Nature's Magic

Copyright © 2004 - 2013 David V Connell

I came not from too many years at a learned academy; my mind was not distorted with excessive exposures to Einstein's theories, which violated common sense. Instead, I went to the simple, fundamental laws of physics and found that simple mathematical and physics sense agreed with common sense, destroying Einstein's fiction. Most physicists should soon 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.

INTO THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS

Following the discovery of the Principle of Conservation of Energy (CTE), circa 1842 (Joule), the realization of the equivalence of mass and energy (see Moving Frames of Reference, this website) by numerous physicists, e.g. S.Tolver Preston (1870's), J.J.Thomson (from 1881), Simon Newcomb (from 1889), J.H.Poincare (from 1900), O.De Pretto (from 1904), etc., around the turn of the century, and the concept of frames of reference (FoRs), the combination of those leads to the possibly surprising fact that the mass of a material object must change when energy is transferred to or extracted from it. This change in mass (in a FoR attached to the object) is accompanied by changes in the size and resonant frequencies associated with matter and are known as relativistic changes. Thus, the subject of Relativity came to be recognized as being a genuine facet of physics.

The Principle of Relativity has had many definitions over the years. Briefly, it means (at least, for the purpose herein), that inertial FoRs are equivalent in that an observer in one inertial FoR cannot determine by internal dynamic means only that his frame is moving relative to another inertial frame, which implies that the laws of physics should be the same in all inertial systems, that the properties of matter (under the same physical conditions) must be the same in all parts of the universe despite relativistic changes, that speeds are always relative to a chosen frame of reference (whereas relative velocity is that between two points), and that masses, lengths and time units are relative to chosen standards of mass, length and time, respectively, in a chosen location, so that there are no absolute units for any of these items.
In 1905, Albert Einstein's Special Relativity Theory (SRT) was published, which was applicable only to inertial FoRs, and which took some time for the physics world to accept. Ten years years later, his extension to that theory, known as General Relativity (GR), incorporating non-inertial motion and apparent gravitational effects, was published. Apparent, you query? Yes, it is shown herein that some of the false assumptions in relativity revealed herein concern gravity.
Various parts of Einstein's theory were constantly disputed, but it was never rejected by the "establishment", which had come to accept his theory as the great new truth in fundamental physics and refused to consider any other theory, much like the church's attitude to science hundreds of years ago (nothing much changes in the corridors of power); the indisputable facts (some given below) have, so far, been ignored. Examination of the disputed parts of Einstein's theory by experts for errors in its derivation had failed to find any flaws.
The errors in the derivation of SRT were not found because it is shown below that they occurred in the widely held false assumptions that, prevalent then and now, were in the initial conditions given for the derivation. Yes, the same mistakes are still being made today. They are revealed, one by one, by the logical processes that follow.
The situation had become no better by the end of the 20th century that it took a fresh start, bringing together a few of the undisputed fundamental principles, facts and laws of physics, and avoiding any dubious postulations, to arrive at a sensible system of physics [1] (a theory makes postulations), free of anomalies, and is known herein as Natural Relativity (NR).
Below, a very short, new method is used to derive the same relativistic changes that were first found in NR.

BASIS OF NATURE'S MAGIC

First, we consider some undisputed facts pertinent to this subject.

1. When an object (made of mass) is moved a fixed distance against an opposing conservative force, as could be supplied by gravity or a spring or other conservative system, such that there is no resulting motion, the applied energy (E) required to cause that displacement is, by the principle of CTE, stored in that object as potential energy (PE). (Case 1.) The PE may be calculated from the product of the Force and distance moved.

2. When a force is applied to a stationary object, horizontally, without an opposing force, the object attains a certain (unrestricted) speed depending on the mass of the object and the amount of energy supplied (Case 2). It is said to have kinetic energy (KE) in the stationary FoR, but in a FoR attached to the object (its own frame) the object is not moving so has no KE and, again, the indestructible energy (E) that was applied must be stored in the object. Thus, by the principle of Conservation of Energy, the kinetic energy, the applied energy and the stored energy (PE) are all equal. KE = E = PE.

3. Application of the law of equivalence of mass and energy (E = Mc²) to the stored energy (in the object's own FoR) in cases 1 and 2 above, indicates that the PE of the object is stored as mass and the new mass M is the original rest mass Mo plus E/c². The ratio M/Mo, designated gamma, is therefore 1 + E/Moc², which, after substituting KE for E when motion occurs, produces gamma = 1 + V²/2c² for unrestricted motion.
That is, the change in mass is determined by the change in energy, the principle of Conservation of Total Energy (CTE), and the equivalence of mass and energy.
SRT has no physical explanation for a change in mass being caused by speed or a gravitational field. It is merely assumed to happen.

