domingo, 5 de mayo de 2024

A. EINSTEIN'S ERRORS ANALYZED WITH LORENTZ'S TRANSFORMATION FORMULAS

PRESENTATION

Reading in A. Einstein's book entitled: “On the theory of special and general relativity” the topic of the Lorentz Transformation Formulas, some doubts have arisen. Having analyzed these doubts, we have seen that they come from two errors. These are the same errors that we already exposed in our previous essays, in which we denounced that through relative movements the author of the aforementioned book confused the verb SEE with the verb BE. And, thus, we ironically say that he preaches “the miracle of transmutation.”

We dedicate this essay to highlighting the aforementioned errors and to proposing a method of analysis to construct and interpret the aforementioned formulas. For better follow-up of this study, we have divided it into two parts. The second part is somewhat more theoretical than the first and some mathematical developments appear.

FIRST PART

In this first part we will propose and explain the steps to follow for the construction of the Lorentz Transformation Formulas. We will call these formulas: “Formulas of the VISION of the Extension of an event observed from a mobile platform”, in order to correct the distorted acceptance between the verbs: SEE and BE.

1.- AN EXPLANATION THAT APPEARS IN A BOOK BY A. EINSTEIN

In the book “On the theory of special and general relativity” by Einstein, on page 32 (Edition “Alianza Editorial”), he describes the form and usefulness of the formulas called Lorentz Transformations, as follows:

“Given the quantities (x,y,z,t) of an event with respect to (k), what are the values (x`,y`,z´,t´) of the same event with respect to (k´)?

The relations must be chosen in such a way that they satisfy the laws of light propagation in a vacuum for one and the same ray of light (and also for any ray of light) with respect to (K) and (K´).”

And he goes on to say:
“The problem is solved by the equations”
Space Formula


Formula of Time


And, on this same page of the aforementioned book, the following coordinate system (k) and (K) is drawn.

Figure 1


Later we will demonstrate that the expression: (v×X)/
c2 that appears in the time formula, translates as a time and that with the “space formula” there would be enough to make “theoretical” applications.

2.- WHERE DO WE FIND ERRORS IN THE EXPLANATION GIVED BY A. EINSTEIN IN THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION FORMULA?

The first error we found in the explanations given by the Physicist about the Formulas and Lorentz Transformations is the following:

When asking:

What are the values (x`,y`,z´,t´) of the same event with respect to (k´)?

We believe that you are thinking about “transformation” or “converting” rather than SEEING the event from a mobile platform regarding the event. We believe this is one of the errors. He falls back into the error that we have already commented on in previous of our essays. Through relative movements he confuses the verb SEE with the verb BE. In this way he prepares what we have called “the miracle of transmutation”. We say that he is thinking about the “transformation” since in the mental experiment of the bar for measuring lengths, subjected to a relative movement, he applies the formula for the transformation of space and preaches the nonsense of the shortening of the aforementioned bar. This error consists of believing in the “transformation” of matter.

The second mistake consists of wanting to apply the conclusions drawn in a mental experiment to a real-life physical experiment.

We wonder if the results obtained from a thought experiment can be applicable in real life.

We believe that the answer has to be negative. Precisely, the problem is reasoned by applying a mental experiment because it is not possible to apply a physical experiment. And, so far, it seems that it is a chimera to try to build a physical experiment that transcribes the results of a mental experiment. All this is aggravated if in the mental experiment the action of SEE has been confused with the verb BE.

In this essay we will see that the expression will appear.

In which (v) is the speed of a moving body and (c) is the speed of light. Even considering (v) one of the greatest speeds in our real world, for example the speed of a space rocket, its speed is so small with respect to that of light (c) that the quotient that appears within the radical of the expression that we have written would be an infinite value. That is why we say that, as we will see, it would be a chimera to transfer it to a physical experiment.

(NOTE: Do not confuse, as A. Einstein states, that the limit speed that can be reached is the speed of light. The reader can read the essay contained in our Blog, titled: “Theory of relativity. - It is possible that a particle can travel at a speed faster than light." Note that there we are talking about a particle and not a body endowed with movement.)

3.- WHAT DO WE UNDERSTAND BY THE DIMENSION OF AN EVENT?

We will understand the dimension of an event as its duration from its appearance until its extinction. We can value this duration in length or time. We will call this dimension EXTENSION of the event.

4.- WE ASKED, IN A THEORETICAL APPROACH, WHAT WOULD TRANSFORMATION FORMULAS BE USED FOR?

According to our approach we will say that its purpose would be: Assess the dimension of an event, which occurs in a certain position in space, by an observer who is moving at a constant and rectilinear speed (v) with respect to this event.

(NOTE: The reader should note that we are talking about a “theoretical” approach. At the end we will explain that this approach, using mathematical resources, could hardly be applied in our real life)

5.- FORMULA FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE VISION OF THE EXTENSION OF AN EVENT

In order not to confuse with the erroneous purpose that Einstein intends to give to the Lorentz transformation formulas, in our analysis we will call them: Transformation formulas of the VISION of the Extension of an event. The reader should note that we highlight the verb SEE.

6.- ACTIONS IMPLIED IN THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE VISION OF THE EXTENSION OF AN EVENT

To build the “formula for the transformation of the VISION of the Extension of an event”, in our study we will consider three actions implicit in it. These actions are the following:

APPEAR the event; REMAIN your visibility; SEE your Extension.

