User:Stamenin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1- Introduction
Einstein was proclaimed as the biggest scientific personality of the 20th century and the biggest scientist of the past millenium. He has discovered the relativity of the time, the relativity of the space, the law of transformation of the matter in energy and inverse. Generally speaking he has discovered the special and the general theory of the relativity. On the other hand the theory of the relativity by many scientists is criticized as being unreal.
What can be considered as being correct and what as errant in this theory? Generally speaking everything is errant and because of that it in no way can be mended. The intension of this work is to evidence this affirmation. There are a lot of wrong assumptions and suppositions which are taken as basics for the creation of this theory. And the results obtained by this theory practically are impossible to be verified. In such a way there is created a situation where are accepted conclusions which negate the former achievements of scientists as are Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, and Isaac Newton. The affirmation that the Galilei-Newton theory is a good approximation of the more general Einstein theory is a big lie. The reality is the inverse conclusion that the Einstein theory is an approximation of the Newton theory. The principal errant assumptions of the Einstein theory that I intend to evidence are the following: 1) The Lorentz transformation. 2) As a consequence of this errant relation is the errant assumption of the principle of the constancy of the speed of light relative to the coordinate system from which we see it. 3) The relativity of the distance, of the time, of the mass are errant conclusions. 4) The definition of the Galileian coordinate system by Einstein is nonsense. 5) The principle of the equivalence of the inertial force with the gravitational field. 6) The definition of the General principle of the relativity. To my opinion all these thinks have happened just because some questions are not explained in classical mechanics: 1) Is not clarified that an absolute system of coordinates and a relative system of coordinates, as were defined by Newton, are impossible to be determined, in spite of the fact that they exist because the material bodies are moving according to the first law of the mechanics. 2) Is not clarified that the principle of the relativity, is not a law of the physics but a rule with which we determine a truth about the form of the laws of the mechanics in a coordinate inertial system K1 if we know what form they have in a coordinate inertial system K2, and inverse. 3) Is not clarified that, the principle of the relativity is a consequence of the law of the conservation of the energy in this case of the kinetic energy, of the first law of the mechanics and of the Galilei’s transformation. 4) And the same is not explained properly, why the principle of the relativity is valid in a coordinate system rigidly attached to the horizontal plan at the earth’s surface, taking in consideration the existence of the gravitational forces of the earth of the sun, of the moon and others. 5) As a continuation of the previous point is not explained the role that play the inertial and the gravitational forces in the construction of the cosmos in the shape of suns and planets and in the motion of the planets around the sun, and the solar system around the center of the galaxy. These forces by annulling their influence upon the motion of the material bodes at the horizontal surface at the earth make possible to consider that a coordinate system rigidly attached to the earth surface can be considered as an approximate real inertial coordinate system valid for the horizontal plan and a coordinate system rigidly attached to the centre of the earth and its coordinates oriented toward the fixed stars. As a consequence of this we can conclude that we have two types of inertial coordinate systems, the ideal systems, as are the Newton’s absolute and relative coordinate systems and the real coordinate systems in present of the gravitational forces, which are all of them spatially limited. Out of these questions there are a lot of mistakes done by Einstein and in some way hidden by him, consciously or unconsciously.
All this things have created enormous confusions in physics that some scientists affirm that a train in an accelerated motion relative to the earth could be considered as being in a state of staying and the earth being in an accelerated motion that is a big mistake. Some of them just affirm that the sun and the stars are evolving around the earth!
These are the questions about which I like to speak in this work, and others, and all these things putted together, make clear evidence that Einstein’s theory of the relativity is a complete false theory, the special and the general relativity. Is important to mention that the efforts done by many scientists to critic Einstein theory are oriented only to evidence that the principle of the constancy of the speed of light as being incorrect and not toward the above mentioned inconsistencies and because of that there aren’t obtained satisfactory results,
TIME MACHINE AND THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION
We hade occasions to read in fiction literature, about time machines that enable people to travel in time, toward the future, or toward the past. The Lorentz transformation is not a time machine, but it enables such traveling. An experiment that enables such traveling is the following:
Let us consider a train in which we pose a man with a watch, and another man equipped in the same way at the embankment. The two coordinate systems let be K1 at the embankment, and K2 at the train. If we take as dada in the coordinate system K2: v2=108km/h=0.03 km/s x2=1.892*10^22 km, t2=60 s, With the Lorentz transformation: x1=(1/R)(x2+v.t2)…….(1) t1=(1/R)(t2+x2.v/c^2)….(2), we obtain:
R=(1-0.03/300,000^2)^0.5=1
From the relation (2) can obtain: t1=(60+0.03*1.892*10^22/300,000^2)=60s+6.3072*10^10)=60s+2000y. So it shows that the man at the embankment went in the future at the 2000 years. If the train will travel in opposite direction this man should go 2000years in the past. By varying the x2 the man could go in every period he likes in the future or in the past. Is this possible? Of course it is, only if the Lorentz transformation describes correctly the natural phenomena. If this is possible we can have a very cheap time machine. But on the other side the known relations: t1=t2/R, and, t2=t1/R, out of the fact that are contradictory between them they do not represent completely the variation of the time according to Einstein SR theory, and as we can see there exist big differences. I would say that Special Relativity offers bigger possibilities but all these possibilities can’t represent the truth at the same time. That is why the Lorentz transformation is an errant math relation and as a consequence of this results that is errant and the Special Relativity is a false theory.
2006/10/22.
This text is mine copied from mine compiuter. To my disapoinment I can't copy texts written in normal mathematical formulae. Can you halp me? So I see that these subjects can't be explained in this way properly.
THE VICIOUS CIRCLES IN PHYSICS
The assumption that physics is in crisis could be explained by the existence of the vicious circles in physics. A vicious circle in physics can be defined as being a state in which a discovery (knowledge) produces as an effect a new discovery, which by its self returns us in previous state. Such vicious circles exist in all three theories known by their author’s names: Galilei- Newton, Laurentz Ether theory, and Einstein Relativity. 1) In Galilei-Newton theory such a vicious circle was created by the discovery of the first law of the mechanics, the law of inertia by Galileo Galilei. The definition of this law says: A material body upon which do not act external forces, continues in a state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line. Based on this law Newton determined the absolute coordinate system and the relative coordinate system corresponding to the two states: of rest, and of uniform motion in a straight line.
But by this the situation didn’t become clearer. We can’t determine an absolute system of coordinates, and the problem was returned to the first law of the mechanics. The definition of the absolute and relative space doesn’t help too, because and these notions are impossible to be determined. This is a classic vicious circle and is not resolved until now. The state of rest and the state of uniform motion obviously was impossible to be determined because such a material body could not be find in a large portion of the space where doesn’t exist gravitational forces.
That is why Newton’s absolute coordinate system is considered as being a fiction and many scientists are trying to refute his theory.
2) Einstein tried to resolve this vicious circle by defining the Galileian coordinate system, by the following definition: “A system of coordinates in which the state of motion is so, that the law of inertia holds relative to it, is called Galileian system of coordinates”. And Einstein adds: “The laws of the mechanics of Galilei-Newton can be regarded as valid only in Galileian systems of coordinates”. This is a classical example of vicious circle because the definition and the conclusion are reciprocally linked and no one helps to be determined the other notion. Because by this definition we can’t know how to determine a Galileian system of coordinates, (what is in fact similar with the Newton’s absolute system of coordinates), we are determined to return back to the law of inertia. This is a vicious circle too, and is just the same by its nature with that of the Newton’s definition of the absolute system of coordinates.
3) In Ether theory is supposed a need to be introduced the notion ether as being necessary for the explanation of the wavy nature of the light rays. Until now is not clarified if the light is corpuscular or it is wavy, but this doesn’t matter for the adepts of the Ether theory. The ether was supposed, as being a substance very fine, which doesn’t create forces of friction with the planets and stars, but nobody can determine its existence simply because it is simply a supposition and not a reality. Obviously the ether is a wrong replacement for the absolute system of coordinates, and is not a surprise that is impossible to be determined too. So we can see that the same vicious circles appear in this theory too, without having a possibility to be resolved.
Consequently, we can realize that we have three theories with a same problem; the apparition of a same vicious circle and no one of them has a solution about it. The difference between these theories is that the Einstein theory and the Ether theory have a wrong additional problem, the use of the Lorentz transformation as a mathematical mean for the description of the motion of the material bodies, which is an errant mathematical relation too. By the use of this transformation there appear many misinterpretations and unclear questions and what is worst it gives mistaken results in calculus that have done a real mess in physics.
In any case, is clear that these three theories cant be all valid, and we can accept, that only one of them can be valid or none. To negate the Newton theory we have to negate the three laws of the mechanics and the law of the universal attraction that are the only real and practical means for the interpretation of the mechanical phenomena at the earth. Have the other two theories anything similar, to replace these laws? Not, of course not. And I affirm that only these laws can be used for a definitive solution of this in fact unique vicious circle. In my participation on the discussions of this group I have explained the nature and the cause why this vicious circle appears. For me it is evident that this unique vicious circle is the cause why the physics has entered in crisis. Because of that I publish the following article that explains it.
THE PROPERTY OF THE GRAVITATIONAL AND INERTIAL FORCES TO ACT UPON EVERY ATOM OF THE MASS
The property of the gravitational and inertial forces to act upon every atom of the mass of a material body is very important for this task. This property is that, which allows us the explanation, why the laws of the mechanics are valid and for coordinate systems rigidly attached to the center of the earth, or to the earth’s surface in spite of the fact that here exist gravitational external forces. We can say, that this property stays on the bases in which the world is constructed, and without it Galilei and Newton wouldn’t be able to discover the mechanical laws, and the cosmos couldn’t exist in the form of the suns and planets. And really without the gravitational force is impossible to be gathered a material mass as are the planets and the suns. And without the inertial force is impossible to be forced a planet to rotate around the sun. It is very important to mention that the laws of the mechanics and the principle of the relativity are related to the motion of the material bodies with a known mass (m). Because of that Einstein wasn’t right to apply the principle of the relativity for a light ray, for which we don’t know its mass (m), we don’t know its nature if it is wavy or corpuscular. We can see with the aid of the light but we can’t see a light ray. But let us continue with the relativity and give a real explanation why the principle of the relativity and the laws of the mechanics are valid on the earth as they are supposed to be valid in a large portion of the universe where do not exist gravitational forces. Until now we have been speaking about the principle of the relativity as being valid relatively to the absolute inertial system or a relative system which is in motion with a constant speed and in a right line relatively to it. But in the same time we said that such coordinate systems are impossible to be determined.
It seems that we have entered in a vicious circle. From this vicious circle we can get out by taking in consideration the property of the gravitational and inertial forces to act upon every atom of the material body.
In order to explain the action of the inertial and gravitational forces upon the material bodes let us take an example with a cosmic cabin satellite of the earth. In the inside of the cabin there exists a state of weightlessness in spite of the fact that there act two forces, one exterior as a result of the gravitation of the earth, called centripetal, and one centrifugal, as a result of the inertia of the cabin mass and everything that is in the cabin. In this small space, we have completely a similar situation, as it was supposed in the cabin placed in so-called large portion in cosmos where do not exist gravitational forces. But there the cabin will be in a motion in a right line and with constant speed, while here in the earth it will be in a circular motion with constant linear speed. If the cabin satellite of the earth is moving through an elliptic orbit the motion will be with variable speed and direction. If it falls directly toward the earth its motion will be in a right line and with accelerated speed. And just if we suppose that the cabin is coming with a high speed from the cosmos the cabin will pass through a hyperbolic trajectory changing the speed upward when is coming and diminishing it at the part of the trajectory when it is departing from the earth. All these motions are referred to a Galileian system of coordinates with his origin in the center of the earth and with the coordinates oriented toward the fix stars. And this is very important to be mentioned, because we cant consider that these motions can be seen from the cabin. In all these motions, in the cabin exists the situation of weightlessness. If we will throw a pencil in the cabin it would move in a right line if the cabin will not have a motion of rotation.relatively to the fix stars. In such a way, we can say that in the cabin, relatively to a coordinate system rigidly attached to the cabin with his coordinates oriented toward the fix stars, the Newton’s laws are valid in the same form, as they are in the cabin, when it is far away in cosmos in a large portion of space were doesn’t exist gravitational forces. I’d like to remark that this coordinate system is valid only in the cabin. If we now make a comparison of this example with the earth’s surface, we can realize, that everything would be similar if here wouldn’t be the earth’s gravitation. Because of that the Newton’s laws have a same form only in horizontal plane and not in vertical direction. That means that the principle of the relativity is valid only for motions in a horizontal direction. The rotation of the earth around his axis doesn’t influence because, this motion is done with a constant speed and the centrifugal force which appears as a result of the rotation, is annulled by the gravitation of the earth. The centripetal force which appears because of the gravitational attraction of the sun is annulled with the centrifugal force which appears as a consequence of the earth’s rotation around the sun and because these two forces act upon every atom of everything that exits at the earth. That is why we do not feel the influence of the sun attraction, and the attraction of the galaxy and nobody of us is aware that is separately a satellite of the sun.
But we have to note that, the inertia of the material bodies creates inertial forces only when they change their speed relatively to the absolute coordinate system. This is true because is shown by the Foucault pendulum that swings in a same direction toward a fix star. In this way we can say now that by this is solved the vicious circle that was created by the discovery of the first law of the mechanics by Galileo Galilei where the notions of a material body in a “state of staying or in a state of moving uniform in a right line” couldn’t be defined properly.
By what we have said until now, results that all these curbed motions are in fact approximative inertial motions and the coordinate systems that can be attached to them are valid for a limited space. The material bodies being, the cabin or the planets, all they are in a state of equilibrium without any resultant force to be realized by man. These bodies are moving in an empty space without braking forces and because of that their motion is permanent. By this results, that the cosmos is in permanent motion and that there aren’t material bodies which are in a state of staying. By this once again we can say that not having such bodies that are staying or are moving in a right line and with constant speed, we haven’t any possibility to determine an absolute inertial system. But the inertia of the material bodies creates inertial forces only when the material bodies change their speed and their direction relatively to the imaginary absolute inertial system.
All these conclusions at the first seeing look as if are the same thing as Einstein has concluded in his general relativity. But it is not true. He with the definition of his general principle of the relativity considers as possible inertial systems and accelerated motions caused by a mechanical force and he doesn’t limit their validity spatially. The man in Einstein’s chest feels the mechanical force with which presses him the chest and not the inertial force that appears in his body. The coordinate systems are invented by man as a mathematical mean for the determination of the motion of the material bodies. They do not exist in the nature. So we can choose that material bodies that correspond for such purposes and can attach a coordinate system to them.
1) The selection is not correct, if a mechanical force accelerates the material body, to which we like to attach the coordinate system, as there is the case of a train in accelerated motion.
2) Inertial coordinate systems can’t be considered valid if they rotate relative to the far stars. 3) The motion of the material bodies to which we attach the limited coordinate system must be long lasting. 4) Practically such coordinate systems can be considered, only the coordinate systems rigidly attached to the surface of the planets and valid only for the horizontal surface, and the coordinate system attached to the centre of the planets and suns with the coordinates oriented toward the fix stars and limited in their zone of gravitation. We have not any interest to consider the inertial coordinate system in the interior of a cosmic cabin as being an inertial coordinate system because it will be of use only for the description of the motion of bodies in the cabin.
I really believe that this explanation was lacking to Galilei-Newton theory and because of that appeared the other two theories doing by this the unwilling mess in physics. And to not forget that the laws of the mechanics are valid only for the description of the motion of the material bodes. The three laws of the mechanics and the law of the universal attraction contain the mass (m) in their mathematical relations and this shows that the light phenomena and the electromagnetic phenomena can’t be treated with these laws. The attempt to enlarge the validity of these laws and for the phenomena linked with the propagation of the light and the electromagnetic waves only helped to be accepted the Lorenz transformation and to increase the mess in physics. 25/06/2007
THE METAMORPHOSES OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE RELATIVITY.
By comparing the definitions of the principle of the relativity given by Galilei and Einstein, is impossible to not get the conclusion that the principle of the relativity has suffered real metamorphoses. Here are these definitions: 1) The galilei’s definition: All the laws of the mechanics are identical in all the coordinate systems that are staying or are moving in a right line and with constant speed.
According to the first law of the mechanics, Newton has given the definition of the absolute system of coordinates as being a system that stays in cosmos and the relative systems as being the systems that are moving relative to the absolute system with constant speed and in a straight line.
2) Einstein’s definition of the principle of the relativity in the restricted sense given in page 15 of his book “Relativity”:
If relative to K, K’ is a uniformly moving coordinate system devoid of rotation then natural phenomena run their course with respect to K’ according to exactly the same general laws as with respect to K. The systems K’ and K are considered as being Galileian systems of coordinates. The definition of the Galileian system of coordinates is given in page 12 of his book: “A system of coordinates of which the state of motion is such that the law of inertia holds relative to it, is called a “Galilaian system of coordinates” The laws of the mechanics of Galilei-Newton can be regarded as valid only for a Galileian system of coordinates”.
3) Einstein’s second definition is given in page 63 of his book:
“All bodies of reference K, K’ etc. are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion”.
4) Einstein third definition is given in page 97 of the same book:
All Gaussian coordinate systems are essentially equivalent for the formulation of the general laws of the nature. OBSERVATIONS: 1a) In the Galileian definition of the principle of the relativity is not defined properly the state of rest and the state of uniform motion in a straight line and with constant speed. These states are a consequence of the first law of the mechanics where in his definition aren’t defined the same properly because isn’t shown how we can determine the absolute system of coordinates. My conclusion given in a former topic was that these coordinate systems are impossible to be determined, but the material bodies do their motion just relative to such imaginary system of coordinates.
2a) In the point two of the Einstein definition of the principle of the relativity the coordinate systems K and K’ the same are impossible to be determined. He uses the name Galileian systems of coordinates, but their definition is a nonsense definition. We want to know how can determine a Galilaian system in a real way because we can’t determine such a system with the expression: “if the law of inertia holds to it’.
Evidently the situation with the determination of the Galileian system of coordinates
is exactly the same with that of the Newton’s absolute and relative coordinate systems. Out of that Einstein introduces in his definition the term “natural phenomena” without any explanation. This addition is in contradiction with his definition of the Galileian system of coordinates where he uses the first law of the mechanics as a base and the state of motion of the material bodies. Because the light do not contains a mass the first law of the mechanics can’t be considered as being valid for the description of the motion of the light. 3a) In point three Einstein introduces the term: “all bodies of reference K, K’ etc. are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena, (general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion”.
a) The term, “all bodies of reference K, K’ are equivalent” is in contradiction with the Galilei’s definition of the principle of the relativity. There is said that only the laws of the mechanics are equivalent and only for the coordinate systems that are in motion in a straight line and with constant speed. I’d ask, why Einstein didn’t say openly that the Galilei definition of the principle of the relativity is errant?
b) About the term, general laws of the nature, he hasn’t mention any other law out of the so-called law of c=300,000 km/s relative to the coordinate system from which we observe it. Which are all these laws of nature? Are, for example the Darwin laws or not general laws of the nature and is valid his principle of the relativity and for these laws? Aren’t all these thinks ridiculous? Nobody can know all the laws of the nature. If he likes to use this term he has to count out which are all these laws. c) About the term, “whatever may be their motion”, I can say that all the laws of the nature do not have obligatory a motion. And the motion between the two coordinate systems K and K’, with acceleration is in contradiction with the Galilei’s definition of the principle of the relativity and in fact with the reality of the nature. 4a) In the third definition of the principle of the relativity Einstein uses the term, Gaussian coordinate system and the term, general laws of the nature.
