Dear Ni Ge,

I send you a good paper that prove my transformation and my quantization of gravity is completely right and agreed completely also with Hafele-Keating experiment. Read the paper attached. I told many times space must be invariant according to tansformation 

According to the paper attached 

Abstract:

A relativistic analysis based on the paths, in a non-rotating frame comoving with the centroid of the Earth, of clocks carried by aircraft circumnavigating the Earth in different directions, as in the Hafele-Keating experiment, predicts time differences between airborne and Earth-bound clocks at variance with the results of the experiment. The latter imply new relativistic velocity transformations differing from the conventional ones. These transformations demonstrate in turn the invariance of length intervals on the surface of the rotating Earth and so resolve the Ehrenfest paradox for this case.

My friend Ni Ge You are the first who believed me I succeeded in quantization of gravity, and I'll not forget that forever.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5174v1

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002

Absolute rotational reference has to be used to explain Hafele-Keating experiment. I have many papers. Attached three papers are more relevant. The main idea is that SRT may have some correct formula, but  "constant one-way speed of light" postulate contradicts itself. Without "constant one-way speed of light", GR is questionable as well. Fortunately, relative reference is still valid as two way speed of light is constant.

Article Unified Field Theory

Article Drifting Clock and Lunar Cycle

Article SR Equations without Constant One-Way Speed of Light

Dear Zhiliang Cao,

Review the paper attached

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5174v1

Dear Azzam K Almosallami,

I read your attachment. There are similar discussions regarding GR:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0607186v4.pdf

Known as M.W. Evans’ law.

One issue of the above theory is that it may be correct, but it is not useful. One of important purpose of Physics theory is to make useful predictions. My papers made a lot of useful predictions.

Dear Ni Ge,

 I told you before, There is no space-time continuum but it is only time, and space is invariant. That leads also to remove reciprocity principle in the Lorentz which means solving all the paradoxes in SRT. The attached paper I sent you ; A relativistic analysis based on the paths, in a non-rotating frame comoving with the centroid of the Earth, of clocks carried by aircraft circumnavigating the Earth in different directions, as in the Hafele-Keating experiment, predicts time differences between airborne and Earth-bound clocks at variance with the results of the experiment. The latter imply new relativistic velocity transformations differing from the conventional ones. These transformations demonstrate in turn the invariance of length intervals on the surface of the rotating Earth and so resolve the Ehrenfest paradox for this case. This exactly what I predicted in my quantization of gravity by my new transformation.

If you read my paper you will understand how all paradoxes are solved one of them  Ehrenfest paradox, read my abstract. This paper I attached you is very good proof for my theory and my quantization of gravity.

Deae Ni Ge,

All physicists do not understand where is the trick in SRT and in Lorentz transformation equation equations. It is in y=y' and z=z'. That is wrong! if you want to consider it is time only and space is invariant, you must multiply y and z by Lorentz factor and then you get, y=Ry' and z=Rz'...why? To interpret the negative result of Michelson-Morely experiment. In this case refusing reciprocity principle, and then you get the Lorentz transformation express about the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Thus all the problems in physics are solved from Higgs to Galaxies, and Photon mediates gravitation, and there is no graviton.

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002

Identical clocks have identical frequencies. The “twin phenomenon” (erroneously called a “paradox”) and its experimental verification in the Hafele-Keating experiment are explained by the fact that, according to Einstein’s relativity theories (SR and GR), the period of time elapsed between two events is dependent on the trajectory followed in getting from the first event to the second.

In the Sagnac effect two light beams emitted at the same time circulate in opposite directions and eventually collide. The two beams have traveled different distances when they collide simply because (due to the rotation of the whole experimental setup) the emitter at the initial time and the interferometer at the final encounter are not at the same place. So, obviously, a phase shift is to be expected. This has nothing to do with the details of relativity theories and has nothing to do with clock rates. It involves only the constancy of the speed of light.

Dear Eric,

I think it's enough for the relativity theory of Einstein now. 

Have you read the paper I attached about the Sagnac effect and The Hafele-Keating experiment, I think all experiments now agreed with my transforms as I explained to you before. Pond-Rebka experiment, Franson's calculations,  Pioneer anomaly and the Energy momentum problem which is solved according to my tranforms, Sagnac effect, The Hafele-Keating experiment. Also the Higgs theory. All the problems in physics now solved from Higgs to Galaxies. Furthermore in my interpretation to the Lorentz transformation I refused the reciprocity principle which was adopted by Einstein in the SRT. Refusing the reciprocity principle in my theory leads to disappearing all the paradoxes in the SRT; the Twin paradox, Ehrenfest paradox, Ladder paradox and Bell's spaceship paradox. Furthermore, according to my interpretation I could reconcile and interpret the experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement (spooky action), —Casimir effect, Hartman effect— with the SRT in this paper.

Space is invariant and Lorentz transformation must be depended on time only. That means Lorentz transformation is vacuum energy dependent, and in case of acceleration it  is vacuum fluctuations. There is no graviton, it is photon mediates gravitation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5174v1

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002

Dear Azzam ~

“I think it's enough for the relativity theory of Einstein now.”

In these RG discussions I keep going on about Einstein’s theories not because I’m an “Einstein disciple”, and not because I care at all whether Einstein’s theories are correct or not. I do it because I’m irritated by all the misunderstandings of those theories that continually arise. I’m tired of the way people keep claiming that those theories are inconsistent. They are not. I’m tired of people imagining that they give rise to paradoxes. They do not.

An essential requirement for anyone criticizing a theory is that they should first come to a  thorough understanding if the internal logic of the theory and its implications.

I’m not taking Einstein’s side. I’m taking the side of logic and rationality.

I understand your ideas, Azzam, and I appreciate your efforts, but how can you expect me to say I’m convinced when I am not?

I am open to the possibility of different ways of understanding physical phenomena. It's not an either/or situation. Maybe your way is correct, but that does not imply that my way is incorrect! If you see any faulty logic in my recent very simple explanations of  Hafele-Keeting and Sagnac, that you seem to be responding to, I would very much appreciate a clear and precise explanation from you about what you see as errors in my understanding.

Hi Dear Eric and Azzam,

We all want to find a correction answer to Ni Ge's question. In the attached paper, I pointed out the SRT postulate "The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light" has some issues. It implies that there are multiple light sources and multiple observers. To make it clear, the postulate should be "The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers and light sources, regardless of observers' relative motion or of the motion of the light sources".

The Lorentz transformation has two observers. It should use at least  two light sources as well, one with moving object, another with observer. Now, you will get two sets of Lorentz transformation. Therefore, Relativity's paradox is a logical paradox.

I think that Einstein understood such Paradox and GR seems to be the answer. GR has Einstein's equivalence principle. The equivalence principle claims that the light goes in straight line, but it only talk about a single light source.  If he made his claim clear, it can be:

"The light in a vacuum travels in straight line for all observers and light sources, regardless of observers' relative motion or of the motion of the light sources".

Try to draw a straight line now and see what happens for two light sources and two observers. The lines start rotating in time.

The postulate of GR has a logical Paradox as well.

SRT and GR have their purposes. I just want to point out their limits via a simple logic.

Article SR Equations without Constant One-Way Speed of Light

To make it clear, you can be an observer. One light source is Sun, the other is Moon. The light line between you and Sun is Sun line; the light line between you and Moon is Moon line. In this case, earth is rotating. Imaging that the earth is not rotating. Instead, Sun and Moon move in straight lines in different directions. Now, Sun line and Moon line are rotating over time. Do you still consider the following GR claim is completely true?

