297 lines
14 KiB
Plaintext
297 lines
14 KiB
Plaintext
______________________________________________________________________________
|
|
| File Name : LFERROR.ASC | Online Date : 06/10/95 |
|
|
| Contributed by : InterNet | Dir Category : ENERGY |
|
|
| From : KeelyNet BBS | DataLine : (214) 324-3501 |
|
|
| A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences |
|
|
| KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187 |
|
|
| Voice/FAX : (214) 324-8741 InterNet - keelynet@ix.netcom.com |
|
|
| WWW Mirror - http://www.eskimo.com/~billb |
|
|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
The following document is a compilation of 3 files from the InterNet, all of
|
|
which deal with a proposed new discovery that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald
|
|
contraction is in error.
|
|
|
|
The first message from "S. Hawkings" is probably bogus, so take it with a
|
|
block of salt. The second message gets back to some degree of rational
|
|
questioning of the claim that mass becomes infinite as it approaches the speed
|
|
of light. Despite the third message, I think Papadakis is onto something
|
|
here.
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
220 15337 <3qn5d5$7gb@info.epfl.ch> article
|
|
Path: ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!
|
|
univ-lyon1.fr!swidir.switch.ch!epflnews!news
|
|
From: Guest Account <guest>
|
|
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
|
|
Subject: Special relativity is wrong!!!
|
|
Date: 2 Jun 1995 13:57:57 GMT
|
|
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
|
|
Lines: 229
|
|
Message-ID: <3qn5d5$7gb@info.epfl.ch>
|
|
NNTP-Posting-Host: iptsg.epfl.ch
|
|
Mime-Version: 1.0
|
|
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
|
|
boundary="-------------------------------232652040112937"
|
|
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; IRIX 5.2 IP12)
|
|
X-URL: file:/disk3/usr/people/iptsg/guest/p11
|
|
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------232652040112937
|
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
|
|
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
|
|
|
|
This message is a copy of a letter we received at our laboratories last
|
|
week... It seems to us much too important to be kept secret. So we decided to
|
|
submit it to your critical analysis...
|
|
Regards,
|
|
S.Hawkings
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------232652040112937
|
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
|
|
Content-Type: text/plain
|
|
|
|
WHY FITZGERALD LORENTZ CONTRACTION IS AN ERROR, AND MODIFICATIONS OF PHYSICAL
|
|
THEORY THAT THIS FACT IMPLIES. THIRD PAPER
|
|
by J. Papadakis
|
|
of the Academy of Athens
|
|
|
|
1. INTRODUCTION
|
|
|
|
In a previous paper (Papadakis 1995a) it has been shown, that Fitzgerald
|
|
Lorentz contraction is an error; and in another paper (Papadakis 1995b) we
|
|
have discussed the modifications of physical theory, that this finding
|
|
implies. This is a complement of these papers; it brings more proofs of the
|
|
fact, that Fitzgerald Lorentz contraction is an error, and it extends, a
|
|
little, the matters, in which a modification of physical theory is needed.
|
|
|
|
2. WHY FITZGERALD-LORENTZ CONTRACTION IS AN ERROR
|
|
|
|
2.1. At the time of the Michelson experiment, it was believed, that Earth's
|
|
rotation was affecting the distance between two points on Earth's surface.
|
|
|
|
Michelson experiment has shown, that such influence does not exist. But the
|
|
idea was so deeply rooted, that in spite of the results of Michelson
|
|
experiment, the error has not been abandoned during one century.
|
|
|
|
To explain the discrepancy between the results of Michelson experiments and
|
|
the prevailing opinion that Earth's rotation affects the distances on Earth's
|
|
surface, Fitzgerald and Lorentz separately, launched their theory of
|
|
contraction. The theory is gratuitous, there are NO experiments or
|
|
observations sustaining it.
|
|
|
|
A change of the length of a body, its reduction to practically 0, is not
|
|
conceivable, it entails a modification of the whole structure of the body,
|
|
which is the result of a long and complex process, which differs enormously
|
|
from body to body; to pretend that in a very short time, the body becomes a
|
|
very slim leaf, is something, that cannot be accepted, unless experimentally
|
|
demonstrated.
|
|
|
|
The formula L' = L (1-v2/c2) may be even interpreted, that at c velocity the
|
|
body disappears. Moreover the relativists pretend, that the mass of the body
|
|
becomes infinite; and the two assertions, contradict one another.
|
|
|
|
The structure of a body is the result of a very long process, that cannot be
|
|
completed, during the acceleration of a body. Bodies contraction is perhaps
|
|
the most illogical process, that has been proposed in the history of science.
|
|
|
|
And it has been almost universally accepted, during almost a century. The
|
|
reason may be that, it has been proposed, or accepted by outstanding
|
|
scientists. Practice shows, that only very small bodies can be accelerated,
|
|
and big bodies never move with high velocities.
|
|
|
|
2.2. Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction has been easily admitted, because at that
|
|
time it was not known, that the equivalent of a unit of matter is c2 units of
|
|
energy. Therefore, the scientists have been surprised, when it has been
|
|
discovered, that light velocity is 300.000 km; they declared light velocity, a
|
|
universal constant, light the 'rebel' of nature, and c the higher limit of
|
|
velocities.
