User talk:Stamenin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

               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, Stamenin.

                      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, Stamenin.

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, Stamenin.

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).

 t1=t2=t….(5).
We can see that: 
(t2)/R>t>(t2)*R…(6).

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, Stamenin.

             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.

 Stamenin.

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, Stamenin.

                    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 cleare. 
  14/02/2007, Stamenin.

User talk:Stamenin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search