|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics
On Jan 1, 10:17*pm, GSS wrote:
On Nov 10 2009, 5:26 pm, GSS wrote: .... On Nov 6, 6:57 am, glird wrote: .... Consider a steel rod of length L laid along X-axis of a stationary reference frame K. Suppose there are n 'witches' (W1, W2, W3, ..., Wn) flying along the X-axis at uniform velocities of V1, V2, V3,...,Vn respectively.. If we assume that the length L of the steel rod will actually become L1 for witch W1, L2 for W2, L3 for W3 and Ln for the witch Wn, will you call it Witchcraft or Relativity? * No; I would call it defective semantics. (The length of a stationary rod won't "actually become" a function of which witch is looking at it; it will only APPEAR to be deformed as measured with the help of esynched clocks of each witch's system. You have made an important point that length L of the steel rod will not "actually become" L1, L2 etc. but will only APPEAR to become L1, L2 etc. That means the length L is the "actual" or proper length of the steel rod and the lengths L1, L2 etc. are the APPARENT lengths as seen by W1, W2 etc. It is said that appearances can be deceptive. Similarly apparent values of physical parameters can also be deceptive. For example we see the sun rise from east and set in the west, apparently traversing a circular arc of about 150 million km radius in 12 hours. Thus the sun 'appears' to move in the sky with an apparent speed of about 10000 km/s which is quite misleading. Further, the moon 'appears' to be much bigger in size than any of the stars. These apparent sizes of the moon and the stars are obviously quite misleading. Naturally if someone makes use of apparent values of physical parameters to develop a theory, such a theory is bound to be misleading. As per your own statement, L1, L2 etc. in the above example are only apparent values. Thus the Lorentz transformation which deals with such apparent values of physical parameters should obviously be branded as misleading. Shouldn't therefore SR too be branded as misleading? However, Relativity experts will still wriggle out of this embarrassing situation regarding misleading nature of Relativity. As per them, the length L of the steel rod, in a stationary reference frame K, does not "actually become" L1 but only "APPEARS to become" L1 when "MEASURED" by a moving observer W1. This stance of Relativity experts needs to be critically examined. When we measure the length L of a steel rod, we get the result of measurement in certain length units, say 3 meters. If we use some standard length unit Lu (like a meter rod or a foot ruler) to measure the given length L of the steel rod, then the result of the measurement will be stated as "n Lu" where n is a real number. *That is to say, length L is equal to n times Lu, where * * * * n = L/Lu * *.... (1) This measurement process can even be automated with some robotic system and the result of measurement "n" can be recorded in the system computer. Now consider the situation where a moving observer W1 finds that the length L of the steel rod APPEARS to have become L1, such that L1=q.L . Obviously however, when L appears to become q.L, the standard length unit Lu will also appear to become q.Lu, so that the standard measurement process will again yield the same measure number n as, * *n = q.L/(q.Lu) * * .... *(2) This shows that, had the moving observer W1 experienced a simple "apparent reduction" in length of the stationary steel rod, then a similar "apparent reduction" in the standard length unit (say a meter rod) would have left the final "measurement reading" n, of the length of the steel rod, totally unaffected. But this is not what is intended in Relativity. So the Relativity experts then introduce a special "MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE" which yields a reduction in "measurement reading" when the length of the steel rod fixed in a stationary reference frame is "measured" by a moving observer W1. As per this special "measurement procedure" the moving observer W1 will have to use a standard length unit Lu which is "co- moving" with the observer (or at rest in the observer's local frame) to effect the measurement of the steel rod of length L in the stationary reference frame K. This special measurement process will yield a different measure number n' as, * * n' = q.L/(Lu) *= q.n * ...... (3) This special "measurement procedure" to be used by the moving observer W1, turns out to be fully compatible with the mathematical structure of Relativity. Supporters of Relativity often claim that no experiment has yet refuted SR. May I request some Relativity expert to describe how the 'length contraction' in SR has been practically verified through physical measurements. Now *some Relativity expert* has confirmed that verification of 'length contraction' through physical measurements is "Not feasible". Hence it could be asserted that the notion of 'length contraction in SR is hypothetical. However, such a special "measurement procedure" in which a moving observer "measures" the length of a stationary steel rod by using a "moving" length unit Lu, is practically not feasible, even with the use of modern cutting edge technology. It is a fact that such a special "measurement procedure", in which the length of a stationary steel rod could be measured by using a "moving" length unit Lu, has neither been actually used nor can ever be used even in principle. At the most such a special "measurement procedure" could be described as hypothetical. Does anybody disagree? Obviously nobody could disagree! GSS |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics
On Jan 2, 7:17 am, ASS wrote:
Now *some Relativity expert* has confirmed that verification of 'length contraction' through physical measurements is "Not feasible". Hence it could be asserted that the notion of 'length contraction in SR is hypothetical. No, imbecile, it is not feasible with today's technology. A fe years from now it may be perfectly realisable. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics
**** wrote in message ... On Jan 2, 7:17 am, ASS wrote: Now *some Relativity expert* has confirmed that verification of 'length contraction' through physical measurements is "Not feasible". Hence it could be asserted that the notion of 'length contraction in SR is hypothetical. No, imbecile, it is not feasible with today's technology. A fe years from now it may be perfectly realisable. No imbecile, it is not feasible with tomorrow's technology. A fee is what you should pay me for straightening you stupid arse out. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics
On Jan 2, 9:07 am, "Androcles" the **** Face
wrote: snipped |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics
A set of beliefs, dogmas, postulates and axioms, along with concepts
and notions derived from particular interpretation of different physical observations, constitute the paradigm of fundamental physics. Under the current paradigm, it is generally believed that a fundamental theory of Physics need not be based on logical foundation and need not contain causal linkages for physical explanation. In the grand maze of the unknown, the current paradigm has lead Fundamental Physics to a dead end. To come out of this state, we need to change the direction of research and hence, change the current paradigm of Fundamental Physics. https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1 Necessity for such a paradigm shift has been highlighted from time to time by many distinguished scientists but their viewpoints could not produce the desired result, essentially for want of any viable alternative. Quoting from NPA website in this regard, "...If anything is clear in Thomas Kuhn’s familiar book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolu*tions”, it is that no revolution has occurred nor will occur in the future unless there is a proposed alterna*tive theory to replace the older one. The human spirit can not progress only by negative thoughts. It needs the positive food of truth, the elevation to new synth*eses and visions of older and newer realities. Hence, it remains a challenge for all of us." http://www.worldnpa.org/main/index.p...N_position=4:4 Quoting from "The Farce of Physics" by Bryan G. Wallace, http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm "...André Mercier reports [121] a conversation with Werner Heisenberg, in which Heisenberg argued `that even major modifications of present physical theories would not transform them into the desired new theory, as quite different and novel ideas are required. Secondly, the impact of quantum theory and relativity theory on the minds of those scholars who helped found them during the first half of our century is conceivably such that they are imprisoned by these theories and thus cannot help but reason conformably, that is, in terms of traditional concepts; whereas the need is for a whole revolution of thought, which can only be carried through by nonconformists'..." In the "FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF MATTER AND FIELDS" I have attempted to provide the required alternative theory from an unorthodox, nonconformist's viewpoint. The book has two parts. In the first part, various inadequacies of fundamental physics have been discussed, where a change in approach, a paradigm shift is called for. The second part studies the evolution of matter particles and fields from space-time distortions. https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1 Many scientists have attempted to model the fundamental nature of material phenomena in the Universe, in some unorthodox and nonconformist ways by making use of some unique assumptions. One such prominent scientist whose proposed model of the material phenomena resembles my model in some important respects, is Dr. Milo Wolff. "WAVE STRUCTURE OF MATTER" by Milo Wolff http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-...ure-Matter.htm "The electron is composed of spherical waves which converge to the center and then become outward waves. The two waves form a standing wave whose peaks and nodes are like the layers of an onion. The wave amplitude is a scalar number like a quantum wave, not an electromagnetic vector wave (a mathematical wave of force). The Wave- Center is the apparent location of the electron 'particle'." In the history of evolution of fundamental ideas suggesting the 'Wave Structure of Matter', Dr Milo Wolff quotes, "A wave structure of matter was proposed 130 years ago by the famous English geometer, William Clifford, who spoke before the Cambridge Philosophical Society in 1870. All matter is simply undulations in the fabric of space. He developed this concept as three-dimensional dynamics that reduces to four-dimensional kinematics describing matter, electromagnetism and kinetic energy ... In Clifford's thoughts, the mass and charge substances that we assume, do not exist but are properties of a wave structure in space. In short, space waves were real, while mass and charge points are mere appearances of the wave structure; Schaumkommen in the words of Schroedinger." However, the apparent similarity between the two models presented in the "WAVE STRUCTURE OF MATTER" and the "FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF MATTER AND FIELDS" ends pretty soon when we examine the founding assumptions in the two cases. In the 'Wave Structure of Matter' of Milo Wolff, the founding assumption is, "Principle I is: Quantum matter waves exist in space and are solutions of a scalar wave equation:" But the founding assumption in 'Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields', is a 'vector wave equation' derived from particular interpretation of permittivity and permeability constants of vacuum. In this the inverse of permittivity constant is interpreted as the elastic constant and the permeability constant is interpreted as the