NATURAL RELATIVITY
Copyright © 2004 2005 2006 2007, 2008 David V Connell.
DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY
DISCUSSION.
1. In NR [1], applied energy is indicated by logic and observations (and the equivalence of mass and energy) to be the cause of changes to mass, and hence to atomic sizes and resonant frequencies. It would be reasonable to suppose that the opposing forces in the Static case (e.g. displacement against gravity) cause the changes to be different from those for the Dynamic case (speed), where those forces do not exist but suffer acceleration instead.
Einstein's SR is based on velocity rather than energy, resulting in many strange predictions, absurdities and paradoxes, too many to quote here; the non-linearity of mass with energy, ignoring the Kinetic Effect, confusing frames of reference, and ignoring principles of relativity are probably the main causes. Surely, non-conformity with the principles of CTE and relative speed should have invalidated it in the first place (before publication or soon after!).
2. Owing to the method of deriving the NR equation for unrestricted motion, if experimental data is in conflict with it , there seems to be a limited number of explanations :-
either i. The principle of Conservation of Total Energy is not valid,
or ii. Mass and Energy do not have the accepted relationship,
or iii. Nature's laws of physics are not logical,
or iv. The experimental theory is not correct (the most likely explanation),
or v. An unknown law of physics has shown up.
It is suggested that any experiments with results that appear to be in conflict with NR should be checked for the faults revealed in "SR's Problems" and corrected if possible.
3. SR avoids gravity, assigning it to GR because the SR equation doesn't agree with the known gravitational facts. This, in itself, points to SR being in error, as GR agrees with NR in this area of relativity. According to NR, inertial and gravitational motion both utilize the same mass-velocity function. That SR could differ is not logical (unless SR is only valid for restricted inertial motion). GR is, in effect, an extension of the relativity expressed in NR, but Einstein's version probably needs an overhaul in the light of this paper. It would appear to be a marriage of two incompatible philosophies, SR distortions and CTE.
4. That the SR equation apparently predicts a limiting speed equal to c has no special meaning when it has been built into the derivation, and the result is therefore only suitable for motion restricted to that limit. Until now, no explanation other than SR for a limiting speed has been deemed necessary. The limiting speed found by accelerating charged particles with electric potential [2] is now considered to be a property of the electric field and experiments finding such a limit are confirming that the speed of propagation of electric fields is c. That a limit exists for uncharged particles or other means of acceleration is refuted. Beta particle velocities [3] accelerated by magnetic fields confirm this and therefore invalidate SR.
Possibly, acceleration produced by an electric field acting on a charged particle could be likened to a following wind acting on an ice yacht, whereas transverse magnetic forces would be likened to a side wind, which can give an ice yacht a greater speed than the wind. It is presently beyond the scope of this paper to explore this area further.
5. That Albert Einstein produced a mass-velocity factor that was identical to the Lorentz factor is now seen to be caused by both persons assuming the speed of light to have a constant value everywhere. Other applications of that assumption always produced faulty results, the Michelson-Morley [4] experiment, and the two differing algorithms for the Doppler Effect for light (source and observer moving) are other instances that come to mind. The length of apparatus was proclaimed to contract in the direction of the supposed motion through the aether, by the factor that was calculated but not found. A formula was derived for the adding of speeds so as to not exceed the speed of light, even space and time were supposedly distorted to fit the theory. Surely, when a theory leads to such strange requirements being necessary, it is time to examine the underlying assumptions for the cause, and not expect nature to conform to the theory.
If the speed of light had been assumed to be relative to its source and unaffected by the missing medium, the Doppler effect calculations for the source and observer moving, would both have given the expected same value (since in relativity which one is moving is quite arbitrary) and the "relativity correction" (or "time dilation" adjustment) resulting in the geometric mean being used (see Red Shift on this site), would not have been required. What valid reason exists for doing that is unknown. That it always produces the desired result of two identical values is not a valid reason. It is still used today!
