The crucial problem of Einstein’s theory of relativity is that the relative spacetime (length contraction and time dilation) is not true.
If the relative spacetime was true, in any sense, Einstein’s theory of relativity should be a very great theory. But, in fact, relative spacetime does be false.
The crucial experiment is that, in the high energy accelerator, the speed of particles is the highest close to the speed of light and the condition is the most stable, precession and repeatable. But, no length contraction and time dilation was observed in it. Then, why the relative space and time was observed in other objects? It is certain, these observations are false. For example, it is not true that the life of the highspeed mesons is longer than that of the stationary ones. First, there are not the so-called stationary particles. Second, the mesons decay with N(t)=N0e-kt. The lifetime of some mesons is longer than others. Third, the mean lifetime is determined with N0. If the number N0 of the so-called stationary mesons are larger than that of the highspeed ones, the mean life of the so-called stationary mesons may be longer than that of the highspeed ones.
We analysized a paper for the lifetime of highspeed muons. It is shown that the conclusion is questioned:
Assuming two groups of mesons Na0=10 decaying with Na(t)=Na0e-t/Ta and Nb0=100 with Nb(t)=Na0e-t/Tb . After a time duration t, as e-t/Ta=0.01 and e-t/Tb=0.001. One muon is observed in a distance of L.
Then, there are the conclusions:
first, we cannot know, whether this one muon is belong to Na0 or Nb0.
Second, we cannot know Ta or Tb from this one muon.
So, the question is: what was measured in “Measurement of the Relativistic Time Dilation Using μ-Mesons”.[1]
In [1], it was measured: The numbers of N0=563 and N(t)=408 per hour. i.e., on average, 1.56*10-7 muon is measured in one μsecond.
So, in [1], it is not 563 muons of one group were measured. In a very big probability, it implies that 563 groups of N(t) were measured and one muon of one group was measured.
From the above conclusions we know, first, they cannot know the mean lifetime T from one muon of one group.
Second, the mean lifetime for every group is different. But, they give a same mean lifetime for all of the 563 groups.
So, the conclusion in [1] is questioned.
In “Measurement of the Muon Lifetime”[2], it is reported that “We find a muon lifetime of (864.6 ± 1.2) ns”. We know, in the papers to prove time dilation, the mean lifetime of the so called stationary muons is 2.19μs. If [2] is validly related with these papers, it means that all the papers for proving time dilation are invalid.
As the relative spacetime does be non-existent, the hypotheses and “theories” based on it are false. Unfortunately, in the past 110 years, many theories and experiments were based on it. A lot of false stories were produced. More unfortunately, these false stories are regarded as great theories and the experiments are very dominated.
So, if we hope to understand modern physics and Einstein with his theory of relativity, we have to first know whether or not the relative spacetime is true.
And, may I advise the friends who try to advance the theory of relativity or to develop new theory from it. As the space and time are not relative, these tries are unfruitful.
This question is revised according to the arguments with Professor Kåre Olaussen on Data A comparison between Newtonian gravitational time effect and...
Dear Yin Zhu,
In understand that you have a problem with Einstein's Theory of General relativity. I understand that you have done a lot of text research that brings you to the conclusion that a lot of statements coming from Einstein where in fact first conceived by other scientists. In the moment there is in the world of science the opinion that we only should take credit for those ideas that we cam up our self. Plagiarism was and is something we don't like to happen. If this is in Science with ideas or if this is in industry where we have patents. In the industry patents are granted to he who first manages to convince a patent clerk that he has something new. Patents are big business in industry. Einstein was a patent clerk. He did now the big grey zone of what was common practise in his time. If that was, in our modern view, fully morally correct can be questioned. Yet we have to admit that he was one of the first who completely understood and combined all these parts to one single theory. From there several other scientists extended and completed it. I can understand that you feel that the science community should try to correct opinions that are wrong and the we have to strive to the truth.