"The light in a vacuum travels in straight line for all observers and light sources, regardless of observers' relative motion or of the motion of the light sources".

Zhiang ~

"The light in a vacuum travels in straight line for all observers and light sources, regardless of observers' relative motion or of the motion of the light sources".

Nobody is claiming that for all observers. Light in a vacuum travels in a straight line only for "inertial" observers. A rotating or accelerating observer is not an "inertial" observer.

Dear Eric,

"Identical clocks have identical frequencies". For SRT it is true (L/c and L/c), but where is time dilation then (except gravitational)? Maybe there is no time dilation (what I think: Sagnac effect is anihilated by relativity)? For absolute referential it is not true (L/(c+v) and L/(c-v)), then frequencies are not the same, it is why clock (functionning on atom frequencies) are not the same.

Am I wrong?

Dear Eric, 

In an inertial reference,  you are observing two light sources. Initially, two light sources are together, but they are moving apart since they are moving along straight lines in different directions. You can see that the distance between the two light sources is increasing. You can draw two lines between you and light sources. Over time, the angle between two lines is changing.

Dear Ni Ge,

Earth is not absolute reference. Can you find the universal absolute reference?

Dear Zhiliang,

I am not saying earth is an absolute reference, and I believe in the principle of relativity.

In my explanation the moving observer could be the absolute reference too, then the relativity principle will anihilate the ground observation.

Could it be possible that time dilation is an illusion and LT were bad interpreted?

If you are doing a physic experiment, you are using an inertial reference. Relativity works when there are two experiments in two inertial references using one light source.It is a mathematical trick with some physics meanings. It cannot be "foundation " of physics.

You may, if you insist, choose to treat the inertial frame of the cosmic background radiation as an absolute frame of reference. Or the approximate inertial frame of the sun or the earth. (For analysis of some phenomena, like the motion of ultra-relativistic particles in intergalactic space, or description of planets in the solar systems, or the GPS system, these may even be good ways.)

You may then say that those who are in constant motion relative to that frame are deluded  to think that their atomic clocks ticks at the correct rate, even though you can "clearly observe" (don't ask how) that they are ticking too slow. You may also say that they are deluded to think that their meter stick, constructed of finitely many perfect atomic layers, does not change length when its orientation relative to their direction of motion (which they are too deluded to perceive) is changed, as you can "clearly observe" from your absolute frame. You may further say that these delusions, caused by the evil Lorentz invariant dynamics of atoms and clocks and meter sticks, make these deluded travelers synchronize their clocks in the wrong way, and absurdly claim a different notion of simultaneity than your obviously right one.

Unfortunately (absent the cosmic microwave background, and galaxies and suns and planets, and the tiny curvature of spacetime) there is no way find out who are deluded and who are obviously right. And it would be very difficult to describe the dynamics of moving atoms and clocks and meter sticks from your absolute frame. Unless, of course, you are a dishonest crook who employ Lorentz transformations to simplify the calculations...

And, of course, it could perhaps be that not all laws of nature are Lorentz invariant (it is actually believed to be the case, to a very small degree, by some serious scientists working on quantum gravity). Which is why we have to look carefully. Until now no violation of Lorentz invariance has been found. Don't believe those who claim otherwise, but cannot get their claims published in serious journals. They are the truly deluded ones.

I agree with you Kåre, but a mechanical clock should or should not tick the same rate as a frequency clock (it is a light-time illusion not a whole physical one). Unfortunately, we can't prove it now, but mathematics could help us to find the right answer (see W. Engelhardt).

Professor Kåre Olaussen,

You are right about absolute reference is not practical for Physics experiments. You made a few good arguments. I just need your help to solve a simple logic issue. 

I respectfully disagree with your argument "those who cannot get their claims published in serious journals. They are the truly deluded ones."

I made the following test case:

In an inertial reference,  you are observing two light sources. Initially, two light sources are together, but they are moving apart since they are moving in different directions. You can draw two lines between you and light sources. Over time, the angle between two lines is changing.

Do you think the above test case is valid or not? If it is valid, do you think the following GR claim is valid:

The light in a vacuum travels in straight line for all inertial observers and light sources, regardless of observers' relative motion or of the motion of the light sources.

Zhiliang ~

It is not trivial to get work published in a serious journal, not always even good work fulfilling all scientific standards. But it is not impossible, if you try a few journals in the appropriate field, and take time to listen and respond to the arguments of referees and editors in an appropriate way.

But if you, f.i., insist on publishing the statement above, which you say is a GR claim (and further analysis based on this), you will rightfully get your paper rejected by every serious journal. Because the concept of a straight line does not exist in GR. A generous referee would advise you to replace it with the concept of a null geodesic, provided the rest of your analysis is consistent with this concept.

With this qualification: Yes, in the limit of geometric optics light travels on null geodesics, which exists independent of sources and  observers. However, the geodesics of relevance (there can be many, due to the phenomenon of gravitational lensing) must pass through the space-time events of emission and absorption.

Ni> but a mechanical clock should or should not tick the same rate as a frequency clock 

This was the point of my last paragraph (but I wouldn't use the word should). The hypothesis of Lorentz invariant dynamics must be tested by observations. There exists some very accurate observations of relativistic effects, including measurement of time dilation effects for relative velocities as low as 10 m/s, in full agreement with relativity theory.

By the way, Engelhardt has not published his works on special relativity in serious journals. Not because referees and editors dislike him, but because these works are wrong!

Dear Kåre,

Observation prove relativity theory is right (what I totaly agree with), but no observation measured time dilation.

By the way, what is wrong about Engelhardt's claim that relativity is inconsistant with Sagnac effect (the main argument)? (For the ether theory, I agree he is totaly wrong.)

Ni> no observation measured time dilation

Who made you think so?? There is an impressive experiment from 2010, essentially testing the traveling twin effect (aka twin "paradox"), with one clock in periodic motion relative to a clock at rest (in the approximate inertial frame of an earth-bound laboratory). See the link below (which I for copyright reasons will have to remove in a short while).

Ni> claim that relativity is inconsistent with Sagnac effect

It is this claim which is wrong. To my knowledge there is no disagreement about formulas. I checked the similar claim about inconsistency of stellar aberration with relativity predictions, which seems to be based on misinterpretation of some badly formulated remarks by Einstein and Pauli, not on the actual calculations (which is all one should care about). This is typical for people who suffer the Einstein-Was-Wrong-Syndrome.

I often say to my students that they should not listen to what I say, or what I write on the blackboard, but pay very careful attention to what I ment to say. Sometimes, that may even be good advice regarding statements by the truly great minds of science.

http://web.phys.ntnu.no/~kolausen/FY3452/.Science-2010-Chou-1630-3.pdf

Dear Kåre,

Once again you are showing an experiment with light/atomic clocks.

In other words, I think Engelhardt's point (that delta(t)=0 in relativity theory) is a proof that relativity theory works without time dilation, not a deny of it. For me, the ground observer sees (L+s'')/c and (L-s')/c and the moving observer sees L/c and L/c.

Ni> relativity theory works without time dilation

I am not sure which statements you are referring to (and the rest of my life is too short to read any more of said authors works). However, as I wrote in my first post, you may describe relativistic phenomena from a restframe by saying that clocks in motion slow down, and that physical bodies are Lorenz-Fitzgerald contracted in their direction of motion (contrary to our everyday experience as the earth turns around the sun). It is not an impossible description, but it is a very clumsy description compared to the universally accepted geometric understanding of these phenomena. And, time dilation of clocks in non-inertial motion is an extremely accurately established scientific fact. 

