Mach^{8} suspected). Even if it reflects reality only geometrically so to speak, it is the best of all the gravitation theories offered so far even if it allows for incredible solutions, like black holes or the initial singularity of the Big Bang and cosmologic constructions like for instance the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe. By the way, we would also have to insert the differential geometry of the GTR for the mathematical description of the repulsion principle. Neither the calculation of the perihelion advance of Mercury nor the deflection of light rays in the gravitational field of the sun are confirmations of the GTR. The ellipses of the planetary orbits revolve around the sun like a rosette, the effect is the most distinctive with Mercury and in the main goes back to the influence of the other planets, to the shape of the sun, which deviates from spherical, and to the solar oscillations (quadrupole moments). In 1966, Robert Dicke and H. Mark Goldenberg discovered the deviations of the sun from the ideal sphere and generated a discussion about Einstein’s prediction which has been going on until today. In addition, Rudolf Nedved is said to have demonstrated that the mystery of the perihelion advance vanishes into thin air if the calculations are not made heliocentrically but barycentrically (relative to the centre of mass of the solar system). Moreover, the phenomena of curving time and space in the sphere of our solar system are so minute that one has to calculate with many approximations in the GTR – thus there’s no complete denying the suspicion that Einstein prepared his result to achieve the values known at that time.
Fig.131e With the repulsion principle, the perihelion advance is explained in a similar manner as with the GTR. In doing so, we do not take the expansion of space as a starting point but the simple fact that the metre rule is contracted by inertia. Mercury maintained its impulse of motion by deformation. This does not only substantiate that Mercury is subjected to the field of the sun and to the curving force a little longer but also stands in the way of its own rotation which is therefore very slow. In one Mercury year of 88 Earth days, Mercury rotates exactly three times on its own axis in the same time it takes to revolve around the sun twice. The tidal force of the sun and the impulse of motion of the orbit hold Mercury in this 3:2 rotation.
The perihelion advance of Mercury is already so low that one has to be really astonished at the achievement of Joseph Leverriers (1811 – 1877) who calculated it. In principle it exists with the other planets but it is substantially lower. The GTR fails completely in calculating these disturbances of the orbit. According to Einstein’s own calculation, Venus and Mars had no perihelion advance – which was wrong, though. But the magnitude of the disturbances were not yet known at that time – a further indication that the GTR is an absolutely purposeful (teleological)
theory.
Fig.131f
Figure 131f shows a curved beam of light, as we can produce it on our own by means of two different layers (common table salt and
water^{9}). A laser beam sent into the boundary area of the two layers is diffracted by the different refractive indices. Similar processes are also possible in the solar
atmosphere.
As one can imagine, Shapiro’s experiments and similar ones by other scientists were not so easy. One had to take a bearing on the planets (apart from Venus, Mars and Mercury were also “used“) and in doing so their proper movements and also the perturbations by other planets had to be considered. This required complicated astronomical calculations which had to be very exact. He who suspects that this had been accomplished with the ultra-modern, unfailing GTR is very much mistaken because for that purpose, one only consulted of course good old Newton...
Fig.132 Of two swimmers which are equally good, one is to swim across the river and back and the other is to swim a similarly long distance upstream and back downstream. The first one has to win, in fact by the time difference of
in
case both are swimming at a velocity c and the river is flowing at v.
Let’s make this more clear by using assumed figures: swimmer’s
velocity 20 m/s; current of the river 10 m/s; distance 100 m. Swimmer 1
has to take an angle against the current (dotted line) to actually reach
his destination. We calculate his velocity to Galileo's addition theorem
with
Swimmer 2 swims the first 100 m against the current and the river reduces his velocity by 10 m/s. For that reason, he requires for this distance 100:10= 10 Sekunden. But on his way back the river adds 10 m/s to his velocity; hence 100:30= 3,33 Sekunden.
His total time is 13,33 seconds. He has lost! Fig.133
By means of a half-transparent mirror (P) he divided a beam of light into two beams moving in two mutually perpendicular directions and reflected them back onto themselves just in accordance with the example of the swimmers. A difference in the optical path lengths of the beams would have to show in the telescope into which the two beams of light were falling. An arm length of 25 metres would result in a difference in the optical path lengths of half the wavelength of green light (500 nm) between the two half beams which would have to annihilate each other away by interference because of that. This difference should shift to the other arm when the instrument was turned and would be proved by the shifting of interference
fringes.