However, your style of doing so does not serve your purpose so well. Like me you make use of a language that is not your own language. This makes that we have to try to express ourself with a limited vocabulary. This can result in the situation where we express with words that have a much stronger emotional load than we ourself imagine. Maybe you could think of the style of discussion that is adopted for parliaments in Holland, my country, and I think also in England. All speakers address the president of the meeting. There is no direct talk from one to another. In science we have the principle that we don't know for sure if our theory is correct or not. That is why in my article, where I think that I have uncovered yet another error in the GTR, I use the words 'it seems that in this case the GTR is in disagreement'.
When you state that things are a 'fake story' you also express your view of the world. And, by doing so, you attack those who work and make their living in the research of cosmology. You make them emotionally your enemy. My experience is that in the situation where I offend someone then I have problems to motivate him to listen to me. He will react on the emotional attack in away to silence the attacker and stop the pain. At that moment there is no reasoning or willingness to question the correctness of the situation.
When I can make my opponent become my friend, when I invite him to enter into a discussion with the clear open outcome that gives the other the chance to win the discussion and my commitment that if the other can convince me I will accept that conclusion, then I end up in a healthy discussion that itself is a pleasure for both involved.
About your question of spacetime I would like to mention that I also have a lot of objections to these models. Here in ResearchGate there are many people that share your doubt in the correctness of the GTR. They come with a lot of alternative views. Also these views can't be all correct. Yet the discussion between them only can flourish when the tone is friendly.
Regards,
Paul Gradenwitz
Yin Zhu ,
One of the crucial problem is that Einstein’s theory of relativity is based on linear time flowing from past to present to future, where as physical reality is based on non-linear periods. Space time invariant of Einstein’s theory can be derived from a more general invariant as a special case. Try to apply this general invariant to accelerator particle experiments and you will notice the difference. More details in following article.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225712819_Periodic_relativity_basic_framework_of_the_theory?ev=prf_pub
https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4539
Periodic relativity: deflection of light, acceleration, rotation curves.
Progress in Physics, 2015, v.11(1), 43-49.
http://www.ptep-online.com/complete/PiP-2015-01.pdf
Vikram Zaveri，
Physics is such a science that studies a natural (or real existed) object to describe some characteristic of this object. If an object with its characteristic is non-existent, we cannot have a theory of physics based on it.
The relative spacetime is non-existent, where is a theory of physics for it?
Dear Yin Zhu,
you put in doubt that time dilation is a reality and try to use that as an argument against general relativity. Why do you need to do that? In particle accelerators there are muon rings where these particles are stored for some time that is much longer than usual because they are accelerated to higher speeds. We don't need to deny observational evidence that time dilation is a physical fact. Where we ave to put our doubts is if the theory used to explain the observation is correct. Even if the time dilation is equal to what the theoretical formulas predict there is still another explanation possible with much more physical relevance. I have this situation always in my work with chip design. There we use many mathematical equations to predict the behaviour of the transistor schematic. This mathematical equations are very accurate in the prediction of the chip function, but they are based on parameters that have often only little physical relevance.
I have no problem that we have cosmological models that describe many cosmological observations in very accurate way. I have a problem if they then assume that nature really behaves according to models if they are based on geometrical gravitation.
Muons are observed to have a time dilation that extends their existence by a factor 5. To do that we need a speed close to the speed of light(98%). When the muons fly in one direction and can bridge with that speed a certain distance A and when they travel with half that speed they only can cover about the distance A/5. According to Special Relativity the speed that one muon goes with respect to another muon can never be higher than the speed of light. When now two muons move in opposite direction, then with respect to each other as seen from an external observer they will come closer to each other with 196% of the speed of light where each of them moves with 98% of the speed of light with respect to the observer. This means that for one muon the observer moves with 98% of the speed of light and the other muon moves at least with a speed that is more than 98% of the speed of light. I don't argue if that is 99% or 99.9999% of the speed of light. I only argue that because of this speed the time dilation of that other muon with respect to the earlier muon should be larger. At 99.5% the time dilation is larger than 10. Now we can let the muons start at a distance on 2A. This means that for the external observer they just manage to reach the middle point of their distance. But with respect to each other they should have a longer lifetime and thus go past each other.