I know Kåre,

Maybe it could help you:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Special_relativity_a_big_Heisenbergs_uncertainty_principle

Sincerely.

Professor Kåre Olaussen,

In general relativity, a geodesic generalizes the notion of a "straight line" to curved spacetime. Importantly, the world line of a particle free from all external, non-gravitational force, is a particular type of geodesic. In other words, a freely moving or falling particle always moves along a geodesic.

In Minkowski space, in an inertial frame of reference in which the two events are simultaneous, the geodesic will be the straight line between the two events at the time at which the events occur. Any curve that differs from the geodesic purely spatially in that frame of reference will have a longer proper length than the geodesic.

My question for you is:

Can you find two zero geodesics between you and two moving light sources (as I mentioned above, two light sources are moving apart from same space)? If you could, try to draw these zero geodesics without light sources (as they exist independent of sources and observers). If you cannot draw these two zero geodesics, please tell me why you cannot. If you can draw two zero geodesics, please tell me how.

Ni> Once again you are showing an experiment with light/atomic clocks.

This was meant to be a joke, right? Did you study the paper? Do you grasp its implications?

Maybe you didn't bother. Good luck with your clocks not involving atoms.

As I wrote one needs to specify the (sequence of) events which should be connected by these geodesics, and these events must have a lightlike separation. 

"This was meant to be a joke, right? Did you study the paper? Do you grasp its implications?"

Yes I read it, the clocks are working with frequencies (How do we measure frequencies? Light? OK, I mean radiations, waves).

As I explain it (but it could be a wrong interpretation):

- For the 75m experiment, they modified the field (wave frequency too?)

- For the -17cm experiment, they modified the altitude (Sagnac effect could not be the same between Xcm and X+17cm)

Imagine a complex mechanical clock working with fuel, I'm not sure it will indicate the same time.

Kåre, I don't want to contradict you just for my fun, I might be wrong.

You don't seem to understand the physics behind atomic clocks. The result is also a very stringent check on the relativistic dynamics of the atomic nuclei. The same dynamics which are present in mechanical clocks, and anything which is made of atoms. Saying it is all light is like saying everything you read is all light (which it is), ignoring the thoughts behind. The dynamics behind the atomic spectra depends on much more than Maxwell equations.

I think the least accurate tests of Lorentz invariance consern gravity, but also there it is consistent with observations. You will certainly not be able to test better with "complex mechanical clocks working with fuel". Swiss watches also depend on the workings of atomic physics, not on gravitational physics.

The Sagnac effect is irrelevant for the gravitational time dilation; the effect of the rotating earth is encoded in the (effective) gravitational potential.

If you have a real interest in physics, which seems to be the case, you should read some introductory books. And stay away from alternative physics websites: They have even less scientific merits than astrology (which, after all, inspired the development of astronomy).

When I speak about mechanical clock, I try to avoid quartz mechanism (just imagine an ancient greek mechanism working independantly of gravity, it means horizontaly)

For the web site (now deleted), I agree with you. They helped me to understand SRT without time dilation, but still wrong ideas which I didn't used in my argumentation.

If my conclusion about Sagnac effect doesn't seem to convince, then you are right Kåre. GR explains the best Hafele-Keating experiment. I just try to keep neutral and add some new arguments (Socrates method).

Taking differences between east- and west-moving clocks, I think the Hafele-Keating experiment is mostly a test of SR. It is not very accurate compared to todays standards (like the one I linked to), but I think they understood the theory and the behavior of their clocks, and that their conclusion was correct and based on solid science.

This is more than can be said of many obscurants trying to debunk the experiment more than 40 years later, not even been able to reproduce the correct theoretical predictions.

Professor Kåre Olaussen,

I agree that  Hafele-Keating experiment is mostly a test of SR. I have to say that it is a good test. In my opinion, GR cannot explain the test. In that sense, Ni Ge is right about "absolute rotational reference".

Since my question is different from Ni Ge's question, I will ask a different question when I have time.

Note: time dilation is accepted by scientific community since Hafele-Keating experiment. And everyone who tested it after them had in mind to prove it in order to publish a nice paper, without asking himself if another parameter entered in cause.

What I say is maybe wrong, but if it could be true? (Personally I like the logical/mathematical arguement that a moving observer sees L/c with Sagnac effect: delta(t)=0)

Please read the links below very carefully

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theoristbad.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~Gadda001/goodtheorist/index.html

Dear Ni Ge,

Time dilation is accepted by scientific community since Ives-Stilwell experiment (1938).

The tasks of a good theoretical physicist are: description of experiments to verify the conformity of the theoretical findings, validation of the theoretical purity of new experiments, a developing of theories relevant new experimental results.

For this purpose, a theoretical physicist must constantly don't to believe to existing theories!!!

Therefore it is not necessary to read the literature, proposed by the distinguished Professor Kåre Olaussen in the previous message because it was only designed to force students not to ask inconvenient questions, otherwise a real scientists would be considered them crazy, charlatans and bad physicists. All this is aimed that people took for granted the standard model, developed on the basis of the relativity theory.

Of course, there are fields of application of GR, where the predictions are fairly accurate, for these areas were made and the experiments that supposedly proved the correctness of General and Special relativity. But actually, the theory of relativity describes the events approximately, in some fields a calculation error exceeds the now achievable accuracy.

Landau and Lifshitz ["Field Theory", §89] purely logically proved in the framework of General relativity that on a rotating ring it is impossible to synchronize clocks. And the magnitude of the clocks synchronization mismatch substantial even for ground clocks, not to mention the clocks on a fast-flying satellites. Thus, the GR has an inner contradiction if we consider the processes on a rotating ring. It can be proved that such contradiction presents in any process in which there is a curvilinear motion. Consequently, General relativity is fundamentally not applicable to any curvilinear movements. Similarly it is proved that the space of the Universe (world space) is not space-time of Minkowski. Etc. See https://www.researchgate.net/post/Necessity_of_property_of_Absolute_simultaneity_proven_isnt_it

A clear experimental proof of this is the example of the GPS system, in which it was decided to abandon the theory of relativity in a military application. This was written by the author of the development of this system R. Hatch. In the preliminary test of this system in sync clocks on the satellites to each other, the positioning error increased with each revolution of the satellites nearly 1 km.

---

Dear Ni Ge,

Замедление времени принимается научным сообществом со времен Ives-Stilwell эксперимента (1938).

Задачи хорошего физика-теоретика: описание экспериментов, позволяющих проверять соответствие теоретических выводов, проверка теоретической чистоты новых экспериментов, разработка теорий, соответствующих новым результатам.

Для этого физик-теоретик должен постоянно сомневаться в существующих теориях!!!

Поэтому не следует читать литературу, предложенную уважаемым профессором Kåre Olaussen в предыдущем сообщении, так как она предназначена только для того, чтобы заставить студентов не задавать неудобные вопросы, иначе настоящие ученые будто бы будут считать их чокнутыми, шарлатанами и плохими физиками-теоретиками. Все это нацелено на то, чтобы люди принимали на веру стандартные модели, разработанные на основе теории относительности.

