Welcome to Better Relativity in Physics.
(Oct 2009 Version).
This is a scientific site, probably of little interest to the general public.
Copyright © 2004 - 2009 David V Connell.
Key words :- Einstein, Special Relativity, Natural Relativity, Local Constants, Universal
Constants, New Gravity.
I came not from many years at a learned academy; my mind was not burdoned with excessive exposures to Einstein's Relativity theories, which violated common sense. Instead, I went to the simple, fundamental laws of physics and found that mathematical and physics sense agreed with common sense, destroying Einstein's fiction. Most physicists should now be echoing John F Kennedy's words "How could I have been so mistaken as to have trusted the experts", their dogma has replaced logic.
This site is expected to be of extraordinary interest to all physicists, ex-students of physics and any others with a real interest in Relativity, who may NOT believe,
or even DO believe,
what they have been told about space and time distortions, an absolute limiting velocity, a transverse(!) Doppler effect, etc. in Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity (SR) theory.
These turn out to be a load of rubbish, due to his acceptance of a widespread assumption regarding the velocity of light at that time, as is proved by the fact that the assumption causes the predicted relativistic changes from Einstein's Relativity to be INCOHERENT - fundamental physics tries to be an exact science, yet two physics equations for the same quantity predict contradictary results! That does not make sense (and they both produce wrong results!).
This causes most of SR and some of GR to be invalid.
A new, simple, and coherent theory named Natural Relativity (NR), based on energy conservation rather than velocity, has been derived, which does not produce the above absurdity, or produce any known anomalies, such as the famous Clocks paradox.
A list of common misconceptions and false assumptions discovered during the derivation of NR is offered herein. They are based on accepted principles and logic; they are not postulations.
Also included are some articles on particular associated subjects, that will probably be of interest.
CONTENTS. ("last updated" dates attached to each item).
Above (21Oct09)
Introduction (below) (29NOV08).
SR's Problems - Some Common Misconceptions, and Many Invalidations of SR. (19FEB09)
NR discussion - Discussion and Summary (01MAY08)
The Real Source of Gravity part 1, to be continued. (21Oct09)
Curvilinear Motion Evidence. (16JAN09)
Physicists' 100 year Blunders. (19FEB09)
Red Shift is Due to the Doppler Effect . . . . Isn't It ? (03DEC08)
The Speed of Light is Constant . . . . Isn't it? (07JUL09)
The Necessity of Solving the Clocks Contradiction of SR. (16JAN09)
The Faked Derivation of Einstein's Mass-Velocity Equation. (02JUN08)
Frames of Reference. (16JAN09)
Most of the readers of these articles will attempt to find fault everywhere they are in conflict with the theory they have been taught. It is pointed out here that invalidation of a theory must come from UNDISPUTED physics, logic, or experiment, NOT from conflicts with other theories or beliefs, so, reader beware, there are many such conflicts in these articles.
It will be realized that most physicists have been subjected to a lifetime of conditioning that physics constants of proportionality do not change, that the speed of light is a universal limiting velocity, and by some strange means measures the same in all frames of reference. But they are all unproved assumptions from around the turn of the 20th century. Getting used to the fact that they, and their consequences, are not true could be a problem for many.
Introduction.
Einstein's SR theory is an early attempt at finding the exact relation between mass and velocity and exploring the consequences. The erroneous assumption regarding the velocity of light resulted in SR being inconsistent in its predictions and significantly affected calculations using very high velocities. Even then his resulting equation was correct for one particular (common) type of experiment - acceleration of charged particles in an electric field. NR shows that the electric field was the cause of the limiting speed, not "relativity". Thus, all experiments of that type confirmed his equation, but this was wrongly assumed by everyone (it seems) to be for all circumstances, not just for electric fields, with far reaching consequences.
The more popular, so-called conventional derivation of his equation (a less complicated method) was also found to be faulty. And, SR is seen to offend many principles of physics and relativity, using distortions of Time and Space to 'solve' some of them, which distortions were carried forward into his theory of gravity.
Most experiments confirming relativity have been assumed to confirm Einstein's version. However, NR mimics SR at non-relativistic speeds, thus agreeing with nearly all experimental evidence. One whole group of experiments was found to confirm NR and SR predictions, but the reason for their agreement with SR was found to be invalid. For relativistic speeds, two sample experiments apparently agreeing with SR, but, according to NR should not have done so, were examined and found to be faulty (whether deliberate or by accident is not determinable!). One of these (see "Curvilinear Motion"), when more deeply examined, was found to support NR and disagree with the velocity of light assumption (a basic postulation of the SR theory), the other was not correctable. Very few experiments were published in this area and the (very few) others have, naturally, also been assumed to be faulty. Thus, all valid experiments agree with NR, but not with SR. As Einstein once said, hundreds of experiments agreeing with a theory do not prove it is correct, but just one can prove it wrong.
How often, in the history of science, was the first theory of a strange new subject found to be perfect? But this is assumed to be true by the proponents of SR!
The derivation of the new (different) mass-velocity equations of NR avoids making any unnecessary assumptions. Long accepted, undisputed physics and logic are used to determine the relativistic changes to objects, without recourse to distortions of time and space (whereas SR assumes one of the changes), and incidentally exposes Einstein's speed of light assumption to be invalid. Relativistic changes in mass, size and resonant frequencies survive, but are not quite the same as in SR (which are found to be incoherent), and the contradictory and paradoxical situations associated with SR do not arise. All this is accomplished using only long accepted, undisputed physics.
Some readers may think the above claims are impossible, BUT NOT SO . . . so please read on.
The first full version of the manuscript expounding this new theory, which complies with all the applicable laws of physics and principles of relativity, gives the formal proof of these claims and was first submitted to a physics journal for publication in January 2006, and improved versions submitted to several journals since then, but alas, while it has not been rejected on grounds of faulty physics, has failed to be published for unknown or dubious reasons, or just plain abnormal publication delays.
Hence this web site describes the benefits of Natural Relativity for general consideration and readers may decide for themselves whether it should have been published in a physics journal before now. Happily, the author (many years retired) has no career to enhance (or have destroyed, as has happened to some critics of SR) so it is of little importance to him where it is published, but 'when' is important.
GREAT NEWS - THE MAIN PAPER - NATURAL RELATIVITY - WAS PUBLISHED IN SEPTEMBER 2009.
It is again pointed out here that invalidation of a theory must come from UNDISPUTED physics, logic , or experiment, NOT from conflicts with other theories, so, reader beware, there are many of these in these articles and should be carefully examined. Very few (if any) can be classified as a matter of opinion (no physical evidence for either point of view).
It is up to the qualified readers of the articles on this web site and the full thesis to apply the facts disclosed in them to their areas of expertise or interest. This author cannot be expected to explain how this information changes (and exposes the flaws in) the many theories associated with relativity which abound (due mostly to false assumptions and misinterpretations), or explain the anomalies, in all of them.
Comments, feedback etc. are welcome (and rare!) and should be sent to author@betterelativity.com
Web site inaugurated 25 April 2007 and continuously updated.
Click here to go to the first article - SR's Problems, or
here to return to CONTENTS.