I think that we have observed a time dilation where we, the observer, are moving with a slow speed wrt light through space and where the muon is moving with a fast speed through space. But we are not allowed to transpose that to relative speed of two muons. There we have not a muon at rest in his frame and observing another muon moving towards him from distance 2A. I think that an explanation where movement through space is assumed to be absolute is better than the STR.
Regards,
Paul Gradenwitz
Dear Yin Zhu,
I have read your explanation that the N0 could be different and thus that the value 5 times time dilation could be explained by that. There are more experiments with atomic clocks and experiments in particle accelerators that all point at the existence of time dilation. What I wanted to show in my contribution is that we can have time dilation without the need to adhere to the Special Theory of Relativity.
There is no need to reject the existence of time dilation in order to be able to abandon STR. Maybe you study some of the publications of Mohamed Hassani. He gives interesting mathematical evidence on the failing validity of both STR and GTR.
See also his contributions in
Article Free Fall in Gravitational Theory
in the comments section.Regards,
Paul Gradenwitz
Dear Dr. Paul Gradenwitz,
that the value 5 times time dilation could be explained by that
If you should give a case, I should thank you very much.
When the muons fly in one direction and can bridge with that speed a certain distance A and when they travel with half that speed they only can cover about the distance A/5.
Please give a link for this observation.
Dear Yin Zhu,
Muons are first detected in particle acceleration experiments. There they were observed in bubble chambers and other detector equipments. The speed of these muons was lower. Now they wanted to keep these muons for a longer time. So they managed to accelerate them in a muon ring. If all muons would be flying already at high speeds then there would be no gain in the lifetime of these muons. It seems, however, that they managed to get a longer lifetime with the rings.
I take from WiKi the following.
The mean lifetime, τ = ħ/Γ, of the (positive) muon is (2.1969811±0.0000022 ) µs.
To get these kind of accurate calculations you will need to invest some accurate measurements. The accuracy is 2.2 ps. You really think that in these measurements there is nobody thinking to measure the speed of these muons?
In other threads I see George Dishman recount his daily experience with time dilation from his work. So this is why I have problems to understand why you want to use this argument to deny time dilation. If you are moving with a high speed and all your internal time processes proceed with a slower time, then you think you moved for a time T and you think you moved with a speed V so you conclude that you covered a distance TV. But after you moved that distance and stop your movement you discover that you have moved a much larger distance. Then you conclude that length did contract. An external observer just did see you travel for a longer time.
Muon rings are in use in these accelerator research institutes. They cost a lot of money to operate them. If they would not make a profit, extend the muon lifetime, then people would not continue to use these rings.
I gave you my reasoning. I didn't provide you with an exact observation link. Sorry
Regards,
Paul Gradenwitz
Dear Dr.
Thank you for your information.
Let’s consider a group of flying mesons. These mesons are decaying continually. Some decayed while some do not. As these mesons flied from a to b, the numbers at a and b are differently Na and Nb. It is described with Nb=Nae-iktab. Because e-iktab is same, Nb is only determined with Na. As Na is few and the distance ab is long, no meson can arrive at b. As Na is a very large, some of the mesons Nb can arrive at b.
So, only the mean life of the mesons is important while that of a single meson is unimportant.
This is the fundamental for the life of mesons. we can used it to understand the observation about the life of mesons.
In all the published articles for observations of the life of the highspeed mesons, only the numbers Nb of the mesons arrived at point b is observed. And, it is assumed that there is the life of a single stationary meson. So, no valid conclusion can be obtained from these observations as usual did.
Best
Dear Yin Zhu,
I understand you reasoning. When I have a probability function then the mean life time can be described as you say. If the initial amount of mesons is not known then you might calculate how many mesons there need to be generated in order to have some remaining after a certain distance. So we have an observation of a meson intensity at ground level and we know that they are generated at the upper atmosphere. Maybe you can give me the probability that a meson life is long enough to reach the full distance. From there we can derive the amount of muons that are generated and with that the intensity of the cosmic radiation outside of the atmosphere. I think that with this calculation we will come to a cosmic radiation level that would not allow for people to live for a long time in the ISS.