So we can see that with this are finished the metamorphoses of the principle of the relativity. In this definition disappeared the terms: laws of the mechanics and the motion of the coordinate systems K, and K’ in a right line and with constant speed. How a big job done and how big difference! The Galilei’s definition and this final Einstein definition have nothing common. How is this possible?
About the coordinate systems I can say that none of them exists in the nature. All they are invented by men and have a value if they are attached to a material body whose state of motion is known. Einstein’s final definition makes no use of this.
Because in a large portion of the cosmos where do not exist gravitation, there do not exist and material bodies to use them in this sense. Because of that, we haven’t any possibility to determine a coordinate system by attaching it to such a body. This is the cause that determined me to conclude that such a coordinate system is impossible to be determined. But for Einstein this is not too difficult, he places his Galileiean system of coordinates there without problem and of course anywhere where he likes. Naming this system Galileiean coordinate system he shows a big hypocrisy. By one side he negates the Galilei’s principle of the relativity and on the other side he honors him.
By everything that is said until now and with other occasions, I can conclude that the principle of the relativity is not a law of the nature, but is a rule for asking the truth. When we know what form have the laws of the mechanics in one coordinate system K than we can find that they have similar shape in the coordinate system K’ and inverse. This is possible only if we know that at least one of the coordinate systems is an inertial system and they are in relative motion with constant speed and in a straight line. So in my case is nothing changed from the Galilei’s definition of the principle of the relativity.
2/11/06.
4- THE PRINCIPLE OF THE RELATIVITY
In this part of the work I would like to speak about the principle of the relativity. It was discovered by Galilei but was used by Einstein in very strange manner, making two illogical extensions. As a consequence of the principle of the relativity, his theory was named: The theory of the relativity. Einstein has taken a peacefully attitude toward the Galilei-Newton’s theory and he accepts their theory as a good approximation of his theory. This is a big trickery because he in fact he negates their theory. In his book: Relativity. The special and general theory, in page 12, he speaks about the Galileian coordinate system.
With the definition for this system, Einstein practically affirms that the mechanical laws aren’t valid for a coordinate system rigidly attached to the earth. Let us cite what Einstein says about the Galileian system of coordinates and how he has defined it:
”As we well know, the fundamental law of the mechanics of Galilei-Newton, which is known as the law of inertia, can be stated thus: A body removed sufficiently far from other bodies continues in a state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line. This law not only says something about the motion of the bodies, but it also indicates the reference-bodies or systems of coordinates, permissible in mechanics, which can be used in mechanical description. The visible fixed stars are bodies for which the law of inertia certainly holds to a high degree of approximation. Now if we use a system of coordinates that is rigidly attached to the earth, then relative to this system, every fixed star describes a circle of immense radius in the course of an astronomical day, a result that is opposed to the statement of the law of inertia. So that if we adhere to this law we must refer these motions only to systems of coordinates relative to which the fixed stars do not move in a circle. A system of coordinates of which the state of motion is such that the law of inertia holds relative to it is called a “Galileian system of coordinates”. The laws of the mechanics of Galilei-Newton can be regarded as valid only for a Galileian system of coordinates”.
So Einstein realizes that the first law of the mechanics, the law of the inertia, says in a “clear way” that the laws of the mechanics are valid only in a large portion of the cosmos where do not exist forces of gravitation. In other words, they are not valid for a coordinate system rigidly attached to the earth surface or for a system with his origin in the center of the earth and his axes oriented toward the fixed stars. In such a way he makes a separation between the first law of the mechanics and the principle of the relativity and an indirect assumption that the laws of the mechanics do not appertain to the category of laws, as it is the category of the natural laws. Obviously this is an upside down situation in physics.
Einstein says that the law of the inertia indicates the systems of coordinates, permissible in mechanics, which can be used in mechanical description. But he doesn’t say a word about the fact that this law contains the notions, state of rest and state of uniform motion in a straight line, which have done the entire complication in physics, which in fact wasn’t resolved until now. This problem was transferred practically to the systems of coordinates and was trying to find out an absolute and a relative inertial system which really do not exist in the nature, because they are invented by man for mathematical description of the motion. So we can say that there isn’t any sense to speak about a coordinate system if we haven’t in disposition a material body to which we can attach it rigidly. But the first law of the mechanics says that the material bodies are comporting exact as it is said in his definition. In the period of time between Newton and Einstein this evident contradiction was trying to be solved introducing a new hypothetical notion, the ether that was supposed to be a very fine substance with special proprieties. It was supposed to be able to stay in universe allowing the planets and stars to pass without being entrained with them. But experiments done by Michelson showed that such substance doesn’t exist. In physics is considered that the laws of the mechanics are valid at the earth’s surface because the earth evolves through a very big circle that means that for very small portion could be considered as a straight line. But is neglected the fact that there exist two forces, the centrifugal force as a consequence of the earth’s inertia, and the centripetal force as a result of the gravitational force of the sun. Out of that the earth is evolving around his axis, so the explanation that the earth evolves around the sun is an approximate inertial coordinate system without taking in consideration and the gravitation and the inertial forces that act upon it, is not acceptable. Newton has treated this problem by admitting, the existence of the absolute coordinate system. I shall assume in this work, that the absolute coordinate system exists but is impossible to be determined, because we don’t have in disposition a material body that is staying in a large part of the cosmos where do not exist gravitational forces. The same we’ll assume that the Galileian system of coordinates as being a system with his origin at the center of the earth and his coordinates oriented toward the fix stars. In continuation will demonstrate that this system is a good approximation of the absolute system of Newton’s theory by taking in to account the property of the gravitational and inertial forces to act upon every atom of the material body. This coordinate system explains, why a pendulum putted at the North Pole moves permanently toward a same fix star, and why the earth’s axis of rotation, keeps a same direction toward the North Star, and as a result of this phenomenon, we have four different seasons at the earth. But doesn’t explain why the laws of the mechanics are valid and at the earth surface. Such a coordinate system is an approximation of the absolute system of coordinates because his origin attached to the earth’s centre is not staying at the same place in cosmos but is evolving around the sun fact that means that is in motion and not at rest. If such a Galileian system of coordinates will be attached to the center of the sun, the same it will be an approximation of the absolute system of coordinates because of the sun’s evolution around the center of the galaxy. If we like to continue in this way, we will be obliged to repeat it infinitely and this is of course the same impossible to be done. So, we can conclude ones again that is impossible to be determined the absolute system of coordinates. But to our disappointment it is impossible to determine and a relative coordinate system that is in motion in a straight line and with constant speed relative to the absolute system. This do not means that we can conclude that they do not exist, because then we must conclude that the first law of the mechanics is not valid.
Einstein about these questions says nothing he only changed the name of the absolute system of coordinates in Galileian coordinate system. Maybe this is done because he affirmed that the absolute system of coordinates doesn’t exist.
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE RELATIVITY
(IN THE RESTRICTED SENSE)
Einstein has given this title in page 14 of his book “Relativity” where he speaks about the principle of the relativity. With this heading he suggests that the principle of the relativity is something that could be enlarged as much as he likes. I will prove evidence that the enlargement is impossible.
Einstein at the start of this title gives an example with a train that is in a uniform motion at the earth’s surface and a raven flying in the same direction. This shows that Einstein forgot what had said in the heading where he was treating the Galileian systems of coordinates. If he takes in consideration his definition about the Galileian systems of coordinates, then he couldn’t speak about the motion of the train and the raven because they are bodies with an evident mass and their motion isn’t in a straight direction. Here is the curvature of the earth surface and the presents of the gravitational force and the inertial force of the earth and the rotation of the earth around his axis. So Einstein changing the name of the absolute coordinate system in Galileian system of coordinates, and using a logic based in nothing he retains the principle of the relativity as being valid at the earth’s surface without explaining it and practically departing the principle of the relativity from the Galilei’s transformation. Let us try to explain all these questions. The definition of the principle of the relativity given by Galilei says: All the laws of the mechanics are identical in all the coordinate systems that are in motion in a straight line and with a constant speed. Many people forget that for applying the principle of the relativity we must know at least that one of these systems of coordinates is an inertial system.
So we have to demonstrate that the earth surface is an inertial system before applying the principle of the relativity. What does say the principle of the relativity? It says that if the laws of the mechanics are valid in the coordinate system K1 they shall have the same form and in the coordinate system K2 and inverse. Analyzing carefully this formulation we can see that there is done a comparison between the two systems of coordinates and we find out a truth that the laws of the mechanics are identical in both systems. That means that the principle of the relativity is a method or a rule with which we determine the truth. But the words “if the laws of the mechanics are valid in K1” are a supposition and it needs to be explained. More precisely, we have to explain why are valid the laws of the mechanics at the earth’s surface where we have motion of rotation and external gravitational forces.
But let us show first, that the principle of the relativity is a consequence of the first law of the mechanics.
To demonstrate that let us take the Galilei’s transformation. x1=(v*t2)/2+x2.
If now we consider x2=const, we can say that this is the Galilei’s transformation, but if we consider the x2=f(t) as a function of time, then we can say that there exists a motion of a material body (M) and the Galilei’s transformation is transformed in mathematical form of the Galilei principle of the relativity. This assumption can be evidenced by the following mathematical demonstration:
x1=v*t+f(t) …(11)
If we derive this function in rapport to (t) we obtain the relations of the speeds and of the accelerations.
If there has place a uniform accelerated motion the function f(t) becomes:
f(t)=(a2*t^2)/2
dx1/dt=v+a2*t
v1=v+a2*t
dv1/dt=0+a2
a1=a2……(12)
F1=a1*m=F2=a2*m ….(13)
This is a very important result, because it demonstrates that the second Newton’s law has the same form in K1 and K2 see relation (13). When a1=a2=0, we have the first law of the mechanics.
From this relation results:
F1=F2=0……………………….(14)
This means, that upon the material body (M), do not act external forces. So the material body shall be in a state of staying or in a state of motion with a constant speed. By this we can see that the three Newton’s laws are identical or invariant, in both systems of coordinates. This happened, because, we took the Galilei’s transformation as a base in our demonstration and because, the relative speed (v) in Galilei’s transformation has a constant value what means that was taken in consideration the first law of the mechanics. So the first conclusion should be, that the principle of the relativity is a consequence of the first law of the mechanics and of the Galilei’s transformation.
If now we suppose that the relative motion between the two coordinate systems is not done with a constant speed (v), but with uniform accelerated speed, then the Galilei’s transformation receives the following form:
x1=(a*t^2)/2+(a2*t^2)/2 ……(15)
v1=a*t+a2*t
a1=a+a2 ………………(16)
The relation (15) is the antipode of the principle of the relativity, it shows the domain where the principle of the relativity is not valid and Einstein uses the principle of the relativity as being valid and for this domain, making an enlargement in the general theory of the relativity! But with the relation (15) we can see that with the Galilei’s transformation is possible to be shown the non identical forms that are taken by the Newton’s laws when the relative motion between the two coordinate systems isn’t an uniform motion with a constant speed, Their form is the following:
F1=m(a+a2)….and F2=m*a2
In this moment is very important to realize that this kind of motion is not possible to be treated using the Lorenz transformation, when exists an accelerated motion of the K2 coordinate system relatively to K1.
Because of that Einstein was obliged to invent his general theory of the relativity replacing the inertial force with a gravitational field that represents a new absurdity. The inertial force depends, of the mass of the material body, of the direction of the speed of the material body, of the sense of the motion, and of the fact if this body is accelerated or braked down. It is really an absurdity to be replaced with such variable gravitational field and to renounce the formula number (13) that represents the most important law, the second law of the mechanics discovered by Newton which could be considered as being the general law of the inertia.
On the other hand, the nature of the inertial force is not the same with the nature of the gravitational force. One is exterior and is calculable with the law of the universal attraction the other is interior in the material body and is calculable with the second law of the mechanics. Saying that these two forces are equivalent we are in contradiction with the mathematical form of the law of the universal attraction and with the second law of the mechanics. And this is an additional argument against the acceptance of replacing the force with a gravitational field. I would ask does Einstein have any formula with which could replace the two Newton’s formulas?
In fact what permitted to Einstein, to do this change is the fact, that this two forces act upon every atom of the body’s mass (m). But he didn’t understand this phenomenon. So there is not any reason to not make a distinction between an inertial force and a gravitational field.
The confusion is bigger because Einstein took a mechanical external force for the demonstration of his principle of the equivalence between the inertial force and the gravitational field.
If we take in consideration a gravitational external force acting upon the Einstein’s chest than a man in the chest will not feel force acting upon him. In this case the confusion is complete. The chest is accelerated with an increasing acceleration and the Einstein adepts consider that there do not exist forces and the chest could be considered as being in a state of rest. They say that a man falling down toward the earth is not in an accelerated motion but is staying in space! How could be accepted the assumption that the gravitational field disappears if the man is in a state of falling down in an accelerated motion? In fact there exist two forces the gravitational and the inertial force. The gravitational force that attracts the body downward the earth is mathematically given by the Newton’s law of the universal attraction. The inertial force is given by the second Newton’s law. These two forces are opposed one another and equal between them. In this way there is obtained an equilibrium that determines the momentary speed of falling down. Here I consider that is necessary to be given a better explanation. The second law of the mechanics is wrong understood. Fi=a.m, means that we can calculate the inertial force Fi if we know the acceleration (a). But the inertial force appears only when exits an external force, Fe. When this force is a gravitational force then according to the third law of the mechanics we have the relation,
Fg=-Fi. So the inertial force and the gravitational force determine the value of the acceleration (a). By this we can have the acceleration g=-a=-Fi/m=kMm/mr^2=kM/r^2. Finally: g=-a…..(17).
This means that a man falling down toward the earth gets a variable acceleration and can’t be considered as being in a state of staying. The relation (17) is a fully evidence for the inconsistency of the Einstein General relativity.
THE PROPERTY OF THE GRAVITATIONAL AND INERTIAL FORCES TO ACT
UPON EVERY ATOM OF THE MASS
(THE PRINCIPLE OF THE INSENSIBILITY)
The property of the gravitational and inertial forces to act upon every atom of the mass of the material body, mistakenly used by Einstein for the assumption of the principle of the equivalence, is very important for something else. This property is that, which allows us to explain, why the principle of the relativity is valid and for coordinate systems rigidly attached to the center of the earth, or to the earth’s surface. This property we can say, stays on the base in which the world is constructed, and without it Galilei and Newton wouldn’t be able to discover the mechanical laws, and the cosmos couldn’t exist in fact in the form of the suns and planets. This is true because the gravitational force makes possible the existence of the earth and the sun in the spherical shape, the existence of the atmosphere on the earth, and with the inertial force of the earth is achieved the permanent evolution of the earth around the sun. On the other hand, it is very important to mention that the laws of the mechanics and the principle of the relativity are related to the motion of the material bodies with a known mass (m). This becomes evident by the fact that, the laws of the mechanics contain in their formulas the notion mass of the material body in motion. Because of that Einstein mistakenly applies the principle of the relativity for a light ray, for which we don’t know its mass (m), we don’t know its nature if it is wavy or corpuscular. We can see with the aid of the light but we can’t see a light ray.
But let us continue with the relativity and give a better explanation why the principle of the relativity is valid on the earth. Until now we have been speaking about the principle of the relativity as being valid relatively to the absolute inertial system or a relative system which is in motion with a constant speed and in a right line relatively to it.
But in the same time we said that such coordinate systems are impossible to be determined. It seems that we have entered in a vicious circle. From this vicious circle we can get out by taking in consideration the property of the gravitational and inertial forces to act upon every atom of the material body.
In order to explain the action of the inertial and gravitational forces upon the material bodies let us take an example with a cosmic cabin satellite of the earth. In the inside of the cabin there exists a state of weightlessness in spite of the fact that there act two forces, one exterior as a result of the gravitation of the earth, called centripetal, and one centrifugal, as a result of the inertia of the cabin mass. In this small space, we have completely a similar situation, as it should be if the cabin is placed in so-called large portion in cosmos where do not exist gravitational forces. But there the cabin will be in a motion in a straight line and with constant speed, while here in the earth it will be in a circular motion with constant linear speed. If the cabin satellite of the earth is moving through an elliptic orbit the motion will be with variable speed and direction. If it falls directly toward the earth its motion will be in a right line and with accelerated speed. And just if we suppose that the cabin is coming with a high speed from the cosmos the cabin will pass through a hyperbolic trajectory changing the speed upward when is coming and diminishing it at the part of the trajectory when it is departing from the earth. All these motions are referred to a system of coordinates with his origin in the center of the earth and with the coordinates oriented toward the fix stars. In all these motions, in the cabin exists the situation of weightlessness. If we will throw a pencil in the cabin it would move in a right line if the cabin will not have a motion of rotation.relatively to the fix stars. In such a way, we can say that in the cabin, relative to a coordinate system rigidly attached to the cabin with his coordinates oriented toward the fix stars, the Newton’s laws are valid in the same form, as they are in the cabin, when it is far away in cosmos in a large portion of space were doesn’t exist gravitational forces. I’d like to remark that this coordinate system is valid only in the cabin. If we now make a comparison of this example with the earth’s surface, we can realize, that everything would be similar if here wouldn’t be the earth’s gravitation. Because of that the second Newton’s law has a same form only in horizontal plane and not in vertical direction. That means that the principle of the relativity is valid only for motions in a horizontal direction. The rotation of the earth around his axis doesn’t influence because, this motion is done with a constant speed and the centrifugal force which appears as a result of the rotation, is annulled by the gravitation of the earth.
The centripetal force which appears because of the gravitational attraction of the sun is annulled with the centrifugal force which appears as a consequence of the earth’s rotation around the sun and because this two forces act upon every atom of everything that exits at the earth. That is why we do not feel the influence of the sun attraction, and the attraction of the galaxy and nobody of us is aware that is separately a satellite of the sun. And this is the cause why we can say that the Galileian coordinate system as had been defined by me is a good approximation of the absolute coordinate system, defined by Newton.
In this explanation where neglected the resistant forces of the air and others which appear at the earth surface. We have to note that in all these explanations, the inertia of the material bodies creates inertial forces only when they change their speed relative to the absolute coordinate system and this is evidenced with the Foucault pendulous. In this way we can say now that by this is solved the vicious circle that was created by the discovery of the first law of the mechanics by Galileo Galilei where the notions of a material body in a state of staying or in a state of uniform motion in a straight line were not explained properly for the horizontal surface of the earth.
By what we have said until now, results that all these curbed motions are in fact inertial motions but are valid for a limited space. The material bodies being, the cabin or the planets, all they are in a state of equilibrium without any resultant force to be realized by man. These bodies are moving in an empty space without braking forces and because of that their motion is permanent. By this results, that the cosmos is in permanent motion and that there aren’t material bodies which are in a state of staying. By this once again we can say that not having such bodies, we haven’t any possibility to determine an absolute inertial system. But the inertia of the material bodies creates inertial forces only when the material bodies change their speed and their direction relatively to the absolute inertial system, whenever are pushed by an external force.
All these conclusions at the first seeing look as if are the same thing as Einstein has concluded in his general relativity. But it is not true. The coordinate systems are invented by man as a mathematical mean for the determination of the motion of the material bodies. They do not exist in nature. So we can choose that material bodies that correspond for such purposes and can attach a coordinate system to them.
