Continuing: EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY
By O.Tedenstig Idungatan 37 19551 Märsta Sweden Date : 11/12-1994
( This is a copy of the origin text version, Sep 1998.)
Length contraction of physical objects as function of relative movement is another meaningless pseudo effect proposed by the theory. The appearance of this idea emanates from Lorentz and Fitzgerald's suggestion of solving a problem in Michelson and Morley's light aether experiment, which contrary prediction gave zero result. The physical motivation to the length contraction effect was that the aether actuated a pressure in the direction of movement pressing parts of the apparatus together. Obviously, it was this suggestion which inspired Einstein to adopted this idea, but inhibited at the same time the suggested physical reason to it, replacing it by nothing, a meaning less, meaningless nothing.
Experiments have been performed in purpose to verify length contraction, but for obvious reasons that is troublesome because the measuring rod used will contract in the same degree as that object which is subject for measurement. Even convinced relativists have realised that fact, but used it as an argument for that the theory is true. The effect exists but cannot be detected in your own reference system.
But the length contraction is real if you try to measure a rod belonging another reference system. The reasoning is approximately as follows:
A person in system A is observing a well known object in system B and find that the object observed is shorter compared with the own reference object.
A system in system B is observing a well known object in system A and find that the object observed is shorter compared with the own reference object.If the observed effect was real, there are two possible solutions 1) the effect is purely of imagined nature caused by the fact that the picture of the observed object is distorted by the limited speed of the light rays. 2) The other possible interpretation would be that the effect is of real nature as suggested from the beginning by Lorentz and Fitzgerald's hypothesis.
In the second case the contraction effect would be the same in both systems, hence being irrelevant in a pure physical point of view, and a complete meaningless physical concept. In the first case the effect is pure imagined and not real. This effect can be motivated by the fact that information consume time, hence giving rise to distortion of the observed object. But such effects can be considerated and predicted by ordinary classic theory, the theory of relativity is not necessary.
One of the most strange and perverse results of the theory is how the concept of an event is treated. The theory says that a single event not is simultaneous for two observers who move with different velocities in relation to the observed event.
That may be interpreted in two different ways. In the same way as we interpreted time dilation and length contraction one of the alternative is to interpret the effect just as a distortion effect caused by that light consume time for transmitting the information of the event, the other interpretation is that the event really is equivalent with two separate events.
The first interpretation may be acceptable in a physical point of view, but being only an illusive effect. But there is still only one event for both the observers, they only apprehend the event on two different times.
In the other interpretation we override the border of what we regard as normal science. The idea that the same event would be different events dependent of who is the observer is absurd and lacking reality. To give an extreme and some absurd example : The US president J.F.Kennedy was murdered by a shoot in Dallas the 22nd of November 1963. If someone would imply this murder was many murders, one murder for each single person who heard of this event, he should be regarded as a complete idiot. Obviously not Einstein and his supporters do that.
Another remarkable effect of relativity is that velocities not can be added arithmetically. If for instance two cars drive on a road with 100 km/hour each, but in different directions, the relative velocity between them will be 200 km/hour, that in accord with normal calculations. In the relativity theory, that is correct with good accuracy for low velocities, but not for very high velocities. Because the maximum velocity possible to define is limited to , c ,the velocity of light, Einstein was forced to construct an artificial formula which gave this limit as awaited by the theory.
Of course all that is pure fiction, constructed results having the only motivation that Einstein's theory claim it. The idea serve no purpose and deserve not to be taken seriously.
As here discussed before in examining this theory, the mass increasing phenomenon, if interpreted as such effect, was discovered by experiment with cathode rays so early as in 1901. Hence, the phenomenon was not predicted by the theory of relativity but was enclosed in the theory some years later. Before that several other scientists had developed the experimental results as well as presented mathematics expressions for it being the same as in Einstein's theory. The physical reason to the mass increase phenomenon may be discussed, but there is no reason to interpret it as a effect of relativistic concepts. The effect only has been registered when accelerating element particles in particle accelerators, so the most probable reason is that the effect is of electromagnetic nature. There is no reason that a rocket in free space, for instance, move forwards by its own force, should increase its mass.
No matter the reason to this phenomenon, we can be sure of that this effect has nothing with relativity to do. Those theoretical formulae derived to the greatest extent is built on classic Newtonian laws of mass, energy and force, parameters not contained in the origin theory of relativity.
When an ambulance passes a person standing still on the street, the listener will register a rising tone when the ambulance approaches and a falling tone when it recedes. The phenomenon is named " Doppler effect " after the discover Christian Doppler. The effect is created by that sound propagates through a medium, air. But even for light there are similar effects, indicated by that the wavelength is displaced in direction of blue when the source approach and displaced against red in the opposite case. Einstein's supporters mean that it is an easy task to explain the effect within the conceptual framework of the theory. But sorry to say, the arguments here is weak as usual. They think that the Doppler shift has the same cause as for sound in air, but it cannot be. The reason for that is that light has no aether to move in (as for sound in air). So the Doppler/sound/air model doesn't work. and the theory of relativity doesn't confess any light aether. The only remaining reason to the equivalent Doppler shift is that the light velocity is effected by the relative velocity between source and observer, but then the theory once time for all must be rejected as invalid. It's easy to understand that few are prepared to take this step.
In Einstein's theory the gravitation is no real force, just a curvature in space and time. For instance, if a planet moves round the sun, it is not actuated by a force but follows a track in the space-time continuum according to the least resistance law. In this perspective one can wonder why an object being in rest strives to move in a direction towards the gravitating center. In spite of that Einstein say that there is no force acting, a mass can press a steel spring together, then letting the spring do a work. The conclusion is that no energy (force times distance) is needed when pressing the spring together but that energy is developed afterwards. In this way Einstein's theory has overtrumped the energy preserving law, which means that energy can be created from nothing. We can be very sure that is impossible, no physical experiments has overtrumped the energy preserving law. So, once again we have noted that Einstein's theory not pass through a simple logical examination.
. . . . . .
E-mail me:
. . . . . . . . . . . .