So please add to your function Nb=Nae-iktab also the amount N of those that live long enough compared to the original number. So what values you can give to fill in the equations.
Regards,
Paul Gradenwitz
Dear friends,
I am very sorry, N(t)=N0e-ikt is wrong. This is my serious mistake. I apology for it.
The right formula is N(t)=N0e-t/T, where T is the mean life of the mesons, t is the time of the mesons moving, N0 is the initial numbers of the mesons, N(t) is the numbers at time t.
Therefore, the mean life is not determined with N0.
But, I think, the current explanation about the life of the highspeed mesons still is invalid.
There are three problems in the current explanation.
First, it is assumed there are the stationary mesons. It is not true.
Second, the mean life of the so-called stationary is not true.
Third, in some of the observations, the mesons are interacting with air and other objects. For example, the life of the so-called stationary mesons is measured in a kind of liquid. It results in that these observations are inaccurate and incomparable.
Best regards.
Yin
This question is revised according to this reply.
Dear Yi Zhu,
As you see here you had to come to the conclusion that your equation was incorrect. That you make errors proves that you are a human. (Computers make no errors. They copy the human errors with high speed.). ;)
But since we know that we make errors it is good that you be careful with your statement "It is not true" even if you feel convinced that you are right.
I think that the observation of longer living mesons because of high speed is a fact. I am willing to accept that the explanation why this is so can be wrong.
Regards,
Paul Gradenwitz
Dear Dr. Paul Gradenwitz,
First, we have to know what is the mean life of the lowspeed or stationary mesons. As I know, there is not a measured value for it. It is only assumed as the measured life of a single meason.
Best
It is right:The mean life is determined with N0. If the number N0 of the so-called stationary mesons are larger than that of the highspeed ones, the mean life of the so-called stationary mesons may be longer than that of the highspeed ones.
Dear friends,
I am very sorry for that I am wrong again.
This time, I am certain I am right.
In my previous version, all of the conclusions are right but the formula N(t)=N0e-ikt is wrong.
The right formula for particles decay is N(t)=N0e-kt. There is not the complex number i.
This is the fundamental formula for particles decay. The formula N(t)=N0e-t/T is that used by relativist to explain that the life of highspeed mesons is longer than the so-called stationary ones. In N(t)=N0e-t/T, the mean life T need be derived from N(t)=N0e-kt. So, N(t)=N0e-kt is basic while N(t)=N0e-t/T is secondary.
From N(t)=N0e-kt, the previous conclusions are valid. These conclusions are:
First, there are not the so-called stationary particles.
Second, the mesons decay with N(t)=N0e-kt. The life of some mesons is longer than others.
Third, crucially, the mean life of the so-called stationary mesons was not considered. The mean life is determined with N0. If the number N0 of the so-called stationary mesons are larger than that of the highspeed ones, the mean life of the so-called stationary mesons may be longer than that of the highspeed ones.
Best regards.
Yin
the crucial problems of RT are: c is not constant; and the Lorentz Transformation (undefined at v=c, adjusting terms by using velocity which must itself be adjusted; LT is not covariant; Time is at least 2-dimensional, to name only a few...).
Dear Yin Zhu,
The crucial problem of Einstein’s theory of relativity is that it most probably is on a false foundation.
It seems that only very few scientists (notably Oleg D. Jefimenko) are aware of the interchangeability of the concepts of length contraction and time dilation and the effects of aberration and Doppler shift , but even they do not see it as an explanation of the MM experiment but as an alternative way to set up the theory of special relativity.
Jefimenko writes:
"What is most remarkable, however, is that relativistic solutions completely ignore retardation, while retarded fields solutions completely ignore Lorentz contraction. There is no doubt that retardation is a real and a very important physical phenomenon. How then can it be ignored in relativistic derivations? And if Lorentz length contraction is an important physical effect, why can it be ignored in classical calculations...?"
He then states that retardation is implicit in special relativity and derives the Lorentz-Einstein transformations from classical electromagnetics.