7.- TWO PHYSICAL PHENOMENA TO CONSIDER

When constructing the transformation formula we must take into account that two physical phenomena overlap. One is the movement and displacement of the observer of the event at a speed (v). The other physical phenomenon is the VISION of the event, from the place where the observer has moved, and in which the speed of light is involved (c).

8.- A RIGHT TRIANGLE TO ANALYZE THE VISION OF THE EXTENSION OF AN EVENT FROM A MOBILE PLATFORM

To analyze the VISION of the Extension of an event from a mobile platform we will use a right-angled triangle.

We must define the situation of three points representative of: Appearance of the event (E); Completion of the Extension of the event (F) and Observation of the event (O). With these three
points we define a triangle

9.- WHY SHOULD THE TRIANGLE BE RECTANGLE?

To position the event and its observation position in space, we will consider the two legs of the triangle as coordinate axes. The legs of the triangle must be perpendicular to each other. This is so since:
On the horizontal axis we will give the meaning as the path of the movement and the speed (v), and on the vertical axis we will express the dimension of the Extension of the event. Without going into more specialized mathematical expressions, we only say that these two reference axes must have different directions since they imply different concepts. That is, they must be linearly independent. They must have the quality of independence.

10.- REPRESENTATION OF THE RIGHT TRIANGLE WITH THE EXPRESSION OF ITS ROUTES BETWEEN ITS POINTS

The following figure presents the aforementioned three points and their routes between them. This triangle will be used to calculate the relationships that exist between the paths of the light and that of a mobile observer of the event.

Figure 2


Point (E) is where the event has appeared.

We interpret the vertical leg as the equivalent of the route of the EXTENSION of the event. We indicate it as (c.tp), being (c) the speed of light and calling (tp) Proper Time of the Extension.

We represent the end of the Extension with the point (F)

The horizontal leg serves to indicate the path and direction of a mobile body that moves at a uniform and rectilinear speed (v) from point (F) to point (O). We could consider it to be the body of the “observer.”

The hypotenuse of this triangle represents the path of the light ray that the observer has to perceive to SEE the appearance and development of the event. We write its travel time as (tr).

11.- WHY DO WE PLACE THE EXTENSION ON THE VERTICAL CATHETUS?

We already said that the two legs had to be linearly independent. Now we can ask ourselves why we put the Extension of the event as a length on the vertical leg and call it (tp). The answer is that this value represents the time in which an observer located at the end point (F) would be contemplating the entire development of the Extension. And so, in this way we capture an evaluation criterion of the Extension in a sketch.

12.- RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TIME (tp) OF THE EXTENSION OF THE EVENT AND THE DISPLACEMENT TIME (td) OF THE OBSERVER

We have developed a mathematical procedure that allows us to value the time (tp) of the EXTENSION as a function of the Travel Time (td) required by the observer of the event to travel the itinerary described by the points (F-O).
Placing the EXTENSION of the event in the vertical leg of the triangle, valuing it as (tp) and valuing the travel time (td) that exists between the observation point (O) and the aforementioned vertical leg, we express the relationship between them as follows:

the expression:


is the so-called LORENTZ FACTOR, where (c) is the speed of light and (v) the speed of a Mobile body.

(NOTE: The mathematical development to obtain this equation is in the Second Part of this essay)

13.- THE LORENTZ FACTOR AS A TRANSFORMATION FACTOR OF THE DISPLACEMENT TIME (Ttd) IN MEASUREMENT OF THE EXTENSION (tp) OF THE EVENT.

To justify that the Lorentz Factor allows us to transform the value of the Travel Time (td) on the horizontal leg of the triangle to the observation point (O), into units of the Own Time (tp) of the event, that is, its EXTENSION, we will observe the formula given above from which we can deduce the following:

With which we can affirm that the Lorentz Factor is equivalent to valuing (td) in units (tp). It is a transforming factor that allows us to evaluate movements made at speeds (v) and transform them into speeds (c).

14.- EXPRESSION OF THE DISTANCES IN TIME USED IN RUNNING

Expressing the distances in times spent traveling them will allow us to consider only one of the transformation formulas set forth in the aforementioned book by A. Einstein.

We can express the distance between two points as the TIME taken to travel between these two points at a certain speed. This speed can be that of a moving body (v) or that of light (c).

Since we can consider the speed of light (c) constant, we can take it as a measure to evaluate distances and measure these distances in units of the speed of light (uvl).

In the following figure we can see that the distance between the observation point (O) and its mobile reference axes (K'), which has the observer as a reference, can be quantified by:

(X – v.(td))

Figure 3

From what we have mentioned, we can also express this distance in time spent traveling it (T), at a speed (v).

So we establish the equivalence: (X-v.t)≡(T)

15.- THE FORMULA FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF SPACE GIVEN BY A. EINSTEIN IMPLICITLY CONTAINS THE EXPRESSION OF THE TWO PHYSICAL PHENOMENA THAT WE HAD INDICATED.

The fact that A. Einstein's space transformation formula does not fulfill the purpose that he assigns to it, this does not mean that its expression
implicitly contains the two physical phenomena to be considered.