1) The selection is not correct, if a mechanical force accelerates the material body, to which we like to attach the coordinate system, as there is the case of a train in accelerated motion.
2) Inertial coordinate systems can’t be considered valid if they rotate relative to the far stars. 3) The motion of the material bodies to which we attach the coordinate system must be long lasting. 4) Practically such coordinate systems can be considered, only the coordinate systems rigidly attached to the surface of the planets and valid only for the horizontal surface and coordinate systems attached to the centre of the planets and suns with the coordinates oriented toward the fix stars. 5) And all these coordinate systems are spatially limited in their gravitational zone of attraction. We haven’t any interest to consider the inertial coordinate system in the interior of a cosmic cabin as being an inertial coordinate system because it will be of use only for the description of the motion of bodies in the cabin.
So far, we have been speaking about the Einstein’s famous theory of the relativity and as you could realize there are evidenced its principal incorrectness. Now I’d like to do the principal conclusions that can be brought.
1) The principle of the relativity is a method, a rule with which we do a comparison between the inertial coordinate systems with the task to find out a truth. So the relativity could be named, and the theory of the comparability. 2) The principle of the relativity is a consequence of the law of conservation of the (kinetic) energy, of the first law of the mechanics, of the Galilei’s transformation, and his validity at the earth’s surface is allowed by the property of the inertial and the gravitational forces to act upon every atom of the material bodies. 3) The principle of the relativity is valid only for the laws of the mechanics and for studying the motion of the material bodies that evidently contain a mass. 4) The principle of the relativity couldn’t be valid for the light rays because we can’t know if they have a mass. 5) Because the two transformations, the Galilei and the Lorenz, ever give different results in calculations, one of them must be mistaken. We can’t renounce the Galilei transformation because it respects the principle of the invariance, it gives exact results, and because without it is not valid the principle of the relativity and the first law of the mechanics. 6) Einstein mistakenly has proclaimed the light speed as a law of the nature. It is done so with the intention to put it in accord with the Lorentz transformation, that is the same a mistaken mathematical relation. 7) Einstein mistakenly has done the generalization of the principle of the relativity. It was done with the intention to put it in accord with the principle of the equivalence, which is the same, a mistaken assumption. 8) Einstein mistakenly has enlarged the validity of the principle of the relativity for all the laws of the nature. He couldn’t demonstrate it nor to show which are all that laws of the nature. Evidently, Einstein has done all that with the purpose to avoid the contradiction between the two principles, and to put it in accord with the principle of the equivalence of the inertial force with the gravitational field. And of course with the purpose to make possible the presentation of the Lorenz transformation as being superior, and more general relative to the Galilei transformation.
On the other hand, Einstein himself says, that the Lorenz’s transformation and the law of the constancy of the light speed in vacuum are reciprocal suppositions and they are both valid or both mistaken. But this, the same could be said about the principle of the relativity. It is a consequence of the law of the conservation of the (kinetic) energy, of the first law of the mechanics, of the Galilei transformation, and of the fact that the gravitational and the inertial forces act upon every atom of the mass, and we can say that, or all these four suppositions are correct, or are all mistaken. By this results that the two principles are contradictory as well as are contradictory and the two transformations. So we can chose one of these two groups. There is no doubt that the Lorenz transformation and the law of the constancy of the light speed in vacuum relative to the coordinate system from which we observe it, are the mistaken suppositions.
9) And in the end of this part let us conclude that generally, the relativity is not what Einstein has concluded about the relativity of the time and of the space or of the mass. It is a method for asking the truth about all the comparative notions we know from the grammar learnt in the high school.
Let me say that this point has an enormous importance not only for the physics, but the same and for all other sciences.
For the moment, on the vases of such a supposition, we can say that in the nature, everything is absolute.
That means that for everything exists only one truth, the absolute truth, but to our disappointment in too many cases this truth is impossible to be discovered and not only for the Newton’s absolute system of coordinates. For this is not guilty the nature, but we people are not capable to discover it. Good examples are the Einstein’s theory of the relativity and the plane geometry emitted by Lobachevsky and others. All these theories are incorrect because their authors liked to discover things that were impossible to be discovered. In a next article I will talk about this relativity as a method for asking the truth about the comparative notions.
20/03/2008.
5) THE INERTIAL FORCES AND THE LAW
OF THE CONSRVATION OF THE ENERGY
Speaking, in the article about the Principle of the relativity, about the relations that exist between the first law of the mechanics, the principle of the relativity, the Galilei’s transformation, and the behavior of the inertial forces and the gravitational forces to act upon every atom of the matter, I had omitted there to put in a first position, and to explain, the importance that has the law of the conservation of the energy in these relations. Now I’d like to remedy this omission.
The first law of the mechanics I could say is a consequence of the law of the conservation of the energy and especially in this case of the kinetic energy of the material bodies. So we can conclude that the material bodies tend to keep their kinetic energy if there are not acting upon them external forces. To change this level of kinetic energy is needed to act upon them an external force. Then the material body, respecting the law of the conservation of the kinetic energy opposes to that action with the inertial force that is produced by the material body. This phenomenon could be compared with the phenomenon of the production of electrical current in a generator in a power station producer of electrical energy. To the mechanical torque produced by the turbine, the generator opposes a torque that is produced by the induced electrical current in the generator. In this case we have a transformation of the mechanical energy in electrical energy. In the case of the inertial forces we have a change of the level of the kinetic energy of the material body and this results as a change of the speed of the material body accordingly to the known relation:
Ek=(mv^2)/2
In such a way we can conclude that a material body placed far away in a portion of the space where doesn’t exist gravitational forces will keep its state of staying or moving in a right line and with constant speed. Of course the material body acts in this way taking in consideration his previous state of motion, but minded people like Newton imagined the absolute coordinate system that describes perfectly the behavior of the material body. Evidently we with this interpretation of the first law of the mechanics doesn’t change anything in respect to the efforts done by scientists in the past, trying to explain why the laws of the mechanics are valid and for a coordinate system rigidly attached to the center of the earth.
To my opinion everything that is said in my article about the principle of the relativity is valid and is not a need of modifying anything. What we could conclude as a consequence of this explanation by the use of the kinetic energy is the fact that the inertial forces can’t be annulled. The same thing could be said about the gravitational forces. The notion of gravitational field is an abstract notion. We suppose that there must be a field, but we have in disposition only the Newton’s law of the universal attraction as a practical mean for the detection of the gravitational field. Thanks to these two forces, the inertial and the gravitational, we have our planet so wonderfully constructed, permitting the existence of the life on it. So we can say that Einstein replacing the inertial forces with a gravitational field has done a big mistake. He putting an observer in a cosmic cabin and arguing that the observer didn’t know that the cabin was pulled up by an imaginary force, he didn’t do anything else but to trick the reader. But both of them Einstein and the reader knew very well that there was only an enigmatic mechanical force and not a gravitational field.
On the other hand the fact that the first law of the mechanics is a consequence of the law of the conservation of the energy, allows us to conclude that Newton was right when he made the supposition that exists an absolute system of coordinates. This is explainable by the fact that the material bodies try to maintain their state of motion or staying, just in the same way as says the first law of the mechanics. The Foucauld pendulous maintains the direction of swinging in respect to the far stars and not in respect to the coordinate system that is attached to the earth. Einstein trying to avoid the absolute system of coordinates, changing his name ones in Galileian system of coordinates and another time in inertial system of coordinates, without explaining how can we determine them, is saying nothing new, because we can’t determine all of them by practical means. What is important to be concluded is the fact that because the inertial forces are a consequence of the law of the conservation of the energy, there does not exist a possibility these forces to be overpowered by man. We can discover the laws of the nature but we are not capable to change them. The same, we can conclude that, if the inertial forces are a consequence of the law of conservation of the energy, there does not exist any possibility to replace them with a gravitational field. On the other hand one another problem is very important to be mentioned. It is the question: how many relativities are content in Einstein theory of the relativity? There are two of them:
1) The first is the relativity that is a result by the use of the Loren transformation. 2) The second is the relativity when Einstein compares the motions of the material bodies between them. These two understandings are complete different notion and are not taken in consideration seriously by people who defend Einstein theory.
In the first kind of relativity can be included: the conclusions that the time, the space and the mass, are relative sizes, as well, and the law about the transformation of the mass in energy and inverse. This relativity is a false theory because the Lorenz transformation is a false mathematical relation. In the second group could be included the cases when we compare two systems of coordinates K1 and K2, the first law of the mechanics, the principle of the relativity, and other comparisons. When we say for example that the train is in motion relatively to the earth, or the earth is in motion relatively to the train is the same thing that means that the mathematical results about this motion will be the same. I should mention that this affirmation is not correct at all. We have to take in account that the earth is a bigger material body and has a naturally bigger inertia and stable motion of rotation around his axis. Because of that the earth has a stable level of kinetic energy. The train is that who starts and stops relatively to the earth’s surface and changes his level of kinetic energy. If we say that the earth is in a motion relatively to the train and if it is true this motion should provoke a cataclysm at the earth by the apparition of the inertial forces that should act upon the oceanic waters for example. And I have to mention that the Einstein relativity ,by using the Lorentz transformation, can’t describe these starts and stops of the train just if they are moving in a right line because of the apparition of accelerating and braking down motions. Because of that we have to consider that the train is in motion relatively to the earth. And this is, another evidence that the Lorentz transformation is an errant relation.
The same we can’t say that the earth is in motion relative to an earth’s satellite and we can’t say that the sun is in a motion relatively to the earth, but the earth is in rotation relatively to the sun. All these conclusions are in contradiction with the Einstein theory of the relativity but are in accord with the law of the conservation of the energy and can be described with the aid of the Galilei and Newton relativity. With this we can realize once again the inconsistency of the Einstein theory of the relativity. So the slogan that says that every thing is relative is a false conclusion and we can conclude that everything is absolute that means that for everything exits only one truth the absolute truth. Vancouver Mar 22/2008.
7-THE LAWS OF THE MECHANICS AND
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE INSENSIBILITY
How can be applied in practice, the laws of the mechanics, is a very important question, that I like to clarify. This is important because as a participant on the discussions in the group Science physics relativity realized that exist serious mistaken interpretations.
The laws of the mechanics are the following: 1) The first law of the mechanics, (the law of the inertia), or
Fi=(m.a)=0 (a=0)
Describes the not accelerated state: the state of staying or of motion of the material bodies with constant speed, when there do not exist external forces acting upon it. It is evident that this law is a particular case of the second law of the mechanics for a=0, which means that upon the material body do not act any external force and because of that there do not appear inertial force, (Fi=0). Based on this case Newton has defined the absolute coordinate system and the relative coordinate system. This is an absolute truth because it corresponds to the situation of not existing any kind of external forces. But on the earth conditions we have a real situation where exist gravitational forces. This difference brought to the apparition of the vicious circle in physics and to the unjust negation of the existence of the absolute inertial system. 2) The second law of the mechanics, could be named and the general law of the inertia. Its mathematical relation is, (Fi=m.a). This law must be correlated ever with the third law of the mechanics because an inertial force does not appear without the existence of an external force. 3) The third law of the mechanics in the case of the dynamical motion, could be written:
Fe=-Fi, where Fe is an exterior force which acts upon the material body and provokes the dynamic motion, and Fi is the interior inertial force of the material body with which the material body opposes to the external force Fe.
4) The law of the universal attraction, F=k.M.m/r^2. This force appears only as a result of the existence of gravitational field.
About all these law relations, can be realized the following properties:
a) In all these laws, the forces are related only to the motion of the material bodies about which we know that have a mass (m). That is why in all of them in theirs formulas appear the size of the mass noted with (m). b) The action of the gravitational forces and the inertial forces upon our body is not sensible, because these forces act upon every atom of our body. We can feel only the action of a mechanical force. Because of the misunderstanding of this property Einstein has emitted the mistaken “Principle of the equivalence” of the inertial force with the gravitational field, which evidently is an errant assumption and led to the emission of the errant general relativity. This property of the gravitational and inertial forces, to not be felt by us can be named: The principle of the insensibility of the gravitational and the inertial forces by a human being. The mistaken applications of the mechanical laws are referred mostly to these two points, a) and b). The point a) shows that the laws of the mechanics can be used only for the determination of the motion of the material bodes and not for the determination of the motion of the light or of the electromagnetic waves. The point b), I can say, that is the most mistakenly understood. For this point I give the following example, when an athlete is jumping the height of 2m. He pushes upward his body with a mechanical force with the aid of his legs. He goes upward with the inertial force as a result of the speed that got by the pushing up of the mechanical force, but this speed is braking down by the gravitational force of the earth and this is the cause why he can’t go higher. When he falls down the role of the gravitational force and the inertial force is inversed, and the gravitational force accelerates the body down ward while the inertial force now opposes to the gravitational force and limits the speed. This is the cause why the speed doesn’t increase instantly to bigger value.
Going upward the body looses kinetic energy and gets potential energy. Falling down ward the body consumes that potential energy The athlete in his fly doesn’t feel any force acting upon his body and this is explicable with the Principle of the insensibility and not with the principle of the equivalence. In the same way could be explained the flying of a man in a cabin satellite of the earth. There the linear speed of the satellite remains constant and the equilibrium of the gravitational force and the inertial force is obtained with the centripetal gravitational force and the centrifugal inertial force identically acting upon the cabin and the man. This is the explanation why the satellite evolves around the earth and doesn’t go in a right line direction, and why there exists a state of weightlessness.
In techniques is said that is impossible to be created a “perpetum mobile” but in the case of the natural and artificial satellites it is possible, they rotate timely infinite. This phenomenon is allowed by the property of the inertial and the gravitational forces to act upon every atom of the material body. And this phenomenon shows that in cosmos do not exist any substance that could be named ether. This article shows that the Einstein principle of the equivalence is defined in a wrong way because the man in the chest placed in a large portion of the space didn’t feel any inertial force but he felt a mechanical force. And the comparison done with the man sitting in a chair in his house where the man feels the same a mechanical force, is in fact a comparison between two mechanical forces. And this mistaken mind experiment stays on the base in which is created the General Relativity! As a result of what is said above we can conclude that the biggest blunder in physics is done with the assumption of the Principle of the equivalence of the inertial force with the gravitational field.
That is why we can say that by proclaiming the accelerated motion as being an inertial coordinate system, Einstein in fact negates the Galilei-Newton theory and just is in contradiction with Einstein errant special relativity.
That is why he defending his errant general theory of the relativity was obliged to admit that Galilei-Newton theory, and just his errant special theory of the relativity are less general theories, being an approximation!?
NOT THE CONSEQUENCES BUT THE ENTRIES
Until now the scientists where trying to experience the consequences of the Einstein theory of the relativity and not to analyze the basic suppositions that lead to this theory if they are errant or not.
As a participant in the discussions in the group science-physics-relativity, I realized that the defenders of the Einstein’s theory of the relativity prefer to study the conclusions, which result from it, and not to analyze the possibilities to find out if the modifications done to the Newton theory are correct or errant. They prefer to discus only about the light propagation.
In reality the consequences of the Einstein theory of the relativity are impossible to be determined. In 1918 was determined the only case that the light rays are curbed by the gravitational field of the sun, but is not determined if the deviation wasn’t caused by the refraction by the gaseous atmosphere that exists around the sun. Another experiments are not known in this direction that could confirm the Einstein theory of the relativity. Is known the affirmation, that a disc in rotation, having his centre attached to an inertial system, gates a smaller perimeter. This conclusion is based on the LT. But LT is theoretically valid for a motion in a straight line. It isn’t valid for a rotating disc. Out of that the LT says that the length becomes bigger if it is correctly applied and not shorter. All this things in fact, violate the principle of the invariance of laws of nature, but it is not taken in to account. And the formula, L=2(pi)R for the determination of the perimeter is violated in this case. If the time is a relative notion than by using the earth as spherical disc, than by putting watches at the poles and at the equator should be possible to obtain a difference between them
Until now we haven’t heard that such a phenomenon was observed by the polar scientific expeditions. Another possibilities do not exist, because the conclusions done by Einstein are in direct correlation with the infinity. We can’t have in disposition a cosmic train, we can’t use a coordinate system attached to a light ray, we can’t determine the infinity of the cosmos etc. About the infinity of the cosmos Einstein says that is not infinite but is unbounded. How it can be finite and unbounded only Einstein knew.
But on the other hand to realize that the inertia of the material bodies exists always, that the principle of the relativity is valid only for the material bodes because is a consequence of the first law of the mechanics (the law of the inertia) and that the first law of the mechanics is a consequence of the law of the conservation of the (kinetic) energy and because of that is not possible to be generalized is very simple to be understood. The same is very simple to be understood that the principle of the equivalence of the inertial forces with the gravitational field is not valid and we cant say that a body which is falling toward the earth can be considered as being in a state of staying, and to be possible to attaché a coordinate system to it. As a result of what is said in this article, we can conclude that, all the relative notion could be considered as a violation of the principle of the invariance of the known laws in physics and in mathematics. And these conclusions are possible only by taking in consideration the assumptions, the inputs, done by Einstein.
21/012007
THE COVARIANCE OF THE GENERAL LAWS OF THE NATURE
Einstein in his book “Relativity” in page 44, writes: “Every general law of nature must be so constituted that it is transformed into a law of exactly the same form when, instead of the space-time variables x, y, z, t of the original coordinate system K, we introduce new space-time variables x’, y’, z’, t’ of a coordinate system K’. In this connection the relation between the ordinary and the accented magnitudes is given by the Lorentz transformation. Or in brief: General laws of the nature are co-variant with respect to Lorentz transformation.
This is a definite mathematical condition that the theory of relativity demands of a natural law and in virtue of this, the theory becomes a valuable heuristic aid in the search for general laws of nature. If a general law of nature were to be found which did not satisfy this condition, then at least one of the two fundamental assumptions of the theory would have been disproved”.
These days many people prefer the word invariance about this condition by naming it the Principle of the invariance of the laws in science.
I believe that this principle very important in science and like to give more examples and explanations about it just with the task to show that the LT doesn’t respect at all this principle. In this direction let us take as an example the second law of the mechanics to see how this law fulfils this condition with the Galilei transformation and with the Lorentz transformation.
The second law of the mechanics can be written in this form:
In a system of coordinates K, we can have: F=m*a=m*(d2x/dt2).
1) With the Galilei transformation for K’: x’=x-v*t.
We can have the form of this law in K’: F’=m*d2x/dt2(x-v*t)=m[t2x/d2t-d2/d2t(v*t)]= m(a-0)=m*a.
F’=m*a=F….(1) 2) With the Lorentz transformation: x’=(1/R)(x-v.t). We can have the form of this law in K’: F’=m*(d2x’/dt’2)(d2t’/dt2)=m[(d2x’/dt2)]=(d2/dt)(1/R)(x-v*t)] =m*1/R(a-0)=(m*a)/R
Or, F’=m*a/R=F/R…..(2)
3) If we try to repeat the calculus with this result to find F in the system K, when we know the force F’=F/R in K’ the result should be: F=(F’/R)/R=F’/R^2 …..(3), and not the initial form F=m*a. If we reaped the passing from K to K’ and inverse there will appear errors every time with the square root R. So the conclusion is that the Lorentz transformation does not satisfy the principle of the invariance for this general law of the nature, while the Galilei transformation satisfies it. This is additional evidence about the mistaken Lorentz transformation.