|
|
|
|
But now we know, that the velocity of light is c, because the energy of a
|
|
photon is nu c^2, nu is the frequency; its base is nu c, and its velocity is
|
|
necessarily nu c^2/nu c=c.
|
|
|
|
The universal constant should be not c, but c2; and light is not the rebel of
|
|
nature. Velocities higher than c, are not observed because, even when all the
|
|
mass of a body is energy, as in the case of photons, the velocity cannot
|
|
surpass c, because whatever increase of energy, would increase in the same
|
|
rate, both the energy and the mass, and consequently the velocity could not
|
|
increase.
|
|
|
|
It may be a combination of attraction by another body and internal energy,
|
|
could increase the velocity, beyond c; but gravitation is only powerful in the
|
|
lower atmosphere of big stars; and this athosphere does not permit high
|
|
velocities. So that it is probable that conditions never permit velocities
|
|
higher than c.
|
|
|
|
3. MODIFICATIONS OF PHYSICAL THEORY, THAT THE FINDINGS, THAT LORENTZ
|
|
CONTRACTION IS AN ERROR, IMPLIES
|
|
For more details, see 1995b paper
|
|
|
|
3. 1. MECHANICS
|
|
|
|
3.1. We know now, that the energy of the force that causes the motion, passes
|
|
from the motor to the object, which begins to move, and its mass increases.
|
|
|
|
But it seems, that this storage of energy in the mass of a body, which
|
|
consists not only of energy, but also of matter, is very difficult, at high
|
|
velocities; and a great part of the energy is lost as heat, more especially
|
|
when the body is big; there are also differences between bodies of equal size.
|
|
|
|
With big bodies the velocity ceases to increase very rapidly, and velocity c
|
|
is never approached. The maximum velocities of big objects, f.i. stars, are
|
|
very low, compared to that of minute objects. We have already mentioned these
|
|
facts.
|
|
|
|
Much investigation is needed; and it may be very fruitful from a technological
|
|
point of view; it is also curious, that lasers have not been tested.
|
|
|
|
3.2. Relativists pretend, that velocities higher than c, are impossible. But
|
|
theoretically that is not certain. It is chiefly due to the fact that an
|
|
increase of the energy included in the mass of a body, at c velocity, would
|
|
increase equally the energy, and the mass, and the result would be zero.
|
|
|
|
3.2. LIGHT
|
|
3.2.1. Light Velocity
|
|
|
|
Light velocity in vacuo is c, because the energy of a photon is nu c^2, its
|
|
mass vc, and consequently its velocity in vacuo is nu c^2/nu c=c. But when the
|
|
velocity of light has been measured, it was not known, that the equivalent of
|
|
one unit of matter was c^2 units of energy; and much time passed before that;
|
|
|
|
therefore the discovery, that the velocity of light is 300.000 k.m. surpised
|
|
the scientists; they considered light as the rebel of nature, c as a universal
|
|
constant, etc.
|
|
|
|
The universal constant is c^2, the equivalent of 1 unit of matter in units of
|
|
energy, and c is only a consequence of this fact.
|
|
|
|
Light is not the 'rebel' of nature; and such rebels do not exist. Light
|
|
velocity needs some time, minimal naturally, to increase from that of the
|
|
light source, or mirror, to c.
|
|
|
|
3.2.2. LightDuality
|
|
|
|
Light duality does not honour science. And it is time to terminate with it.
|
|
|
|
3.3. ELECTROMAGNETISM
|
|
|
|
Maxwell (1831-1879) is next to Newton, one of the scientists, who more
|
|
contributed to physics. But he died too early, before the abandonment of his
|
|
ether theory, after Michelson experiment. And it had not time to adapt his
|
|
equations to this fact. That is why some of his equations need a revision.
|
|
|
|
Fields have not a real existence. They are creations of human mind, and only
|
|
serve to show, how gravitation, attraction or repulsion, increase or decrease,
|
|
when the distance between two bodies increases, or several attractions or
|
|
repulsions combine.
|
|
|
|
Maxwell has not survived to modify some of his equations, and it is time, that
|
|
others do that. And the same is needed with gravitation. Naturally no
|
|
particles are sent from a body to another. We should not forget that particles
|
|
have a mass, energy, e.t.c. And we cannot invent gratuitly, new kinds of
|
|
particles. That applies also in the case of gravitation.
|
|
|
|
3. 4. RELATIVITY THEORY
|
|
|
|
It is evident that the mass of a body at velocity c cannot be infinite. Even
|
|
the sum of the masses of all bodies could not be infinite. Infinite masses,
|
|
etc. do not exist in positive sciences.
|
|
|
|
3.5. SPACE AND TIME
|
|
|
|
Time is only conceptual; it has not material existence; and it cannot have a
|
|
form. To discuss if time, is curved or not, is the same as to discuss, if
|
|
intelligence is red or blue.