As no energy has been applied no fringe shift would be expected in the Michelson-Morley experiment. This agrees with the results found, and by numerous experiments since then. Hence it should be accepted that the speed of light is a local constant relative to its source and is additive quite normally. This has been confirmed by Sagnac [5] and Kelly [6] and the GPS system. For more information on this, a paper by Anderson et al [7], giving a history of objections to the invariance of the speed of light was published in 1994.
6. Assuming the speed of light to be a universal constant in the derivation of the mass-velocity equation was unnecessary. Einstein's equation was really only an exercise in what distortions would result if the velocity of light was assumed to be constant relative to all frames of reference, but was not recognized as such. SR asumes all physics constants never change, whereas it has been shown that constants of proportionality must change relative to the home frame value in frames moving relative to the home frame. The speed of light and mass are both constants of proportionality.
7. Wrong assumptions regarding relativistic changes, accelerative force, frames of reference, the speed of light, constants, etc. are found to be widespread in the literature. Basing a theory on widely accepted assumptions without adequate evidence will eventually raise conflicts with practical experience and experiments if any of them are not true. Such appears to be the case with SR.
8. Einstein's mass-velocity factor, being identical to the Lorentz factor (but supposedly derived in a different way) probably explains why it was universally accepted. That it has not been corrected for 100 years is possibly due to the critics of SR also assuming that physics constants (particularly c) were universal (and often assume the Lorentz factor was correct) and thus failed to solve the anomalies.
The "conventional" derivation of Einstein's mass-velocity equation (The Faked Derivation) is also shown to be faulty.
9. In the literature, nearly everyone assumes Relativity and SR to be the same thing. Not so. This can result in SR getting the credit for proof of relativity in general, as seems to have happened with the Rotary and the "time dilation" experiments - the Hafele and Keating [8] experiment correctly concluded that it "supported relativity theory", but was subsequently assumed to mean it supported SR by at least one author, who was then quoted by others in evidence of it supporting SR. Also, claiming SR to be wrong is not the same thing as claiming that Relativity is wrong (does not exist), the principle of CTE guarantees it exists, but SR violates CTE if it is applied to unrestricted motion. And it seems to be littered with more than its fair share of false assumptions.
10. Defects in SR have been found for many years. Some were covered up by modifications such as distortions of space and time, and the invalid introduction of an effect named the "Transverse Doppler Effect" is outrageous, it does not exist as stated, it is not from Doppler theory, nor from centrifugal force, nor GR, it is the Dynamic Effect of NR. Evidence from experiments for which the terms "Time Dilation" and "Transverse Doppler Effect" were invented, confirm that the Dynamic Effect of NR predicts the correct changes for all the circumstances tested, without resorting to such inventions. The theories of distortions to time and space have no evidence to support them, they are empirical answers to SR problems, and worse still is the fact that they are not compatible with well known and undisputed laws of physics. This must invalidate SR on its own.
11. Natural Relativity, complying with all principles of physics and relativity, overwhelms the disagreements of SR with these same principles. The mass-energy equation must be linear and constants of proportionality must be relativistic, to comply with relativity principles (which were really postulated for unrestricted motion). SR's mathematics apparently took precedence over principles. As Somerset Maugham is reputed to have said "the most useful thing about a principle is that it can always be sacrificed to expediency". This is not acceptable in science. If a physics theory does not conform to the principles of physics it becomes only a game of 'what if ?'. So SR was really such a game, it did not comply with principles of physics and relativity, and does not agree with all experimental data or observations. Perhaps a near miss, one might say, with long term ramifications, since it is inconsistent and has been (improperly?) held to be true for unrestricted motion for many years by the establishment.
12. It will be realized that most physicists have been subjected to a lifetime of conditioning that constants of proportionality do not change, that the speed of light is a universal limiting velocity, and by some strange means always measures the same. But they are all unproved assumptions from around the turn of the 20th century. Getting used to the fact that they are not true could be a problem for many. Many strange effects arising from the faulty theory have appeared in the literature and will continue to appear until it is replaced by a better one, such as Natural Relativity. Meanwhile, many physicists will waste time and effort in producing complicated sub-theories that include at least one of these widespread false assumptions or their derivatives, such as the Lorentz transformations. Others will waste their effort in producing the same faulty end products by different methods.