The above example shows that the second law of the mechanic is not invariant as form with the use of the LT. But this phenomenon is experienced and with all the notions that are named by Einstein as relative notion. Such are the relativity of the time, of the length, of the mass and others. Why can’t we consider and this notions as being invariant notion? They are invariant with the Galilei transformation and variant with the Lorentz transformation. There is not any difference between the second law of the mechanics and these notions. On the base of LT, Einstein concluded that these notions are relative notion. This assumption is very strange and untrue. Another motive do not exist for this. But because of this assumption in physics appear to many paradoxes and illogical conclusions. That is why I have concluded, in one of mine former articles that the two principal mistakes in physics are: The LT, and the “Principle of the equivalence” of the inertial force with the gravitational field.
15/04/2007.
THE CURVILINEAR PROPAGATION OF THE LIGHT RAYS
IN GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS
Einstein in his book Relativity in page 75 writes:
“The considerations of section 20 show that the general principle of relativity puts us in a position to derive properties of the gravitational field in a purely theoretical manner. Let us suppose, for instance, that we know the “space-time” course for any natural process whatsoever, as regards the manner in which it takes place in the Galileian domain relative to a Galileian body of reference K. By means of purely theoretical operations (i.e. simply by calculation) we are then able to find how this known natural process appears, as seen from a reference-body K’, our consideration also teaches us how the gravitational field influences the process studied.
For example, we learn that a body which is in a state of uniform motion with respect to K (in accordance with the law of Galilei) is executing an accelerated and in general curvilinear motion with respect to the accelerated reference-body K’ (chest). This acceleration or curvature corresponds to the influence on the moving body of the gravitational field prevailing relatively to K’. It is known that a gravitational field influences the movement of the bodies in this way, so that our consideration supplies us with nothing essentially new.
However, we obtain a new result of fundamental importance when we carry out the analogous consideration for a ray of light. With respect to the Galileian reference-body K, such a ray of light is transmitted rectilinearly with the velocity c. It can easily be shown that the path of the same ray of light is no longer a straight line when we consider it with reference to the accelerated chest (reference-body K’). From this we conclude, that, in general, rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in gravitational fields”
In this explanation Einstein does many errors.
1) His Galileian reference-bodies K are impossible to be determined because they are indeterminable, as there are the Newton’s absolute and relative coordinate systems. 2) A body which is in a state of uniform motion with respect to K (in accordance with the law of Galilei) is in a fictive accelerated and curvilinear motion with respect to the accelerated reference-body K’. Simply this curvature of the ray depends only of the subjectivity of the observer because he is in an accelerated motion. Similarly to this, the motion of the sun relative to a reference body attached to the earth’s surface is a fictive rotation around the earth. Here evidently is done confusion between a real motion and a fictive motion. In a previous mine topic I have shown, that by the point of view of the law of conservation of the kinetic energy we can’t say that the motion of the earth is an accelerated motion relatively to a coordinate system attached to a train in accelerated motion, 3) Einstein says that it is known that a gravitational field influences the movement of the bodies in this way, however, we obtain a new result of fundamental importance when we carry out the analogous consideration for a ray of light.
By this, we can see that Einstein out of the fact that he makes mistakes according to the previous two points he puts in equal situation the motion of the material bodies with the motion of the light rays in present of a gravitational field. But this is impossible if we take in consideration that a light ray has no mass. And this is supported by the fact that the second law of the mechanics and the law of the universal attraction are valid only for the description of the motion of the material bodies and that is why in their formulas contain the (m), the mass of the body in motion. So we can’t say, that a light ray could be attracted by a gravitational field as there is attracted a material body, or manifests inertial forces like a material body, or can be accelerated as a material body. This is evident if we take in consideration that at the earth’s surface we can’t observe any deformation of the images seen in a bigger distance, as are the far mountains for example. And if we reflect a strong beam of light in a mirror, the mirror shall not be broken. Because of all these considerations we can conclude that Einstein assuming: “rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in gravitational fields” is an errant conclusion. And as a consequence of this the only practical confirmation done in 1918 with the occasion of the eclipse of sun is questionable. Who can be sure that the curvature of the rays wasn’t caused by refraction of the gaseous atmosphere around the sun?
21/11/2006
THE EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY AND THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION
The affirmation that the Euclidean geometry is errant theory is an astonishing assumption done by Einstein and it is a wonder how was that possible not to be criticized by other scientists. How is possible to negate that the sum of two segments AB and BC is not equal with AC.
__ __ __
AB + BC=AC
The only argument given for the support of this supposition, are the magic words: “the evident is not evident”. For the word evident Einstein uses in his book a “stronger” word far better and suggestive: holds.
He didn’t take in consideration that evident means something obviously plain and clean and something that can be seen. It is a notorious truth that we can know everything about the nature, about our environment, only if we can see it. How can we know what is the infinity of the universe if we can’t go there and see what alike is that? The theories done on the base of experiments are done practically by the use of the term evident because there is used the seeing and the experiments in order to know what is going on.
01 02 M
o----------------o--------------o-----x1, x2 where x1=01M, and x2=02M
K1 K2
Fig.1.
(This is a short presentation of the two coordinate systems K1 and K2. 01 and 02 are the origins of the two systems and M is the projections of a material body that is moved with the speed v2 in the positive direction.)
Einstein doesn’t support the former assumption, that the Euclidean geometry is erroneous with the aid of the theory of the relativity, for example by using the Lorentz transformation. He left it apart as if it is understandable by itself. Let us see what the Lorenz transformation says about this question.
In fig.1 are represented the two coordinate systems of coordinates, K1 and K2 considered as being inertial systems. The Lorenz transformation considering that the motion is done only in the direction of the coordinates x1 and x2 are:
x1=(1/R) (x2+v.t2)……..(1) x2=(1/R)(x1-v.t1)………(3)
t1=(1/R)(t2+v.x2/c^2)….(2) t2=(1/R)(t1-v.x1/c^2)…..(4)
Where R=squr(1-v^2/c^2).
Making an analogy between the segments AB and BC, with the segments 0102 and 02M shown in fig.1 we can obtain the following results. From the relation (1) of the Lorenz’s transformation we can obtain:
0102=(1/R)(v.t2) 0102=v.t1 02M=x2/R
From the relation (3) of the Lorenz’s transformation we can obtain: 0102=v.t1/R 0102=v.t2 02M=x2
So we can put now all these results together, considering that the two segments must have a unique length. 0102=v.t2/R=v.t1=v.t2=v.t1/R 02M=x2/R=x2 Having so many solutions for the above segments we are obliged to put the following question: Have the two segments one unique length, or not. If they have more values as it is seen from the above relations, then the picture at the fig.1 is not correct and has to be modified. And in addition we have to explain what about these values and how must be represented in a new picture fig.1. If we admit that the above segments have one unique length than we can conclude that all these results are false results. This conclusion brings us to another important conclusion that the Lorenz transformation is a false relation, and it doesn’t represent the truth about the mechanical motion of the material bodies.
On the other hand, if we divide these solutions with the speed (v), would have: t2/R=t1=t2.=t1/R
x2/R=x2 Or if we like separately we have the following relations: t1=t2/R……5. t1=t2………6 t1=t1/R……7 t2=t2/R……8 t2=t1/R……9 x2=x2/R…10 So we can realize that there are represented the LT with the relations 5 and 9, the GT with 6, and absurd relations 7, 8 and 10. Is this a mess or not? 17/08/2007.
THE AVAILABILITY OF THE COORDINATE SYSTEMS
This article intends to clarify the possibilities in which can be used the coordinate systems for the description of the motion of the material bodies by applying the mechanical laws.
In this direction we can say that the coordinate systems must respect the following condition:
1) The coordinate system must be attached to a material body. 2) The material body must be in an inertial motion.
What is an inertial motion of a material body?
To my opinion there exist two kinds of inertial motions, the ideal inertial motion and the real inertial motion.
-The ideal inertial motion of a body is considered that motion, where upon the material body do not act any kind of external forces. Such is the case when is supposed that the material body is placed in a large portion of the space where don’t exist gravitational forces. There the body will be in a motion in a straight line direction or will stay at the same place. We believe this because this results from the application of the first law of the mechanics but if we like to attach a coordinate system to it this system will be undeterminable. Simply we don’t know the direction in which will move the material body and if it will stay at the same place and because we can’t have in disposition such a material body to which could attaché a coordinate system. This is why I say that to determine an absolute system of coordinates is impossible.
This system could be considered as being an ideal inertial system.
-The real inertial motion is when the material body is in a motion in present of the gravitational forces, which is the case in our vicinity. In this case, there are two possibilities of motion of a material body when we can attach to it an inertial real coordinate system:
a) The first case is when the material body rotates around a bigger material body, as are the cases with a satellite of the earth, the earth, the moon and the sun. b) The second case is the motion of the earth surface. This is a special case where the rotation of the earth around his axis, doesn’t influence too much the use of an inertial coordinate system, which is valid only for the horizontal directions. In both these cases can be attached real inertial coordinate systems relative to which the laws of the mechanics are identical, that means that the phenomena resulting by the application of these laws are real. Why are acceptable these coordinate systems as a good approximation of the absolute ideal inertial system I have explained it in a earlier topic by taking in consideration the behavior of the inertial and gravitational forces to act upon every atom of the mass. Exceptions of these rules are the following cases: -The rotation of the material body around his axis must be annulled when we like to attach to it a coordinate system to study the phenomena in the gravitational zone around the material bodies, as it is the case with our planet the earth. - All these real inertial systems are valid for a limited zone. For example: The real coordinate system rigidly attached to the earth surface is valid only for the horizontal directions of the earth. -The real inertial coordinate system rigidly attached to the centre of the earth must have his coordinates oriented toward the far stars for the elimination of the rotation of the earth around his axis N-S, and is limited only for his gravitational zone of predomination. In vertical direction we must take in to account the existence of the gravitational force 3) Cases of real coordinate systems in which the laws of the mechanics can’t be applied:
-When the coordinate system is in rotation relative to the far stars. -When the material body to which is attached the coordinate system is in an accelerated motion caused by a mechanical force.
For example, if we don’t eliminate the rotation of the earth around his axis we can’t study the phenomena that take place in the gravitational zone of the earth and further. We can’t explain why a geostationary satellite of the earth is staying at the same part of the earth surface without falling down. In the case of the material body to which is attached the real coordinate system is in accelerated motion, we can take an example with a train being in accelerated motion.
A stone left to fall down from the ceiling toward the floor, will not fall in a vertical direction, but in a rear site direction.
The acceleration of the train can’t be considered as if the earth is in an accelerated motion relative to the train.
Einstein has taken these two cases as possible and this is why his theory is a false theory. Einstein did that by defining his Galileian system of coordinates as being the system in which the laws of the mechanics are valid, but this definition doesn’t say how can we determine such a system of coordinates, and by emitting the principle of the equivalence of the inertial forces with the gravitational field. Out of that he by using the Lorentz transformation for the description of the motion of the coordinate systems in a right line direction and with constant speed, and by enlarging the conclusions done with this transformation as valid and for a rotating disc, and by generalizing the principle of the relativity, he has done an upside down situation in physics.
4/01/2007.
A COMPARITION OF ACHIEVEMENTS BETWEEN NEWTON AND EINSTEIN
In the discussions of the group Science-Physics-Relativity are treated different questions in physics but in all of them the principal topic is the speed of light and the priority given to the gravitational fields especially to their speed of propagation. Speaking only about these two notions is impossible to do real experiments and to have a real conclusion. Is known the conclusion done with the occasion of the appreciation of the Einstein theory that nobody can refute it and on this logic was accepted as real. In this direction I believe that is a good approach to do a parallel survey about the assumptions and the achievements obtained by Newton and Einstein. I believe that this approach shall help to see that the Einstein relativity is complete errant theory.
1) The Galilei- Newton basic assumptions and achievements could be the following: 1.1) The first law of the Mechanics. (v=const). Or (a=0) from the second law Fi=ma 1.2) The absolute inertial system. 1.3) The Galilei transformation, x1=v.t+x2. 1.4) The Galilei definition of the Principle of the relativity: The laws of the mechanics are identical in all coordinate systems that are in motion in a straight line and with constant relative speed. 1.5) The second law of the mechanics. (Fi=a.m) 1.6) The third law of the mechanics. (Fe=-Fi) where Fe is external force acting upon a material body and Fi is the inertial force of that body with which opposes to the external force. 1.7) The law of the universal attraction: F=(k.M.m)/r^2.
2) The Einstein basic assumptions and achievements could be:
2.1) The Lorentz Transformation. x1=(1/R)(v.t2+x2), t1=(1/R)(t2+v.x2/c^2) where R=[1-(v/c)^2]^0.5. 2.2) The principle of the relativity in the restricted sense. If relative to K, K’ is an uniformly moving coordinate system devoid of rotation, the natural phenomena run their course with respect to K’ according to exactly the same general laws as with respect to K. 2.3) The principle of the constancy of the light speed relative to the coordinate system from which we look at it. 2.4) The Galileian coordinate system: A system of coordinates of which the state of motion is such that the law of inertia holds relative to it is called “Galileian system of coordinates”. 2.5) The principle of the equivalence of the inertial force with the gravitational field. 2.6) The General Principle of the Relativity: All Gaussian coordinate systems are essentially equivalent for the formulation of the general laws of the nature.
If we like to do a comparative analysis between these two theories, there is evident that in Galilei- Newton theory exits only one dubious situation for the position 1.2) about the absolute inertial system for which I have concluded that is impossible to be determined, but the motion of the material bodies is done relatively to this system. The same situation exists and for the determination of the position 2,4) for the Einstein’s definition about the Galileian coordinate system and there isn’t any difference in comparison to the absolute system of coordinates.
The Einstein’s other assumptions are all mistaken. I have shown that, in my participation in Google group, sci-physics-relativity and I can do it again for every position. These mistakes are the cause, why in Einstein theory are so many strange conclusions as there are, the relativity of the time, the relativity of the distance and mass. A rod of 1m and a mass of 1kg becomes with an infinite mass and zero length when (v=infinite), that this theory is incompatible with Euclidean geometry, the strange conclusion that the cosmos is not infinite but is unbounded, the assumption that an accelerated coordinate system could be considered as inertial system. All these conclusions and others are done because Einstein took the Lorentz transformation as being a correct mathematical relation, and because he didn’t understand what is an inertial force of the material body, and what is a gravitational force. From these not understandings appears the principle of the equivalence, and to be in accordance with it, the definition of the general principle of the relativity and finally the General relativity. All these conclusions I’d say are mistaken. The principal cause for this situation is the assumption that the light has a mass (m) and is put in the same category with the material bodies in respect to their motions, and the confusion done with the assumption that the inertial force is identical with the gravitational force and consequently with the gravitational field.
If anybody likes to see the inconsistency of the Einstein theory I advise to make a comparison between the three definitions of the principle of the relativity, (the Galilei definition and the two Einstein definitions). And finally to compare these definitions with the principle of the equivalence and with the conclusion that a coordinate system in accelerated motion relative to an inertial coordinate system can be considered as being an inertial system too.
12/08/2007.
EINSTEIN’S THREE CAPITAL MISTAKES
Mr. Retnec in a topic has written: “Everything which we accept as true must be consistent with all observations, and it must be mathematically viable”.
This is a very correct assessment and I’d like to use it as a reference. In this direction I’d like to mention only three Einstein’s modifications done in physics that do not respect this very consistent and real assessment.
1) Einstein replaced the Galilei’s transformation with the Lorentz transformation. 2) He changed the Galilei’s definition of the principle of the relativity with his general principle of the relativity. This obviously is done with the intention to be put in accordance with the Principle of the equivalence. 3) He emitted the Principle of the equivalence of the inertial force with the gravitational field.
My observations are the following:
1a) The Lorentz transformation is not a more general transformation relative to the Galilei transformation, but is an alternative errant solution. 2a) Einstein changed the definition of the principle of the relativity with the definition of the General Principle of the Relativity. These two definitions are contradictory. The Galilei’s definition says that the laws of the mechanics are identical only in inertial coordinate systems that are in a motion with constant speed and in a straight line, but the Einstein’s definition says that the laws of the “nature” are identical and in an accelerated coordinate system. By this we have a lot of additional paradoxes and hoaxes.
Obviously this modification is done with the aim to be put in accord his new definition of the principle of the relativity with the principle of the equivalence of the inertial forces with the gravitational field.
3a) The principle of the equivalence of the inertial forces with the gravitational field is emitted by a supposition that a chest placed in a large portion of the space where do not exist gravitational forces, shall be in a state of inertial motion according to the first law of the mechanics. But when an imaginary being pulls the chest, a man in the chest shall feel an inertial force which is similar with the force which we feel in a room at the earth as a result of the earth gravity.
To conclude by this that the principle of the equivalence is a correct assumption is an enormous misjudgment because this similarity appears as a result of the property of the gravitational force and the inertial force to act upon every atom of the mass. The inertial force is a reaction of the material body to the external forces trying to keep his kinetic energy constant, so it is a consequence of the law of conservation of the energy. The gravitational force is a force of attraction between two material bodies in distance. Evidently the principle of the equivalence is emitted with the aim to be put in accord with definition of the general principle of the relativity and to be saved the General relativity.
On the other hand I have said in a previous topic that we being in a train in accelerated motion we can’t say that the earth is in an accelerated motion and the train is staying, because it is not true. The train experiences the accelerate forces and not the earth. So we can’t use at all a coordinate system rigidly attached to a body, which is in a state of accelerated motion. If these three modifications done by Einstein could be properly understood, by physicists, the Einstein theory of the relativity could be thrown away and nobody would try to mend it partially. 14/01/2007
THE GENESIS OF THE FALSE THEORIES
-The enormous problems in physics appeared with the discovery of the light aberration by Bradley in the 17th century. He gave an exceptional explanation of this phenomenon by the use of the corpuscular theory of the light. He took the relation tng (phi)=v/c, as being valid in this case, where c, is the light speed and v, the linear speed of the earth evolving around the sun. By determining the angle (phi)=40,9s, he calculated from the above relation that c=303,000km/s. Obviously these results confirm perfectly the Galilei- Newton theory but the corpuscular theory wasn’t accepted at that time. -As the scientists were not satisfied with this explanation, they tried to explain the aberration by the point of view of the wavy theory of the light. Robert Young did this explanation in 1804. But he needed a material medium because the wavy phenomena as it is the case of the sound, can be transmitted only through a medium. In this way was supposed that in cosmos must exist the ether, a substance very fine with special properties. -Such a substance is not discovered until now but that doesn’t stop the scientists to continue the researches in this direction. -The biggest mess was done with the discovery of the Laurentz transformation, which introduced the abnormal conclusion of the contraction of the space and the time dilatation. -Einstein theory of the relativity accepts the Laurentz transformation as being a valid mathematical relation and emits the theory of the relativity. -The curious thing is that, both theories do not realize that this transformation is obtained by a poor supposition that the propagation of the light must be a wavy phenomenon! In Einstein theory of the relativity the wrong conclusions are enlarged and the space the time the mass and other, become relative notions. These conclusions evidently are errant, but many scientists accept Einstein theory of the relativity as being correct. -And all these conclusions are based on only one desire the assumption, that the propagation of the light must be a wavy phenomenon. But today is accepted the corpuscular theory about the propagation of the light as being a photonic flux and the photon representing a minimal quantity of energy. And this doesn’t matter. It is very strange but is the real situation in physics today. We have three theoies, the ether theory the theory of the relativity and the Galilei-Newton theory. Which of them is the right theory? This is the question that I try to clarify. 17/10/2007.
