[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5

[Tufail Abbas]

Tom,

Usually I do not believe in criticizing unless an alternate possible
solution is discussed. Relativity is a well formulated and widely accepted
theory.

So my question would be that if not Relativity then what?.

Every theory is built upon certain basic assumption and if those
assumptions are not actual truth, then it is certain that theory is in
error.

In case of relativity that assumption is  about the physical existence of a
"body of reference"/ coordinate system  extending from -infinity to
infinity for every moving body. The truth may be completely different from
what Einstein has proposed.

Quoting from the paper which you shared, Einstein himself admitted that:

"In practice, the rigid surfaces which constitute the system of
co-ordinates are generally not available ; furthermore, the magnitudes of
the co-ordinates are not actually determined by constructions with rigid
rods, but by indirect means. If the results of physics and astronomy are to
maintain their clearness, the physical meaning of specifications of
position must always be sought in accordance with the above considerations"

Despite the above admission, he assumed as follows for formulation of his
theory of relativity.

"Every description of events in space involves the use of a rigid body to
which such events have to be referred. The resulting relationship takes for
granted that the laws of Euclidean geometry hold for "distances;" the
"distance" being represented physically by means of the convention of two
marks on a rigid body".

We have to recognize that in  practice/reality , atmost only a 2-D surface
is ever available as a rigid body of reference: like the surface of earth.

Due the practical non-existence of such a "rigid body of
reference"/"coordinate system" for 3-D, for all those applications to which
relativity is related, the validity of the theory is doubtful if it is
based upon such a coordinate system which assumes that.

1. All length intervals or distance between neighbouring points are
equidistant.
2. All points of space are available(continue) for positioning a physical
object made of matter.

Indeed, maths should represent what is physical, and we should seek for
truth of physically existing coordinate system that represent our reality,
not the mathematical coordinate system assumed by Einstein.

POSSIBLE ALTERNATE REALITY

Physical properties of space are based on all kinds Fields that exists in
that space. The existence and interaction  of Fields should possibly alter
some configuration of space, so that length separation between neighbouring
 "available points" are not same everywhere, but time interval is same.

IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE

1. Space is divided by equidistant time interval , hence time becomes
absolute.
2. Space is not divided by equidistant length interval, hence it may still
become possible to explain constant speed of light for all observers.

RELATED QUESTIION

What alternative 3-D truth exists which mathematically appears/behave as 4D
continuum?

Regards,

Tufail

On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, 23:36 carmam at tiscali.co.uk <carmam at tiscali.co.uk wrote:

> Tuffail, I have read the whole book many times since buying it in the
> early 70s. I was just beginning to doubt SRT at the time and thought that
> this book would revive my interest. It certainly did! I have read it cover
> to cover many times, and it contains absurdities, which some people call
> paradoxes. Ever since that time, I have been vociferous in my condemnation
> of SRT and GRT. I have seen nothing to change my mind, and done my own
> thought experiments to prove that both SRT and GRT are wrong. Tiscali
> hosted my web page until recently (they have stopped their hosting
> service), it was titled "Problems With Relativity", you may have seen it. I
> am searching for another web host. It is in two parts, both are attached,
> but the chapter links may not work as it is not on the host website. You
> will have to scroll manually.
>
> I repeat, I was quoting Einstein. Here is part of that quote again :-
> "...meter rod moving with the velocity c relative to K". The observer is in
> frame K.
> As I have not read chapters 1 to 5 recently I will do so again.
>
> Tom
>
>
> ----Original Message----
> From: tufail.abbas at gmail.com
> Date: 03/12/2018 4:54
> To: <carmam at tiscali.co.uk>
> Subj: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5
>
> Tom,
>
> I hope that you have not jumped straight to Chapter 12 without reading
> previous chapters . I repeat again that in relativity, K is not the
> position of the observer and it is not described by a single point. K is
> the " system of co-ordinates," or "body of reference " attached to
> observer. Read full Chapter 1 to 5 of the same paper that you only shared,
> as you said - straight from horse's mouth.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tufail
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181204/4b1864c6/attachment.html>