Let us note that the numerator of the formula is: (X-v.t) which takes into account the physical phenomenon of displacement. We can verify this in Fig. 3.

Regarding the denominator of the aforementioned formula, we propose the following:


As we had explained, if


is equivalent to allowing the (td) to be valued in units (tp) and since (X-v.t) is equivalent to (td), we can deduce that: (X-v.t) is valued :

in units (tp). That is, in the Extension of the event.

Let it be clear that it allows us to SEE the Extension of the event. DO NOT transform the event.

16.- ANOTHER FORMULA TO ASSESS THE VISION OF THE EXTENSION OF AN EVENT FROM A MOBILE PLATFORM

In the previous issue we have seen that the formula for the transformation of space that A. Einstein gives us, although it does not fit the purpose that he proposes, we could use it with a theoretical approach to measure the extension (tp) of a event.

For theoretical purposes we can also give another expression that allows us to obtain (tp) as a function of the travel time (td) necessary to cover the distance between points (F) and (O).

Please note that this expression is obtained by solving for variables in the equation expressed in Point 12.

17.- WHY DO WE CALL THE FORMULA FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF SPACE THE FORMULA FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE VISION OF THE EXTENSION OF AN EVENT?

The name “vision transformation formula”
the extension of an event” has suggested to us when investigating the construction and possible use of this formula. So the reader can call it whatever he wants.

We have called it this way because of the following:

We can make a composition of figures 1 and 2 by superimposing them one on top of the other so that it globally represents the graphic expression of the aforementioned formula which, as we had commented, is the expression of the two physical phenomena.

In the following figure we can see that both the variables that imply the transfer of the coordinate axes appear, as well as the variables related to the vision of the event from a mobile observation point. That is, the variables corresponding to the right triangle.

Figure 4


If we consider that there is no movement and that the observer is fixed at the point (O), this observer WOULD SEE the Extension of the event located on the axis (K) and with a dimension equal to (E – F). But, if we now consider that the observer is moving and his reference coordinates are (K'), the VISION of the aforementioned event on these coordinates will have a dimension: (e – f). So we can say that the VISION of the event has BEEN TRANSFORMED. And this dimension of Extension is what the observer must operate with.

18.- IS THE RELATIONSHIP td/(tp) MAINTAINED WHEN THE MOBILE REFERENCE SYSTEM MOVES?

The doubt might arise if with this displacement of coordinates.

The relationship remains constant: td/tp, which allows us to measure the value of the Extension of the event. Using Geometry we can say yes, applying Thales' Theorem.

(NOTE: See the geometric explanation of Thales' Theorem in the second part of this study)

SECOND PART

This second part serves to expose the mathematical approaches and ideas that support the criteria that have been used in the first part, for the construction of the aforementioned formulas.

1.- CONDITIONS OF VALIDITY FOR THE VIEW OF THE EXTENSION OF AN EVENT FROM A MOBILE OBSERVATION POINT. SYNCHRONIZATION CONDITIONS.

Let's look at Figure 2. At a given instant it happens that: at point (E) in space an event appears and at this same instant the possible observer of this event is at point (F) in space.

From this initial instant begins the path of the light ray that carries the image of the event and the path of the observer who has to detect said event. Calling (tr) the time spent in the ray path and (td) the observer's path time, as the two paths must coincide at the observation point (O), we will impose as a synchronization condition:

(tr) = (td)

This is the condition that we will impose in the calculations that we will carry out below.

2.- MATHEMATICAL DEDUCTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
OWN TIME OF THE EXTENSION OF THE EVENT AND THE TRAVEL TIME TO THE PLACE OF OBSERVATION


To relate the Proper Time (tp) of the Extension of the event, with the Displacement Time (td) we will apply the Pythagorean Theorem to the right triangle that we gave as a reference.

Requiring compliance with the Synchronization Condition:

(tr) = (td)

It allows us to replace (tr) with (td) with what we obtain:

Grouping terms we have:


We can transform the denominator in the following way:

Eliminating (c), gives as result


3.- DEMONSTRATION THAT BY MOVING THE VISION OF THE EXTENSION ON THE MOBILE REFERENCE SYSTEM, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE (td) AND THE (tp) IS MAINTAINED.

To demonstrate this fulfillment we must remember Thales' Theorem. We can say that in a right triangle the proportionality relationship between the path of the horizontal leg and the vertical leg is fulfilled.

Let us remember that in the vertical leg we will represent the Extension (tp) of the Event and in the horizontal leg the travel time of the observer.

The following figure aims to demonstrate the validity of this theorem, by observing that the aforementioned proportions are maintained

Figure 5


4.- DEMONSTRATION THAT THE SECOND FACTOR OF THE NUMERATOR OF THE TIME FORMULA CAN BE TRANSLATED AS A TIME

When exposing the formula for the transformation of time we said that the expression: (v×X)/c2 is nothing more than the expression of a “time”. 

Let's prove this statement.

In the VISION of an event, which we use a mobile Reference System (SRM) with respect to a Fixed Reference System (SRF), it must be taken into account that we use two types of speeds of a completely different nature. Let us remember that it is about: (v) and (c). 

We must homologate these two concepts if we want to incorporate them in the execution of the same physical phenomenon. We use the speed of light (c) as measurement pattern. That is, the 300,000 km/sec. as a unit of speed.