Конечно, есть области применения ОТО, где предсказания достаточно точны, для таких областей и были сделаны эксперименты, якобы доказавшие правильность ОТО-СТО. Но на самом деле, теория относительности описывает события приблизительно, в некоторых областях ошибка расчетов превышает достижимую сейчас точность.

Ландау и Лифшиц [«Теория поля», §89] чисто логически доказали в рамках ОТО, что на вращающейся окружности принципиально нельзя синхронизировать часы. И величина несоответствия синхронизации часов существенна даже для наземных часов, не говоря уже про часы на быстро летящих спутниках. Таким образом, ОТО обладает внутренним противоречием, когда рассматривается процессы на вращающейся окружности. Можно доказать, что это противоречие присутствует для любых процессов, в которых имеется криволинейное движение. Следовательно, ОТО принципиально не применима для любых криволинейных движений. Аналогично доказывается, что пространство Вселенной (мировое пространство) не является пространством-временем Минковского. И. т.д. .  Смотрите https://www.researchgate.net/post/Necessity_of_property_of_Absolute_simultaneity_proven_isnt_it

Наглядным экспериментальным доказательством этого служит пример системы GPS, в которой было принято решение отказаться от теории относительности в военном применении. Об этом написал автор разработки этой системы R. Hatch. При предварительном испытании этой системы в режиме синхронизации часов на спутниках между собой, ошибка позиционирования возрастала с каждым оборотом спутников почти на 1 километр.

Dear Kåre Olaussen

Don't you know a Langevin-Landau-Lifshitz problem which is actually a contradiction within the theory of relativity?

---

Dear Kåre Olaussen 

Неужели вам не известна проблема Ланжевена-Ландау-Лифшица, которая на самом деле является противоречием внутри теории относительности?

Alexander> a contradiction within the theory of relativity?

No, I don't know. And don't bother to tell me! I have since long been exposed to far too many explanations of why Einstein was wrong. For some reason every explanation is different. It would be a good idea to lock all anti-relativists into the Sistine Chapel (the place where the papal conclaves are held) until they have agreed on which theories should replace SR and GR. I wouldn't hold my breath...

But why don't you invite yourself to the accelerator people at CERN, to inform them that the theory they have used to design and control their machines for 60 years is all wrong?

By the way, how did you manage to gain access to ResearchGate??

Dear Kåre Olaussen

The proof of the contradictions in GR was found by the biggest supporters of GR in Russia, but not by anti-relativists . They were real scientists and not hidden that they discovered the problem in their beloved theory.

I also think that at first half of XX century the GR had promoted a better understanding of physical processes , but now it's time to replace it with a better theory. And this should be done together with the relativists, not in separate conclave. :)

Why do you think the LHC is not working, why can't stabilize the beam trajectory? The leadership of CERN I their views presented.

By the way, I was invited to post on ResearchGate my theory of Absolute space, my Cosmology and the proof of infidelity, the use of Group theory.

---

Dear Kåre Olaussen

Доказательство противоречия в GR было найдено самыми большими сторонниками GR в России, а вовсе не антирелятивистами. Они были настоящими учеными и не стали скрывать обнаруженную ими проблему в их любимой теории.

Я тоже считаю, что в свое время GR продвинула понимание физических процессов вперед, но теперь пришла пора менять ее на более качественную теорию. И делать это надо вместе с релятивистами, а не в отдельных conclaves. :)

Как вы думаете, почему LHC сейчас не работает, почему не удается стабилизировать траекторию пучков? Руководству ЦЕРН я свои соображения представил.

Между прочим, я был приглашен разместить в ResearchGate мою теорию Абсолютного пространства, мою Космологию и мое доказательство неверности использования теории групп для преобразований координат в общем случае.

The proponents of relativity have the power to appear the relativity theory of Einstein as the greatest theory in world. They control the media, the physics journals and editors. Also Arxiv moderators are doing their best to not appear any paper that may proof the inconsistency of SRT. Because they have the power, they can do everything in order to fixing data in order to save relativity. 

The Pioneer anomaly is good proof that the concept of relative velocity (objectivity) and then the Lorentz symmetry is wrong. The pioneer anomaly and the energy momentum problem is simple to be solved by removing The Lorentz symmetry. Read my paper The Exact Solution of The Pioneer Anomaly According to The General Theory of Relativity and The Hubble's Law http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058 

Also read my paper Comments on the Thermal Origin of the Pioneer Anomaly

http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0006

The paper of the thermal origin of the Pioneer anomaly is only fixing data in order to save the relativity theory of Einstein, and then they close the case.

Also faster than light in the Opera experiment, why the leader of the experiment is resigned? Faster than light will be appeared by removing Lorentz symmetry.

Gunter Nimtz experiments, and why he resigned also? Gunter Nimtz illustrated in his papers Quantum tunneling experiments have shown that 1) the tunneling process is non-local, 2) the signal velocity is faster than light, i.e. superluminal, 3) the tunneling signal is not observable, since photonic tunneling is described by virtual photons, and 4) according to the experimental results, the signal velocity is infinite inside the barriers, implying that tunneling instantaneously acts at a distance. We think these properties are not compatible with the claims of many

textbooks on Special Relativity.

After refusing Lorentz symmetry in Lorentz transformation which is leading to removing objectivity, then all the problems in physics are solved from Higgs to Galaxies. And then all the paradoxes in relativity are disappeared. At this time, it is very simple to quantization of gravity and then we understand, there is no graviton, it is photon mediates gravitation. Proponents of Relativity do not like to modify relativity, specially SRT, and they do their best to not SRT changed.... why??? This the biggest question. 

There is good paper entitled The Hafele-Keating experiment, velocity and length interval transformations and resolution of the Ehrenfest paradox http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5174v1

Proponents of relativity refuse to discuss this paper with me because they understand completely it is agreed completely with my theory of quantization of gravity and the solution of the Pioneer anomaly. I challenge any of proponents of relativity. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002

Dear Azzam,

You made a logical error! Removing Lorentz symmetry, you come to another theory, which differs from General relativity. But the possibility to explain the anomalies of the "Pioneers" in another theory does not prove infidelity GR!

Therefore, the relativists are right, when they do not discuss your article, as already in the title of the article, there is a bug, and your build does not affect GR.

Gunter Nimtz experiments: 3) the tunneling signal is not observable, since the photon tunneling is described by virtual photons, and 4) the results of measurements of the speed of propagation of the signal is infinite within the barriers.

You don't see the contradiction between 3 and 4? If the tunneling signal is not observable, it is impossible to measure its speed.

You are brave, but for to challenge any of the supporters of the theory of relativity, you must have a logical contradiction in the framework of this theory or experimental results obtained in the framework of GR, but contrary to the conclusions of GR.

---

Уважаемый Azzam,

Вы сделали логическую ошибку! Удалив Лоренц-симметрию, вы пришли к другой теории, отличающейся от ОТО. Но возможность объяснения аномалии «Пионеров» в другой теории не доказывает неверность ОТО!

Поэтому релятивисты правы, когда не обсуждают ваши построения, поскольку уже в заголовке статьи присутствует ошибка, и ваши построения никак не влияют на ОТО.

Гюнтер Nimtz эксперименты: 3) туннельный сигнал ненаблюдаем, поскольку фотонное туннелирование описывается с помощью виртуальных фотонов, и 4) по результатам измерений скорость распространения сигнала бесконечна внутри барьеров.

Вы не видите противоречие между 3 и 4? Если туннельный сигнал не наблюдаем, то нельзя измерить его скорость.