inertial constant of vacuum or the elastic space continuum. https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1 A few salient points from the "FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF MATTER AND FIELDS" are listed here to present a brief perspective of the proposed model of the natural phenomena. (a) The popular notion of ‘curvature of space’ actually implies the ‘deformation of space’. The deformation of space can be properly represented through a displacement vector and a strain tensor associated with each and every point of the space continuum. https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1 (b) In the mathematical model of General Relativity, an abstract notion of spacetime manifold has been used as a graphical template, with differential scaling of its space and time axes, to represent the particle trajectories as geodesic curves. The four dimensional spacetime continuum is not a physical entity in any sense but just an abstract mathematical notion. https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1 (c) A detailed analytical study of dynamic deformations in the space continuum, through the time dependent displacement vector field U, provides a more fundamental level of investigation into the workings of Nature, in comparison to the fields currently used for the purpose. https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1 (d) The equilibrium equations of elasticity in the Elastic Space Continuum turn out to be the vector wave equation for the displacement vector field U. https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1 All further analysis presented in this book is based on the solutions of this vector wave equation, subject to appropriate boundary conditions. https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1 To demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed new model of the natural phenomena, a unique testable prediction is contained in the experimental detection of the absolute motion described at, https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1 Learned readers are requested to judge whether the "FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF MATTER AND FIELDS" effectively represents a valid call for a paradigm shift in Fundamental Physics? GSS http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics
On Feb 28, 11:24 am, "Androcles"
wrote: ..... You can disagree all you want to, the rest of the world is not going to suddenly jump up and say " 'Gurcharn Sage Sandhu' is a genius, let's all have an absolute motion paradigm shift!" ..... Let us leave the 'rest of the world' to form their own opinion and judgment. Let us discuss your personal apprehensions regarding the proposed experiment to detect absolute motion. https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1 In the illustrative example considered above, when two objects A and B, separated by distance D, are co-moving with velocity U (along AB) in a 'stationary' reference frame K, the difference between up-link signal propagation time Tu and the down-link signal propagation time Td gives a measure of U/c as, U/c = (Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...... (1) provided, of course the speed of signal propagation c is an isotropic constant in reference frame K. However, if we assume your pet 'emission theory' or 'ballistic theory' of light propagation to be valid in the reference frame K, then during up-link the signal propagation speed will be c+U and during down-link the signal propagation speed will be c-U as measured in reference frame K. Taking into account the distance moved by the objects A and B (in frame K) during the signal propagation times, we get, (c+U).Tu = D + U.Tu ..... (2) and (c-U).Td = D - U.Td ..... (3) From equations (2) and (3) we get, Tu = Td = D/c ..... (4) Thus, assuming your pet 'emission theory' or 'ballistic theory' of light propagation to be valid, the up-link and down-link signal propagation times between two co-moving objects will always be equal. Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighborhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an 'A time' and a 'B time'. We have not defined a common 'time' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we *establish by definition* that the 'time' required by light to travel from A to B equals the 'time' it requires to travel from B to A." This shows that your pet 'emission theory' or 'ballistic theory' of light propagation predicts the same result as enunciated by Einstein (which you had been persistently objecting to for so long). In the above quoted experiment to detect absolute motion, my proposed theory makes a definite prediction that the up-link and down-link signal propagation times between two co-moving objects will always be un-equal. Thus a successful conduct of the proposed experiment to detect absolute motion will not only invalidate SR and your pet 'emission theory' or 'ballistic theory' of light propagation but will also initiate a paradigm shift in fundamental physics. I expect this experiment to be actually conducted during 2010 - 2011 period. May I have your valuable comments please! GSS |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics
On Feb 28, 6:50 am, ASS wrote:
May I have your valuable comments please! ASS You are still an old fart imbecile. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics | GSS | Astronomy Misc | 85 | October 5th 09 09:23 AM |
Subject: Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics | Rock Brentwood | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 22nd 09 12:54 AM |
Paradigm-shift loving oddballs at... | Biscuit | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 24th 06 03:52 PM |
The Paradigm Shift Revolution of Physics | Stephen Mooney | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | May 31st 04 04:30 AM |
The Paradigm Shift Revolution of Physics | Stephen Mooney | SETI | 0 | May 30th 04 08:53 PM |