(His article is titled Retardation and relativity: Derivation of Lorentz-Einstein transformations from retarded integrals for electric and magnetic fields. Am. J. Phys. 63 (3), March 1995.)
Henry Bateman has remarked that the Lorentz transformations are derivable from study of the reflection of light from a moving mirror. (H. Bateman, Bull. Nat. Research Council, Dec, 1922, p. 110.) 1922!
This can proved by making a QED-style ( = energy and momentum conserved at every vertex) analysis of the Michelson interferometer. The result is that the expected second-order effect exists, but it cannot be measured with the Michelson interferometer, due to the combined effect of aberration and Doppler shift. For details, see page 7:
https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fgsjournal.net%2FScience-Journals%2FResearch%2520Papers-Quantum%2520Theory%2520%2F%2520Particle%2520Physics%2FDownload%2F7182
The instrument and all its variants ( like the ones used in the experiments of e.g. Kennedy-Thorndike, Cialdea & al. , Jaseja & al, A. Brillet & J. L. Hall...) are totally useless in determining absolute velocity.
Everything that is claimed to support special relativity can be contained in a 100% electromagnetic world view, completely independent of relativity.
dear Jouko, < The crucial problem of Einstein’s theory of relativity is that it most probably is on a false foundation. > that is my opinion too. more: I wouldn`t say , but for sure RT is false foundated.
It is impossible to synchronize the clock on the rotating ring within the framework of GR.
The equivalence principle in Einstein's formulation applies only to infinitesimal size of the domain in which the gravitational action of the Central body is considered; i.e., the Einstein equivalence principle cannot be applied to any region of finite size.
A curvature of the trajectory of a photon near a massive body is easily explained by the presence of the environment around this body.
---
В рамках ОТО невозможна синхронизация часов на вращающемся кольце. И принцип эквивалентности в формулировке Эйнштейна относится только к бесконечно малым размерам области, в которой рассматривается гравитационное воздействие центрального тела; т.е., принцип эквивалентности Эйнштейна и не может быть интегрирован на любую область конечного размера. А искривление траектории фотона около массивного тела легко объясняется наличием среды вокруг этого тела.
@Yin Zhu “crucial problem of Einstein’s theory of relativity”
1) 4-dimensional space-time does not exist, as experiments with gravity prove that the real space of the Universe is 3 - dimensional, because of the law of the dependence of the force of gravity F on the distance R as F=a/R^2.
2) The transformation of coordinates between IRFs cannot have the property of relative simultaneity. There can only be a property of absolute simultaneity.
.@ Paul Gradenwitz «the discussion between them only can flourish when the tone is friendly.»
I agree with you.
---
@Yin Zhu “проблема теории относительности Эйнштейна”
1) 4-мерное пространство-время не существует, так как эксперименты с гравитацией доказывают, что реальное пространство Вселенной - 3-мерное, из-за закона зависимости силы притяжения F от расстояния R как F=A/R^2.
2) Преобразование координат между ИСО не могут иметь свойство относительной одновременности. Может существовать только свойство абсолютной одновременности.
.@ Paul Gradenwitz «дискуссия между ними может процветать только тогда, когда тон дружелюбен.»
Я согласен с вами.
Dear Paul,
Nice to hear from you. The “most probably” was only for reasons of politeness. Of course I’m sure! :) I have noticed your comment in another discussion, “The fundamental unsolved problem is physics itself”. That is quite correct, but instead of “physics” I would write “modern physics” because, according to Wikipedia, “Physics that incorporates elements of either QM or Einstein’s relativity (or both) is said to be modern physics.” This leaves out the classical electromagnetic theory and its nonlinear extension, which is the correct foundation for a plausible world view.
dear Jouko, I totally agree with you. in my work published (here) on RG one can see the .
Dear Yin Zhu
“Physics is such a science that studies a natural (or real existed) object to describe some characteristic of this object. If an object with its characteristic is non-existent, we cannot have a theory of physics based on it. The relative spacetime is non-existent, where is a theory of physics for it?”