Вы отважны, но чтобы бросить вызов любому из сторонников теории относительности, вы должны иметь логическое противоречие в рамках этой теории или экспериментальные результаты, полученные в рамках ОТО, но противоречащие выводам ОТО.

Dear Alexandar.

With my respect to you comment, please read my discussion about Why must graviton have a spin of 2, while a photon has a spin of 1? That is depending on GR. 

Also, read my paper related to the quantization of gravity. Compare the predicted results of my paper with these experimental results:

1- In this paper http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/28/new-correction-to-speed-of-light-could-explain-sn1987-neutrino-burst

Franson calculated that, treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. However, this leads to a violation of Einstein's equivalence principle – that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable – because, in a gravitational field, the gravitational potential is created along with mass, whereas in a frame of reference accelerating in free fall, it is not. Therefore, one could distinguish gravity from acceleration by whether a photon slows down or not when it undergoes particle–antiparticle creation.

2- In this paper http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141219085153.htm?utm_source=feedburner

Here's a nice surprise: quantum physics is less complicated than we thought. An international team of researchers has demonstrated that two peculiar features of the quantum world previously considered distinct are different manifestations of the same thing. Which I predicted that in my transformation. You can read the Abstract in my paper at least.

3- In this paper https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all Which I predicted also in my theory and how that is related to the vacuum fluctuations according to my transformation

My interpretation to the Pioneer anomaly is completely exact solution. You can read it and compare it with data of Nasa. 

Relative to your comment "You don't see the contradiction between 3 and 4? If the tunneling signal is not observable, it is impossible to measure its speed."

The answer is no there is no contradiction. Because the measurement of the speed of light is depended in the experiment on the measured passed distance of the light trip depending on the measured length locally. Review the experiment. By considering the space is invariant as in my transformation and as in the paper The Hafele-Keating experiment, velocity and length interval transformations and resolution of the Ehrenfest paradox  http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5174v1 , and then by refusing the Lorentz symmetry , then we can get the possibility of measuring faster than light or decreasing in the Light speed, but not locally. The light speed is locally constant and equals to the speed of light in vacuum.  The observed VSL is depending on the measuring of time only, which is dilated or contracted Review Figs 1 &2 in my paper and you will understand how the possibility of faster than light and how that agree with quantum entanglement and tunneling and how that related to vacuum fluctuation in my transformation. All the experiments are agreed completely with my transformation Hafele-Keating experiment and Sagnac effect. There is no space-time continuum as predicted by Einstein. It is only time, and the universe is flat. Experiments proved that.

Dear Azzam,

"There is no space-time continuum as predicted by Einstein. It is only time, and the universe is flat."

Since the absence of space-time means the absence of Universe expansion, then your answer to the initial question of this topic is "absolute referential"(ARF).. My answer was the same. Another thing is that the transformations of coordinates of ARF in the IRF can be different in our theories. But physical theory may be different, they can be built based on different postulates, they can have different properties and laws, and they can give different explanations to the same effects.

 "Why must have a graviton of spin 2, while a photon has a spin of 1?"

Thus You have shown that light may not be the cause of gravity. It's obvious, because the light shielding does not reduce the gravity. On the contrary, At eclipse of the Sun (the Moon shields the light of the Sun)  the attraction of the Earth to the Sun increases, because at this point the height of the tide increases.

 “The observed VSL is depending on the measuring of time only, which is dilated or contracted Review Figs 1 &2 in my paper and you will understand how the possibility of faster than light and how that agree with quantum entanglement and tunneling and how that related to vacuum fluctuation in my transformation. All the experiments are agreed completely with my transformation Hafele-Keating experiment and Sagnac effect.”

I know how can change the speed of light due to the change in pace of time. This is described in my theory for any local system of reference (IRF) but not in the absolute(ARF). But in my theory there is no "quantum entanglement", as the particles has properties at the moment of its birth! All experiments have an explanation, including Hafele-Keating, for "my" coordinate transformations:

t'=t/γ; x'=γ(x-vt); y'=y; z'=z 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272622631_Absolute._Main_principles?ev=prf_pub

---

Уважаемый Azzam,

«There is no space-time continuum as predicted by Einstein. It is only time, and the universe is flat.»

Поскольку отсутствие пространства-времени означает отсутствие расширения Вселенной, то ваш ответ на начальный вопрос этой темы – это «absolute referential». Мой ответ был таким же.  Другое дело, что преобразования координат из АСО в ИСО  могут быть разными в наших теориях.  Но физические теории могут быть разными, они могут быть построены на  основе разных постулатов, они могут иметь разные свойства и законы,  и они могут давать разные объяснения одним и тем же эффектам.

 “Why must graviton have a spin of 2, while a photon has a spin of 1?»

Этим вы показали, что свет не может быть  причиной гравитации. Это и так понятно, поскольку экранирование света не приводит к уменьшению гравитации. Наоборот, при затмениях Солнца (Луна экранирует свет Солнце)  происходит увеличение притяжения Земли к Солнцу, так как в этот момент увеличивается высота прилива.

 «The observed VSL is depending on the measuring of time only, which is dilated or contracted Review Figs 1 &2 in my paper and you will understand how the possibility of faster than light and how that agree with quantum entanglement and tunneling and how that related to vacuum fluctuation in my transformation. All the experiments are agreed completely with my transformation Hafele-Keating experiment and Sagnac effect.»

Я прекрасно знаю, как может меняться скорость света за счет изменения темпа времени. Это описано в моей теории для любой локальной системы отсчета, но не в абсолютной системе. Но в моей теории не существует «quantum entanglement», так как частицы приобретает все свойства в момент рождения! И все эксперименты имеют объяснения, в том числе Hafele-Keating,  при «моих» преобразованиях координат:

A(v):   t'=t/γ; x'=γ(x-vt); y'=y; z'=z 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272622631_Absolute._Main_principles?ev=prf_pub

Article Absolute. Main principles

Dear Alexander Chepick,

This is the problem that faced Einstein in the interpretation of the Lorentz transformation equations in SRT, which is the same problem that face all the physicists in order to unify between quantum and relativity. The problem exists in the y and z coordinates in the Lorentz transformation equations. Where in Lorentz transformation y'=y and z'=z..Why? That is because of objectivity, which is also exists in classical physics before Lorentz transformation. In order to keep on objectivity as in classical physics, then you must keep on the Lorentz symmetry. Lorentz symmetry is important to keep on objectivity, and then you keep on the Lorentz invariance basis on keeping on objectivity. But it is possible to keep on the Lorentz invariance without keeping on objectivity, and thus refusing Lorentz symmetry. That will lead to disappearing all the paradoxes in SRT, as in my transformation. Where according to that you get, y'=Ry and z'=Rz where are is the Lorentz factor. In this case the Lorentz transformation is vacuum energy dependent, and the concept of acceleration or deceleration in the non-inertial frames is vacuum fluctuation which is quantized. This transformation leads to the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If you understand my transformation well, then you will understand all the comments of Dingle are right relative to the SRT. Read the previous questions, all of them now answered according to my transformation, and there are more and more. I told you all the problems in physics are solved now from Higgs to Galaxies. Review the theories of Dark matter and Dark energy, and how it is related to Higgs theory, and then read my solution to the Pioneer anomaly which is exact solution and how it is related to Hubble constant and also its distance from the Sun. For the Pioneer anomaly Anderson, who is retired from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), is that study's first author. He finds, so "it's either new physics or old physics we haven't discovered yet." New physics could be a variation on Newton's laws, whereas an example of as-yet-to-be-discovered old physics would be a cloud of dark matter trapped around the sun. In fact there is no dark matter, but it is related how to understand the gravitational force according to quantum theory as in my transformation equations.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_zero_point_energy_explain_the_rotation_curve_of_a_typical_spiral_galaxy_the_flat_appearance_of_the_velocity_curve_out_to_a_large_radius2

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Aether_field_rejected_by_Michelson_Morley_experiment_in_20th_century_but_now_in_21st_century_Higgs_field_is_accepted_Why_is_that

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_concept_of_virtual_particles_related_to_the_Twin_paradox_in_SRT

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Loretnz_symmetry_conserved_for_all_velocity_ranges

Here what could be correct for the Sagnac effect (following Azzam's theory). There is a difference with Post (1967) calculations: it means, no time dilation (because of lengths).

