The Home of Natural Relativity and Natural Gravity.
(August 2010 Version).
(The path that physics, but for Einstein and Lorentz, would have followed many decades ago)
This is a scientific site, probably of only a little interest to the general public.
Copyright © 2004 - 2010 David V Connell. (email: NRGR2010-web@yahoo.com)
Key words :- Einstein, Special Relativity, Natural Relativity, Local Constants, Universal Constants, Real 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 Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR) theories.
These turn out to be mistaken ideas, due to his acceptance of a widespread assumption at that time regarding the velocity of light, as is proved by the fact that it causes the relativistic changes predicted by SR to be INCOHERENT. Fundamental physics tries to be an exact science, yet two physics equations for the same quantity predict contradictary changes for moving objects! That does not make sense (and both predictions are wrong!).
This causes most of SR and GR to be utterly wrong for relativistic speeds, which are (maybe wrongly) expected to occur in the cosmos.
A new, simple, and coherent theory named Natural Relativity (NR), based on energy conservation, has been derived, which does not produce the above absurdity, or produce any known anomalies, such as the famous Clocks paradox. It also leads to finding that the force of gravity results from long known causes, and indicates that Einstein's theory of gravity is nonsense. Also, it is well known that SR and GR are based on the assumptions that velocity and gravity cause relativistic effects, but no incontraversial evidence has ever been produced to support this, whereas the movement of matter against gravity or its own inertia always requires energy, which is shown in NR to be the cause of relativistic changes.
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, which are highly likely to be of interest.
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 where NR logic overthrows baseless assumptions.
Comments, feedback etc. are welcome and should be sent to: NRGR2010-web@yahoo.com
CONTENTS. ("last updated" dates attached to each item).
Above (11Aug2010)
Introduction (below) (11Aug2010).
Frames of Reference. (15JUL10)
SR's Problems - Some Common Misconceptions, and Many Invalidations of SR. (05JUL10)
NR discussion - Discussion and Summary (23JUN10)
The True Source of Gravity . (16JUL10)
Curvilinear Motion Evidence. (16JAN09)
Physicists' 100 year Blunders. (19FEB09)
Red Shift is Due to the Doppler Effect . . . . Isn't It ? (23JUN10)
The Necessity of Solving the Clocks Contradiction of SR. (16JAN09)
The Faked Derivation of Einstein's Mass-Velocity Equation. (02JUN08)
It is realized that most physicists have been subjected to a lifetime of conditioning that physics constants of proportionality do not change their value between frames of reference and that the speed of light is a universal constant and limiting velocity. But they are 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 assumptions regarding the velocity of light resulted in SR being inconsistent in its predictions and significantly affects 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 methods of acceleration, 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, those distortions being carried forward into his general theory of relativity, which is based on his strange concept of gravity where mass distorts space.
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 (measuring the so-called Transverse Doppler Effect) was found to confirm NR and SR predictions, but the reason for their agreement with SR was found to be invalid due to a widespread false assumption. 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 was not correctable, the other (see "Curvilinear Motion"), when more deeply examined, was found to support NR and disagree with the constant velocity of light assumption (a basic postulation of the SR theory). Very few experiments were published in this area and the extremely 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 relativistic changes to mass, length and natural frequencies in NR avoids making any doubtful assumptions. Long accepted, undisputed physics and logic are used to determine those changes, without recourse to distortions of time and space, disagreeing with the SR predicted changes in only one item, which incidentally exposes the constancy of the speed of light assumption to be invalid.
Relativistic changes (in mass, size and resonant frequencies) are confirmed to exist, 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, until recently, failed to be published for unknown or dubious reasons, or just plain abnormal publication delays.
GREAT NEWS - THE MAIN PAPER (NR) - WAS PUBLISHED IN SEPTEMBER 2009 (Physics Essays 22, 3, 402-12), with the title "Natural Effects of Applied Energy, Motion, and Gravity, on Mass", which is now found to require a few corrections to errors found in the printed version, and modifications to some of the consequences declared therein. Interested parties are invited to contact the author.
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 2009. 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' was important.
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 (where NR logic overthrows baseless assumptions) and such conflicts should be carefully examined. It is probable that none 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 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. Click here to send a message.
Senders' e-mail addresses will not be disclosed to any other parties.
Number of comments received to date is . . . 0. It seems the old mailto address has been corrupted in the translation to HTML at this website. Please use this new mailto address.
Web site inaugurated 25 April 2007 and continuously updated.
Click here to return to CONTENTS.
Note: this link works well using Internet Explorer, but not with some other popular browsers, for unknown reasons.