Next, we need to remember that the laws of physics are proportional relationships between physical items, that those laws are part of the laws of nature and must be the same in all parts of the universe. Equations can only be created when a measuring system is defined. When such systems are invented to quantify the relationships so that the logic of mathematics can be applied, equations are produced that contain factors of proportionality, the numerical values of which depend on the definition of the units chosen. Therefore, if the size of units change, as occurs in relativistic circumstances (within the same measuring system), the values of those factors of proportionality may need to change to preserve the validity of the equations.
It is obvious that those factors (being mathematical constants) must not change their value in any one inertial FoR, but they could have different values in other inertial frames attached to objects that have been accelerated relative to the home frame (then known as moving frames). It is shown below that most do, indeed, have different values in moving frames; they are local constants. Just a few are universal constants that do not change their value in any frame. This causes the laws of physics to be the same everywhere.
Universal constants are factors of proportionality in physics equations always having the same value (when measured in home frame units) in all inertial frames of reference, in spite of valid relativistic changes having occurred. Known ones are those in the basic force laws (electrostatic, magnetic, and gravitational), and Nature's fine structure constant. They are all associated with matter. Other factors are local constants (they take on a new value in a moving frame).
In an accelerating (non-inertial) frame due to continuous applied energy, the factors of proportionality are partially determined by the instantaneous speed relative to the home frame, therefore, except for universal constants, they are not constant in any frame.

ULTRA-SHORT DERIVATION OF NATURE'S CHANGES TO MATTER

The new method follows - after the definition of expected changes:
Nature’s changes, caused by applied energy, are defined as the changes in the size (l), and natural frequencies (f) of material objects, in terms of the relative change in mass (gamma, = M/Mo). The change in mass is usually easily calculated from the change in energy that created the relativistic circumstances (see item 3 above).
Sets of changes are of the form: M = gammaMo , l = gamma xlo , f = gamma yfo ,
where the subscript zero denotes the original value in the stationary frame, and the values of x and y remain to be found.

It is observed that all known universal constants have the same basic relativistic dimensions:
Mf 2l3.                                                              (1)

In any particular inertial frame of reference, the principle of relativity requires all factors of proportionality, such as the speed of light c, to remain fixed, therefore, in the chosen stationary frame (the home frame), speeds relative to that frame are independent of gamma. The product of frequency and wavelength (fl) is speed v, therefore (1) may be written Mv²l, and so, for the set of relativistic changes to predict no change to a universal constant, Ml must be constant, requiring, for a given change in mass, the opposite change in length,
hence,                                                            l = gamma -1lo ,
and since fl is constant,                                   f = gamma fo                      (which is confirmed by experiments [2,3],
i.e. x = -1, y = 1.

However, in an inertial frame of reference moving relative to the home frame, and under the same physical conditions (including gravitational potential), the principle of relativity requires the properties of matter, and therefore the density of matter, (M/l3) to be the same as in the home frame. Hence, gammaMo /gammalo3 is constant for an increase in mass by a factor gamma,
requiring                                                        l = gamma1/3lo ,
and from (1), for the set of changes to predict no change in a universal constant,
the new frequency                                         f = gamma-1fo,
the frequency decrease being confirmed by experiments [5,6],
i.e. x = 1/3, y = -1,
and the term "time dilation" (associated with frequency reduction) only refers to frequency controlled clocks, not time itself.

Any other value for l would result in a wrong frequency prediction. The length item above differs from the value assumed in SR, but has again been derived from laws of nature instead of being assumed, with important consequences (see below). These results agree exactly with the two sets of relative changes derived from physics equations in [1,7], that dictate how the values of all quantities in physics involving mass, change with energy level and motion.

The above derived values are unique. Any other values violate the fundamental laws of physics and the principles of relativity deduced from natural philosophy. Therefore, Einstein’s theories violate those laws.