The physicist Lorentz developed a theory which was based on the assumption that the arm in direction of motion was subject to linear contraction, the so-called Lorentz contraction. Lorentz could actually demonstrate that a system of electric charges contracts exactly by the amount in question in the direction of motion. Therefore, only the plausible assumption would have been actually necessary that all matter eventually consists of electric charges in order to explain the negative results of the
experiment. When we define the light as a totally independent impulse, this impulse forms an independent system which is even absolute in the ideal case (vacuum). With that falls Einstein’s first principle of relativity, namely that there are no means to measure absolute velocities. Because there are such means! The central point of a sphere of light remains unshakably fixed in space and time; it is really at rest, no matter if its source is moving or not. When it is moving, it continuously creates further spheres whose central points are strung together on the line of movement of the source110 (figure 134). Fig. 134 If this was not the case, there wouldn’t be a Doppler effect since it is exactly this stringing together of the spheres, which involves the temporal transposition of impulses. To define it exactly, every singly impulse has its own sphere and its own central point. The wave develops from several impulses which follow each other but are not created in the same place when the source is moving. In this case, the frequency of the impulse alters immediately and the motion of the source is distinctly revealed in this alteration. The spheres of light standing absolutely in space can be taken as reference points for measuring the velocity as has even been done meanwhile with the background radiation of the universe and with that one could measure the movement of our galaxy unequivocally!^{12}
Since a moving galaxy “draws” its spheres of light into the universe, we can establish both this motion and the velocity, which is also called escape velocity with regard to the expansion of the
universe. Fig.135 A lamp in this galaxy would distinctly shows us the Doppler effect. This would not be possible for an observer on the galaxy because his moving along with the galaxy would annihilate the effect. After all, he would have to put up - let’s assume two - walls (broken lines in the figure), one of them coming towards the enlarged wavelength, the other fleeing from the reduced wavelength. The result would of course be: no discernable Doppler shift on the walls. The compensation of the spherical shift on the walls certainly implies the fact that the velocity of the impulses has to be different in both directions relative to the galaxy. And it is possible for every light-emitting body to derive its motion exactly from this difference. Let’s put it down again: every single impulse sphere which is created in the universe remains fixed to its place of creation. The Earth moves out of this sphere - the light “is therefore left behind“ and on no account does it get the speed of the Earth added to its own like a bullet. This state of “being left behind” corresponds approximately to the expansion in an absolute ether - the idea of a universal sea was therefore not so bad at all. We know what this medium consists of: it consists of the fields of the matter which extend into T.A.O. far beyond the visible.... But why did this possibility escape Michelson’s notice? Because his experiment - and similar ones by other physicists - was unsuitable to reveal the “being left behind” of single spheres of light. For example one had to believe that a light signal which is incident on a mirror at the velocity c-v is reflected at the velocity c+v, which is not exactly an assumption that goes without saying. Since the angles of reflection at the mirrors do not correspond to the laws of reflection due to the fact that the light “is left behind”, the analogy of the swimmers is absolutely misguided. But let’s take a closer look at it again (figure 132): The swimmer follows a certain direction which results from his destined direction and from the fact that the flowing river makes corrections to his direction bringing him to the right destination. He swims at a certain angle against the current; according to Galileo's addition theorem when reaching the destination a speed is the result which there actually existed relative to the destination over the distance covered by swimming.
With the light, things are completely different (figure 133a): the place of creation of the sphere remains fixed while the destination is moving away. When mirror P is adjusted in such a way that it is hit by the reflected beam, the beam is coming from the place where the mirror was (!) when it reflected the light. When the light is directed from mirror P to the mirror, one has to direct the light to that place where this mirror will be (!) when the light reaches it. It is quite necessary that we visualise this again in more detail (figure 136):
Fig.136
When sighting at mirror 1, angle a is automatically given once since the image of the mirror needs time to reach P. When angle a is added again, since one has to aim at the future place of the mirror, one has actually used the angle two times (!) for one distance. Abb.136
We see the emission of two light pulses in the coordinates time (t) and path (x). The curvature of the two lines shows the assumed effect of gravitation on the impulses. The second impulse has to move on a curve which resembles that of the first impulse because the situation is static, i.e. it does not change in the course of time. With that the second curve corresponds exactly to a temporal displacement of the first curve. The temporal difference between two impulses and with that the frequency of the light is thus of the same magnitude with sender and
receiver. Hence the existence of a red shift is impossible. Since the red shift has been proved in experiments meanwhile, though, our considerations show that the definition of the temporal distance in the SToR is doubtful in the presence of gravitation which can only be due to the fact that the temporal difference at the receiver would have to be calculated in a way different to that at the sender. With that, however, the geometry of the space would also be different in both places according to the GTR since the measurement of time in space-time corresponds to the measurement of length in common spaces. Thus the flat space of the SToR does not correspond with reality in the presence of gravitational effects. The absence of gravitational effects, however, is just as unthinkable within our universe as the existence of an absolute vacuum...
