Einstein was wrong: My Theory of Relativity

[Scott Mayers]

I think Einstein was wrong. At least, he wasn't completely correct.

 

When Einstein imagined if he could ride on a beam of light, he questioned what he would see if he looked into a mirror held up to his face. He reasoned correctly that he wouldn't see anything because the light of his face could never reach the mirror to even have a chance to reflect back.

 

He postulated that in fact he would still see his face as light and that light would still be measured to be the same speed. To compensate for this, he assumed that time itself slowed down.

 

The problem? He assumed that the phenomena that he measured, namely light, would be the very same essence in any varying regular velocity.

 

Let me explain with an analogy.

 

Imagine that you are in a space craft going away from Earth toward the moon. Imagine further that there is a transmitter on both the moon and Earth that are capable of sending out a stream of data via electromagnetic waves of your favorite episode of Star Trek. Now we know that since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, we know that those signals can only travel at the fixed speed of light, c.

 

Imagine that both programs are sent simulataneously toward your ship as you travel at near the speed of light. The stream of data being sent from Earth would be stretched relative to you in the space craft and would take longer than the hour length of the program to completely finish its whole stream. Sure, your time would slow down relative to your motion and so you would appear to receive the message in the exact hour-length of the program.

But wait...since the same program is being sent from the moon simultaneously as you travel toward it, then that stream would be compressed in duration and should appear shorter in length than the hour. Now if this is to be fixed according to Einstein, your relative time would have to speed up if you are to still perceive the signal as being one hour long.

 

This is contradictory to Einstein's claim that you could even measure light (the electromagetic stream) to be the same in all directions.

 

Therefore, it is my proposal that when you measure "light" at different relative velocities, you are not measuring the same phenomena. This seems reasonable. As you move toward a light source, it shifts towards the blue part of the spectrum. As you move away, it appears red. This means that the wave phenomena that you measure have become different relative phenomena. If you measure the speed of light, you are only measuring the phenomena that appears as light at different speeds. So technically, if you travel towards a beam of emf at below the normal light spectrum, it becomes light at your new faster speed. Likewise, traveling away from a source of gamma rays, they will present themselves as light, if you go fast enough.

 

This also presents another problem. If something can appear as light that wasn't normally light before, then is the speed of light properly certain to be fixed in its direction of motion? That is, blue light, higher on the spectrum should move faster (even though it's hard to detect) than red light, lower on the spectrum. A maximum speed limit is still possible. But it is not in the direction of motion of the beam (not a fixed vector). Rather, light should actually move in sine curves; this speed would be fixed, NOT its velocity in the present direction!

 

As for time, I would say that time is fixed. You traveling through space at a faster speed should still slow you down by your perception, however. All the atoms in your body must be limited to the same maximum speed rule. So any electrons traveling in orbits around its nucleui cannot make their completed orbits in the same time as it did before. Therefore, the actions of your chemistry slow down and so you or any device moving at such high velocity through space would slow down. Note too that the paths of the cycling electrons would create sine wave patterns relative to an observer not moving!!

 

This does not invalidate all the math of relativity as a means to approximate motions. But it is not accurate.

 

Now here is something I add even more to this theory: Nothing may go faster than the speed of light; but nor does anything actually go slower than it either. What I mean by this is that the speed of any point in space is constant everywhere! The only difference is direction. Curved direction is allowed if you presume that each point in space can also represent a spin quantity. I think this is what differentiates matter, light and space. There is a conservation of every point in space equaling a maximum, which we can still label as, c. But it is determined by all dimensional factors. At least, we can see that it would include the three linear directions in space and potential spin factors (if it is matter). Energy, like light, would then just be a manifestation of a particular form of matter moving through space.

 

Nothing is weird or strange anymore in this view. This is my Theory of Relativity and this is my first formal pronouncement of it.

 

Scott Mayers 10:44 am, Saskatchewan time, July 17, 2013.

[Delta1212]

Google "relativity of simultaneity."

 

You cannot say that two events at distant locations are simultaneous because it is always possible to find a frame in which they are not. Your contradiction relies on the assumption that the signals are sent simultaneously from Earth and the Moon. According to relativity, this is an impossible situation, and is thus not a contradiction within relativity.

[ACG52]

 

 

As for time, I would say that time is fixed.

But we know that isn't so. GPS must compensate for time dilation due to both relative motion and position in the gravity field. If it didn't, you'd be driving off a cliff.

 

Additionally, there is the case of relativistic muons. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html

 

Your hypothesis contradicts experiment and observation, and so, is doomed to end up with a whole bunch of others on the trash heap of science.

[Scott Mayers]

Google "relativity of simultaneity."

 

You cannot say that two events at distant locations are simultaneous because it is always possible to find a frame in which they are not. Your contradiction relies on the assumption that the signals are sent simultaneously from Earth and the Moon. According to relativity, this is an impossible situation, and is thus not a contradiction within relativity.