Human mind has a sense of time based on the frequency of its thought waves. Inverse of this frequency is the period of the thought wave. These thought waves also have a wavelength. Nobody can deny the existence of the thoughts. If there are no thoughts, the person cannot have any sense of time.
Similarly existence of the earth or the universe or the atomic clock cannot be denied. Both the orbital period of the earth as well as the time period of the big bang are measured with the World Time scale which is based on Atomic Clock which depends on the frequency associated with hyperfine splitting of the 6s electron level in the Cesium atom. This frequency is 9,192,631,770 Hz. The period of the wave of this spectral line is inverse of this frequency. This atomic clock measures the time with a precision of 1 second in 1.4 million years. Therefore we see that measuring time means comparing one period of time between two events with another period of time between other two events. Therefore time is periodic in nature.
Now the big bang happened near the Planck epoch which was 13.8 billion years before the present epoch on the World Time scale. The World Time is based on the Cesium atom and there were no Cesium atoms during the Planck epoch. The particles created during Planck epoch had Planck frequency which is of the order of 1043 Hz. You can compare this with atomic clock which is of order 1010 Hz. If you succeed in building a clock having Planck frequency then you will still be comparing one period of time with another. Besides Planck frequency itself is defined based on the atomic clock. Therefore World Time is imaginary and relative standard. It is not absolute.
I`d rather would make the difference between theoretical and practical concepts: one should first (theoretically) define time just to have WHAT to measure. clocks are not time! clocks are practical instruments. one should always 1st define the notion about he speaks.
Dear, Vikram
1) I Agree that a person as well as many beings have both thoughts and "sense of time",. Here is a concrete example. Before going to bed, I put an alarm clock on 07: 00, and fall asleep, mentally thinking to wake up at 06: 57. After sleep I wake upat 06: 57, lying a few minutes, then get up and turn off the alarm clock, so he did not Wake anyone.
However, it is unknown what the "sense of time" is based on, and not known its mechanism. Firstly, we do not know the "frequency of the thought wave", and secondly, how does the brain "translate" the human concept 06: 57 in the number of "periods of the thought wave", thirdly, how does the brain counts them, even in a state of sleep?
2) One day I was walking on the sidewalk, and the car turned from behind the corner of the building, and continuing to turn, went to my side. When the car jumped on the curb and flew in the air at me, I began to see what was happening as a slow motion, but the thoughts did not slow down, and slowed down all the observed movements, both the car and mine. I understood that I needed to accelerate my steps, and I managed to take two steps, although I wanted more and faster. The front fender of the car slipped from behind along my leg, and dusted my pants, and the car by its left headlight stroked into the wall of the building, near which I was walking.
The danger disappeared, and a slow-motion image is ended.
Does this mean that the brain can switch the "frequency of the thought wave"? If so, can the brain control the pace of time?
3) Agree that the process of measuring the time interval is not a definition of the term "time" and does not answer the question "What is the Time?»
Two cesium clocks, which, if they stand side by side, have the same frequency, but, being located at different heights, have different frequencies! Moreover, at night and during the day, these clocks have different frequencies, if you compare their readings with those of the same clock located on the pole. Or with a watch on a satellite flying near Earth in the same orbit around the Sun.
Sincerely,
Alexander Chepick
---
Уважаемый Викрам!
1) Согласен, что человек имеет и мысли, и «чувство времени», как и многие существа. Вот конкретный пример. Перед сном я ставлю будильник на 07:00, мысленно задумываю проснуться в 06:57, и засыпаю. После сна я просыпаюсь, пару минут лежу, затем встаю и выключаю будильник, чтобы он никого не разбудил.
Однако неизвестно, на чем «чувство времени» основано, и не известен его механизм. Во-первых, нам неизвестна «частота мыслительной волны», во-вторых, как мозг «переводит» человеческое понятие 06:57 в количество «периодов мыслительной волны», В-третьих, как мозг их считает, да еще в состоянии сна?
