[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5

[carmam at tiscali.co.uk]

It would appear that we have more in common than perhaps we thought Tuffail. Relativity is only a well formulated theory because it is heavily based on maths. But maths, as I previously stated, does not always represent the real world. It has become widely accepted largely because of Arthur Eddington and his flawed 1919 solar eclipse experiment. Flawed in two ways. First, he had expressed his admiration for Einstein's work, and that made him biased. Second, the results were by no means as clear as he made out. He was using the telescope in daylight, and had not given it the required aclimatisation period. The images were not conclusive (this is from memory), and yet he announced his success. There is another explanation for the bending of starlight at the limb of the sun, and that is simply that light passes through the corona, and is bent by that, not by gravity. I may have sent you a reference to that, if I did I apologise for sending it again.http://www.extinctionshift.com look at the animation titled Finding Clearly Supported by Astrophysical Evidence.
Your statement "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." is describing relativity.The first step is criticising and pointing out the errors. Then a new theory has to be proposed which explains or corrects those errors. Such a theory is presented in http://alternativephysics.org/  by Bernard Burchell. It covers all of relativity's assumptions/observations, and uses classical physics to explain them. Of course, Bernard is called a crank, and shunned and scorned by relativists, but if you read his paper, you will find no errors in his logic or his maths.Take your time with it, in parts it is not easy reading - or to be precise, was not easy reading for me.
Tom.



----Original Message----

From: tufail.abbas at gmail.com

Date: 03/12/2018 20:56 

To: <carmam at tiscali.co.uk>, "General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list"<physics at tuks.nl>

Subj: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5



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 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181203/256f7da4/attachment.html>