We see that the Theories of Relativity are hard to confirm or to refute for the reason alone that they predict a series of verifiable facts which can also be explained exactly without ToR when the paradigm is changed. And in fact, it is impossible to really prove the ToR. Einstein himself knew that very well when he said: “No experiment will be able to prove my theory, but one single one can refute it!“ Since electromagnetic fields always have to be spherical (spherical waves) after all according to the Special Theory of Relativity, one should also expect this of electromagnetic effects, for instance of a magnetic field. The magnetic field triggered by a moving charge, however, disappears for the observer who is moving along with the charge. In the same way, the charge itself should be invariant (absolute); but charge density and current density turn out to be variant, i.e. conditional on the motion. Until today one has not found one’s way out of this dilemma.^{22} For those who still can’t make head or tail of it, here is the simplest examination of the Special Theory of Relativity based on the existence of the DOPPLER effect (figure 138):
For us, a moving source of light coming towards us shifts the frequency of its light into a higher frequency (blue shift). For an observer moving along with the light, it still has the same colour since he causes an inverse Doppler effect with every way of measuring he might undertake because his measuring instrument is receding a little from every impulse. But exactly that could not happen if the impulse had the same speed relative to the measuring instrument as relative to the stationary observer! It follows conclusively from the running-away-from-the-impulse of the measuring instrument (or the running-towards-the-impulse on the other side) that different impulse velocities occur depending on where they are measured from. When a mirror is used instead of the measuring instrument, it will in fact receive the original frequency but will dilate it because of its motion. When the observer moving along takes a look in this mirror, he is moving against this dilated frequency and transforms it back into the original frequency. It doesn’t help either when he directs a vertical beam out by means of the mirror and observes it. The frequency compensation will also take place in this case. If the Special Theory of Relativity applied, the Doppler effect would not be able to occur at all. After all, the increase in frequency of a source of light coming towards us occurs because the first impulse is not so far away from the source of light when the next one is created as it would be with a stationary source of light. This implies conclusively that it has experienced a reduction in speed relative to the source. Michelson’s experiment was repeated again and again with different arm lengths and even with laser light.^{23} These many repetitions and verifications show how hard it was for the physicists to believe that nature should resort to such bad tricks in order to withhold the absolute state of motion from us. Their mistrust was not quite unjustified. Since clocks moving relative to each other are going slower according to the SToR (and also in reality), one could conclude that of twins moving relative to each other the respective other one is ageing more slowly. Responsible for this is the “time dilatation“^{24} or “time stretching“ derived from the Lorentz transformations. Already in the year 1911, Langevin pointed out a contradiction in this conclusion, that in fact each of the twins sees the other age more slowly since it depends only on the relative motion between the twins according to the SToR and not on who had been accelerated before. So, which of the twins is really younger? This contradiction known as “twin paradox“^{25} has in the meantime been solved by an experiment carried out by Professor Thim at the University of Linz. He could prove by means of a microwave interferometer that the “transversal Doppler shift“ which is also based on the time dilatation does not exist at all although this phenomenon known as “relativistic Doppler effect“ had been assumed as certain up to then. The measuring results were published and presented at conventions in Germany and the USA, the last time in May 2002 at the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference in Anchorage, USA.^{26} It looks as if the SToR had been refuted unequivocally for the first time (?) by experiment. And here is the promised comparison of the two Theories of Relativity: The SToR deals only with uniform motions without forces. Every observer has its own space and his own time. Clocks have to be synchronised individually. Space and time depend on velocity. The ether was explicitly dispensed with, the speed of light is constant, and there is no gravitation. The space is always absolutely normal, i.e. flat. The SToR does not explain anything and does not produce anything. It is not applicable in the presence of a universe. The formulas of the GTR are not created in the “borderline case“ of the SToR (observer velocity = 0). The GTR deals only with nonuniform motions with forces. Space and time are the same for all observers and all clocks are always synchronised anywhere from the beginning. Space and time remain constant. The ether is explicitly demanded again.