To make the aforementioned conversions we must take into account the following criteria to follow:

All lengths will be quantified using: “light speed units” (uvl).

This means that: the (uvl) are those that would be consumed to move between two certain reference points. For example, we can write: x = k (uvl) meaning that a certain length (x) is found, or would require k (uvl) to reach it.

A relationship such as: (v/c) assigns a fraction of (uvl) to a given velocity (v), since (c) is a fixed quantity taken as a unit, while (v) is the relative velocity between Inertial Reference Systems, different value in each specific case.

To quantify a length (l) we will apply the expression: l = x.( v /c)

This expression answers the question: A length (x) that has been traveled at speed (v) is equivalent to what length (l) if the speed were that of light (c)?

To obtain the travel time (td) of a Mobile Reference System (MRS) on the axis (X), operating with (uvl), we must divide the space (l) by the speed of light (c).
I mean:

(td) = (l) / (c) 

and since 

l = x.( v /c)

we obtain: 

(td) = (l) / (c) = ( x).(v / c) / (c) = ((x).(v))/c2

jueves, 4 de abril de 2024

THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY - A MISINTERPRETATION THAT LEADS TO NONSENSE

PRESENTATION

Although in previous studies published in our Blog, we have used the ideas that we will now comment on, we believe that it will be interesting to combine these concepts and highlight the mistaken idea that has led to accepting the Theory of Special Relativity as valid.

We remember that one of the texts that we have taken as a basis for our criticism is A. Einstein's book entitled: “On the theory of special and general relativity.


AN ERROR THAT CAUSES A SHOOTING

We will first expose an error of interpretation in the mental experiments proposed by A. Einstein to demonstrate his theory, whose interpretation leads to the absurdity of having to accept a transmutation of matter.

 

1.- THE ERROR OF IDENTIFYING THE VISION OF A PHYSICAL PHENOMENON WITH THE CHANGE IN NATURE OF THE SAME

In one of our previous essays we said the following:

“In the mental experiments taken from the aforementioned book by

Einstein, we will accept his conclusion as valid using the verb SEE instead of using the verb BE that the author uses in his approach and conclusion.

By this we mean that we agree that the physical phenomena that occur within a Mobile Reference System (MRS) when OBSERVED from another Fixed Reference System (RFS) can BE modified. This modification will affect the VISION dimension of its duration, or the dimension of its mass. But what we do not accept is the use of the verb SER. We should not interpret that the phenomenon that occurs within the Mobile Reference System (SRM) when observed from the Fixed Reference System (SRF) has been transformed”

We can say the same if the physical phenomenon occurs within a Fixed Reference System (SRF) and is SEEN or observed from a Mobile Reference System (SRM).

The following figure is the typical drawing in which a train car appears moving at a constant speed. There is a mirror on the ceiling. A person inside the car shoots a beam of light at the mirror. This ray is reflected in the mirror and returns to its place of origin.



This phenomenon of reflection of the light ray serves to confuse analysts of the subject of relativity of movements, to say that the duration of the path of the rebound of the light ray, for the person who is outside the car (SRF), is has lengthened with respect to the peron that is inside (SRM) and that has fired the beam.

The person outside the car (SRF) SEES the lengthening of the beam path. His SUBJECTIVE opinion is that he believes that the duration of the ray's path has lengthened. But this would be confusing the verb SEE with the verb BE.

The physical phenomenon of this reflection of the light ray has a single Proper Time (tp). For the ground-fixed observer (SRF) its

Rating will depend on the speed of the wagon. But, we repeat: We should not interpret that the phenomenon that occurs within the Mobile Recency System (SRM) when observed from the Fixed Reference System (SRF) has been transformed.

"THE METAPHOR OF THE THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY"

We now include a drawing that we devised and published in one of our studios to make a simile with the erroneous acceptance of the Theory of Relativity.

The drawing wants to materialize and represent the vision in a deformed mirror of the image that I intend to SEE. It is intended to be a comparison with the acceptance of the fallacies preached by the Theory of Special Relativity.



Following this theory makes us look in a convex mirror that distorts our ideas just as it would our image. We must look at ourselves in a flat mirror to really see our image and not believe in the “miracle” of transmutations. It is about SEEING correctly and not attributing to BEING what you SEE.

(In the previously mentioned case of the train car, it is its movement and its displacement that are equivalent to the concave mirror)

 

2.- THE ERROR OF TRYING TO FIND A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO IDENTICAL AND SIMULTANEOUS EVENTS

In the aforementioned book by A. Einstein, in one of his epigraphs he exposes the topic of: The relativity of simultaneity. To which we criticize and say: “the error of the relativity of simultaneity.”

In the present study we criticize the conclusion drawn from the mental experiment presented by A. Einstein, in which he associates relative movements with events that are SIMULTANEOUS.

The WRONG conclusion that A. Einstein draws from this experiment, we will see, is the basis of the fallacy that we will discuss in the next issue.

We comment below on the mental experiment with which he intends to justify that two events that occur simultaneously ARE different depending on whether they are observed from the (SRF) or from the (SRM). We insist on stating that they WILL look different, but this does not mean that they change the quality of SIMULTANEOUSNESS that they have at the beginning of their production.