|
|
|
|
3.6. MONODETERMINISM AND POLYDETERMINISM
|
|
|
|
The great majority of events are polydeterministic. Mendel has shown, that the
|
|
same cause may have different effects, each one with its probability.
|
|
Polydeterminism is much more frequent than monodeterminism.
|
|
|
|
BIBLIOGRAPHY
|
|
|
|
GALLONI E., RUIVAL H. (1976). Teoria Especial de la Relatividad.
|
|
Buenos Aires.
|
|
PAPADAKIS J. (1934). From an Ecological and Psychological Point of View there
|
|
is an abyss between Man and All Other Species. The three Steps in
|
|
the Evolution of Living Beings. Cultural versus Genetic Evolution.
|
|
Inaugural lecture in the University of Thessaloniki.
|
|
- (1979a) Some considerations on Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
|
|
Buenos Aires.
|
|
- (1979b) Some Considerations on Relativity Theory. Buenos Aires.
|
|
- (1979c) Further Considerations on Relativity Theory. Buenos Aires.
|
|
- (1979d) An Hypothesis on Light Velocity and Relativity of Space and Time.
|
|
Buenos Aires.
|
|
- (1980) Is Time Relative? Slightly Amended Classical Mechanics Fit All known
|
|
Facts. Buenos Aires.
|
|
- (1981) A Physical Theory, that Unifies Classical and Quantum Mechanics.
|
|
Buenos Aires.
|
|
- (1985) Is Time Relative? Classical Mechanics Fit All known Facts.
|
|
Quasars etc. may Decide the Question. Research Suggestions. Athens.
|
|
- (1987) Light Velocity and Relative Matters. Satellites may Decide the
|
|
Question. Athens.
|
|
- (1988a) Research Suggestions on Fundamental Problems of Physics. Athens.
|
|
- (1988b) Gravitation, Time Dilation, etc. The Need of Certain Fundamental
|
|
Research in Physics. Athens.
|
|
- (1988c) Newton's Physics. Amended to Incorporate All Later Advances.
|
|
Athens.
|
|
- (1989a) Experimental Apparatus for Fundamental Research on Radiation.
|
|
Athens.
|
|
- (1989b) Errors in Our Days Physics and the Need of Research.
|
|
Athens.
|
|
- (1990) Fundamental Science. Athens.
|
|
- (1992) Our conception of the Universe and Relativity theory, etc.
|
|
Athens.
|
|
- (1992) Light velocity, relativity theory, and uncertainty principle.
|
|
Reflexion is a collision, and that changes the problem. Athens.
|
|
- (1992) Relativity theory, uncertanty principle, etc. Further discussion of
|
|
the consequenses of the fact that reflexion is a collision. Athens.
|
|
- (1994) Relativity theory, a critical note. Athens.
|
|
- (199Sa) Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction, the famous relativistic beta, basis
|
|
of relativity theory is an error, that passed unnoticed during a
|
|
century.
|
|
- (1995b) Some modifications of physical theory, after the findings, that
|
|
Lorentz contraction and the relativistic beta are an error.
|
|
|
|
J. Papadakis Venizelou 28, Athens, Greece.
|
|
---------------------------------232652040112937--
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
220 15352 <19950602.170515.205@vnet.ibm.com> article
|
|
Path: ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!
|
|
oleane!pipex!hursley.ibm.com!jonathan_scott
|
|
From: jonathan_scott@vnet.ibm.com (Jonathan Scott)
|
|
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
|
|
Subject: Re: Special relativity is wrong!!!
|
|
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 1995 16:05:15 GMT
|
|
Organization: IBM UK Labs
|
|
Lines: 24
|
|
Message-ID: <19950602.170515.205@vnet.ibm.com>
|
|
Reply-To: jonathan_scott@vnet.ibm.com (Jonathan Scott)
|
|
NNTP-Posting-Host: winvmc.hursley.ibm.com
|
|
|
|
In article <3qn5d5$7gb@info.epfl.ch>,
|
|
on 2 Jun 1995 13:57:57 GMT,
|
|
Guest Account <Guest> writes:
|
|
>WHY FITZGERALD LORENTZ CONTRACTION IS AN
|
|
>ERROR, AND MODIFICATIONS OF PHYSICAL THEORY
|
|
>THAT THIS FACT IMPLIES. THIRD PAPER
|
|
>by J. Papadakis
|
|
>of the Academy of Athens
|
|
|
|
I just tried to read this; it is such total nonsense that I wouldn't know how
|
|
to start replying to it. The author is clearly under the impression that the
|
|
Lorentz contraction is a sort of physical "squeezing" and not just an effect
|
|
of looking at the same events from a different viewpoint. He also appears to
|
|
be attempting to describe this contraction in isolation, without taking into
|
|
account that it is really a side-effect of a change in the definition of what
|
|
is simultaneous in different frames of reference.
|
|
|
|
Basically, the whole article is just an expression of a stubborn total
|
|
unwillingness or inability to believe in non-Newtonian physics. It has little
|
|
to do with anything scientific.
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Scott
|
|
jonathan_scott@vnet.ibm.com or jscott@winvmc.vnet.ibm.com
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|