Am I right?

Dear Ni Ge.

No, you are not right.

1. How do you calculate the length of the moving trajectory of light relative to Inertial observer? All its segments have different velocities (from 0 up to -2V) in different directions.

2. You have applied the formula for the distance along the X' axis, but this trajectory of light does not go along this axis.

3. It's weird, on the basis of the Lorentz transformation, to try to prove that they do not have change-of-pace time. Rather, it should be assumed that the description of this effect does not fall within the scope of the Lorentz transformations. That is, the Sagnac effect in the theory of relativity it is impossible to describe.

4. And finally, you lose your multiplier "c" in the formula for Δt.

---

Уважаемый Ni Ge.

Нет, вы не правы.

1. Как вы рассчитали длину двигающейся траектории света относительно Inertial observer? Там же все участки имеют разную величину скорости и разное направление движения.

2. Вы применили формулу для расстояния вдоль оси X', но траектория движения света вдоль этой оси не идет!  

3. Это странно, исходя из преобразования Лоренца, пытаться доказывать, что в них  нет изменения темпа времени. Скорее следует предположить, что описание этого эффекта не попадает в область применения преобразований Лоренца. То есть, эффект Саньяка в теории относительности описывать нельзя.

4. И наконец, вы потеряли множитель «c» в формуле для Δt.

Dear Alexander,

"A clear experimental proof of this is the example of the GPS system, in which it was decided to abandon the theory of relativity in a military application.

This was written by the author of the development of this system R. Hatch. In the preliminary test of this system in sync clocks on the satellites to each other, the positioning error increased with each revolution of the satellites nearly 1 km"

are you sure??

What solution of GR was used?? In such a situation should not be possible to use the Schwartzshild approximation.

Give me more details please if you can.

Stefano

Dear Stefano,

I have no details, and cannot be , since I am not a developer of GPS. But because the GPS satellites are flying at the same height with the same speed, all the effects of gravity and velocity of the satellites is reduced to the constant rate of time, which is experimentally determined. That is, there is no need to have the Schwartzshild approximation

---

Уважаемый Stefano,

У меня нет подробностей, и не может быть , так как я не разработчик GPS. Но поскольку спутники GPS летают на одинаковой высоте с одинаковой скоростью, то все влияние гравитации и скорости спутников сводится к константе темпа времени, которая экспериментально установлена. То есть, Schwartzshild approximation здесь не нужно.

Dear Alexander,

GPS do not flight exactly at the same height. Otherwise they would need the same clockrate variation, set on board, in order to be in sync with the clocks on Earth. The approximately fly at 3/2 R from the Earth's center where R is Earth's radius, but they are not set at the same altitude.

Stefano> Give me more details please

I have heard a story similar to Alexander's regarding the nuclear bomb (nuclear reactors?) computer code. I have forgotten from whom (Bob Laughlin?).  The story was that the code was obviously constructed from a wrong (outdated and misprinted) theory, and added errors during implementation. But this has continuously, for almost 70 years, been repaired by introducing fudge parameters adjusted to fit the observed reality. To such an extent that it is now impractical/impossible/in-economical to implement the better theories through less error-prone coding practices! After all, the principle of epicycles worked quite well, and it still does. 

Anyway, such practical adaptions in a non-scientific context does not prove that the underlying theory is wrong. I must add that the story sounds somewhat incredible to me.

Alexander has also claimed (on this thread?)  that the LHC is not working...

http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2015/04/first-successful-beam-record-energy-65-tev

Kåre

Thanks a lot for the Link

Dear Stefano,

There are else civil mode of use based on GR (+ many  synchronization according to the clock on the ground towers), and in this mode of operation the impact of the potential and velocity on the clockrate is taken by the formulas GR. And since on a board there is only one clock then influence of potential on the clockrate is not recalculated for second mode.

R. Hatch focused on the problem of clock synchronization in the framework of GR which was not operational between satellites. It was exactly such problem of General relativity which Landau and Lifshitz warned about. R. Hatch also wrote that the clockrate did not match the speed of the satellite relative to the Earth plus the potential from the Earth, the moon and the Sun. He wrote about the presence of a small periodic supplement, with nothing to bind, and which was taken into account by adding to the formula OTO fictitious variation of change of elevation of the satellite.

---

Уважаемый Stefano,

Есть еще гражданский режим использования, основанный на GR (+ частая синхронизация по часам на наземных башнях), и в этом режиме работы влияние потенциала и скорости на темп хода часов берется по формулам GR. А поскольку на борту только одни часы, влияние потенциала на темп хода часов не пересчитывается для второго режима.

 R.Hatch основное внимание уделил проблеме синхронизации часов в рамках ОТО, которая оказалась не работоспособной между спутниками. Это оказалось именно той проблемой ОТО, о которой предупредили Ландау и Лифшиц. R.Hatch также писал, что темп хода часов не соответствовал скорости спутника относительно Земли плюс потенциалу от Земли, Луны и Солнца. Он писал о наличии  небольшой периодической добавки, которую ни с чем не удалось связать, и которую учитывали, добавляя в формулу ОТО фиктивную вариацию изменения высоты спутника.

Dear Kåre,

“Alexander has also claimed (on this thread?)  that the LHC is not working...”

I talked a bit more, namely that at the LHC the flows of particles are poorly managed, it is possible that the actual flow speed differs in different parts of the circular accelerator from speed which is  assumed to them in the framework of GR.

---

Уважаемый Kåre,

«Александр также утверждал (на эту тему?) что коллайдер не работает»

Я говорил немного другое, а именно, что на LHC потоки частиц плохо управляются  из-за того, возможно, что реальные скорости потоков отличаются в разных частях кольцевого ускорителя от скорости, предписываемой им в рамках GR.

Alexander> the flows of particles are poorly managed

Sorry, I respectfully disbelieve you on this point. The LHC, including its attached detectors, is certainly the most complicated construction ever made by mankind. And it is not poorly managed, it is fantastically managed! I wish I could say I was part of it. But I cannot (without lying).

What is your opinion about these calculations done by Sandor Fofai in http://www.thescienceforum.com/personal-theories-alternative-ideas/47660-what-does-hafele-keating-experiment-gps-prove.html

The defenders of relativistic theories claim that the experiment performed in 1971 by Joseph C. Hafele and Richard E. Keating on commercial airplanes proves Einstein’s Special and General Relativity theories. The shortcomings of the experiment however undermine the authenticity of its results.