He asks in his book:

“Two events, for example, two lightning bolts (A) and (B), which are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, are

also simultaneous with respect to the train?”

(Refers to the embankment located on the tracks where the train car circulates)

And he goes on to say:

“…When we say that rays (A) and (B) are simultaneous with respect to the paths, we mean that the rays of light that leave places (A) and (B) meet at the midpoint (M) of the section of road (A)-(B). Now, do events (A) and (B) also correspond in places (A) and (B) on the train?

In order to better understand this question that A. Einstein asks, we have designed a drawing that represents a diagram of the mental experiment and its result.

The following drawing presents three phases of the wagon's progress. In it we make appear the two LIGHTNING FLASHES (A) and (B) and the RAYS OF LIGHT (A') and (B') that emerge from it


                

In this drawing we have made the rays reach the ground and we have drawn a person at the midpoint (M') of the distance between the rays.

As it appears in the drawing, and based on Einstein's conclusion, the person who is on the ground perceives the arrival of the light from the two simultaneous rays at the same moment, while the person who is riding the train perceives it sooner. the ray (B) than the ray (A). With this argument he affirms that the phenomenon of SIMULTANEOUSNESS IS different contemplated from the (SRF) than contemplated from the (SRM)

Here he makes the mistake that we have already mentioned and that the phenomenon is not deformed. In this case the SIMULTANEOUSNESS of the two events.

We can add that the relative movement to which the physical phenomenon is subjected deforms the VISION of the quality of the event. But the reality is that a SIMULTANEOUS circumstance (or let's call it phenomenon) has occurred. And this is what the person fixed on the ground (SRF) will judge.

Let us note that we are now presenting an inverse case to the one we had presented in the previous issue. There the phenomenon had occurred inside the car and it was the person who was on the outside of it (SRF) who SAW the phenomenon deformed, while the person who was inside (SRM) was the one who could really appreciate the phenomenon.

In the case that we are now discussing, the event occurs outside the carriage and it is the person inside it who WOULD see the SIMULTANEOUSNESS of the event distorted. It is the person who is outside (SRF) who can appreciate the circumstance of simultaneity as it IS.

Taking into account that the relative movement considered in the aforementioned mental experiments is nothing more than a disturbing effect of the VISION of the phenomenon, as we have seen we can consider examples where the quality of SIMULTANEOUSNESS of two events can occur both outside (SRF) as within the (SRM).

We give another example of a SIMULTANEOUSNESS phenomenon in which this circumstance occurs within the (SRM). We have devised a thought experiment, with relative movements between the train car and a fixed observer outside the car, and where the event of SIMULTANEOUSNESS occurs inside the car.



The drawing represents three phases of advance of a wagon that goes at a straight and constant speed.

In the center of the car there is a person holding a dough in each of his hands. The masses have equal weight. Outside the car there is a fixed observer on the ground (SRF).

Due to the movement of the wagon, at the moment that the person inside passes in front of the observer who is on the ground, that person releases the two masses at the same time. We consider this as a SIMULTANEOUS event.

We observe that in the intermediate step of the drawing it is seen that the masses have not yet touched the floor of the car. In the last stage represented by the drawing, the masses have already arrived on the ground. This is what the observer WOULD SEE (SRF)

The observer who is fixed on the ground (SRF) WILL SEE the different phases in which the masses fall, in the different phases of the wagon's advance.

The (SRF) WILL SEE the fall in each of the stages, while the (SRM) will consider a free fall.

It is evident that the SIMULTANEOUS fall of the two masses has not been transformed for the (SRF). YOU WILL SEE it deformed. It is the same thing that we had commented on the phenomenon of reflection in the mirror of the ray of light.

 

3.- THE PARADOX OF TRANSMUTATION

To help interpret and understand the metaphorical meaning given to the title of this issue, we transcribe the following definition and explanation: “PARADOX: Fact or saying contrary to logic.” “TRANSMUTATION: It involves the change of atomic nuclei. “It changes one element into another.”

The physicist A. Einstein, in his confusion of SEEING with BEING when dealing with the Relativity of Simultaneity, believes that an event produced in a (SRM) should not be IDENTIFY from an (SRF). And, in his aforementioned book, he mentions the following statement:

“The time needed for a process with respect to the wagon cannot be equated to the duration of the same process judged from the reference body of the embankment”

And, here the nonsense or the Paradox of Transmutation is born.

This is where we say that his statement is equivalent to the “miracle of transmutation. It does not admit that it LOOKS different but that it IS different.

Now he seems to forget the First Principle of relativity. He now speaks of “a” process “and not of the laws that govern natural phenomena. The confusion that he makes on the issue of the “relativity of simultaneity” makes him interpret the vision from the (SRF) of the events that occurred in the (SRM) differently.

To finish, we only need to remember the well-known “twin brother paradox”, in which the twin brother who stays on Earth spends more time than the astronaut brother.

Physics books call it a “paradox” when they want to justify the theory of special relativity and not find any logic to support it. We have read in one of these books that he proposes as a hypothesis that the interstellar rocket makes several revolutions before returning to Earth. What a joke! Let's keep in mind that the Theory of Special Relativity considers only rectilinear movements. Here, to resolve this paradox and using mental experiments, we can say that: the twin brother who is on Earth, with an astronomical telescope, SEES the course of the space rocket on which his astronaut brother is mounted. But this SEE does not imply a modification of the time or life cycle of each of the brothers.