N WHAT RESPECT THE FOUNDATIONS OF CLASSICAL MECHANICS
ARE UNSATISFACTORY
In page 72 of his book Relativity, Einstein writes about the unsatisfactory foundations of the classical mechanics and of the special theory of the relativity the following:
“We have already stated several times that classical mechanics start out from the following law: Material particles sufficiently far removed from other material particles continue to move uniformly in a straight line or continue in state of rest. We have also repeatedly emphasized that this fundamental law can only be valid for bodies of reference K which possess certain unique states of motion, and which are in uniform translational motion relative to each other. Relative to other reference-bodies K’ the law is not valid. Both in classical mechanics and in the special theory of relativity we therefore differentiate between reference bodies K relative to which the recognized “laws of nature” can be said to hold, and reference-bodies K’ relative to which these laws do not hold. But no person whose mode of thought is logical can rest satisfied with this condition of things. He asks: “How does it come that certain reference-bodies (or their states of motion) are given priority over other reference-bodies, (or their state of motion)? What is the reason for this preference”? In order to show clearly what Einstein means by this question he makes a comparison with a gas range. He does a comparison between two panes put on a range. After seeing that under one of the panes is a bluish color for him becomes clear why the first pane omits steam. This comparison seems to be very strange because has nothing to do with inertial systems, but he continues: “Analogously, I seek in vain for a real something in classical mechanics (or in the special theory of the relativity) to which I can attribute different behavior of bodies considered with respect to the reference-systems K and K’. Newton saw this objection and attempted to invalidate it, but without success. But E. Mach recognized it most clearly of all, and because of this objection he claimed that mechanics must be placed on a new basis. It can be got by means of a physics which is conformable to the general principle of the relativity, since the equations of such a theory hold for every body of reference, whatever may be its state of motion”. My comments on that are:
1) The definition of the first law of the mechanics is purposely given by using the terms particles in place of the terms material bodies. 2) Is not true that the coordinate systems K posses certain unique states of motion but they being attached to material body which is in motion according to the first law of the mechanics they (the K systems) are respecting only the first law of the mechanics.
So in this case Einstein recognizing the first law of the mechanics as valid, and affirming that to the coordinate systems K and K’ he “can’t attribute different behavior of bodies” he shows that he needs to give the same behaviors to the coordinate systems K and K’ with the purpose to make possible the assumption of the principle of the equivalence of the inertial forces with the gravitational fields. This is the biggest mess done in his general relativity affirming that a man falling down toward the earth could consider that he is in a state of staying, that a body being in a state of accelerated motion or in a motion with constant speed is a same think, and practically there isn’t a difference between the first and the second laws of the mechanics. This is not far from the Aristotle who considered that the motion is a consequence of the action of force not making difference between the motion with constant speed and an accelerated motion. And he affirms that the Newton theory is a good approximation of his general relativity!!!
Here the problem is, how we can determine such coordinate systems K. Newton defined them as absolute and relative systems of coordinates and Einstein as Galileian systems of coordinates. But none of them showed how could we determine them. Galilei discovered the first law of the mechanics by using balls and inclinate plans at the earth surface and taking in consideration that here exist external forces, as there are the friction forces of the balls with the plan surface and the air resistance forces to the balls. Latter was discovered the large space in cosmos where do not exist gravitational forces and where the first law of the mechanics should hold perfectly. But this was a scientific catch and by this was created the vicious circle, which wasn’t resolved until now. Evidently there, in an inertial coordinate system K the material bodies should respect perfectly the first law of the mechanics but both theories couldn’t find such a system just because we can’t find a large portion of space where do not exist gravitational forces. Such a system is impossible to be determined but scientists continued trying to find it. In this direction was emitted the ether theory. But the experiment done by Michelson-Morley showed that the ether doesn’t exist. So Einstein being convinced that E. Mach recognizing most clearly of all claimed that the mechanics must be placed on a new basis. And Einstein concluded: “It can only be got rid of by means of a physics which is conformable to the general principle of relativity, since the equations of such a theory hold for every body of reference whatever may be its state of motion”. But whatever Einstein says here remains the feeling that he is trying to convince us that the new inadmissible metamorphosis of the principle of the relativity in “general principle of the relativity” is a good thing to be done, but it isn’t. With his general relativity he replaced the inertial force with a gravitational field and got a conclusion that the light rays are curbed in presence of a gravitational inertial field, thing that is not true. Another incorrectness is that he uses the term particles and not the usual term material bodies with the purpose to diminish the importance of the huge material bodies in the construction of the cosmos. 3) By using the name Galileian coordinate system, he offends Galilei and doesn’t honor him because he negates practically his theory and with the definition of this system he says nothing new in comparison with the Galilei-Newton absolute inertial system. This definition doesn’t say how can we determine a Galileian system of coordinates, but Einstein uses it ever and everywhere without problems. The principal question in this topic is, how can we determine a coordinate system in which, the first law of the mechanics, holds perfectly or approximately.
In my article, about the principle of the relativity, I gave the answer to this question, that the absolute inertial system defined by Newton is impossible to be determined, and I gave an explanation with the role that play the gravitational and inertial forces for the clarification of this question, by acting upon every atom of the mass. With that occasion I gave a new definition of the real coordinate inertial systems with the Galilei’s name. I hope that this definition being a real one, will remain as valid further and will honor the name of this man who first managed to do a revolution in physics by discovering the first law of the mechanics, showing by this that in cosmos everything is in motion.
2/12/2006.
THE RELATIVITY OF THE SIMULTANEITY.
Einstein considers that the relativity simultaneity is a basic argument for the assumption of his theory of the relativity.
For the demonstration of the relativity of the simultaneity Einstein gives an example with an embankment and a train, fig. 1.
A A1 M M1 B B1
\______I____I______I____I_______I____I______/--train
_______I___________I____I_______I____I_______
A B \--embankment
Fig.1
He supposes that has a coordinate system K1 attached to the embankment and K2 attached to the train. The train is in uniform motion with constant velocity (v to the right direction) fig.1.
Einstein asks: “Are the two events (e.g. the two strokes of lighting A and B) which are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment, are also simultaneous relatively to the train? And continues:
We shall show directly that the answer must be in the negative. When we say that the lighting strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length AB of the embankment. But the events A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M1 be the mid-point of the distance AB on the travelling train. Just when the flashes of lighting occur, this point M1 naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves toward the right of the diagram with the velocity (v) of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M1 in the train did not posses this velocity, then he would remain permanently at M and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i,e. they would meet just where he is situated.
Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who take the railway train as their reference body, must therefor come to the conclusion, that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A. We thus arrive at the important result: Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train and vice versa, (relativity of the simultaneity)”. This is what Einstein says. But Einstein has omitted something that is very important for his theory of the relativity. Namely he didn’t use the second principle of his theory of the relativity, which says that the speed of light is the same for both the systems of coordinates K1 and K2. If this was respected, then he should conclude that from the moment when the strokes appeared, at the two points A and B, the points M and M1 were at the same position, and the light signals should travel for the K1 (embankment) and K2 (train), coordinate systems, with the same speed (c) and the events should be simultaneous for both observers. But in this case he had to explain how is possible the photons who formed the front of the lights to meet one another at the same time in two different places of the space. In fact Einstein in his argumentation makes use of the principle of the relativity and consequently of the Galilei’s transformation which is used only verbally. This affirmation becomes clear by the following mathematical calculation: If we know the distance AB=A1B1=S, than the time past from the moment when the lights appeared at the points A and B until they reached the point M, in the coordinate system K1 is: t=S/2c The distance x that was past by the train after the time t is: : x=v*t=v*S/2c
So the light that started from the point B started at the same time from the point B1 who now is displaced with the distance x toward the right part. This light has past a bigger distance MB1 than the light that comes from the point A1 who has past the distance A1M. Because of that the observer from the train should calculate the following times:
t(AM1)=(S/2+x)/c=(S/2+v*S/2c)/c=S/2c(1+v/c)=t(1+v/c) …..(1) t(M1B)=(S/2-x)/c=(S/2-v*S/2c)/c=S/2c(1-v/c)=t(1-v/c) ……..(2)
We have these results in the supposition that the speed of light is c=300000km/s in the coordinate system K1.
From the above relations is evident that for the light which is coming from the point B1, is needed a bigger time t(K2)>t(K1)=t and for the left light which is coming from the point A1 is needed a smaller time t(K2)<t(K1)=t. This shows that the way in which Einstein has demonstrated the relativity of simultaneity is not correct and is in contradiction just with his theory. So everything is against Einstein’s theory of the relativity and the affirmation that the relativity of the simultaneity is one of the Einstein’s fundamental arguments for the adoption of his theory of the relativity is not correct. Let us analyze this phenomenon in a different way. By what we have said until now is evident that Einstein uses the light as a mean for the determination of the simultaneity. Let us make use of another mean for this determination. We can suppose that the two lightings are a consequence of two thunders, and they made two marks at the rails of the railway. If the distance AB measured at the railway, is equal with the distance between the two axis of the wheels of the train, then we can say that the two events which appeared at the two points A and B are absolutely simultaneous for both the systems of coordinates, attached to the train and to the embankment. So we can conclude that the time (t) that had past from the moment when the lights started from the points A and B and reached the point M, makes possible to appear an error in the assessment of the simultaneity of the two events. And the same we can conclude that Einstein in his description uses the light as method for the determination of the simultaneity of the two events, and nothing more. Trying to conclude that there is a law of the nature, the relativity of the simultaneity, simply is not true.
In this explanation is evident that the light method introduces an error which is given by the rapport (v/c), that has a negligible value in relations (1) and (2). 3/03/2007.
WHICH IS CORRECT AND WHICH IS AN APROXIMATION THE GALILEI RANSFORMATION (GT) OR THE L0RENTZ TRANSFORMATION (LT)
This question is very important and I believe that is not clarified. For this purpose let us take the known relations from the Lorentz transformation:
t1= (t2)/R…..(1) and the inverse relation, t2=(t1)/R….(2).
If we like to respect the mathematical rules we can write their inverse relations:
t2=(t1).R….(3) and t1=(t2).R …….(4).
These relations (3) and (4), are in contradiction with the LT but if we do not consider them as valid, evidently the LT will be in contradiction with the elementary mathematical rules and because of that it violates the principle of the invariance of the laws of the physics . On the other hand for the GT, the corresponding relation is:
t1=t2=t….(5). We can see that: (t2)/R>t>(t2)*R…(6).
Where R=(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5. On the other hand, in the nature the biggest possible speed is the linear speed of the earth rotating around the sun, v=30km/s. So the rapport (v/c)^2=1/10^8. This is a difference so small that could be neglected, putting v/c=0. This can be obtained and if c=(infinite), but that is in contradiction with the principle c=300,000km/s. So remains the approximation v/c=0, as being a possible approximation. The inequality (6) in this case shows that the Lorentz transformation is an approximation of the Galilei transformation because the shifts of the mistakes of the Lorentz transformation are symmetrically situated relative to the (t) given by the Galilei transformation. That shows that is mistaken the conclusion done by Einstein, that the Lorentz transformation is a more general transformation. This conclusion is absolutely correct because the relation (6) is obtained by the use of the relations (1) and (4) from the LT, and the relation (5), which is obtained from the GT. There is evident that the relations (1) and (4) are shifted in one side and in the other side of the value given by the correct GT. Out of that there is not taken in to account the principal relation, t1=(t2+v.x2/c^2)/R of the LT which differs from the relations (1,2,3, and 4) and evidently gives different results too. And this more complicated relation determined Einstein to speak about frames and to abandon the term coordinate system.
This means that now is abandoned the use of the coordinate systems and in the use of the frames is not respected the condition that the Lorentz transformation can be used only for motions in a straight line. Such an example is the rotating disc relative to an inertial coordinate system where is concluded that the known formula for the determination of the perimeter of the disc (circle) isn’t valid. Absolutely and this case is an evidence of violation of the principle of the invariance. And is very important to mention that a frame is not equivalent with a coordinate system with which we can determine the motion of a material body by using the Newton laws.
This means that just the Lorentz transformation x1=(v*t2+x2)/R is not correct to be used as x1=v*t/R and t1=t2/R for the description of the motion of the material bodies. 11/6/2007
A REAL NEW GENERAL TRANSFORMATION
Is the Lorenz transformation more general transformation then Galilei transformation?
Einstein considers that the Lorenz transformation is more general relative to the Galilei transformation because by making (c) tending to infinite he obtains the Galilei transformation.
I will show a new transformation that will contain the both of them:
x1=(1/R) (x2+v2.t2) ………………(1) x2=(1/R)(x1-v1.t1)………….(3) t1=(1/R)[t2+x2.v^(2n-1)/c^2n]…..(2) t2=(1/R)[t1-x1.v^(2n-1)/c^2n] ……(4)
R=sqrt[1-v^2n/c^2n].
It is understandable that this transformation is not more useful than the Lorenz transformation but it shows that the Lorenz transformation is so far from the Galilei transformation that excludes every possibility to believe that the Galilei’s transformation is a partial case of the Lorenz transformation. This is visible from the fact that the Lorenz and the Galilei transformations are both a partial case of this more general transformation. For n=1, we obtain the Lorenz transformation, but for n=(infinite) we obtain the Galilei transformation. For all the values of the parameter (n=2.3.4 ……etc), we obtain transformations that give values in the calculation for space and time, situated between the two values given by Lorenz and Galilei transformations. This shows that the two transformation being so far between them they ever give different results, except for the case v=0, when we can’t have a motion between the two coordinate systems. The conclusion that the Lorenz transformation is more general then the Galilei transformation and because of that the Galilei transformation is an approximation of the Lorenz transformation is a false conclusion, because:
1) The used argument, (c) tends to the infinite for this purpose is in contradiction with the principle of the constancy of the light speed (c=300,000km/s). 2) In this more general transformation both of them, the Laurentz transformation and the Galilei transformation are a particular cases and this once again contradicts the Einstein conclusion. So the final conclusion can be that these transformations are different transformations and only one of them can be a correct transformation. 16/10/2006
WHY THE LENGTH IS SHORTENING IN EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
This question is very often reopened in many discussions, and still is not clarified. In fact the answer is that according to LT the length increases in a relative motion with constant speed and in a straight line. Here is the explanation: If the LT for length is:
x1=(vt2+x2)/R …..(1)
For two systems of coordinates K1 attached to the earth and K2 attached to a train then for a distance of 1m in the K2 we should have: x’2-x”2=1m. The corresponding distance at the k1 should be:
x’1-x”1=(vt’2+x’2+)/R-(vt”2+x”2)/R=(x’2-x”2)/R=1m/R. Where R=[1-(v/c)^2]^0,5. In this calculus I put the time t’2=t”2, because the length of the rode is known in the coordinate system K2 and we like to find out through the LT which is the length seen from the coordinate system K1.
So because (R<1) the length calculated with the LT becomes bigger for the observer situated in K1. This question was discussed in the past and was given an errant argument that the length must be considered simultaneously in the system K1. But if we take this argument as valid then we haven’t 1m in the system K2 which was the primary supposition that we have put a length of 1m there. This result is the only valid result if we like to use the LT for the determination of the length when we know it in K2. When we know the length in K1 than we have to make use of the inverse LT relation:
x2=(x1-vt1)/R. …..(2)
The LT is the cause why we can’t have simultaneity in both systems of coordinates because by the definition of this transformation we have two times in it, t1 and t2.
A remark is very important in this case. In Einstein theory of the relativity is assumed the conclusion that the length is shortening by the use of the LT. Evidently this conclusion is errant. This errant conclusion appears because there is done
confusion between the measurements of the length in a moving system of coordinates K2 and the process of observing that length from the system K1. In reality the confusion consist on the fact that trying to determine the length in the system K2 there they put the condition of the simultaneity of the measurement in K1, which is very strange because the rod is situated in K2.If the rod is in K1 then isn’t necessary to use the LT for the measurement of this length using the LT. Finally the mistake is done by the use in fact the inverse relation (2) in a more complicated way and not the relation (1) shown in this article. And of course, there is not logic to say that by making the v tends toward infinite we obtain a mass of the rod infinite and length zero. 2007/12/6
EVENTS AND FRAMES OR COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND
MOTION OF MATERIAL BODIES
I’d ask, what is a frame? According to the Oxford Advanced Dictionary a frame means: 1) Skeleton or main structure. 2) Border of wood or other material in which a picture, photograph, window or door is enclosed or set, etc. 3) v. Put together, shape, builds up. 4) Put a frame round, enclose in a frame. 5) Develop; give promise of developing, etc. Here is nothing in common with a coordinate system. What is a coordinate system? A coordinate system is composed of three coordinates x, y, and z, which are perpendicular to each other and have a common origin (0). This system allows an univoqe representation of every point m1, of the space with three coordinates x1, y1, z1, and allows the use of the analytic geometry, with which can be represented analytically the motion of the material bodies and other functions.
So, why in Einstein theory of the relativity is preferred the term frame for a coordinate system? Is this done for better clarification of the phenomena about which they speak? Absolutely it isn’t the case. On the other hand there is used the term events, for the application of the Lorentz Transformation, and not the normal term material body. By this appears a very strange situation where is spoken only about light phenomena and not about the motion of the material bodies. So the Newton laws are not used as if they do not exist. By this could be said that the term “laws of the nature” is not a larger notion because contains only one law, the law of the propagation of the light in vacuum. Important is that in the case of the use of the frame is neglected the fact that a frame is resulted from the LT, using the short expression,
x1=(vt2)/R which is obtained by making x2=0, and is not respected the condition that the LT is valid only for a straight line motion. Why is not assumed that the laws of mechanics do not appertain to the domain of explanations of the Einstein theory of the relativity? In fact this is the reality in all this mess done in physics.
On the other hand is ignored and the Lorentz transformation.
Is use the LT in shorter forms as there are defined the relativity of the time and of the length and the complete form x1=(vt2+x2)/R for the definition of the relativity of the mass, that are so different forms.
Who is loosing and who is getting from this situation is not clear.
14/02/2007.
HAT THE GALILEI PRINCIPLE OF THE RELATIVITY SAYS INDIRECTLY
From the definition of the principle of the relativity we can get some very important conclusions, which can be used for the clarification of the errant suppositions done by Einstein on the foundation of the G.R. The definition done by Galilei says: all the laws of the mechanics are identical in the coordinate systems that are moving in a straight line and with constant speed. From this definition results indirectly that the laws of the mechanics are not identical in coordinate system which are in the following states of motion:
1) In coordinate systems which are rotating relative to the far stars. 2) In coordinate systems which are in an accelerated motion and in a right line direction relative to an inertial system of coordinates. An example of the first case is the coordinate system attached to the earth surface. We can’t study the motion of the sun and the planets by this coordinate system because of the rotation of this system relative to the far stars. But we can study the motion of the material bodies in a horizontal plan. The second case is of a greater importance, and I’d like to analyze it through an example.