13. The above results will be of particular importance to all physicists where relativistic phenomena are, or could be, of concern. In fact, everywhere that Relativity is taught or used or SR's predictions are accepted, or extrapolated. And probably of some interest to far more of lesser expertise.
In spite of numerous clues that have appeared over the years, the widespread acceptance of SR appears to have steered Relativity Physics down the wrong road far too long. The obvious suppression of experimental reports and data not agreeing with SR, and manipulating the mathematical theory of experiments to create agreement with SR, are both downright dishonest. The integrity of scientists has been badly damaged. Honesty in science is essential if progress is to be made.
SUMMARY.
Relativity exists. The principle of Conservation of Total Energy (CTE) guarantees it.
Superluminal (faster than light) velocities can exist. The principle of Relative Speed expects it, experiments prove it. Especially when light itself is emitted at different speeds.
Natural Relativity (NR) is based on energy transfer laws of physics. Speed is shown to be a measure of the transfer of energy when motion is allowed to happen, not the prime source of relativistic changes. SR is based on changes due to velocity and is shown to have many problems with the principles of relativity and physics, and also has some other important defects. NR's mass-velocity equation is simpler than SR's and does not have those problems or defects.
The derived SR and NR mass-ratio equations produce predictions at non-relativistic speeds that are so similar that the error bars of experiments cover the predictions of both theories. No published experiments supporting SR using high relativistic speeds were found to be valid, and data was found that showed SR to be invalid. Defects in SR were found to be covered up by unproved empirical theories involving distortions of "time" and "space", but these have been found to be incoherent and not necessary.
Dimensioned physics constants of proportionality are found to be relativistic due to the measuring units changing size in moving frames of reference. This invalidates SR at its roots if the principle of CTE and fundamental laws of physics are true, which they surely are because they produce coherent results.
Einstein's big mistake was to assume that constants of proportionality did not change their values in moving frames, and that included the speed of light. That is, his two postulations were a poor foundation on which to build his theory.
The SR mass-ratio equation is found to be applicable only to motion restricted to a maximum speed of c. Many problems in SR derive from the assumptions (applied for over 100 years) that it is applicable to unrestricted inertial motion, that relativistic changes are caused by speed and occur in all frames of reference, as demonstrated by the assumption of relativistic momentum in all text books. All these are shown to be wrong.
As is well known, a thousand experiments complying with a theory do not prove it is true, but just one can prove it is not true. Several other reasons are just as valid, such as being illogical, inconsistant, or offending principles of relativity.
A frame of reference moving relative to a 'home frame' is shown by NR to be a moderately scaled version of the home frame, whereas SR predicts outrageous changes to size (in different directions too!) at relativistic speeds.
The final result of NR is a simple, coherent, theory of Natural Relativity, conforming to all principles of physics and relativity with no known anomalies, and is not confined to inertial systems as is SR, nor separated from General Relativity. Nowhere was it found necessary to distort Space or Time. Thus, NR is a very significant advance on Einstein's SR.
References.
1. D.V.Connell, "Natural Relativity - The Natural Effects of Applied Energy, Motion and Gravity
on Mass", Phys. Essays, 22, 3, 402-412 (2009).
2. W.Bertozzi, "Speed and Kinetic Energy of Relativistic Electrons", Am.J.Phys. 32, 551-5 (1964).
3. K.N. Geller and R. Kollarits, "Experiment to Measure the Increase in Electron Mass with Velocity",
Am. J. Phys 40, 1125-30 (1972).
4. A.A.Michelson and E.W.Morley, Am.J.Sci, 34, 333 (1887).
5. G.Sagnac, Comptes Rendus, Acad.Sci.157, 708, 1410 (1913).
6. A.G.Kelly, Inst.Engrs.Ireland, Monographs Nos.1,2,4 (1995,1996,1997).
7. R.Anderson, H.R.Bilger and G.E.Stedman, Am.J.Phys. 62, 975 (1994).
8. J.C.Haefele and R.E.Keating. Science vol. 177, 166-70 (1972).
Click here to return to CONTENTS,