In a future study we will give another grouping of essays.

 

 

jueves, 15 de febrero de 2024

THE MENTAL EXPERIMENT OF THE DEFLECTION OF LIGHT - A CONTRADICTION OF A. EINSTEIN

INTRODUCTION

In our previous essay we saw that, in the deflection of starlight, A. Einstein attributed it to the “deformation of space.” A nonsense. With this assumption it seemed that he found no other justification for committing such an aberration.

However, in the book by the authors: Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, entitled: “The Evolution of Physics”, we find that they give another justification for the aforementioned deflection of light. With this justification we ask ourselves: did A. Einstein change his mind about the cause of the deflection of starlight and abandon the fallacy of the “deformation of space”?... a scientific historian would have to inform us of the coincidence chronology of both opinions to clarify such contradiction.

The transcriptions that we make from the aforementioned book, or from other sources, will be written between quotation marks and in italics.

 

1.- A REMINDER OF OUR PREVIOUS ESSAY

In our previous essay titled: “The deformation of space – An error by A. Einstein”, we exposed the error made by this Physicist when considering that: “the Gravity caused by the sun curves space and this curvature causes the path to be deformed. of the light of the stars.” We call the phenomenon of curvature of the light path: deflection.

We present the fallacy of this approach in the aforementioned essay with the following comment and drawing taken from Google:

“Researchers thought that the Sun, due to its Gravity, would curve space, in such a way that this phenomenon would become noticeable in the perception of the position of starlight”


Faced with this thesis, which we demonstrate in the aforementioned essay to be a fallacy, A. Einstein seems to try to rectify his error by exposing that the deflection of starlight is caused directly by Gravity. Without involving “space” as a mediator.

This is what we will present, transcribing the mental experiment proposed in the book by the aforementioned authors: Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, entitled: “The evolution of physics”, on pages 177 and 178,

The conclusion of this thought experiment flies in the face of the claim that attributes the deflection of starlight to the warping of space.

 

2.- TRANSCRIPT OF THE TEXT OF THE MENTAL EXPERIMENT OF THE DEFLECTION OF LIGHT

Next, we will transcribe the text of the thought experiment that the aforementioned authors present in their book. In this transcription the reader will be able to see that his text is a bit tangled. We would say that it is rather “twisted”.

To help interpret the aforementioned thought experiment, in the following paragraph we will tell our own story. Now we will only dedicate ourselves to transcribing your text.

The text of the thought experiment described in the reference book talks about an elevator that “floats” in outer space. The elevator is pulled by a rope attached to its ceiling, which accelerates it. It says that there are two observers. One inside the elevator and one outside of it.

Its text is the following:

“Let's imagine that a horizontal ray of light enters the elevator through a side window, reaching the opposite wall after a very short time. Let's see how the path of light would be predicted by our observers."

The outside observer, who believes in the accelerated movement of the elevator, will argue: the light beam penetrates through the window, moving horizontally and in a straight line towards the opposite wall. But the elevator moves upward, changing position during the time the light lasts as it passes from one wall to the other. The ray will not illuminate, therefore, the point exactly opposite to that of its entrance, but rather a little lower. The difference, although very small, is real and consequently it turns out that the light moves with respect to the elevator on a curved line, like the figure we have drawn and not on the dotted line of the same figure.

The inner observer, who believes in the presence of a gravitational field acting on all the objects in his elevator, would say: the elevator has no such accelerated motion; A gravitational field simply acts inside it. A light beam that is imponderable will not be affected by gravity. If it propagates in a horizontal direction it will reach a point exactly opposite to that of its entrance.

It seems to emerge from this discussion that there is a possibility of deciding between both points of view, since the result would be different depending on whether one statement or the other was true. If there is nothing illogical in any of the reasoning that we have just presented, then all our previous argument falls to the ground, making it impossible, therefore, to consistently describe all the phenomena in question in two different ways: with or without a gravitational field.

But there is, fortunately, a serious error in the reasoning of the inner observer, which saves our conclusion. This said: “a light beam that is imponderable will not be affected by gravity. That's not true! A beam of light has energy and energy has mass. But all inert mass is attracted by a gravitational field since inert mass and gravitational mass are equivalent. A light beam will bend in a gravitational field exactly as would the trajectory of a body launched horizontally with a speed equal to that of light. Thus we see that, if the interior observer had reasoned correctly, taking into account the curvature of a light beam in a gravitational field, he would have arrived at the same result as the exterior observer.

 

3.- OUR ACCOUNT OF THE MENTAL EXPERIMENT THAT APPEARS IN THE MENTIONED BOOK.

To try to facilitate the understanding of the approach of the aforementioned mental experiment and at the same time declare an error that is committed in it, we have chosen to develop its content as if it were a story, giving it an argument.

We begin our story:

The thought experiment presents an elevator that ascends into outer space pulled by a rope. Ascends with accelerated speed:

Inside the elevator there is a person who we will identify as: PERSON INSIDE (PI).

Outside the elevator there is an observer who we will identify as: PERSON OUTSIDE (PE)

In our comments and opinions we will identify ourselves as: WE

We will identify the piece that belongs to the text of the experiment as NARRATOR.