FUNDAMENTAL APPLICATIONS OF THE ABOVE RESULTS

Using the above values, the changes to other quantities, such as force, speed, energy, the gravitational constant G, the Planck constant h, density (which is important in controlling the properties of matter) and even the fine structure constant, are easily calculated from their dimensions. Here, we are mostly interested in the speed of light, but the reader is free to calculate any other as he wishes. It may be noticed that the gravitational constant G does not stay constant with altitude unless the force of attraction emanates from a non-relativistic source, so, to comply with the expectations of natural philosophy that it should be a universal constant, inertial mass cannot be the source of gravity. For further discussion on this, see The Natural Source of Gravity.
The frequency and wavelength of light are dependent on the physical properties of the emitting atoms and therefore change in moving frames. Hence, from the above set of relativistic changes, the value of the speed of light is gamma -2/3co , so it is not a universal constant, and all theories based on the opposite postulation, such as SR, GR and the Einstein/Lorentz transformations [8], are in conflict with the laws of physics, causing all manner of distorted predictions. SR even expects lengths to change only in the direction of motion.
The SR mass-velocity equation, M = M0(1 - V²/c²)-1/2, should also be replaced, as it is derived as if c is a universal constant. Also, a non-linear equation for gamma in terms of v/c, such as this, does not comply with the requirement of reversibility of effects (from the principle of CTE).
The equation for unrestricted motion (derived in NR [1] is 1+v²/2c² (NR also explores rotary and restricted motion).
Since the product hc has the same dimensions as in (1) it is a universal constant, so the moving frame value of h is gamma 2/3ho , and with the above value of c, causes the two energy equations to predict the same value for a unit of energy (E = gamma -1/3Eo), a feat impossible in SR where c is proclaimed a universal constant. These values of c and h are confirmed by Bohr's Nobel Prize-winning equations [9] for length (orbital radius) and frequency. This confirms that SR is inadequate as a theory of relativity.

Copies of the measurement standards in moving frames have changed in the same proportions as anything being measured, so all measurements have the same numerical value as in the home frame,
i.e. NOTHING SEEMS TO HAVE CHANGED, confirming the internal dynamic equivalence of inertial frames. The changes relative to another frame are only seen when measured with instruments in the other frame.

Therefore, the above rejects the basic postulation of Einstein's SRT and GR that c is a universal constant, and so, many of their predictions must be faulty. This popular belief is most likely a misinterpretation of the Principle of Relativity in assuming that the values of constants of proportionality, including c, have not changed in moving frames (and also by forgetting that mass IS a constant of proportionality between force and acceleration and does change with applied energy).

For other consequential effects, see SR's Problems and The Natural Source of Gravity.

CONCLUSIONS

Relativistic effects are real. Experimental evidence, principles of relativity and laws of physics confirm they are as derived herein.
There are no relativistic effects without a change in energy. Therefore, speed does not cause relativistic effects, but it sometimes accompanies them,
A gravitational field does not cause relativistic effects, but is often used to provide a suitable force field, so that, free-fall in a gravitational field does not cause relativistic effects. Evidence for this is supplied in a paper published in 1999 [10] concerning the non-compliance with the expected relativistic changes to orbits of space probes Pioeer 10 and 11.

TAILPIECE.

Recently, in my reading, I came across a query by Dr. T.E. Phipps, jnr, asking how far back must we go to clear up this relativity mess (not in these actual words, I may add), and so I would answer "All the way to the very foundations that existed before 1905, when Lorentz and Einstein diverted the course of fundamental physics from its true path". And even back to Newton's law of gravity. This paper derives the real relativity effects from pre 1905 facts.

References.

1.    David V. Connell, "Natural Effects of Applied Energy, Motion and Gravity on Mass", Phys. Essays,22,3,402-412(2009).
2.    R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, “Apparent Weight of Photons”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337-341 (1960).
3.    R.F.C.Vessot, M.W.Levine, et al, “Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a Space-borne Hydrogen Maser”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 45, 2081-2084 (1980).
4.    Henry Semat, Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics, 4th edition, (Chapman and Hall, London, 1962), p.131.
5.    J. C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, “Around-the-World Atomic Clock: Measured Relativistic Time Gains”, Science, Vol. 177, 168-70 (1972).
6.    D.S. Ayres, A.M.Cormack, A.J.Greenberg, R.W.Kennedy, et al., ”Measurement of the Lifetime of Positive and Negative Pions”, Phys.Rev., D3, No.5, 1051-1063 (1971).
7.    David V. Connell, "Relativity, Gravity, and the Physics Puzzle", Proc.Conf.NPA7, 85(2010)
8.    Ref.4, p.38.
9.    Ref.4, p.233.
10.   C. Renshaw, “Explanation of the Anomalous Doppler Observations in Pioneer 10 and 11”, Proc. IEEE Aerospace Conf. 2, 59-63 (1999).