^{1} The velocity of light is variable, namely depending on gravity. In the GTR, everything revolves around gravitation which is determined by the space and its curvature, and the space is always curved. The GTR does not explain anything, does not produce anything, but is applicable as a calculation method in the presence of a universe. The formulas of the SToR are not created in the “borderline case“ of the GTR (flat space, no forces). The two theories have nothing to do with each other, they contradict each other in almost all parts, the GTR can therefore never be a generalisation of the SToR. But at least in a geometrical way it describes a physical reality which we hope to have demonstrated distinctly enough with the “Principle of Existence“, the T.A.O. matrix, and the repulsion principle. As predicted in the chapter “Mass“ we are now turning our attention to the famous formula E=mc² and with that we will finish our short digression into the world of the Theories of Relativity. We learned enough to comprehend the derivation and significance of this formula. We certainly understood that there is only the inertia (inert mass) and that it has to be attributed to the fact that the transmission of power cannot accelerate a body instantaneously because the impulse fields of the atoms have to pulsate through the matrix of T.A.O. according to the “domino principle“ and that in doing so the motion causes an alteration in the paths (oscillational spaces) - just as in the clock of light shown in figure 131. We could equate the resistance caused by that with the Lorentz force because in the end all matter consists of electromagnetic fields. The deformation (as shortening) of moved bodies which we discovered in the chapter “Inertia“– it also played a significant role as distortion in our considerations about the GTR – was already contemplated by the physicist Lorentz as a possibility to explain the negative result of Michelson’s experiment. For the extent of this shortening or contraction, Lorentz determined the factor k
in which v is the velocity of the body and c the velocity of light. We could also calculate this factor out of our clock of light which represents the relation of the alteration in distance in dependence on the velocity. For that purpose, the familiar theorem of Pythagoras is already sufficient... If we want to know what length a moving body has in a motionless state we have to insert this coefficient of correction k and transform its linear measure to the motionless state. This is the well-known Lorentz transformation. As we have seen this factor results from the simple fact that bodies cannot be accelerated above the velocity of light because the impulse velocity within this body is limited by c. The extent of the retardation of a moved clock can easily be calculated with k as well. This is actually called “time dilatation“ – and, as we know, it is nothing else but a clock ticking “differently”... For the relation between acceleration and force, Newton established the equation F=ma or a=F/m, i.e. the acceleration a is proportional to the exerted force F and inversely proportional to the mass m of the body – which means, of course, the inert mass. The bigger the inert mass of the body, the more difficult it is to accelerate it. Now let’s imagine a particle on which a uniform force is acting... When it is in a motionless state, its subsequent motion is defined by F=ma. But when it is already in motion, it has the velocity v because of an acceleration (according to Newton) of a= F/m and it is moving faster and faster due to the imposed force. But Newton didn’t know about these oscillational modifications of the atoms similar to the clock of light as a cause of inertia. His equation a= F/m could not be quite correct for that reason. The impulses of the particle react of course slower and slower with increasing acceleration (we could also say their time is stretching more and more), and the magnitude of this internal retardation (and with that the increase of inertia) has the extent of the Lorentz factor so that we have to “correct” Newton’s equation as follows
One can see from this equation that the velocity of the particle at the speed of light does not increase anymore, even if more force is exerted because a=zero if v=c! Also in the chapter “mass“ we came across a formula which expresses the energy content of the moving particle, namely its kinetic energy, with E=1/2mv². This definition also goes back to Newton who postulated that a work W is exerted on a body when a force F is acting on the body with the mass m over a distance s. He attributed the value W=Fs to this work. When substituting F for F=ma, W=Fs corresponds exactly to 1/2mv². The greater the expenditure of force (Fs), the greater kinE= 1/2mv². But again we have to correct Newton’s equation by the Lorentz factor, and instead of F=ma we now write
and the work done now equals
with Newton it was only
The Lorentz factor has the effect that W becomes infinite if v=c, which makes superluminal speed impossible. But if work lends a greater inertia to a body, the inert mass has to contain energy, exactly E=1/2mv² - and of course this also has to be corrected by the factor k, which results in
so that because of this definition the equation looks like E=W+mc²
That means, even if W=zero, i.e. if neither a force is applied nor a work is done, the particle still has an energy of E=mc²
! The “mass“ of a body is thus considered to be a measure for its energy content (just as our simple example with the fan wheel has revealed). This does on no account mean that mass and energy can be transformed into each other just like that. Because apart from the fact that E=mc² is only a fictitious quantity and has rather a symbolic character, a complete transformation of “mass” into “energy“ is only conceivable in the reaction of matter and antimatter. After all, we demonstrated that in truth masses cannot be involved at all when we described the energy by means of the transformation of the field surfaces and the universal pressure which was changed by that. Einstein’s paper in which he presented these relations in 1905, was titled “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon its Energy Content?“ Though this formula is not included in this three-page treatise, in which he made the proof dependent on the claim to be proved (anyhow a method of evidencing that is usual in the ToR and by means of which the arguments are defined by “measuring regulations”). Because in its correct derivation it stems from Max Planck, and he actually referred to Poincare’s quantity of motion of radiation... But that is a completely different story!^{27}