That is whether something is determinable, a practical consideration. It does not impy that simulateous events actually do not occur. Do you propose that everything is only linear in reality? That is absurd. It is even more absurd than presuming a god exists.

But we know that isn't so. GPS must compensate for time dilation due to both relative motion and position in the gravity field. If it didn't, you'd be driving off a cliff.

 

Additionally, there is the case of relativistic muons. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html

 

Your hypothesis contradicts experiment and observation, and so, is doomed to end up with a whole bunch of others on the trash heap of science.

Again, this is a practical reality. The formula doesn't change. My argument changes the interpretation of the reality, not the empirical facts.

[Delta1212]

That is whether something is determinable, a practical consideration. It does not impy that simulateous events actually do not occur.

Relativity states that simultaneous events do not occur. To say that events are simultaneous in reality is to state that there is a preferred reference frame. Relativity states that there is not. Now, you can state that relativity is wrong about this if you want, but because relativity states it, you cannot derive a contradiction within relativity.

 

You've assumed that a component of relativity is wrong, and then demonstrated that if you make this assumption then relativity is wrong. That is obviously true, but it doesn't prove a contradiction within relativity. It just proves that if relativity is wrong, then relativity is wrong. Since every experiment we've conducted bears out relativity so far, it's a safe assumption that relativity is not wrong, and that as such, the piece of relativity that you disagree with is also not wrong.

[Scott Mayers]

I have a more involved theory. This is just the first portion of it. I haven't a clue where you have presumed a contradiction in experiment or observation. GPS would still work the same in my theory as I have not dismantled "time dilation". I have re-interpreted the phenomena in an equally valid explanation. The difference? My description doesn't require altering nature to fit with the observations: Presuming that time dilates forces one to "imagine" that time is different than our actual perception of it. (Where's the scientific rationality -- its observation based on our present understanding for this philosophical claim?) I proposed that we view it by presuming time is the way we know it and then we re-interpret the reality based on it rather then create unnecessary fictions to account for it. I am certain Einstein would approve.

 

Einstein's description is rather egocentric because it claims that reality is only the perceived measurement itself rather than the phenoma it is meant to explain. While an explanation should not contradict observation, would not one have a more clear means of expressing it if it is closer to our understanding than making science out to be weird and other worldly?

[Bignose]

Again, this is a practical reality. The formula doesn't change. My argument changes the interpretation of the reality, not the empirical facts.

If this is so, then you are discussing much more philosophical issues than scientific issues. Science is about accurate prediction of measurements. Something is better scientifically when it makes better and/or more accurate predictions. Science, at its core, doesn't give a wit about the 'why'.

 

Now, most scientists are indeed also interested in the 'why', but I think it is important to note the two differences.

 

But, ultimately, if the math is exactly the same in your interpretation -- and hence makes the exact same predictions -- I am not really sure what is all that interesting scientifically, then. Because a different interpretation doesn't lead to more accuracy if the math is the same.

[Scott Mayers]

Relativity states that simultaneous events do not occur. To say that events are simultaneous in reality is to state that there is a preferred reference frame. Relativity states that there is not. Now, you can state that relativity is wrong about this if you want, but because relativity states it, you cannot derive a contradiction within relativity.

 

You've assumed that a component of relativity is wrong, and then demonstrated that if you make this assumption then relativity is wrong. That is obviously true, but it doesn't prove a contradiction within relativity. It just proves that if relativity is wrong, then relativity is wrong. Since every experiment we've conducted bears out relativity so far, it's a safe assumption that relativity is not wrong, and that as such, the piece of relativity that you disagree with is also not wrong.

Instead of just claiming what something states something (Bibles state too), use your own mind, derive a rational explanation to try and prove that no two things in the universe exist together (simultaneously).

It sounds severly solopsistic. Just because Einstein said it , doesn't fix it as a law...unless you are claiming it's a permanently closed issue. Science is about adapting to creating better explanations, not fixing it untentatively.

As for the contradiction, I've addressed a very good example in my initial post. Did you even read it? What are you supposing I missed in my particular argument?

[Scott Mayers]

If this is so, then you are discussing much more philosophical issues than scientific issues. Science is about accurate prediction of measurements. Something is better scientifically when it makes better and/or more accurate predictions. Science, at its core, doesn't give a wit about the 'why'.

 

Now, most scientists are indeed also interested in the 'why', but I think it is important to note the two differences.

 

But, ultimately, if the math is exactly the same in your interpretation -- and hence makes the exact same predictions -- I am not really sure what is all that interesting scientifically, then. Because a different interpretation doesn't lead to more accuracy if the math is the same.