Let us suppose that we are in a cabin of a train in accelerated motion. If we let a stone to fall down freely in the cabin, the stone will not fall in a vertical direction but will fall backwardly. If the train is braking down the stone will fall down in a forward direction. If the train will be in a uniform motion with constant speed, the stone will fall down vertically, and if the train will stay at the earth the stone falls again vertically. Why it is so? It is so, because the earth surface is in an inertial motion for a horizontal plan. The motion of the train is the same an inertial motion when it goes with a constant speed relative to the earth. This comparative conclusion is done accordingly to the Galilei principle of the relativity. But in the accelerated train, the stone at the moment we let it free, it started to respect the coordinate system attached to the earth, by continuing his motion with the speed that hade at that moment. The train being in accelerated motion, the stone relatively to the train remains backwardly. This experiment shows clearly that an accelerated coordinate system can’t be used for the description of the motion of the inertial bodies. The material bodies simply being let free in it do not respect such a system. Einstein by assuming the principle of the equivalence of the inertial force with the gravitational field didn’t respect jus the Galilei principle of the relativity. And to avoid any discussions about this, he was obligated to change and the definition of this principle. In his GR the definition of the general principle of the relativity is: All Gaussian coordinate systems are essentially equivalent for the formulation of the general laws of the nature. In this definition are very strange and confused the following formulations:
- Gaussian coordinate system (is it the differential equation?), -Essentially equivalent systems, (what is nonessential system in opposite to this), -the general laws of the nature (which are the general laws and which are the particular laws of the nature?). All these formulations are very vague.
So, in this situation the only right conclusion is, that if we exclude these three mistaken modifications done by Einstein, remains nothing of the general relativity.
That is why I have concluded in a previous topic that the Einstein theory of the relativity, special and general, must be criticized in its basic suppositions and not in its conclusions that are impossible to be experimentally proved as valid.
28/01/2007
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE EWQUIVALENCE
The principle of the equivalence is based on the equality of the inertial mass and of the gravitational mass. This is a mistaken supposition because of the following arguments:
In physics we can have the following cases of motion for a material body in present of different forces:
1) The case when an external mechanical force pulls a chest “upward” in a portion of space where do not exist gravitational forces. 2) The case when a gravitational force pulls the chest “downward”. 3) The case when a mechanical force pulls the chest upward in present of the gravitational force of the earth. 4) The case when the chest rotates around the earth as a satellite
Because what feels a man in the chest is taken by Einstein as a criterion for the definition of the principle of the equivalence there is important to see what feels the man in every of these four cases.
1a) At the first case the man in the chest feels the inertial force as if he is staying in his room at the earth, and because of that is concluded, that the inertial force, which appears in the chest, is equivalent with the gravitational field at the earth. But the reality is this: if we note the external mechanical force which pulls the chest with a force Fe, the mass of the chest with M and the mass of the man with m then according to the third law of the mechanics we can write the relation of the forces which appear there:
Fe=-M*a-m*a.
The sign minus shows that the inertial force of the chest Fc=(M*a), and the inertial force of the man. Fm=(m*a), act in opposite direction relative to the external mechanical force Fe. In this case we can only conclude that the force felt by man is a consequence of the reaction of the mechanical force transmitted to his body by the chest. The man does not feel the inertial force, which appears at the man’s body. 2a) At the second case, the chest is pulled downward toward the earth by the gravitational force of the earth. The man in the chest doesn’t feel any force. Can we say that in this case do not exist any force because the man doesn’t feel any? Surely not. The relation that we can write according to the third law of the mechanics is: Fg=k*M’*(M+m)/r^2=-a(M+m)=-Fi. Where M’ is the earth mass. So in this case, we get: g=k*M’/r^2=-a. Results that the forces that act upon the man are: the gravitational and the inertial forces Fgm and Fim. Fgm=g.m=-Fim=-a.m.
So upon the man act two opposite forces the gravitational end the opposed to it the inertial force. Because both of these forces act upon every atom of the man’s body, he as a conscientious being doesn’t feel their actions. A similar equilibrium of forces exists and for the chest and because of that the speed of the man and the chest being equal, between the man and the chest do not act any force. That is why the man doesn’t feel any force falling downward with the chest. If the man is in his room at the earth he seems the mechanical force acting on his feet and not the gravitational force of the earth. If he stays on one foot the mechanical force acts only upon this foot, if he changes that foot he will feel the mechanical force acting upon that foot. Of course the mechanical force is equal with the gravitational force but the man can’t feel the gravitational force. This phenomenon can be explained if we take in account what feels a man when he is lying in a pool of water. The man almost doesn’t feel any force acting upon his body. But according to Archimedes principle he is pushed upward by the pressure of the water and is obtained equilibrium of the two forces. But the force resulted from the pressure of the water is a mechanical force. 3a) At the third case, a mechanical force pulls up the chest and the man. The man in the chest feels two forces acting upon him. So we can write the following relation: If the external force is Fe, the mass of the chest is M and the mass of the man m, according to the third law of the mechanics we can write the relation:
Fe=-m(g+a)-M(g+a). The man feels the force: Fm=m(a+g). This is the case when a rocket brings a man in the chest in an orbit of the earth. So in this case we can’t say that is similar with the situation when he is sitting in a chair in his home.
4a) At the fourth case, the chest with the man is rotating around the earth, as a satellite. The man doesn’t feel any force acting upon him. Can we say that there do not exist any force when the chest changes his direction from a straight line in a circular way? Of course not.
In this case there are two forces the centripetal equal with the earth’s gravitational force at that distance and the centrifugal inertial forces, of the chest and the man. These forces act separately upon the chest and the man that means that the chest and the man are every one of them, as a separate satellite of the earth and being in a same distance from the centre of the earth they evolve in a same orbit. The principle of the equivalence of the inertial force with the gravitational field is based only on the first case. The other cases are not taken in consideration. That is the cause why many people can’t explain the phenomenon of the free falling down toward the earth with the aid of the Einstein relativity.
But can we accept the first case as being correct? Absolutely, not. There is done the biggest blunder in physics because the inertial force is an interior force of the material body, which ever is opposing to the external force, which pulls the chest upward.
The chest opposes with his inertial force to the external mechanical force and in the same time, and the body of the man opposes to the chest that transmits the external force toward the man. So the force, which appears between the man and the chest, is a mechanical force, and not a gravitational force. A gravitational force is created only by a gravitational field and is ever an external force. The inertial force doesn’t appear without the existence of an external force being it a mechanical or a gravitational force. This is a consequence of the law of conservation of the kinetic energy and is done in accord with the third law of the mechanics. The two forces are equal because the energy transmitted by the gravitational field is equal with kinetic energy got by the material body. On the other hand the gravitational forces and the inertial forces act upon every atom of the material body, and Einstein used just this property mistakenly for the definition of the principle of the equivalence.
It is necessary to say that the principle of the equivalence stays as a base for the generalization of the Galilei principle of the relativity. But more problematic is the conclusion that by changing the definition of the principle of the relativity he concludes, that an accelerated coordinate system can be considered as being an inertial coordinate system. Out of that he assumes, that the gravitational forces act upon the light rays.
A light ray being composed of photons that haven’t mass can’t be attracted by a gravitational field. Without the determination of his mass we can’t apply for it the law of the universal attraction for example. We can’t apply the second law of the mechanics too, with out knowing the mass of the photon. All these questions are very important and we can’t ignore them.
As a final conclusion of this article results that, whenever the cause of the motion is a mechanical force we are able to feel the reaction of the inertial force. This is explicable by the fact that the mechanical force acts concentrated in one side of our body and we feel practically the mechanical force and not the inertial force, which acts, upon our body. When the gravitational force is that who determines the motion we can’t feel any force acting upon our body. I have used this property of the gravitational forces and the inertial forces for the explanation of the existence of the limited inertial coordinate systems in our vicinity and the validity of the Galileian principle of the relativity at the earth surface. In this way was solved the vicious circle that was created with the discovery of the first law of the mechanics by Galileo Galilei.
17/07/007.
IS EVERYTHING RELATIVE?
As a consequence of the apparition of the Einstein relativity we have the general conclusion that everything is relative. A long time ago I tried to find out if the truth is relative and I was simply surprised that this sentence is without a real contain. And really according to the Einstein theory of the relativity results that the time, the length, the mass etc, are relative sizes but the speed (v) is not for example a relative notion. And there are a lot of other notions that can’t be considered as being relative too. This is the cause why I started to analyze the content of the principle of the relativity. The result was the following article about the relativity as being a method of asking the truth by analyzing all the comparative notions. By the application of this theory is visible that all the unclear cases in science appear because of the impossibility to be determined the micro infinites and the macro infinities in physics and mathematics. Because of that I give the biggest importance to this article that shows what is possible and what is impossible to know in science. This theory is very similar with the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle that says that we can’t measure accurately the position and the speed of the particles at the present time in cosmos. But my article treats more general these phenomena by replacing the term uncertainty with the term impossibility. The difference is enormous because it says not only what we measure erroneously but also what we can’t know, we can’t determine, and what is impossible for us to determine at all. And it says why the Einstein relativity is errant at least for the description of the motion of the material bodies. And of course it shows that everything in the nature is absolute, that means that for everything exists only one truth, the absolute truth. This means that the relativity considered as a theory of the comparability is valid for all sciences. But to our disappointment we in many cases can’t determine the absolute truth.
THE RELATIVITY IS A METHOD OF ASKING THE TRUTH.
(THE PRINCIPLE OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY)
It isn’t difficult to remark, that Einstein has taken the word relativity from the Galilei principle of the relativity. Because of that it is important to have a look, what is doing with this principle. We can see in fact that Galilei makes a comparison between two systems of coordinates, K1 and K2 and concludes what kind of mathematical expression will have the laws of the mechanics in K1 if we know what kind they have in K2 and inverse.
The condition that must be fulfilled in this comparison is that we have to know that at least one of the two coordinate systems must be an inertial system. That means that he makes a comparison and finds out a truth: that the laws of the mechanics are identical in both inertial systems of coordinates. By this we can generalize and realize that we practically in our lives do similar comparisons with all the comparative notions about which we have learned in grammatica. All these notions we can divide in three groups: 1) Notions that represent multitudes of natural elements. For example, 12 birds, 6 cars, 5 fingers. The words bird, car, finger are in this case units of counting.
2) Notions that are contained in the technical system, (MKS). When we say that a building is high 60m,we do make in fact a comparison between the building’s height and the length of the meter. In this way we obtain a truth. But in this case we can have a unit of measurement, a meter in hands and we know what is it. If we now like to do a comparison between the coordinate systems K1 and K2 with this case and take K1 similar with the building and K2 with the meter, we shall have a clear picture about what happens with the systems K1 and K2. We have supposed that the systems K1 and K2 are inertial system of coordinates. But we can’t determine such a coordinate system, as it is defined by Newton, and we can’t repeat again such a determination. This is a substantial difference between the determination of the building’s height and the determination of the absolute or a relative to it coordinate system. 3) Comparative notions without units of measurement. For example: we say, that this man is a very wise man. But we haven’t any unit of measurement for the wisdom and we can’t have it.
This song is more beautiful than the former one. And in this case the truth is very unclear, because there is not any unit of measurement. In all three groups we obtain some kind of truth. What can we say about this truth taking in consideration the preciseness with which we can determine it?
In the first group when we count natural elements we obtain an absolute truth because there is no mistake, five fingers evidently are five fingers. In the second group when we say the building has 60m, both the meter and the height of the building can’t be measured with an absolute preciseness, because the absolute preciseness for the meter is 1+_0 and for the building is 60+_0 tolerances. Because the measurement is done comparatively to the meter we can say that it is done relatively to the meter and let us name it relative truth. In this case we can’t obtain the absolute truth that really exists, but the relative truth that represents a good approximation of the absolute truth. And that happens for all sizes of the metric system. Out of that for the biggest values of every size we cant determine a relative truth but a subjective truth. For example, we can’t measure the infinity of the universe wit a meter. So we have a lot of situations when we are not capable to find out an absolute truth. It is visible that all these situations are caused by the existence of the micro infinity, as there is the case of the determination of building’s height and the macro infinity in the case of the determination of the infinity of the cosmos. We can change nothing, so is the world constructed. If we take a point in a straight line at the plan and note it with (0), how can we determine the next nearest point if the points are defined as circles with diameters zero? And we can’t determine a finite number of points because we shall have 0*n=0. But we will not have such difficulties with a finite number of golf balls for example. In the third group when the notion hasn’t unit of measurement the truth is a subjective truth. For example, about the assessment of the wisdom of a man every body takes his wisdom as “unite” of measurement. But how well somebody could assess his wisdom? It is evident that an absolute truth exists and in this case but it is the same unavailable and impossible to be determined and is available only the subjective truth that is a rough approximation of the absolute truth. All these cases allow us to affirm that everything in the nature is absolute and not relative as has concluded Einstein. And this is the cause why I affirm that Einstein has done an upside-down situation in physics. So we can say now that the principle of the relativity is not a law of the nature but a method of finding out the truth in the nature, and it has as mathematical expression the Galilei transformation. Let us conclude that: only the absolute truth exists in the nature and it is independent of our will.
So, taking in consideration the above analyses, we can do the following conclusions: 1) For the multitudes composed of natural elements, we can determine the absolute truth. 2) For the sizes of the MKS system, we can determine the relative truth and for the infinite values only the subjective truth.
3) For the comparative notions with out units of measurement we can determine only the subjective truth.
This is all that we can say about the real relativity. It seems to be extreme simple but has an enormous possibility for explanation of many difficult problems in science. In the next pages I will give some clarifications about cases in science where exist dubious situations using these conclusions.
MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS
In mathematics scientists, work usually with the absolute truth and all the mathematical formulas are based on the absolute truth. For example the surface of a triangle is obtained by the formula: S=a.h/2 and gives the absolute truth if (a) and (h) are given as being known with the absolute truth. But in physics in spite of the fact that there are used the mathematical formulas in the previous case (a) and (h), have to be measured and they can’t be taken in the absolute form of the truth. In mathematics just in the case when we have a sum of micro infinites can be found out as a value that represents an absolute truth. Such a case is when in superior mathematics we like to calculate the surface which is placed between the function, y= (b/a)*x, and the abscise of a plan coordinate system (y,x.). The surface will be the integration (S), for (y*dx) for (x=0 to x= a):
Q=S(b/a).xdx= (b/a)(x^2)/2 =(b/a)(a^2)/2-0=ab/2…for (x=0, until x=a)
Where x=a, and y=b are the coordinates until which is calculated the surface. For mathematicians the infinite small values and the infinite big values are considered as clear notions, but if you will ask them, what is an infinite small value will get an answer, arbitrary small value, which clarifies no more the situation. In this case the infinite small value is represented by the term (dx). This quantity is so small that if we multiply it with any number the produce remains the same an infinite small number. So the term, (b/a)xdx, is the same an infinite small number. And the operation of integration makes a sum of an infinite number of such small quantities to give the exact formula, as we know it from the Euclidean geometry. And Einstein and other scientists criticize this geometry!! A similar situation is with the number zero when we refer it to a size, as it is a distance for example. Many people ask themselves how is possible 1/(infinite)=0 and in the same time
10000/(infinite)=0. This result appears because we can’t determine the infinite number and for that we consider that the division between every finite number and the infinite number gives zero. By this we can see that an infinite small value is very close to the number zero, but isn’t equal with it. There exists vicinity around the number zero which is impossible to be known. That could be explained with the fact that by the point of view of the physics we can’t know how big or small are the macro infinity and the micro infinity.
EUCLID AND LOBACHEVSKI.
One of the most characteristic confusions in mathematics is the critic done by the Russian mathematician Lobachevski referred to the 5th postulate of the Euclidean geometry. Euclid is considered the father of the geometry. In spite of the huge time difference between their livings Euclid is in principle right. But so far the question is considered unsolved, as it is the case and with Einstein’s relativity theory. Euclid’s definition of the 5th postulate says that to a straight line on the plan we can draw only one parallel line from an external point A. But, Lobachevski says that there could be drawn an infinite number of parallel lines. The definition of the parallel lines says: two right lines are parallel if they do not cut one another if we prolong them as much as we like. Here the term “as much as we like” means infinite practically. That means that there is impossible to determine if two right lines are parallel or not by the aid of this definition. Lobachevski has exploited this feeble part of the definition and said that is possible to be drawn an infinite number of parallel lines. Because of that he decided to create a new geometry, which some authors compare the effort done by him with the effort done by Einstein creating his theory of the relativity. But his definition is not totally correct because he uses a macroinfinite term in his definition. This leads us to a subjective form of the truth that enabled Lobachevski to use it in errant manure.
So we can conclude that there is a need to be changed the definition given by Euclid and to have the following content: Two straight lines are parallel if being cut by a third line make adjacent angles equal one to another. We will always do an error when we try to draw a parallel line to an existing line with this definition, but the error will appertain to the group of notions where we can find out the relative truth where we have a good approximation of the absolute truth. A similar critic to the Euclidean geometry makes Einstein in his book, Relativity. He affirms that through two points in the plan can be drawn an infinite number of straight lines. But we have seen that the two chosen points every one of them has an infinite number of neighbor points, which we can’t determine. That is a micro infinity. And if we say that can take a point from one infinity of neighbor points we can say the same that we can consider that through every point of this infinity of points, passes only one line. So it is evident that this critic is the same a confusion. Surely there are and another problems like these in mathematics and physics, but freely we can conclude that all they can be explained with the existence of the micro infinities and macro infinities. Such an example could be the infinity of the cosmos. We can’t know how big is the cosmos. But Einstein gave a strange assessment that it isn’t infinite but is unbounded. This is an absurd sentence, but being said by Einstein is accepted as being real.
A similar situation is with the sum of two segments: AB+BC =BC. Einstein say that it is not correct relation. This conclusion is a consequence of the Lorentz transformation that is easily to be seen that is errant. In physics are tendencies to create theories about everything or theories that will unite all the laws of the nature, or all the forces in the nature. Einstein managed in this direction to find out that in the term, all laws of the nature, to be contained only one law, the law of the constancy of the light speed. How will find out other authors the content in terms like, everything and all the forces and phenomena in the nature, remains to be seen in the future. So far we where treating problems which appertain in the second group of the comparative notions. Problems of the first group we haven’t, evidently because there we haven’t difficulties of determining the absolute truth. Vancouver. 14/03/2007.
INTRODUCTION IN SOCIOLOGY
The content of this work generally speaking could be divided in three different parts. Until now was treated the Einstein theory of the relativity in the following two parts.
1) In the first part are given a lot of evident examples and arguments about the errant Einstein’s theory of the relativity. The conclusion that results as a consequence of this part is, that only the Galilei-Newton theory is valid for the description of the mechanical phenomena in the nature. 2) Trying to clarify what the relativity is, and especially what is the principle of the relativity, there is obtained a new concept about the relativity as a method of asking the truth for all the comparative notions and the Principle of the impossibility. This theory enables to be clarified in a new manner the principal unclear cases in science referred to the Euclidean plan geometry, and once again this theory gives clear explanations about the invalidity of the Einstein’s theory of the relativity. And the most important think is that this theory gives a clear explanation about all cases, which appear in science, about which the men can’t discover the real truth, the absolute truth. Everything that I have published about these two points is referred to the physics and mathematics. 3) The third part of this work represents a complete new philosophical concept based on the principle of the impossibility about the life in the human society. It takes in consideration the new concept of the relativity, as a method of asking the truth, the Darwin’s three laws about the life in our planet earth, the law of the both sized consensus and the two model-laws based on the theory of the automate regulation. In this part is given a complete new explanation of the questions, why all the societies until now where instable and disappeared in some period of time. The model-law of the leading gives a clear explanation about the notions political and economical stability of the society.
As a general conclusion I can say that in this part of the work is talking about a new kind of motion. So if in the first part we were talking about the inertial-dynamic motion, in this part we can say that we are talking about the logical motion, which is described by the models of the automate regulation. I am aware that all this work will be accepted with big reserves and suspicions but in the same time I am convinced that this is the truth about the nature and about the human society and because of that I feel myself obliged to publish it. I believe that this work will do an enormous change in the way of peoples’ thinking about their role in society.