H&K experiment (and GPS computing) support Lorentz’s transformation (LT) instead of Special Relativity (SR).because of using the centre of Earth as basic referential frame for relativistic calculations. In SR referential frames are equal, so time dilation should have been computing by the relative velocity of Observer and Source to each other. To evade ‘twin paradox’ of SR it is necessary to introduce a basic referential frame, but with that the experiment support LT. So it is misleading to claim that the H&K experiment (or GPS) prove SR and explain twin paradox, because they try to prove LT, where there is no ‘twin paradox’.

Strange Consequence: Geocentric Universe?

Nor GPS application, neither the H&K experiment involved the orbiting speed of Earth around Sun when computing relativistic time dilation. This is possible only if there is a stationary electromagnetic field around the Earth, or Ptolemy was right and we live in a geocentric Universe.

The shortcomings of H&K experiment

Atomic clocks are sensitive instruments, influenced by temperature, vibration, humidity, magnetic field etc. Because the drifting rate (measuring deviation) of the atomic clocks were higher then the detected time dilations, the experiment failed to reach the level of authenticity.

"Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything" J.C. Hafele about the atomic clocks used in his experiment - 1971

Missing calculation of GPS

The H&K experiment triggered more then a dozen similar experiments measuring even the time dilation of cyclists traveling with 30km/h speed. What is needed however is not a speed of a snail against atomic clocks. The Global positioning system consists of 24 satellites which travel round the Earth and send signals from which the Observers can calculate their own positions. The satellites are orbiting with 3874 m/s velocity in about 20 170 km high (R= 26 541 km).

As the satellite orbits, its distance to a point on the Earth changes continually causing frequency change and time deviation for Observer, which can be calculated by the factor of Real Doppler Effect. If there is any relativistic time dilation, it must be over this time deviation (not counting the error factors):

Relativistic Time dilation = Total time deviation – Time deviation of Real Doppler Effect

Doppler Time deviation decreases when the satellite is nearing (the angle of move nears 90 degree) and increases when it moves away. Its accumulation is limited by time delay determined by distance (L/c). Relativistic time dilation accumulates by time so it can be separated from time deviation caused by Doppler Effect. Satellites and space stations could measure accumulated time dilations or the relative velocity of light by measuring its speed while traveling toward Sun, such experiments however weren’t published.

GPS disproves Special Relativity

GPS use Sagnac effect to calibrate the time delay of the arriving signals to the relative move of Observers. This proves that the relative speed of light changes depending on the speed of Observer, which contradicts Special Relativity.

Sagnac effect with the relativistic or other corrections and filters may compensate the missing Doppler factor, but over some level cannot replace it.

-----

The data of the Hafele -Keating experiment:

Starting point: USNO (U.S. Naval Observatory) in Washington DC, latitude: N 38.9

East trip: 65.4 h; Traveled time:41,2 h; avr ground speed 243m/s; avr altitude 8,9km; avg latitude N 34;

(USNO, Dulles, London , Frankfurt, Istanbul, Beirut, Tehran, New Delhi, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Tokyo,, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Dallas, Dulles, USNO)

Time gain: -40ns

West trip 80.33 h; Traveled time:48,6 h; avr ground speed 218m/s; avr altitude 9.36 km; avg latitude N 31;

(USNO, Dulles, Los Angeles, Honolulu, Guam, Okinawa, Taipei, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Bombay, Tel Aviv, Athens, Rome, Paris, Shannon, Boston, Dulles, USNO)

Time gain +275ns

Let’s calculate time dilation ‘dt’ caused by gravity

dt=tgh/c^2 (there are more equation in General Relativity. In non relativistic interpretation this formula gives the velocity change of light(dc) caused by gravity when h

You forgot to include the following: MOD NOTE : This entire post is so full of personal opinions, misapplications, meaningless phrases and misconceptions, that it really does not belong into the main Physics section. Moved to Personal Theories.

Dear Kåre Olaussen,

The problem in understanding relativity according to Lorentz transformation is that;

1- According to the experimental results time dilation is proved experimentally and there is no way to remove it in physics.

2- According to the experimental results there is no twin paradox, but according to SRT there is twin paradox.... You will understand that later how?

3- Light speed is locally constant and equals to the speed of light in vacuum, but experimentally it is proved that it is not constant globally but it is variable (VSL). One of these experiments Sagnac effect and Hafele-Keating experiment. The VSL according to the experimental results indicates that the variability of the speed of light is depending on the Galilean transformation which leading to c-v and c+v, and thus according to Hafele-Keating experiment v1+v2 and v1-v2

4- There is no any experiment proves the length contraction. All the experiments proves the time dilation without the twin paradox  and any other paradoxes Ehrenfest paradox, Ladder paradox and Bell's spaceship paradox . That means space is invariant, while time is not invariant. 

5- All of that means Hafele-Keating experiment proved Lorentz transformation which leading to time dilation without twin paradox is right while the concept of  the reciprocity principle is not exist in the nature. 

6- That means during the motion in constant speed v, each observer during the motion measures the proper time, proper length and proper velocity.and there is no coordinates of time and space. Coordinates of time and space proposed by Einstein in order to keep on the reciprocity principle.

7- The Lorentz transformation according to that is a transformation of the proper time and length of the moving observer to the proper time and length of the stationary observer without the reciprocity principle, which leading to disappearing all the paradoxes in SRT.

8- In order to keep on the constancy of the speed of light locally as in the negative result in the Michelson-Morely experiment, it is required that  y'=Ry and z'=Rz in the Lorentz transformation equations, where R is the Lorentz factor. That is not affected on the Lorentz invariance. and it keeps on the Lorentz invariance the same, but there is no Lorentz symmetry.

9- Globally according to this transformation the Sagnac effect and doppler effect is given according c+v and c-v, and v1+v2 and v1-v2, which agree with all the experimental results.

10- That are not all. This transformation indicates four vector first rank tensor. That means in case of gravity photon mediates gravitation, and it is no graviton. Read my paper below.

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002

The problem in understanding relativity

is that there is no problem (to a HUGE majority of physicists).

Dear All,

In LHC the actual flow speed differs in different parts of the circular accelerator from speed is The Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It is impossible the scientists in the LHC can solve this problem. It is Heisenberg uncertainty principle according to my transformation. They built all of their calculations according to Einstein's interpretation to the Lorentz transformation depending on objectivity. There is no objectivity. It is impossible that the moving observer and the observer on the ground that agree at the location of the moving frame at any point in space on the ground at the same time. It is Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I do not know how the scientists will calibrate that ......... Einstein cheated them and they lost their money.....  LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002

The predictions by Holger Bech Nielsen were more funny, and actually based on some deep interpretations of Quantum mechanics. The seagull missing its breadcrumb almost convinced me...

Here are a couple of (unofficial) links which seem to report the real-time status at LHC.  

http://meltronx.com

https://twitter.com/lhcstatus

Kåre> The LHC… is fantastically managed!

Perhaps this is why LHC badly working, isn't it?

 ---

Наверное именно поэтому LHC так плохо работает, не так ли?

> badly working

Compared to what? Your lab?

LHC is more often not working than working

---

LHC чаще не работает, чем работает

Kåre Olaussen ·> The problem in understanding relativityis that there is no problem (to a HUGE majority of physicists).

   With the exception of Landau-Lifschitz contradictions and the experiments: Sagnac, H&K, Miller (1925), DeWitte, Cahill, Demyanov and many other experiments.

 "The theory of a relativity works as much

as the Absolute allows to it!"