A ray of light penetrates through the left wall of the elevator and ends its journey on the right wall.


The PE

He believes that the ascension of the elevator is what makes the curvature of light perceived.

US

We say that the (PE) is right in accepting the curvature of the ray of light.

But we contradict him, and say that he is NOT right in the cause he alleges. Later we will justify our opinion.

The (PI)

You don't realize that:

The rope is what moves the elevator. He attributes the fall of the masses (m) that are inside the elevator to the existence of a Gravitational field.

But he denies that the ray of light is curved due to Gravity and attributes it to a straight path.


STORYTELLER

The Narrator of the experiment says the following:

According to the above, there is a conflict between what they think (PE) and (PI).

The (PE) thinks that the ray of light bends.

The (PI) thinks that gravity cannot bend the path of a ray of light, although gravity acts on the masses (m) of the elevator.

US

In the end, the authors of the thought experiment to justify the validity of gravity exerting deflection on a ray of light, in their story, make the (PI) rectify their opinion. In their text they say the following:

“…But there is, fortunately, a serious error in the reasoning of the inner observer, which saves our conclusion. This said: “a light beam that is imponderable will not be affected by gravity.”

And now, putting an end to this “novel” they say the following:

“A beam of light has energy and energy has mass. But all inert mass is attracted by a gravitational field since inert mass and gravitational mass are equivalent. A light beam will bend in a gravitational field exactly as would the trajectory of a body launched horizontally with a speed equal to that of light. Thus we see that, if the interior observer had reasoned correctly, taking into account the curvature of a light beam in a gravitational field, he would have arrived at the same result as the exterior observer.

So “everyone is happy” and thus the deflection of a ray of light due to Gravity is justified. And nothing has been said about the “deformation of space”…

 

4.- AN ERROR IN APPROACH IN THE EXHIBITION OF THE MENTAL EXPERIMENT OF THE ELEVATOR

We have said that the (PE) affirms that the ray of light bends, but that it is not right with the reason it affirms for why it occurs. In the text of the book it is said that the (PE) believes that the ascension of the elevator is what makes it accepted that the curvature of light exists. This cause is NOT correct. It is a false opinion. All that was left was to mask this thought experiment with incorrect reasoning!…

We justify this error as follows:

If we consider a real case, in which we are the observer outside the elevator (PE) and as such the judges of the result of the observation, an error in approach is to consider that it is the ray of light that moves downwards. , when, on the contrary, it is the elevator that goes up. This seems to us to be a hoax by the authors of the aforementioned book to try to make their twisted arguments square, which later contradict each other by making Gravity intervene.

To graphically express our opinion, we have broken down the figure that we gave previously into three visions of the elevator's ascension.

The ray of light that enters from the left side of the elevator has been drawn. In the first view of the drawing, we place the entrance height of the beam at a higher level of the elevator. In the second vision the beam is approaching the middle part of the elevator, and in the third vision the beam is touching the floor.


Thus we visualize that it is not the ray that curves towards the floor of the elevator, but rather the elevator that goes up. Another issue is that the ray is curved by the action of Gravity.








domingo, 30 de julio de 2023

THE DEFORMATION OF SPACE - AN ERROR BY A. EINSTEIN

PRESENTATION

To the fallacy of “time dilation”, which we had already studied, A. Einstein needed to add another nonsense of logic to be able to create a “science fiction novel”. It is about “the deformation of space”. So it seemed that everything was adding up.

The bad thing is that he had disciples, and still has, who tried to support such a "novel." If there were no hidden interests, we are surprised that some scientific researchers committed such an outrage against science. We will comment on this in the paragraph entitled: "The fallacy of the false cause".

We take advantage of our essay to vindicate Newton's reasoning against Einstein's.

When we transcribe a text by other authors, we will write it in quotation marks and in italics.

 

THE THESIS OF A. EINSTEIN

About the "deformation of space" we have read the following:

“A. Einstein said, denying Newton, that gravity was not a force that attracted things, but that things do not move when they are attracted to something, but when they are pushed, and by this he meant that if something falls on something else, it is not because it is attracted to it, but because that thing curves space like a whirlpool in a bathtub. “

He continues the writing by saying the following:

“In Einstein's universe, continues the researcher, space and time are deformed by gravity. The Earth distorts the space around it ever so slightly because of its gravity.”

The following figure is the one we find in some treatises on this subject:


                                

Note the reader that the historian from whom we have transcribed part of his writing, begins by saying: "A. Einstein said, denying Newton..."

We will try to validate Isaac Newton.


HOW DID THE RESEARCHERS THOUGHT TO PROVE EINSTEIN'S THESIS?

The researchers thought that the Sun, due to its Gravity, would curve space, in such a way that this phenomenon would become appreciable in the perception of the position of starlight.



(NOTE: On the historical fact of the experiments that were carried out to try to demonstrate the validity of A. Einstein's thesis, the reader can read it on the Web page, in the topic: "How the general theory of relativity was demonstrated". The image that we give is the one that appears in the aforementioned story).


DISADVANTAGES TO OBSERVE THE PHENOMENON

The story goes that the inconvenience to observe the phenomenon was that the light from the Sun would not allow us to see and portray the deflection of the light from the stars. They had to wait for eclipses of the Sun to occur and these occurred periodically in different places on Earth. Several expeditions were made according to the appearance of the eclipses.