Albert Einstein is leaving the scene. 1
Einstein himself proposed in a speech –
delivered on May 5th, 1920 in the University in Leiden – a structure
similar to the T.A.O. matrix (motionless ether), when he said:
“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of
relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of
relativity, space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there
not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of
existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor
therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether
may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of
ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through
time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.“ 2 As everybody knows, in the SToR the fundamental magnitude v really reverses its sign in the counter transformation although the Lorentz transformations should be absolutely symmetrical between the primed and the unprimed frame of reference. An absolutely symmetrical inertial process therefore contains asymmetric transformations. This flaw has been ignored by relativists for one hundred years although it questions the whole theory. Students at every university of the world have complained about this incomprehensibility to the lecturers. “How is it possible that the inverse Lorentz transformation reverses the sign of the fundamental magnitude despite the absolute symmetry of the inertial process?“ 3 The frequency of a clock of any model is, ... as has been proved theoretically and practically, linearly depending on the gravitational potential. An atomic clock which has a certain frequency at sea level and which is transported to a place at a higher level, for example to the US Bureau of Standards in Boulder (Col.) at 1650 metres above sea, is going faster there by a factor of + 1.8 · 10^{-13}. This is not an illusion because when the clock is taken back to sea level, one can read on it how much time it has gained on the higher level. (Quotation from Brockhaus multimedial 2001). The question is probably not rarely asked: what happens to the clock when it enters a different gravitational potential and changes its frequency accordingly. The clock does not go faster on a mountain simply because the time is going faster. It goes faster there because explicitly those structural components alter which determine the frequency. This observation describes actually only an identity: the modification of the frequency determining components is identical with the statement that the clock changes its frequency. Foucault pendulums and clock pendulums turn out to be the key for understanding the cosmological conclusions from Mach's principle.( Prof. Dr. Klaus Strobach, Stuttgart) 4
This altitude of 4.90 m
stems from calculations by John Archibald Wheeler (A Journey into Gravity
and Space-time, p. 176). Other authors, like for instance Thomas
Fischbacher, University of Munich (1.20 m) achieved completely different
values which deviate from each other. This shows that the mathematics of
the GTR is not a simple matter. 5 See: “ABC of the Theory of Relativity“ by Bertrand Russell, page 95 of German edition, published by Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt a. M., 1989. 6 William of Ockham (around 1285 to ca. 1349), English philosopher born in Ockham (Surrey), theological writer and Franciscan friar. The rule of economy of formal logic ascribed to William of Ockham according to which simple hypothesis are to be preferred to complicated ones, is called Ockham’s razor. 7
The concept of
Black Holes is not new and
did on no account arise but with Einstein’s theory: already in 1799,
Pierre Simon Laplace (1749–1827) discussed the question whether the
gravitational force of a body could be so strong that it would prevent
light from escaping. Since black holes cannot be proved directly of course,
one is looking for indications for the existence of the black hole by
means of the radiation emitted by bodies falling into the black hole. Thus it is
meanwhile considered as “proven“ that black holes occur in the centre
of many galaxies. 8 Mach’s principle: in 1883, Ernst Mach (1838-1916) formulated the hypothesis that the forces of inertia were caused by the entirety of matter available in the universe. In a thought experiment to that effect, the inertia of a body was expected to disappear when all other matter was removed. According to Newton’s bucket experiment, the parabolic curvature of the surface of a water-filled rotating bucket marks a frame of reference rotating against the absolute space. But since there is no absolute space according to Mach, the centrifugal force as a cause of the curvature is generated on the basis of the rotation relative to the fixed stars. According to Mach, the reversed situation, namely the rotation of the fixed stars around the stationary bucket cannot be distinguished from Newton’s bucket experiment neither by thought nor by experiment. Therefore the water surface has to be curved in this as well. Mach’s principle was one of the starting points for developing the GTR. 9
Curved beam of light (mirage):
a cuvette is filled with 4 cm of water and placed on the optical bench.