In reality about this part of my work I started to think in 1981 when became clear to me, that the socialism is dieing. Incidentally I put to me a question that had to make me a hobby, which lasts until now, trying to explain everything that was in connection with that question. To me was clear that the socialist society was incapable to organize the people properly and logically by the point of view of obtaining a normal productivity. And this happened because there existed a big anarchy in the domain of the leading in factories and in state. And I clearly accused in my mind the leaders, about the existence of this situation. Because, they were the men who where fighting in socialist revolutions for the “liberation of their people”. And they didn’t manage to resist and avoid the attraction of the corruption and the light life. So the big question was: why these men were capable to risk their lives in the course of the revolutions and were not capable to reject the corrupted money and why they didn’t like to work properly. By considering that they were not different of other people I admitted that there should exist an exterior cause about this phenomenon, and not an inner property which could allow to conclude they were different of others. After four years I reached the Darwin’s law of the adaptability to the medium in which we live, and the strange conclusion, that the history is done not by leaders, not by people but by this Darwin’s law. A better complication I couldn’t imagine.
Evidently this is a contradictory conclusion with the simple logic, because people are they who do the revolutions they are the constructors of everything in the human society and I have to accept that strange conclusion! The exit from this situation was the notion truth. The truth is that who determines the people to do revolutions. But the errant truth determines them to act in an errant way. It seemed that I found the right answer but I had to show what is the truth. And as Einstein was for me then, the biggest scientist in the world, I wrought: because everything is relative and the truth is relative. And just this answer was not satisfactory for me. Then I started to analyze the Principle of the relativity. It was January 1985 when I concluded that the Einstein theory of the relativity is errant and first by concluding that the Galilei principle of the relativity is a rule for the determination of the truth for the comparative notions. In this way I first discovered the Principle of the impossibility and after that I discovered all the errant assumptions done by Einstein in his theory of the relativity. It was a long journey in science, which brought me to defend the Galilei-Newton mechanics and after that to the defense of the Darwin theory against K Marx theory about the dialectic materialism. So in these next articles I defend in reality Darwin against Marx. Because of that I repeat the article about the Principle of the impossibility.
THE RELATIVITY AS METHOD OF ASKING THE TRUTH
(THE PRINCIPLE OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY)
This part is the same with that of the physics and I use it here because I need to speak about the third group of the comparative notion for which we haven’t units of measurement. And by the use of this method we can see why in sociology was done the big mistake by Marx when he accepted the plan economy as being a good conclusion. So there was said: It is not difficult to be seen that Einstein has taken the word relativity from the Galilei principle of the relativity. Because of that it is very important to see, what is said with this principle. After an attentive analyses, we could see in fact that Galilei makes a comparison between two systems of coordinates, K1 and K2, and concludes what mathematical expression will have the laws of the mechanics in K1 if we know what expression they have in K2 and inverse. In fact, he makes a comparison and finds out a truth: that the laws of the mechanics are identical in both of them. This shows that in this case, the principle of the relativity is practically, a rule for asking the truth. By this we can generalize and realize that we in our lives do similar comparisons with all the comparative notions about which we have learned in grammar, when we try to measure them or to do an appreciation. All these notions we can divide in three groups:
1) Notions that represent multitudes of natural elements. For example, 12 birds, six cars, five fingers. The words bird, car, finger are in this case units of counting. 2) Notions that are contained in technical system (MKS). When we say that a building is high 60m,we do make in fact a comparison between the building’s height and the length of the meter. In this way we obtain a truth. It is important to mention, that in this case we can have a unit of measurement, a meter in our hands well determined and can buy another if we like. If we now like to do a comparison between the coordinate systems K1 and K2 with this case and take K1 similar with the building and K2 with the meter, we shall have a clear imagine about the similarity between the two proceedings.
But in the case of the principle of the relativity we have to know that at least one of the two systems K2 or K1 is an absolute system of coordinates. But we can’t determine that, and can’t repeat again such a determination as we can do with the meter. This is a substantial difference and is impossible to be overdone. 3) Comparative notions without units of measurement. For example: we say, that this man is a very wise man. But we haven’t any unit of measurement for the wisdom and we can’t have it.
This song is more beautiful than the former one. And in this case the truth is very unclear, because there is not any unit of measurement. In all three groups we obtain some kind of truth. What can we say about this truth taking in consideration the preciseness with which we can determine it?
- In first group when we count natural elements we obtain an absolute truth because there is no mistake, five fingers evidently are five fingers.
- In the second group when we say the building has 60m, both the meter and the height of the building can’t be measured with an absolute preciseness, because the absolute preciseness for the meter is 1m+_0 and for the building is 60m+_0 tolerances. Because the measurement is done comparatively to the meter we can say that it is done relatively to the meter and let us name it relative truth. - In this case we can’t obtain the absolute truth that really exists, but the relative truth, which represents a good approximation of the absolute truth. And this happens for all the sizes of the metric system. - Out of that, for the biggest values of every size we cant determine a relative truth but a subjective truth. For example, we can’t measure the infinity of the universe wit a meter. So we have a lot of situations when we are not capable to find out an absolute truth. It is visible that all these are caused by the existence of the micro infinities and the macro infinities. We can change nothing in this direction, such is constructed the world. Let us have a better explanation about all that. - If we take a point in a right line at the plan and note it with (0), how can we determine the next nearest point if the points are defined as circles with diameters zero? And we can’t determine a finite number of points because we shall have (0.n)=0. But we will not have such difficulties with a finite number of golf balls for example.
In the third group when the notion hasn’t units of measurement the truth is a subjective truth. For the assessment of the wisdom of a man every body takes his wisdom as unite of measurement. But how well could assess somebody his wisdom? It is evident that an absolute truth exists and in this case but it is the same unavailable and impossible to be determined and is available only the subjective truth that is a rough approximation of the absolute truth. Taking in consideration that in so many cases we can’t determine the absolute truth, we can conclude that here is a principle, the principle of the impossibility which says that the absolute truth about the notions of the second and the third group is impossible to be determined by men
All these cases allow us to affirm that everything in the nature is absolute and not relative as has concluded Einstein. And this is the cause why I have formerly affirmed that Einstein has done an upside-down situation in physics. So we can say now that the principle of the relativity is not a law of the nature but a method, a rule for finding out the truth in the nature, and it has as mathematical expression the Galilei transformation.
Let us conclude that: only the absolute truth exists in the nature and its existence is independent of our willing. So we can do the following conclusions: 1) In the cases of the multitudes composed of natural elements, we can determine the absolute truth. 2) In the cases of the MKS system sizes, we can determine the relative truth and for the infinite values only the subjective truth.
3) For the comparative notions with out units of measurement we can determine only the subjective truth.
In short terms this is everything that we can say about the real relativity. In the next pages I will give clarifications about some cases in science where exist dubious situations by using these conclusions.
In the previous articles I was talking about the absolute and relative truth in mathematics and physics and about the mistaken theories as are the ether theory, the theory of the relativity and about the Lobachevski’s mistaken geometry. But what can we expect to deal with the third group? Are all these notions without a possibility to be determined with a better precision then the subjective truth? To this question we can’t answer positively. But exits one case, which is of a huge importance because is in a direct link with the social life especially because it made enormous problems in the 20thcentury. It is the so called slogan said by Marx about the socialist society referred to the remuneration in accordance with the results of the work. “To every body according to his results of the work”. This, apparently is a very logical sentence because reflects the rightness in the society, but it happened that all the socialist societies based on the Marx’s theory failed. If people are remunerated more then theirs results of the work where could be find the needed plus of money, if they are remunerated less there is done an injustice. In the first case we will have inflation in the second deflation. In both cases will have practically unbalanced economy.
The notion remuneration is a comparative notion and belongs to the third group of the real relativity, where the truth is subjective, in spite of the fact that we have a unit of measurement, money. But the problem is that in this case we haven’t any mean with which we could determine the remuneration in accordance with the results of the work, as we have for example the balance for determination of the weight when we are buying 1kg of apples. In so called socialist countries was believed that the amount of the remuneration can be determined by minded men, but it wasn’t possible because the material goods haven’t an identical value of usage for every buyer or seller. Out of that at the trade participate many buyers and sellers and they all together determine the value of the products. That means that money is the only unite of measurement of the value and the tread is the only mean with which is possible to be determined the value of the material goods. In this way we obtain an objectivity of the truth for the value of the material goods result of the work. If one product is selling by one seller and is bought by one buyer, the price will depend 100% percents of these men, but if at the trade are 1000 sellers and 1000 buyers, the price will be dependent by one buyer and one seller only 0.1% percents. So, we can conclude that in this way, that the rule of the remuneration according to the results of the work hasn’t a communist character or a capitalist character. It is a consequence of one of the laws which dominate with our lives in the society, and there will be a need to be better explained not only in correlation with the real relativity but in correlation with all the social laws. At this moment I can affirm that the capitalist democracy is the winner in the concurrence with the socialist democracy only because, managed to achieve a more correct remuneration for the people according to their results of the work by using the trade as a mean for that. I must say that this conclusion was obtained by the aid of the real relativity defined as a method of asking the truth. And it allows us to see where was done the mistake in so called socialist countries. But at the same time I have to say that this conclusion doesn’t explains the question and will be a need for larger explanation. These countries were a bad construction as a result of the mess done by Marx with his dialectic materialism. Unhappily this theory, like the Einstein’s theory, remain untouched. If the Einstein’s theory turned upside down the mind of the people the Marx's theory made them to loose their minds and to start do revolutions and to kill one another. The Marx’s sentence: “the revolution is the motor of the society” killed more people then Hitler did in the Second World War. This is a serious cause why the Marx’s theory has to be thrown out and to make impossible the communist ideas and the revolutions. What is possible to exist in the human society is democracy and only democracy. But what is the democracy? This question is not a superfluous one and it is not the only about which is worth to be discussed. But for this is necessary and in sociology to be done serious clarifications with the aim to be obtained an exact answer. For that and for many other questions I like to speak in the following pages, about the sociology of the human society with a theory which will be valid for men and not for insects, as have said other authors about the Marx theory.
THE HUMAN SOCIETY
The human society is formed at the beginning of the slavery as organized communities. In this process a decisive role had two factors: the apparition of the private property as a product of the work and the apparition of the function of the leading. These two factors marked and the beginning passing of the society from the kingdom of the jungle to the kingdom of the wisdom. The traveling to the kingdom of the wisdom, regrettably, is lasting until these days and this process will last maybe centuries. In sociology to my opinion are possible two views for the explanation of the phenomena that appear in it. 1) The voluntary view based on our will. 2) The compelling view, about which I like to speak in this work based on Darwin theories.
The voluntary view in philosophy has treated the life in the society, beginning with the ancient philosophers and terminating with the contemporary philosophers. This view supposes that the man is very intelligent being and his will and his conscience has a principal role in the creation of the history of the society.
The compelling view about the society is content practically in the three Darwin’s laws even though he hadn’t speak about the human society but about the life on the planet earth, or in other words about the kingdom of the jungle, as it was named by some scientists. And because his theory was named with a so ugly term I suppose he was ignored in sociology. This conduced to the creation of theories, which brought to the people huge unhappiness.
For the compelling view is characteristic that here is considered, the man in his life doesn’t do what he likes to do (willingly) but is doing what he is compelled to do, what is imposed by the Darwin’s law about the adaptability in the medium in which he is living. The wisdom (the conscience) helps the man to understand all the circumstances under which he could achieve it. He is compelled by the nature in his life (the natural compelling) to act so, and because of that I named it compelling view. If he does not proceed so the alternative option is death. Who doesn’t adapt himself in the medium in which lives dies, says the Darwin’s law. And who likes to die? In the compelling view the conscience is not the most important factor in the society but the term natural compelling.
With the apparition of the private property as a product of the work, and the function of the leading, appeared and a new law in the regulation of the relations in the society, the law of the both side consensus, of the participants in the trade exchanging of the material goods. This law could be named and, the law of the wisdom, because it assures a wise conduct of the people. I could say that only with a complete application of this law in the society would be possible to conclude that the society has passed from the kingdom of the Jungle to the kingdom. of the wisdom. The name used further for this law, will be the law of the consensus.
This law and the Darwin’s law of the force represent a medal with two sides when you see the one side you can’t see the other one. In a same way the two laws are excluding one another. If the exchanges of the material goods are done with the law of the consensus, then, it is not possible to be done simultaneously by the law of the force and inverse. The stealing, the wars, the revolutions, and the killings are cases when is applied the law of the force. Because so far these things, stile exist, where is applied the law of the force, we can conclude that the human society is stile in a faze of passing from the kingdom of the jungle to the kingdom of the wisdom.
The aim of this part of this work is to analyze more detailed the former mentioned problems on the base of the compelling view about the world. This is possible to be done by determining first of all the basic natural laws that rule in the human society. In the same time with these laws the intention of this work is to explain the situations, which exist today in the human society, and to foresee the direction toward which is going the human society.
I’d like to prevent the readers of this work to not hurry with negative conclusions about this part of my work because this part is far more complicated then the first part where I have treated the relativity. And I can say, and the time spent, by me, at the clarification of these questions was some ten times longer. In fact I could say here is putted in question not only the Marx’s view about the human society on the earth, but also all the previous philosophical concepts about it.
THE NATURAL LAWS THAT RULE WITH THE HUMAN SOCIETY.
Today the Darwin’s theory about the life on the earth is accepted as valid theory. But far bigger importance is accorded to the part where is treated the apparition of the life at the earth and to the evolution of the life, then to the part where Darwin treats the laws that dominate with the life on the earth.
The Darwin’s laws are:
1) The law of the adaptability in the environment in which we live.
2) The law of the natural selection.
3) The law of the force. Accordingly to the principle of the impossibility of the real relativity we could say, that this laws were acting in the far past, but they act and these days, and this can be established now. But the evolution of the life was going on, in the far past, which could be considered an infinite time. Because of that the truth about the evolution appertains to the third group of the comparative notions where it could be only a subjective truth. But for establishing the action of the Darwin’s three laws the truth is an absolute truth. And just they were negated because of the huge proud of some scientists who felt themselves offended to accept that the man is a being like every other and from time to time he is comporting in a same way as he did in the far past. Indeed, how can be assessed the periods of wars, of revolutions, of violence and others. In all these cases is applied the law of the force. And what could we say about the revolutions? All people and nations are just proud and all they like to consider themselves to be revolutionaries. For example the 200th anniversary of the France’s revolution was celebrated with big manifestations. But in revolutions people die. At the revolutions we should see as at something bad and tragic, they are periods of big unhappiness and because of that we must feel sorrow and not being proud of them. There must be maintained commemorations with wishes to not happen again and what can we do to avoid them in the future. But for the moment it is better to let this them for later. Together with the three Darwin’s laws there must be set and the law of the both side consensus. This law is known in economics as the law of the demand and the offer, but I consider that the offer and the demand are a condition for obtaining a smaller influence upon the price of the material goods by the men who participate in the exchange. But the free consensus is the antipode of the law of the force. It assures the freedom of the seller to valorize correctly his products, and by the other side enables the buyer’s freedom to choose and to accept or not what he needs, for a successful adaptation in the environment in which he lives, respectively, for a successful survival. The both side consensus, makes the participant in the exchange to be equal, to be free, to comport himself correctly, and to respect one another. The man becomes free because is not influenced by any external human compelling. Because of that, this law could be named and the law of the kingdom of the wisdom. And because of that is concluded that when in the human society will be achieved the applying only of this law, and excluded the law of the force, we will be able to say that the human society has passed in the kingdom of the wisdom.
Consequently the fourth law of this work, which will be used as being equal with the Darwin’s laws, is the law of the consensus, which is valid only for the humans. If for the application of the law of the both side consensus is necessary to give their accord both sides, for the application of the law of the force is enough only the will of one side. Because if there is given the consensus just in cases of fighting, as it is the case in a box match, should not be considered that is a case of applying the law of the force. That is why the law of the force could be considered as being the law of the jungle.
THE MODEL OF THE AUTOMATE REGULATION.
The fifth law who is used in this work is the law-model of the automatic regulation, see fig 6.
Because I can’t publish the graphic in fig 6 I am compelled to describe it in words. So in graphic are presented two quadrangles R and EO. From the left side of the quadrangle R-regulator enters an arrow EP-the entering parameter. From R toward the EO goes the arrow C-the command. From EO goes rightward as an exit, ES-the exit parameter. From the EO goes back toward the R, the FB-the feedback parameter.
In continuation is the original text of this part of the article. The ignificance of the element are the folowing:
EP-entering parameter. R-regulator EO-executive organ. C-command. FB- feedback.
ES-exit parameter. This model of the automate regulation is mainly applied in industry and contains the elements that are needed for the description of the processes automate regulation. It is composed of the following parts: EP-the entering parameter is the size that we like to achieve in the regulation. R –regulator is the part of an installation, which makes a comparison between the entering parameter, and the information obtained by the feedback about the exit parameter and gives a command to the EO executive organ to do the needed correction if there is a difference. EO-the executive organ is the part of the installation that executes the command making the needed correction in accord with the entering parameter. C-is a command signal given to the executive organ to execute the correction. FB-is a signal that is given from the EO about the exit size of the regulated parameter, to the R regulator to enable the comparison between the entering parameter and the exit parameter. ES –the exit parameter is the result of the regulation that is expected to be equal with the prescribed entering parameter. Every time when there is a difference between the entering parameter and the exit parameter an intervention is done by the regulator with the aim to return the exit parameter to the amount of the entering parameter. This is the so named technical model of the automate regulation. It is applied mainly in industry, in aviation in the rocked technique and other domains. Such models achieve a work of the equipment without the participation of a man. But this model is valid and for the living beings. Every living being who is moving at the earth makes that moving in the base of applying practically this model. The living beings own all the elements of the model of automate regulation. In this way we can consider that an airplane conducted by a pilot is a process of automate regulation as it is the case of the airplane conducted by an automate pilot. There is not any difference. And the simplest operation of caching a pencil from the table is a very complicated operation of the automate regulation. It is sufficient to close the eyes of the person who caches the pencil and to not be capable to do that. In the social life the man, works, sports, makes revolutions, wars. All these are characterized by motions and are operations of the automate regulation. Because of that, the motion done through the model of the automate regulation by the aid of the technical model could be named rational or logical motion, while the motion done on the vases of the Newton’s laws could be named inertial dynamic motion.
THE MODEL OF THE LEADING
From all that is said about the model of the automate regulation it seems, that it has nothing to do with the sociology, but it isn’t so. Exists a function of an extraordinary importance for the human society, the function of the leading. This function can be entirely analyzed and explained, only with the aid of the model of the automate regulation.