2) Однажды я шел по тротуару, а из-за угла здания выехал автомобиль, повернул, и продолжая поворачивать, поехал в мою сторону. Когда автомобиль подскочил на бордюре и в воздухе полетел на меня, я стал видеть происходящее как при замедленном изображении, но мысли не замедлились, а замедлились все наблюдаемые движения, как автомобиля, так и мои. Я понимал, что мне нужно ускориться, и я успел сделать два шага, хотя хотелось больше и быстрее. Переднее крыло автомобиля проскользнуло сзади по моей ноге, испачкав пылью брюки, и автомобиль своей левой фарой воткнулся в стену дома, около которого я двигался. Опасность исчезла, и это замедленное изображение закончилось.
Говорит ли это о том, что мозг может переключить «частоту мыслительной волны»? Если да, то мозг может управлять темпом времени?
3) Согласен, что процесс измерения промежутка времени не является определением термина «время» и не отвечает на вопрос «Что есть Время?»
Одинаковые цезиевые часы, которые, если стоят рядом, то имеют одинаковую частоту, но, будучи расположенными на разной высоте, имеют разную частоту! Более того, ночью и днем эти часы идут с разной частотой, если сравнивать их показания с показаниями таких же часов, расположенных на полюсе. Или с показаниями часов на спутнике, летящем недалеко от Земли по той же орбите вокруг Солнца.
С уважением, Александр Чепик
The following statement of the question:
" We analysized a paper for the lifetime of highspeed muons. It is shown that the conclusion is questioned:
Assuming two groups of mesons Na0=10 decaying with Na(t)=Na0e-t/Ta and Nb0=100 with Nb(t)=Na0e-t/Tb . After a time duration t, as e-t/Ta=0.01 and e-t/Tb=0.001. One muon is observed in a distance of L. "
possesses no scientific value .
Proof:
1. no paper is referred to the claims
2. the parmeters of the expressions are not explained
3. in particular, the expressions do not explain the relation of the distance L to other parmeters.
Dear Yin Zhu
Space and time of general relativity are not relative. But space and time of Periodic relativity are relative because space is the wavelength and time is the period of the particle at the fundamental level. When wavelength change, the period is automatically affected.
Dear Alexander Chepick
The sense of time is based on the observer which is the pure Spirit without slightest oscillations and perfectly motionless therefore beyond time. It observers and compares different oscillations like that of thoughts, heart, lungs and other physical surroundings.
“Does this mean that the brain can switch the "frequency of the thought wave"? If so, can the brain control the pace of time?”
I think the frequency of thought is determined by how tense the mind is. Mind with more energy and power is more tense. Brain is just the housing for the mind and thoughts. For more tense mind time goes fast. For a slack mind, time hangs heavy.
Mr. Yin Zhu is right: as time, space, mass, v, a, are adjusted by operating with square-root(1-v²/c²) it should be obviously that they are not absolute. that`s a contradiction between assumed (axioms) and the theory (of relativity).
once the whole universe was merely one singularity- now there are more. Man, how time changes!
Dear all:
I believe that the main problems in Einstein's theory are:
- the lack of a selected reference frame;
- the procedure of clock synchronization;
- principle of relativity;
- equivalence principle.
---
Я считаю, что основными проблемами в теории Эйнштейна являются:
- отсутствие выделенной системы отсчета;
- процедура синхронизации часов;
- принцип относительности;
- принцип эквивалентности.
Dear Vikram!
I don't know a watcher with the name of Pure Spirit! And it is not defined yet in the theory of relativity.
If "time goes fast for a more tense mind", then for a less tense mind time goes slowly, and for a stone that has no thoughts, time does not go at all? It turns out that there is no total time, only local, so there is no time at all.
---
Дорогой Vikram!
Я не знаю наблюдателя по имени чистый Дух! Ещё он не определен в теории относительности.
Если «для более напряженного ума время идет быстро», тогда для менее напряженного ума время идет медленно, а для камня, у которого нет мыслей, время вообще не идет? Получается, что нет общего времени, только местное, значит, времени нет вообще.
Dear Yin Zhu
There is no experimental proof for length contraction.