Then the table salt solution is filled in by means of the tube at the
bottom of the cuvette so that two different layers are created in the
cuvette, water on top and the table salt solution at the bottom. One has
to make sure that the layers don’t mix. The laser is mounted on the
table in such a way that the beam enters the cuvette only just below the
boundary of the layers, pointing slightly inclined upwards. Because of the
continuously changing refraction index along this boundary the beam will
run in a curved way. 10
In GPS (Global Positioning System), a correction of the relativistic effects (the clocks are going faster because of the altitude of the satellite orbits) is actually made by slightly reducing the frequency of the atomic clocks in the satellites (from 10.23 Mhz to 10.229999995453 Mhz). It cannot be verified if this correction makes sense at least with regard to the GTR (the SToR errors would be too insignificant) since the errors from other causes are substantially more significant and conceal the relativistic ones. The errors can have following extent: 11
Actually,
this expectation is incomprehensible: Galileo’s
or Newton’s principles of relativity imply that it does not
depend on the motion or the rest of a body when we conduct
a physical
experiment. That means that we cannot distinguish at all between the
Earth at rest or in motion. Thus when we shoot cannon balls into
different directions we could not establish the motion
of the
Earth around the sun from their velocities. Why did one actually
believe that Newton's principle of relativity could be broken if one took
beams of light instead of cannon balls? Michelson proved that there is no
ether - and what more? All right, forget the ether. Why should the light
reveal the motional state of the Earth when it was already known that no
experiment would permit it? Why did one expect that corpuscles of light
behaved different to
cannon balls? One only had to accept Newton's principle of
relativity and did not require any SToR at all to explain the
result of Michelson’s experiment (and those of other people). We
would get exactly the same result with cannon balls - but nobody would
come up with the idea that they were moved along with the “ether”.
(Posted to the forum of “Bild der Wisssenschaft”, a German scientific
magazine). 12 In the years 1976 to 1977, experimenters of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California flew in a U2 airplane high above in the Earth’s atmosphere. They found that there were differences in the measured velocity compared to a cosmic frame of reference defined by the 3-K radio energy. There also were distinct results for the motion of our milky way through the universe. In his book “Einstein’s Universe“ Nigel Calder said to that: “What is false is nothing less than one of Einstein’s fundamental assumptions: that it is impossible for an astronaut moving at a steady speed to tell whether he who is moving or the outside world is moving. In fact it turns out that he can, and the democracy of Einstein’s theory is compromised.“ 13
Why
should the presented swimmer analogy not be admissible for the behaviour
of the light? In short it can be said that in case of the swimmers there
is a modification to the speeds whereas in the MICHELSON
interferometer a modification of the distances takes place, and we should
therefore examine the experiment very thoroughly (Principle of Existence,
Page 481). 14 In 1864, James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) submitted his dissertation “A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field” to the Royal Society in London. With his equations he provided the theory by means of which all electromagnetic effects have been explained until today. The theory, however, had a crucial disadvantage: it was no longer Galileo invariant. Its equations resulted, for instance, in the velocity of light being of the same value in all frames of reference. This was a contradiction to Galileo’s opinion according to which the light, which is emitted, for example, at c by a source of light moving away from the observer at 0.3c, should arrive at the observer at only 0.7c. But this seemed to be contradictory to the experimental results. Maxwell’s theory was no longer Galileo invariant but Lorentz invariant. That means that it is invariant at a peculiar transformation, the so-called Lorentz transformation. The peculiarity of this transformation is that moving bodies appear to be shortened and that moving clocks go slower. 15 The conventional expert opinion that, for instance, the electric charge of the proton is always distributed in a spherical structure was refuted by the result of a study concerning interactions of a high-energy electron ray with hydrogen atoms. The examination carried out under the direction of Charles Perdrisat of the Jefferson Laboratory in the US County Virginia provoked intensive disputes in the expert world. Together with about eighty research colleagues Perdrisat conducted his examinations on an electron accelerator of the Jefferson Laboratory. In their experiment the scientists fired an electron ray into a vessel which was filled with extremely cold hydrogen. When the electrons hit the hydrogen atoms and accelerated them, they were deflected into an unexpected direction through the interaction with their protons. The group of researchers interpreted the results of their experiment in that way that the positive electric charge of the proton did not adopt a spherical form but rather that of an egg. As was to be expected, other researchers are not convinced of this interpretation, though. They rather suspect that the results of the experiment could be explained with the relativistic interactions between the high-energy electrons with the protons. 16