A sketch of the distribution of the actors participating in the experiment could be the following:



THE FALLACY OF THE FALSE CAUSE.- AN IMPROPER

In the aforementioned expeditions, unless some historian rectifies us, we believe that an absurdity was committed:

Instead of going to find out the CAUSE they went to report an EFFECT.

And, with this error, they could contribute little to science. Even if the EFFECT was photographed, it contributed little to the validity of Einstein's thesis. For this reason we call such an experiment as "THE FALLACY OF THE FALSE CAUSE".


OTHER CRITICISMS OF THE REFERRED EXPERIMENT

In addition to not fulfilling the experiment with the required purpose, the dubious results obtained in his photographs were also criticized.

The famous physicist Stephan Hawking said the following: "The results obtained by Eddington were a matter of knowing in advance the results that one wanted to obtain."

They also accuse the expedition group "Prince" of manipulation. A reason for discussion is pointed out in a veiled manner, which tipped for success or failure, when the experiments were carried out just after the First World War and their possible resentments.

 

THE REFLECTION OF LIGHT, A PHENOMENON ALREADY KNOWN IN ANCIENT TIMES

A physical phenomenon that goes against the deformation of space as a cause for two masses to come together is the phenomenon of the deflection of light due to gravity. This phenomenon was already taken into consideration by Newton.

(NOTE: In a future study entitled: "The deflection of light. Interpretation of a confusing thought experiment", we will expand this topic).

Years ago, in one of our books we made the following drawing that represents the deformation of the deformed VISION of a body close to the attraction of gravity, due to the deformation of light. BEWARE! Do not associate it with the deformation of the mass as explained by A. Einstein in the chapter on the "measuring bar", criticized in another of our studies.


The figure represents a body referenced by the coordinates (X, Y, Z) in outer space. The vision (light) of this body is distorted by the presence of a gravitational field.


A CONTRADICTION TO THE DEFORMATION OF SPACE AS THE CAUSE OF THE APPROACH BETWEEN TWO MASSES

The following diagram represents the Earth and a mass on top of it. "stuck" to her.

Can we affirm that, because there is no space between them, it is possible to start off the ground and lift the mass without any effort? Is it not true that it costs more to lift a mass of ten kilos from the ground than a mass of one kilo, if the masses are "stuck" to the ground? And in this case space does not intervene.

Experience confirms that the deformation of space as the cause of the "fall" of one mass on top of another is a fallacy.

 

ANOTHER ARGUMENT TO DISCARD THE DEFORMATION OF SPACE

DIFFERENT MASSES AT EQUAL DISTANCE FROM THE ATTRACTIVE MASS.-

The following scheme represents two different masses (M1) and (M2 ) located with respect to the mass of the Earth (MT) at the same distance: (d1) = (d2)


In the next paragraph we will demonstrate that although the space, measured by the distances (d1) and (d2) is the same, the Attractive Force of (MT) to each mass is different.

Hence:

If two different masses, at the same distance from the attractive mass (MT), perceive different attractive forces from this attractive mass, we deduce that "space" does not intervene.

 

TWO DIFFERENT MASSES AT THE SAME DISTANCE FROM THE ATTRACTIVE MASS SUPPORT DIFFERENT FORCES OF ATTRACTION.

We will use the resources provided by Isaac Newton to show that two different masses at the same distance from the attracting mass support different forces of attraction.

Considering A. Einstein's nonsense that materialized space, deforming it and “selling it to us” in pieces, we have chosen to use more solvent tools to deal with the issue of the Force of Gravity. We will rely on the tools provided to us by the prestigious genius Isaac Newton. We believe that, at the same time, we vindicate Newton's position against Einstein.

We try to show that:

At equal distance to the attracting mass of two different masses, the forces of attraction to these masses are different

Let's remember Newton's formula of attraction of the masses

In which

(Fa) is the Force of Attraction exerted by an attractive mass (M) on another attracted mass (m)

(d)2 is the square of the distance between the two masses

(G) is the universal gravitational constant.

(NOTE: The validity of this formula has been verified and contrasted empirically. The value of the universal gravitation constant is also verified, among other experiments, with the Cavendish experiment, so we can certify the previous formula.

We also clarify a question that the reader might have. Remember that the acceleration acquired by the two masses in their free fall is the same. Precisely because the "mass" of each of them and the "force" to which the bodies are subjected intervene in this acceleration)

In the example that we have given in the previous paragraph, in which (d1) = (d2) and assuming two different masses (m1) and (m2), for these masses the Forces of Attraction will be:

(Fa)1 =  


     


and       

(Fa)2=




So if (M) is the same for the two attracted masses and also the value (d2) is common for the two masses:

Then, since (m1) is different from (m2), also (Fa)1 is different from

(Fa)2 which is what we have exposed in the previous paragraph.

We believe that in this way Newton wins the battle against Einstein.

 

A DOUBT: If we do not admit the deformation of space and if the concept "field of forces" is an abstract and intangible idea that does not describe the cause of the mutual attraction of two masses, perhaps the attraction of masses occurs between common microelements of the masses. Could it be the neutrinos?... We leave this subject for the investigation of the experts in this subject, it were not the case in which we would fall into fallacies and nonsense like the ones we are criticizing.