There are some mathematical differences. For example, since I am proposing that light waves literally travel in sine waves rather than in one vector direction, the speed limit, c, is not properly represented by

f = c/λ. Though it is useful for practical cases, the more accurate presentation is based on the length of the sine distance, not its displacement, which requires calculus to represent. I've shown the logical inconsistency of the traditional relativistic argument by showing how waves from two different perspectives would require time dilation as represented to be mismatched. I've also clearly explained how the measure of light at two different velocities do not measure the same phenomena (that is, the very exact definition of light at different perspectives.) What appears as light at one velocity, is not the same phenomena that you would witness from a different velocity. Of course, you would still measure what appears like light from your perspective as going the same speed. An observer from a different velocity would see you as measuring a different range of the electromagnetic spectrum, which doesn't have to be light.

[MigL]

Scott, simultaneity of events is not just a statement of GR ( Einstein said so ). Simultaneity cannot be proven, and so, predictions based on it are not valid.

[Scott Mayers]

If this is a forum for discussion, Krash, contribute your supposed wisdom rather than insult and declare that you know better. What's holding you back?

[pwagen]

Bignose touched on it above;

What predictions can your theory make, that would be more accurate than the predictions made by relativity?

[Scott Mayers]

Scott, simultaneity of events is not just a statement of GR ( Einstein said so ). Simultaneity cannot be proven, and so, predictions based on it are not valid.

Maybe my brains are on a different planet?? Pay attention to what you are saying. If simultaneity cannot be proven because you cannot be in two places at once, on what basis do you rationalize any dimensions existing other than one point? If you are certain of this, do you only see in one direction?...no directions? Can you not hear out of both of your ears, both eyes, while sensing all the other simulataneous events going on? And if you don't, propose how you even sense order out of your reality. You are claiming an irrationality of ordinary capabilities that I am certain I have. To me, I am bound to accept simultaneity. Unless you can prove how insane that is?

[Bignose]

There are some mathematical differences.

OK, then,

 

please present a graph with 3 data sets: experimentally measured observations, the predictions made by the current theory, and the predictions made by your theory.

 

Demonstrate that your idea's mathematics improve the accuracy of the current theory.

 

You may want to start here: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072 This is a paper that demonstrates just how closely the theory of relativity agrees with measured values.

[John Cuthber]

I think we are missing a crucial part of the discussion here

http://xkcd.com/675/

[Scott Mayers]

Bignose touched on it above;

What predictions can your theory make, that would be more accurate than the predictions made by relativity?

For one, I would predict that photons, for instance, in varying different wavelengths would have differing quantities of total wavelength (wavelength x frequency should differ for each specific frequency per gven photon.)

 

In regards to my reference to sending simultaneous messages from both earth and the moon, the simultaneous factor was not relevant since I was merely assuming it for arbritrary purposes. So, to simplify this so as not to drag the argument to irrelevancy, assume the recording of a particular Star Trek hour-length episode is sent via a radio wave at two different locations. So as not to confuse your mind, place a timer on one with its determined relativistic time differences that would occur due to acceleration and travel to a different place so that they will play at the same time relative to the original location. Have the craft I mentioned earlier travel towards the other location at a very high speed. With a capability to measure both signals in the craft, record the signal from both directions when the recording plays at both locations synchronized to start at the same time. The length of the recordings from start of the episode to finish should differ from their sources on the craft. Any difference whatsoever indicates the difference of the original or 'ground' source of light as perceived from the craft as having different lengths. This would prove that THE light as understood by the ground observer is measured differently from the craft. Thus the same light as measured in reality does not travel at the same speed.

[uncool]

Let me explain with an analogy.

 

Imagine that you are in a space craft going away from Earth toward the moon. Imagine further that there is a transmitter on both the moon and Earth that are capable of sending out a stream of data via electromagnetic waves of your favorite episode of Star Trek. Now we know that since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, we know that those signals can only travel at the fixed speed of light, c.

 

Imagine that both programs are sent simulataneously toward your ship as you travel at near the speed of light. The stream of data being sent from Earth would be stretched relative to you in the space craft and would take longer than the hour length of the program to completely finish its whole stream. Sure, your time would slow down relative to your motion and so you would appear to receive the message in the exact hour-length of the program.

No, you wouldn't, relative to either of the obvious frames of reference (in other words, what you've claimed is not what special relativity says, and so falsifying it wouldn't falsify special relativity). Do you want me to do the full analysis from the relativistic point of view to show this?

=Uncool-

Edited July 17, 2013 by uncool

[krash661]

If this is a forum for discussion, Krash, contribute your supposed wisdom rather than insult and declare that you know better. What's holding you back?

i'm discussing how this is a wasted space on here,

 

i have contributed on many forums,

i'm sick of repeating to some one who will just say " no, that is not correct "

(just like you are doing now with others)

not only that , but,

what ever i type on these forums is irrelevant to what i do

and my reputation,

it will not prove anything to any one, because there's no relevancy to anything on them,

they are insignificant to anything,

 

one question,

why are you on these forums and not in the trenches, or at lease finding an endorser to submit your " theory",

the fact you came to a forum to do so says a lot.