© Alexander Chepick

--- 

За исключением противоречия Ландау-Лившица, экспериментов Саньяка, H&K, Miller (1925), DeWitte, Cahill, Демьянов   и многие другие эксперименты,

"Теория относительности работает лишь в такой степени, в какой ей позволяет Абсолют!"

©  Александр Чепик

Dear Kåre Olaussen,

Please can you help me to understand that?

Calibration the instruments according to measuring the proper time, proper length and then proper velocity is a brilliant job by the proponents of relativity in order to convince people that the experiment proved SRT of Einstein as what happened in OPERA and ICURUS experiments, Sagnac and H&K.

SRT is a reciprocity principle! Why there is no any experiment proofs the reciprocity principle in SRT? Experiments proved there is no Twin paradox. Thus if there is no twin paradox, then there is no reciprocity principle. Why in GR there is no twin paradox, and the reciprocity principle? because of acceleration as proponents of relativity said. While SRT are built basis on inertial frame (non accelerated) and there is no twin paradox, but where is the reciprocity principle? 

I think that GR and SR are not working where there is a loop of motion, where we can return a clock to the starting point in 3D-space and can check their theoretical prediction.

In the remaining situations we can choose the calibration of clocks and rulers so to measure showed what relativity needs.

---

Я считаю, что GR и SR не работают там, где существует цикл движения, где мы можем вернуть часы в исходную точку в 3D-пространстве и можем проверить их теоретические предсказания.

В остальных ситуациях можно так подобрать калибровку часов и линеек, чтобы измерения показывали то, что нужно теории относительности.

Dear Alexander Chepick,

The reality is that; Einstein used the reciprocity principle only to keep on objectivity which was adopted in classical physics. He proposed it without any proof that both the moving observer and the observer stationary on the ground agrees at the location of the moving frame at any point in space on the ground at the same time. This also illustrates a contradiction in relativity. If there is time dilation, so how can we say at the same time.... which time? coordinates time or proper time? Review the Dingle comments on relativity.

From objectivity it is resulted the continuity in the macro world, which is in contradiction with quantum theory principle.

Proponents of relativity do not have the courage to discuss the reality of relativity. Always they try to hide the reality by calibrating instruments in order to convince people experiment agree with relativity.

Dear Azzam,

"Einstein used the reciprocity principle only to keep on objectivity which was adopted in classical physics"

Where did Einstein expose this reciprocity principle?? I don't know... I've heard about it but I cannot find it. 

Dear Stefano,

If you review the main problem between relativity and quantum theory (Copenhagen school), you will understand it is the objectivity, Review the concept of Heisenberg of the wave function, where Einstein was refusing this definition because it is in contradiction with objectivity in physics. The concept of objectivity in physics is defined according to relativity by the invariance which is defined by the Lorentz invariance and the Lorentz symmetry. But before Einstein formulating his SRT, it was defined by the Galilean transformation and by considering t=t' then each observer; the observer stationary on the moving train, and the observer stationary on the ground are agreed at the location of the front of the moving train or the location of the back of the moving train at any point in space on the ground at the same time. And from objectivity it is resulted the continuity in classical physics. When we say “at the same time” according to SRT, we face a lot of problems in SRT. Where, according to proper time we can’t say at the same time because of time dilation. And if we consider at the same time according to time coordinates we face a problem with the relative simultaneity in SRT. Because of that – till now- physicists are not agreed in the interpretation of Sagnac effect and Hafele-Keating experiment according to SRT of Einstein, and these experimental results are completely interpreted according to my transformation equations. In my transformation equations, we keep on the Lorentz invariance without any need to the Lorentz symmetry, and that leads to Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the wave-particle duality. As I predicted in my paper it is impossible that the observer stationary on the moving train, and the observer stationary on the ground are agreed at the location of the front of the moving train or the location of the back of the moving train at any point in space on the ground at the same time. That is because of the time dilation and thus the length contraction as defined in my theory. This is the core of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle when we deal with the four vector in my transformation which is leading also to the wave-particle duality. And this illustrating to you why quantum theory refusing objectivity.

Dear Azzam,

I know the Einstein's biggest mistake ever. He spent the last twenty years of his life between refuting quantum physics and  supporting  the atomic bomb...

I realized that the construction with the Lorentz invariance of SRT and GRT is just the perfect machine which doesn't evolve, which is time reversible and which is not a good picture of the reality at all... Though working also a bit in thermodynamics it seems Einstein really didn't digest the concept of evolution and entropy.

Something which exchanges energy  in STR or GRT in an non reversible way, or rather something non stationary, is an untreatable problem.

Eintein's conception of objectivity or total mechanicism-determinism is something which has a philosphycal root in his famously sad phrase "God doesn't play dice". In his conception everything is totally preordered and pre destinied he completely wiped out the freedom of man..I would call him SatEinsein...

 The Lorentz Transformations are good right for the purpose they were designed for, COORDINATE TRANSFORMATIONS, which is mathematics and can be applied successfully in many cases, but it is the biggest mistake ever to think that they can do everything . In general every system which exchanges energy with another system is not inertial and in such a way Lorentz transformations can be just an approximation and sometimes a totally non satsifactory one.

Quantum physics unfortunately at the present time, though presenting less problems than GRT, is still a reversible theory which does not accunt for evolution of processes. The time Arrow so far has been taken in consideration only in thermodynamics. QM instead of following Planck who initiated it with the right step, from a thermodynamics experiment, went for an alternative alley which didn't give it the chance, so far, to give a satisfactiory explanation of the macro-reality. The valid attempt of David Bohm sadly was refuted....

About the possibility to explain the clocks with GRT in a gravitational field, the experiment of VESSOT and LEVINE or Gravity Probe A, is a much better example, much more sophisticated than the HK and doesn't lead to ambiguities.

If carefully analysed, it actually tests to a 70 part over a million accuracy, the Schwarzschild solution of GRT which gives an appropriate description of the MOVING OSCILLATORS in a Gravitational field.

Article NASA GP-A REVIEW UPDATED VERSION

Dear Azzam,

A different rates of time does not "affect" on the simultaneity of moments, They "influence" on the length of the interval, but they also "influences" and on the tempo of clock to the same extent.  The same applies to the rulers. This gives us the opportunity to talk about the same description of the same processes in the linear case in IRF. But this does not mean that the same can be done in the nonlinear case, or in a non-inertial frame of reference.

There are people who believe that they are doing the right thing, supporting corporate opinion against the results of some experiments, convincing themselves and others that the theory of relativity works everywhere since it confirmed by numerous experiments with some accuracy. They don't want to suppose that may be a theory that gives the best accuracy. I think we should demonstrate these people not on their mistakes but on our advantage.

---

Уважаемый Azzam,

Разный темп времени не влияет на одновременность моментов, Он «влияет» на длительность процессов, но он «влияет» и на темп хода часов в той же степени, то же самое касается линеек. Это дает возможность говорить об одинаковом описании процессов в линейном случае в ИСО. Но из этого никак не следует, что то же самое можно сделать в нелинейном случае или в неинерциальной системе отсчета.

Есть люди, которые считают, что они поступают правильно, поддерживая корпоративное мнение против результатов некоторых экспериментов, убеждая себя и других, что теория относительности работает всюду, поскольку подтверждена множеством экспериментов с некоторой точностью. Они не желают думать о том, что может быть теория, которая дает лучшую точность. Я считаю, что нам следует показывать этим людям не их ошибки, а наше преимущество.