Dear Alexander Chepick
“I don't know a watcher with the name of Pure Spirit! And it is not defined yet in the theory of relativity.”
Watcher with the name pure Spirit is the Core part of the Observer of General Relativity. GR has not analyzed the Observer yet. Is the Observer the body or eyes or the mind or the power that imparts consciousness to the mind? Pure Spirit is defined in Bhagavad Gita (3139 BCE) and is known as Brahman. Brahman in human body is not limited to the body like the mind but is all pervasive and infinite. Not only this, some highly advanced people also commune with Brahman. Following books for more information.
Srimad Bhagavad Gita by Swami Vireshwarananda
http://www.amazon.com/Bhagavad-Srimad-Gloss-Sridhara-Swami/dp/8171204023
"The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna." by Mahendranath Gupta, (tr.) Swami Nikhilananda.
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Sri-Ramakrishna-Abridged-Edition/dp/0911206027
Compare Ramakrishna with Brother Lawrence.
https://www.basilica.ca/documents/2016/10/Brother%20Lawrence-The%20Practice%20of%20the%20Presence%20of%20God.pdf
Dear Vikram!
Thank you for references to Ramakrishna.
I believe that it is useless to compare two non-equivalent theories. Since they necessarily contain a contradiction to each other. Only theories and reality can be compared (in the form of experimental results). Only the conclusions must be done carefully. For example, You are right: "There is no experimental proof of length reduction." However, we must add that: "There is no experimental proof of the absence of a length reduction."
---
Дорогой Викрам!
Спасибо за ссылки на Рамакришну.
Я полагаю, что бесполезно сравнивать две неэквивалентные теории. Так как они обязательно содержат противоречие друг другу. Можно сравнивать только теории и реальность (в виде результатов экспериментов). Только выводы нодо делать аккуратно. Например, Вы правы: "нет экспериментального доказательства сокращения длины". Однако мы обязаны добавить, что при этом: "нет экспериментального доказательства отсутствия сокращения длины".
Dear Alexander Chepick, Yin Zhu.
Time dialation or gravitational redshift or Doppler shift can be measured only on photon. You cannot do it on electron. Time experiment on Atomoc clock also involves the frequency associated with hyperfine splitting of the 6s electron level in the Cesium atom. This is a frequency of the photon spectra. So the length contraction can also be observed in terms of photon wavelength. You may not see it on electron. Similarly length contraction on the measuring rod may not get detected. If there is too much contraction of the wavelengths of the constituent particles of the measuring rod, then the rod will disintegrate. You cannot measure time dialation etc. with a Pendulum clock or with a mechanical watch or quartz watch.
as it seems that this information is obtained exclusively from light. what about those phenomena which do not interact with light? i.e. dark matter, dark energy...
Dear Paul Pistea
There is no evidence for the existence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy. Dark Matter can be Baryons or cold star and planets in the halo of galaxies. Dark energy is supposed to be uniformly distributed throughout the universe.
Dear Yin Zhu
I think it has to do with the time translation invariance as explained by Biswajoy Brahmachari in following RG question.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_happens_to_the_energy_lost_by_photons_as_they_become_red-shifted_by_gravity_or_cosmic_expansion
There are quantized gravitational field theories but I am not into it. I have a quantum gravity theory which seeks unification of forces into energy.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262492889_Periodic_quantum_gravity_and_cosmology
Dear Vikram Zaveri,
I do not think there is the so-called Theory for Everything or Standard Model. Now, we have known little about our world. For example, why the gravity and electromagnetic force are attractive force? Can we use the gravity field as we used the electromagnetic one? The so-called Theory for Everything or Standard Model can tell nothing about these problems.
And, in history, there were different the so-called Theory for Everything or Standard Model. All of them made the development of new theory stopped or slower.
Please see:Data Anti-ethics and pseudoscience: On Albert Einstein's theory o...
The late Albert Einstein was totally unable to understand that time-freeze or the issue of not at all taking time into account in QM was different from timespace\spacetime “Manifold” dilation .
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science
- Materials
- Polymers