 

you think you are the first to say relativity or einstein is wrong ?

hilarious if you do.

Edited July 17, 2013 by krash661

[ACG52]

 

The length of the recordings from start of the episode to finish should differ from their sources on the craft. Any difference whatsoever indicates the difference of the original or 'ground' source of light as perceived from the craft as having different lengths. This would prove that THE light as understood by the ground observer is measured differently from the craft. Thus the same light as measured in reality does not travel at the same speed.

The length of the recordings, as measured by the receiving craft will be the same. The wavelength of the recordings will be different, but the same light as measured in reality by the receiving craft will travel at the same speed.

[Scott Mayers]

Hey John,

I've already been placed in the "speculations" area that I didn't choose. Your prejudices are crap. Science IS philosophy. And for those of you who abort it, stop using math or any other type of logical means of arguing to defend the status quo if you don't believe in its power. I am almost certain that some of you got your degree by following the prerequisite to place 32.4 references in your thesis, with no less than 1430 words, in an APA format because those who don't get zero for misbehaving. Your scholoasticism is superior, I'm sure. Without recognizing the difference of the power of deduction over induction, you assure me that popularity alone is significant to your understanding of truth. But don't ever complain then if UFOlogy, religion, or horoscopes seem more sensible to the masses.

No, you wouldn't, relative to either of the obvious frames of reference (in other words, what you've claimed is not what special relativity says, and so falsifying it wouldn't falsify special relativity). Do you want me to do the full analysis from the relativistic point of view to show this?

=Uncool-

Please, that's what I'm here for.

[krash661]

a thesis are for masters,

try a dissertation.

[Scott Mayers]

I have to sleep. I'll be back later.

[uncool]

Please, that's what I'm here for.

Alright then.

 

Relative to both frames, we will determine the start and stop time for reception. We start with the Earth's frame of reference.

 

We can assume without loss of generality that the spaceship starts at the same position as the Earth (i.e. when t = 0, x_ship = 0). Transmission starts at 0; the velocity of the ship will be v. This is now a simple math problem, which doesn't involve relativity at all, except to say that the speed of the transmission is c. We want to figure out when the end of the transmission reaches the spaceship. This is equivalent to looking at a transmission that happens 1 unit away from the Earth at time 0 (it will pass the Earth at time t = 1, meaning it does the same thing as the end of the transmission). Therefore, at time t = 0, x_ship = 0, x_trans = -1 (units are light-hours). Then at time t, x_ship = vt, while x_trans = ct - 1. We want to find when x_trans = x_ship, or vt = ct - 1, or 1 = (c - v)t, or t = 1/(c - v). (For those checking units, t = 1 hour * c/(c - v); 1 unit in space is a space-hour, which is where the c got dropped). So relative to the frame of the Earth, the ship receives the transmission for c/(c - v) hours.

 

We now instead take a look from the frame of the spaceship. In this frame, we still have that the spaceship starts at the same position as the Earth (i.e. when t = 0, x_Earth = 0). Transmission starts at 0; the velocity of the Earth will be -v. However, we also need to figure out how long the Earth is taking to transmit. According to the Lorentz transform, the Earth transmits for 1 hour * gamma relative to the frame of the spaceship, where gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). At the end of this, the Earth is at -v * 1 hour/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), and the time (relative to the spaceship) is 1 hour/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). Therefore, the end of the transmission comes at 1 hour/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) + (v/c) * 1 hour/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = (1 + v/c) * 1 hour * gamma = 1 hour * sqrt((1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c)) = 1 hour * (c/(c - v))/gamma

 

I add in the equivalent answers to demonstrate one of the effects of relativity - the time dilation. Note that the answer relative to the frame of the spaceship is the same as that for the Earth, except for the factor of gamma; that's how the time dilation works.

 

So according to the frame of the Earth, it takes 1 hour * c/(c - v) to receive the transmission; according to the frame of the spaceship, it takes 1 hour * c/(c - v)/gamma, and these two answers are consistent with the Lorentz transform.

 

For an analysis about the moon transmission, replace each instance of v with -v.

=Uncool-

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

OK, knock off the snide remarks, everyone. If you can't discuss relativity, don't post.

 

Having said that, Scott Mayers, you do yourself a disservice posting your idea while obviously not being conversant in relativity. The burden of proof is on you to present a model, and evidence or a way it can be tested. Being unaware of facts does not make relativity unsupported or wrong, and relativity isn't considered correct simply because Einstein said so.

 

[uncool]

While you're here swansont, would you mind checking my work?

=Uncool-