What is the leading in fact? It is a synchronized rational motion done by many people and commanded by only one man the leader. In the organized society the function of the leading is used at the level of the state, at the level of the province, at the level of the town, company and in every organized activity. There is no doubt that without leading could not exist any organized society. In every leading there are two parts: the group of executives and one leader. Every participant in these parts possesses all the elements of the technical model of the automate regulation. But just because of that, they can perform correctly their tasks in the process of the leading, or can disguise that they are doing it properly. Because of that the process of the leading couldn’t be described with the technical model. So we have to introduce two new elements whose meaning will be explained later, see fig 7
And for this case I have to show the graphic of the model in a descriptive way. So here are shown the elements of the model of the leading: The two quadrangles are noted, with L and PO. The entering parameter is replaced with an arrow P. From the quadrangle L go two arrows, C and DNC toward the PO. From the quadrangle PO go backward two arrows, FB and INC. The result of the leading is noted with RL, exiting from the PO. This description replaces the graphic of the model of the leading. The elements of the model of the leading have the following significance:
P –the plan of the leading. L - the leader. C- represents the orders given by the leader to the performers. DNC- represents the direct natural compelling. PO- the performers of the orders RL- represents the results of the leading. FB- represents the feed back information. INC-represents the inverse natural compelling. This means that the performers to have the possibility to compel the leader to do his job taking in account their interests. There is evident that for the realization of the model of the leading is taken as base the technical model of the automate regulation. The element P-the plan is similar with the element EP entering parameter from the technical model. The element L-leader is similar with the element R-regulator. The element C-the given order is similar with the element C-command from the technical model. The, PO- the performers of the orders is similar with the element EO-executive organ from the technical model. The, RL –the result of the leading is similar with the element ES-exit parameter. The, FB-the feedback information is similar with the element FB-feedback from the technical model. New elements are only two, the, DNC-the direct natural compelling and the element INC-the inverse natural compelling. These two elements are a direct consequence of the Darwin’s law about the adaptability in the medium in which we live. And how much valid is this law, so much are valid and these two compelling elements, and of course so much is valid and the model of the leading.
About the natural compelling I think must be given a larger explanation because it replaces the notion conscience in the voluntary views of the former theories. And out of that, with this is done an enormous change in our conceiving about our role in the society.
The natural compelling is the motor in the society, it brings the society ahead, and because it exists independently of the human will I conclude that the developing of the society is independent of the human will. The people are compelled to find out such an organizational form for the society which shall achieve a successfully adaptability in the medium in which they live. This conclusion is the most surprising in the compelling view about the world. It seems to be illogical because we would ask immediately: Is it possible that the human history to not depend of the people when they are fighting in the wars and revolutions? I have to recognize that because of this very difficult question I was compelled to analyze the Einstein’s theory of the relativity and obtain the conclusions according to the new theory of the relativity as a method of asking the truth about the comparative notions. The truth is that, that makes the link between the natural compelling and the acting of the peoples in the society. But the wrong truth brings them toward wrong concepts about the society. A good example for that is the creation of the so-called socialist states, which appeared in the east Europe and others countries, which collapsed because, didn’t achieve a better adaptability for the people. This is the only possible explanation about the collapse of these states.
But for the moment let us conclude that in the human society rule the following laws: 1) The law of the adaptability in the medium in which we live. 2) The law of the natural selection. 3) The law of the force. 4) The law of the free both side consensus in the exchange of the material goods. 5) The law, model of the automate regulation. 6) The law, model of the leading.
About the last two positions, the law-models in spite of the fact that I had doubts if they can or not be considered as natural laws, I decided to consider them as laws because they represent a lawfulness according to which live all the moving beings at the earth. This is valid and for men. Because the model of the leading is too difficult to be accepted without a detailed explanation about the role of the natural compelling in it, I consider necessary at the beginning to be given additional explanations. I said so far, that the natural compelling is a consequence of the Darwin’s law of the adaptability to the medium in which we live. What is that that makes us to feel compelled to respect this law?
To survive we are compelled to fulfill six principal conditions:
1) To have the air that we need for breathing. 2) To have a pressure of the atmosphere of 1kg/cm2. 3) To have a normal temperature of the air, or a corresponding house and dressing. 4) To have food. 5) To have water for drinking. 6) To protect ourselves from another beings or from illnesses.
If we do not fulfill these conditions the alternative option is the death. Because of that nobody with a normal reason refuses to yield to the law of the adaptability to the medium in which we live. The conscience and the wisdom help us to understand this truth and to find out ways how to achieve the former conditions to be capable to survive. The fear of the death is an inborn particularity of the man and it assures obedient fulfilling of the conditions with the aim to survive. The new borne child trembles and starts to cry immediately because of the fear. There is not any doubt that all we are fearful men in spite of the fact that many of us try to present themselves as brave people. They, who didn’t possess the feeling of fear in the past, have disappeared as a consequence of the natural selection. Out of that the nature provided the men with additional properties with the aim to compel them to be obedient and to respect the law of the adaptability. These properties are: the feeling of pain, the feeling of hunger, and thirst. All these characteristics do not exist with the aim we to be punished, but to become minded and to be compelled to respect the law of the adaptability to the medium in which we live. That means, that the man possesses as inborn characteristics, the fear of death, the capability of thinking and the feelings of pain, hunger, thirst etc. The bravery, in spite of the fact that every body likes to present itself as being a brave man, it isn’t an inborn property, but it is the overwhelming of the wisdom upon the fear. It is a result practically of the simultaneous existence of two dangers at the same time and with the aid of the wisdom the man chooses the smaller danger and opposes bravely to the bigger danger. For instance during the time of the Second World War, the Nazi went to the other countries with the aim to enslave them. And these people were compelled to choose between the danger of becoming slaves and the danger of possible death in the war. To avoid both the dangers wasn’t possible. Because of that they were compelled to fight against the enemy much more bravely then the enemy’s soldiers, who weren’t compelled by their sacrifices to attack them. Because of that is said that the aggressor has a smaller moral.
Taking in consideration all that is said until now is possible to be concluded that all these things together represent the natural compelling. The natural compelling is independent of our willing, being created by the nature and we have not another option out of the possibility to respect it.
Another our particularity about which we refuse to recognize that we possess it is the greediness. But this particularity makes us capable to survive. Every person himself feels the pain, the cool, the hunger, thirstness etc. He dies of being hungry and thirsty and nobody does it by solidarity with him. By this is logically he to be greedy. But there is not fair his richness to be done by usurpation from others. Accordingly to this we can conclude that the greediness is a needed particularity of the man and he is naturally compelled to be greedy.
So we taking in consideration the Darwin’s laws, we can say that we managed to explain, not only how the man is comporting in the society, but in the same time to explain what alike is he and why is like that. And more, without the law of the adaptability we can’t explain what is logic in the behavior of the man and what isn’t logic. Everything that is done by a man and is in accord with the law of the adaptability is logic behavior, and everything that is in contradiction with this law is not a logic behavior. Or with another words, is logic behavior, everything that does a man upon the pressure of the natural compelling. Because of that we can say that in the model of the leading has to be introduced the natural compelling, in both directions if we like to have a logic function of the leading.
THE HISTORIC EVOLUTION OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY, OF THE LAW OF THE CONSENSUS,
AND OF THE FUNCTION OF THE LEADING.
One of the most important questions about the human society would be, is it possible to determine the evolution of the society in the future? The Marx’s theory says that the society has evolved in spiral and in a same way will evolve in the future. So it has evolved, from the primitive communism, the slave society, the feudalism, the capitalism, the socialism and again the communism. The other parts of the spiral can’t be found. Is this a real presentation of the reality? The compelling view about the society gives a different picture about all that. If we like to see how was evolving the society in the past, I think is very important to see at first the evolution in the history, of the private property, the evolution of the law of the consensus and the evolution of the model of the leading
THE PRIVATE PROPERTY
The private property is a result of the action of the natural compelling respectively a result of the action of the Darwin’s law for the adaptability to the medium in which we live. A man adapts himself to the medium in which he lives, respectively successfully survives with the aid of the material goods as private property. He could not be indifferent toward his goods because is naturally compelled to keep them and sold them rationally. Nobody could care about them better then the owner of these material goods. If all that is so, then the private property must be respected unconditionally as a basic achievement in the human society. But the private property has to be a result of proper work. The incorrect passing of the private property from man to man was done in the past and now through three ways, with wars, with stealing and with the exploitation of the others’ work.
What kind was the evolution of the private property in the past? Let us take as valid the periods of the societies who aren’t contestable, and they are the following: the slave society, the feudalism and the capitalism. In the slave society, the private property existed in the following forms:
a) Private property upon the slaves. b) Private property of large surfaces of land. c) Private property of material goods.
We can consider that in the feudal society disappeared the property upon the slaves. In the capitalist society disappeared the property of the large surfaces of lend, but appeared private property upon the companies. So the private properties, which were making possible the exploitation of the work successively, disappeared. But the property as a result of proper work persists. The motor in all three societies was the profit. In the collapsed socialistic countries, with the aim to construct a “right society”, were nationalized both, the land and the factories and with that, they became nobody’s property. And to nobody was clear that it is not a property because it hadn’t a lord. Because of that nobody cared about it and collapsed the entire society.
It happened because in these societies disappeared the natural compelling that acts upon the owners of the factories and determines them to care about them and about their profit.
The natural compelling at the leaded part of the companies in the socialist economy did not exist because there wasn’t resolved the question of the remuneration according to the results of the work. And without natural compelling as we saw, does not exist a logic behavior, does not exist the adaptability, does not exist the surviving. In such a way there were created conditions for a totally out of logic, a nonchalant behavior of the people, where nobody cared about the work. Some people named it a crisis of the moral, but to my opinion, it was in fact, crises in the process said, the adaptability to the medium in which we live. That society was in total contradiction with the Darwin’s laws which are valid not only for the humans but for entire living world.
So the main conclusion is that these forms of organizations of the society died as a consequence of the natural selection done indirectly by the people of every country.
THE LAW OF THE CONSENSUS
The use of the law of the consensus has similar changes in all four societies, with a successive enlargement of the use until the democratic capitalist society. The law of the consensus was used only, by the owners of the slaves, in the slavish society. In the feudal society it was enlarged for the peasants, who could exchange little material goods, but couldn’t get jobs freely through the marked. Only later in the capitalist society this law was enlarged and people were able to get their jobs freely through the marked of the working forces. In the so called socialist countries the market was completely replaced with the plan economy and in this way was caused the appearance of the crises of the people on their adaptability in the environment in which they live.
THE MODEL OF THE LEADING
The model of the leading has suffered appreciable changes in the course of the existence of these societies. Let us take for example the leading of the state. In the slave and the feudal societies generally the states were lead by kings. In capitalist society appears in a larger scale the democratic leading. We can conclude that democracy means that the people hold the power in the state. This explanation looks as very logic because in the leading appear two parts: the leading part and the leaded part, which is composed by the large population of a country. The population, can’t do the leading because in this case is impossible to exist a real leading. Such periods in the past are known with the name anarchy. The only possible case when the people hold the power in the state and in the same time exists a real leading, is obtained with the application of the law of the consensus. And that is achieved by the use of the law of the consensus, through the free and secret elections when the people give their consent, and the leader gives his consent, by putting in the elections his candidacy.
Out of the forms anarchy and democracy in history existed the form of dictatorial leading. The dictators are leaders who proclaim themselves as leaders of the country. Such leaders were the kings in the far past, some dictators in the capitalist countries, and practically all leaders in socialist countries.
Taking in consideration the model of the leading, we can say that the leader has to determine a task, content in the plan (P). He has to give orders to the (PO) the performers of the orders, he must have a possibility how to compel the performers to perform the given orders, (DNC) the direct natural compelling, to achieve a good result of the leading (RL). To be capable to do all that, he must be fed with every necessary information, (FB) as feedback information about the way in which are accomplished his orders, and he must want to do the leading properly in the interests of the collectivity or the population of a country. For that is necessary the inverse natural compelling, (INC). This compelling exists in the cases of democratic elected leaders, and is obtained by the application of the law of the consensus. If the leader likes to enjoy the privileges given by the function as a president of the state and not to loose them in the next elections, he has to lead on the interest of the people who elected him and not on his proper interest. So we can conclude that with such an enlargement of the law of the consensus, it gives to this law a much larger significance.
Because the other elements of the model are pretty clear, remains the need to give more explanations about the direct and inverse natural compelling of this model. The direct natural compelling is in a direct link with the remuneration of the performers. These people go to work because they are naturally compelled to obtain a salary and if they do not perform their tasks they can be fired. The same thing could be said about the leader. The inverse natural compelling (INC) represents the danger for him not to be elected again in that function. In this model is achieved a naturally compelled work for all participants in the process of leading. The model is working independently of the people’s will. This happens because people are compelled to proceed so by the Darwin’s law about the adaptability in the medium in which they live. In the past for the performers existed a compelling in the function of the leading, which couldn’t be named as natural compelling. Such was the compelling imposed to the slaves by their owners. This compelling was based on the law of the force and not on the law of the consensus. The slaves and their owners didn’t make an agreement about their relations in this sense. Because of that we can conclude that only with the aid of the law of the consensus could be achieved in the model of the leading a natural compelling. If now would like to analyze the historic evolution of the model of the leading by the point of view, of the use of the law of the force, we can say the
following: With the apparition of the function of leading in the society, the society was divided in two parts: the leading part and the leaded part. In the relations between them at the beginning was applied the law of the force. We saw that this law consecutively was replaced with the law of the consensus.
A very important property of the society is its stability. By the point of view of the use of the law of the force always the leaded part was more numerous and for that it represented the bigger force between the two parts. But dominant role had the leading part. In this way the society had becoming politically instable.
Because of that in history appeared so many revolutions. For such situations, mostly the cause was the leading part because with the application of the law of the force were created conditions in which the people from the leaded part couldn’t survive. The society was unstable because in its leading did not exist the inverse natural compelling (INC). The result was the interior ruination done by these countries. This happened and to the Socialist states in the east Europe. They do not were defeated, they died by themselves. We can freely conclude, that the law of the natural selection was applied by peoples in an indirect form because of the wrong organization of the society in these countries. If the society doesn’t achieve for the population good conditions for surviving they are naturally compelled to overthrow such society. The capitalist democracy achieves better determination of the value for the results of the work for the participants in the work, and by this, better conditions for surviving in comparison with other societies and is naturally to be considered as a more acceptable society by the population. This is the situation with the leading of the state. With the leading of the companies in the capitalist democracy the situation is different.
The private property of the company makes the leading there to be of a dictatorial form. But the situation is not similar with that of the dictators. The workers get their jobs through the market and can left the company if they don’t like to work there. This means, that in this case is applied the law of the consensus, for the determination of their salaries, because they are paid, by using the market as a method for that. And we have seen that the market is the only mean possible, with which we can determine the value of a material good. On the other hand the competition between the companies creates a natural compelling which acts upon the owners of the companies to be maximally objective in this direction. Such a thing didn’t exist in the past in this leading. But yet, the natural compelling acts only upon the leather of the company because the company is his private property and the profit is only his. The workers don’t feel the company as theirs property. Because of that in big companies with many performers, the leader hardly can control all of them and to react properly and in time if they don’t work correctly. Only the democratic leading could achieve natural compelling in both directions in the model of the leading and this is the case of the holding companies where the profit is shared as a supplement with the salaries. And out of that, with such a remuneration, money, go to a larger number of people who can spent them and with this, is avoided the apparition of economic crises. This is a need because the owner of the company can’t spend all the profit. This is valid for the developed countries. For the developing countries the situation is not so bad. Money is placed in the infrastructure through the banking system and is spent by other workers. In this way they can achieve a faster development with out danger of crisis.
By all that is said until now we can conclude that the best form of leading is the democratic leading that means, the leading based on the law of the consensus. An absolute democracy is not possible because is not possible the achievement of an absolute precision on the remuneration according to the results of the work.
But because the market is the only mean for the determination of the results of the work, we can conclude, that the slogan: to everybody according to his results of the work is not a communist slogan, but an economic need. It is a consequence of the law, of the consensus. This law is known in economy with the name: the law of the offer and the demand. And because the remuneration according to the results of the work can’t be determined with an absolute precision, the society will tend toward this absolute truth timely infinite.
If we like to make an appreciation of the socialist society we can say the following: If it would be considered a society in which would have a remuneration according to the results of the work, then could be said it is an absolute democracy. If it would be a society in which would have equal remuneration for everybody, or a plan economy, then it is utopia.
About the communist society in which every body will work according to his capabilities and will be remunerated according to his needs, what can we say? Who will determine which are his capabilities and how big are his needs? What could be said about this society is, that it is very nice, but is impossible to exist. Such a society is in contradiction with the Darwin’s laws. If every body determines his capabilities obviously they will be very small, but his needs will be very big.
Evidently in this case there do not exist the natural compelling and without it can’t exist a logic behavior of the people. The communist society is formulated so, evidently on the base of the voluntary view about the world and because of that is asked a man with a high conscience, but such a man doesn’t exist. And as we are at this point with the theme let us say some words about the communist movement.
There is not any doubt that the communist movement was the most popular in the world history. Everybody who became communist before the revolutions he did it with honest tendencies, to fight for a right society. But when they got the power the communists divided themselves too, in two parts: the leading part and the leaded part. By this, they who got in at the leading group suffered a radical metamorphosis. From fitters for the liberation of their people they became their robbers. Enrico Betica an Italian writer and publisher describes this metamorphosis very suggestive with the words: I can’t explain why the European communists, suffered such a transformation, from angels of Europe becoming the devils of Europe. I believe that all that was said so far explains very well this transformation. But they of them who didn’t enter in the leading part, they didn’t transformed themselves in devils but in disappointed people. These people do not deserve the hate, but the compassion, and they just themselves, regret for what was done in vain. For everything, is guilty the wrong truth emitted by the Marx with his wrong theory of the dialectic materialism. The truth is that, that makes people to believe what they have to do, in order, to get out of the difficult situations in their life. But if this truth is mistaken the same is mistaken and the way of getting out of such situations. Some people just in these days affirm that this theory is very good but people do not correspond, because they have not a high conscience.
But such people do not exist in this world. The people are such as they could be created by the natural selection. But somebody makes theory for people who don’t exist. The only bad thing could be the wrong theory and not the people with low conscience.
The fact that such a metamorphoses has happened to these men, shows that they were incapable to obstruct it themselves. And this is an excellent example for the confirmation that the history is not made by the people but by the action of the Darwin laws. What depends of the people is the time if the changes in history will be done earlier or later.
Just and persons like Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Tito didn’t exist in their places would be somebody else. These men became what they where because a huge number of people believed in this false theory. Do not exist men with high conscience, but exist only egoists.
So if we take in consideration the facts, that in the countries in which where done these revolutions existed a big poverty and the people couldn’t survive and the cause for that was the then leading part of the society in those countries, and if is taken in consideration the attractiveness of the Marx’s theory, the experiment with the creation of the socialist states was inevitable. The teachings of this experiment are used by the entire world. This is the bitter truth about the most popular movement in the world.
Today exists the tendency to appear share holding companies in which shareholders are workers in the company. And they will be enlarged because the owners themselves will support such a form of organization, without the need of revolution. That is an imperative of the law of the consensus who achieves a natural compelling through the competition of the market economy. The new forms of organization must be able to survive at the conditions of the free market economy. This transformation of the companies is based on the law of the consensus and not on the law of the force and this way is the only correct one. So we can conclude that the competition between the new companies and the old companies is an imperative for the achievement of a better and more productive company. Which will survive, will be the better form of organization. So we and in this way can see, that the revolution is not the motor in the society. And I would like to remind, that, just the revolution was considered by Marx as being the motor in society.
As a final conclusion about this work, I can say that in fact I was speaking about the motion in more general manner. In the first part I was speaking about the inertial-dynamical motion based on the Newton’s laws in physics, and in the second part, about the logical motion based on the models of the automate regulation, applied in the human society. That is an additional reason to consider that the models of the automate regulation can be considered as basic laws of the mechanics and of the motion of the humans, because they have a similar importance for the description of the logical motion, as have the Newton’s laws about the description of the inertial-dynamical motion.