According
to the SToR, a couple of paradoxes and inconsistencies in argumentation
result, like for example: the faster a car drives, the slower its motor
would have to run because of the time dilatation, or tanks could cross a
crack in the earth for one observer but not for the other observer, balls
would fit through the gaps of a fence passing by or they wouldn’t...,
just think of the twin paradox or the Ehrenfest dog-flea paradox etc...
Here is another one: a submarine travelling at near-light speed appears
shorter to an observer on land. For that reason, it looses its buoyancy
and should sink to the ground. But from the view of the submarine crew,
the situation is just reversed, and the submarine should rise to the
surface. With astonishment we can read in the specialist magazine Physical
Review D (volume 68, article 027701): “This paradox of the SToR has now
been resolved by a Brazilian researcher... When an object is moving past a
stationary observer at close to the speed
of light, it appears to get shorter to him. This so-called Lorentz
contraction should therefore make a submarine, which is of the
same density as water in a system at rest and is therefore swimming
at a constant altitude, sink since its density increases because of the
contraction. According to the frame of reference of the submarine crew,
however, the sub is stationary, and the water is rushing past. It
therefore appears to be denser than the sub and as a consequence the sub
should float. In his study, George Matsas of the State University of Sao
Paulo in Brazil used the equations of the General Theory of Relativity in
order to calculate a generalised buoyancy for objects which are moving
almost at the velocity of light in a liquid. Since
the General Theory of Relativity accounts for gravitational forces,
the submarine paradox could be solved in this way - the submarine sinks
even from the viewpoint of the submarine crew. Reason for this is the
gravitational field of the water rushing past which also reduces the
buoyancy in this frame of reference. Matsas has shown in an elegant way
that this contradiction dissolves when considering the energy of
acceleration of the gravity field. His solutions should also be applicable
to the theory of the Hawking radiation emitted by black holes which can
exert a sort of “ buoyant force “ on nearby matter according to some
researchers.“ Comment: so the contradictions of the SToR can be solved by means of the GTR. Well done, really! And what does this have to do with the SToR at all? 17 All so-called “tests of the SToR“ concern predominantly only “tests of light propagation“ and can therefore not confirm the SToR at all (because even the theory according to Lorentz would be confirmed by that). A verification of the constancy of the velocity of light cannot at the same time be a verification of the SToR for the simple reason that it is not a prediction of the theory but a basic assumption! (Vicious circle: MM experiment measures constancy of c, Einstein bases his theory on it, establishing the constancy of c “confirms“ theory...) 18
Actually particles are
not “discovered“! We should not forget that all those “particles“,
mesons, kaons, muons, etc. materialise as spherical fields, spherical
waves, impulse fields, etc... because of the conditions of encounter in
T.A.O. and are for the most part produced in the charged particle accelerators. 19
Georg Galeczki/Peter Marquardt:
“Requiem für die Spezielle Relativität“ (= Requiem for Special Relativity), Haag + Herchen 1997. 20
The different operation of the clocks is easy to understand. One circumnavigation was flown towards the East and one towards the West. Both journeys lasted for three days. The result of the experiment: 21 Aberration of the stars: since light inside a telescope needs time for traversing, it receives a diagonal path in the moving telescope behind whose elongation we falsely locate the star. The angle of aberration results simply from v/c; during one revolution of the Earth there is thus an East-West drift of the observed star of 2 v/c = 2*10-4 degrees, that’s about 41 angular seconds. The aberration, which was first determined by James Bradley, corresponds very well with this value. Since the velocity of the Earth was quite well known at this time, Bradley could measure the value of c essentially exacter because of the angles of aberration (Principle of Existence, Page 490) 22
The
SToR also predicts, for instance, that with the same particle one observer
will measure a mass
smaller than Planck mass,
another observer, however, will measure
a mass bigger than Planck
mass.
This is of course nonsense. 23
Experiments in the manner of Michelson’s have been repeated many times, even in a variety of variations, with laser beams for the first time in 1964, even with different arm lengths and cooled equipment (Kennedy-Thorndike experiment), with microwaves in echo boxes, etc... Most of the time the frequencies of two laser beams directed perpendicular to each other were compared and the resulted difference between the frequencies (the beat frequency) was recorded. These cases also revealed (although not without exception) that no change in the frequency followed the turning of the experimental set-up which was always celebrated as new, modern evidence for the SToR. 24
The Doppler effect could offer a good possibility to directly locate the time dilatation postulated by Einstein. In fact by means of the spectrums of far away milky way systems, which, as is commonly known, move away from us at very high speeds. Their light is distinctly altered in its colour by that. 25 The paradox can only be solved by one concept which has actually no right to be in the Theory of Relativity: bias. Because both the travelling brother and the brother who remained at home should testify that the travelling one ages less than the one left at home. Even for the fanatic relativist this is not immediately plausible because it is exactly the impossibility to differentiate between “station“ and “train” from which one should be able to conclude that every brother would claim the same of the other. One searched for distinctive features of the systems moving away from each other in order to achieve an asymmetry in aging. One of these reasons is based on the fact that the traveller is subject to accelerations and the stationary one is not. Apart from the fact that the fields of acceleration and of gravitation are equivalent to each other (GTR), one can forget this argument right from the start: accelerations are not considered in the SToR so to speak. Those authors who want to see the GTR applied to an analysis of the twin paradox are piquantly right – because the SToR can be refuted by means of the GTR. Because, as it is, one has to acknowledge that the “stationary state” of the one at home does not apply since the spaceship which leaves its system does of course transmit an impulse to it according to the principle of action and reaction. As for the rest, this impulse is only equalised by the return of the spaceship. Both brothers are therefore subject to accelerations. It has to be noted here that the traveller is only able to achieve such accelerations which correspond to the fuel taken along - a mass that has to be taken from a stationary system. The take-off mass therefore determines both the impulse of one system and of the other system. The event is still symmetrical! 26
H. W. Thim, “Absence of the transverse Doppler shift at microwave
frequencies”, Digest of the IEEE
Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference 2002, pp.
1345-1348, ISBN
0-7803-7218-2, ISN 1091-5281, IEEE Number 00CH 37276. 27 For Poincare, E_{s} = m_{S}c^{2} was nothing mysterious. Other scientists as well, like Joseph Larmor, Joseph John Thomson, Oliver Heaviside, and Friedrich Hasenöhrl were familiar with this relation. E=4mc^{2}/3 had already occurred to Hasenöhrl (1874 - 1915) in 1904. But the roots of E = mc^{2} go back even farther. Peter and Neal Graneau write in Newton versus Einstein, How Matter Interacts with Matter, 1993, p. 122: "Writers of electromagnetics have been poor historians. They usually give Maxwell the credit for having discovered the velocity of light in electromagnetic theory. This honor belongs to Weber. Weber deserves credit for another theoretical discovery which is normally attributed to Einstein. This concerns the increase of mass with velocity and E = mc^{2}. Many textbook writers consider this to be one of the most important revelations of the special theory of relativity. Weber had stumbled on this fact 50 years before Einstein discussed it in detail.“ Already in 1846, Wilhelm Eduard Weber calculated the potential voltage bound in 1 mm^{3} water according to the formula E = mc^{2}. The first indication of the formula goes even back to Lagrange. Einstein’s main credit was only that this relation later became a worldwide sensation because of clever publicity. |
Menu |