by L. Kaliambos '
This article was announced to many universities around the world ( July 2013).
By Prof.LEFTERIS KALIAMBOS (Λευτέρης Καλιαμπός) T. E. Institute of Larissa. Greece
Writing in Google Scholar “Kaliambos” one can see my paper IMPACT OF MAXWELL’S EQUATION OF DISPLACEMENT CURRENT ON ELECTROMAGNETIC LAWS AND COMPARISON OF THE MAXWELLIAN WAVES WITH OUR MODEL OF DIPOLIC PARTICLES (1993) which invalidates Einstein’s relativity and Maxwell’s moving fields. One can also see my paper NUCLEAR STRUCTURE IS GOVERNED BY THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM (2002) presented at the 12th symposium of the Hellenic nuclear physics society . The paper reveals the nuclear structure and invalidates Einstein’s relativity and the theories of the Standard model developed after the abandonment of natural laws. (See the above papers in User Kaliambos ).
RELATIVITY OF GRAVITATIONAL
ACCELERATIONS AND UNIFORM LINEAR
ACCORDING TO NATURAL LAWS GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATIONS OCCUR WITH RESPECT TO FAVORED POSITIONS OR FRAMES OF REFERENCE UNDER A UNIVERSAL GRAVITY ACTING CONTINUOUSLY AT A DISTANCE. WHEREAS THE GALILEAN RELATIVITY OF UNIFORM LINEAR MOTIONS IS BASED ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF A SHIP MOVING WITH RESPECT TO THE EARTH’S SURFACE AS A RESULT OF SHORT TIME NET CONTACT FORCES DUE TO NON MECHANICAL ENERGIES ON OUR EARTH.
THEN, FOR REPLACING EINSTEIN’S WRONG THEORIES OF RELATIVITY BY THE WELL-ESTABLISHED LAWS I ANALYZED CAREFULLY NEWTON’S LOCAL ABSOLUTE MOTIONS OF TWO BODIES ORBITING AROUND A COMMON BARYCENTER. ON THIS BASIS ONE CONCLUDES THAT THE GRAVITY ACTING CONTINUOUSLY AT A DISTANCE PROCEEDS FROM SIMPLE SYSTEMS TO COMPOUND ONES WITH FAVORED REFERENCE FRAMES . FOR EXAMPLE IN THE SIMPLEST SYSTEM [ EARTH-ASTRONAUT ] AN ASTRONAUT ORBITS AROUND THE BARYCENTER WHICH IS AT THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, BECAUSE HIS MASS IS MUCH LESS THAN THE MASS OF THE EARTH. SINCE IN THE COMPOUND SYSTEM [ SUN-(EARTH, ASTRONAUT) ] BOTH THE EARTH AND THE ASTRONAUT BEHAVE LIKE A POINT MASS ORBITING AROUND THE FAVORED SUN, THEN, IN THE SAME WAY THE MOST COMPOUND SOLAR SYSTEM MOVES AROUND THE CENTER OF OUR GALAXY, AND SO FORTH.
'NOTE THAT THE ASTRONAUT FEELS ALWAYS WEIGHTLESS, BECAUSE IN THE SIMPLEST SYSTEM [ EARTH-ASTRONAUT ] THE INERTIAL FORCE (CENTRIFUGAL FORCE) COUNTERBALANCES THE GRAVITY DUE TO EARTH. MOREOVER IN THE COMPOUND SYSTEM [SUN - (EARTH , ASTRONAUT)] THE INERTIAL FORCE DUE TO ACCELERATION AROUND THE SUN IS EQUAL TO THE GRAVITY DUE TO THE SUN, AND SO FORTH. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASTRONAUT FEELS WEIGHTLESS UNDER A LOCAL ABSOLUTE MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH LIKE AN OBSERVER IN A FALLING LIFT IN VACUUM, NO MATTER HOW LARGE IS THE MASS OF THE SUN OR THE GALAXY.
'IN THESE GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATIONS AND IN THE INERTIAL FRAMES LIKE THE ELASTIC COLLISIONS THE TIME AND SPACE ARE DESCRIBED HOMOGENEOUSLY, AND IN A TIME- INDEPENDENT MANNER. SO PHYSICAL LAWS TAKE THE SAME FORM IN THESE REFERENCE FRAMES. NOTE THAT ACCELERATIONS DUE TO CONDACT FORCES PRODUCE THE FEELING OF ONLY INERTIAL FORCES LIKE THE ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY IN ROTATING SPACECRAFTS.
'HOWEVER IN QUANTUM DYNAMICS OUR PHOTON-MATTER INTERACTION OCCURS UNDER A LENGTH CONTRACTION AND A TIME DILATION. SIMILAR CONDITIONS OCCUR ALSO IN SOME UNIFORM LINEAR MOTIONS AS IN THE CASE OF A BOX FALLING THROUGH THE ATMOSPHERE IN WHICH SOME MECHANICAL ENERGY TURNS INTO HEAT DUE TO THE AIR RESISTANCE.
IN SUCH A UNIFORM LINEAR MOTION SINCE THE CONTACT FORCE (DRAG) CANNOT BE TRANSMITTED TO THE OBSERVER INSIDE THE BOX, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF AN INERTIAL FORCE, THE OBSERVER MOVING UNIFORMLY WITH RESPECT TO THE EARTH’S SURFACE FEELS ONLY THE GRAVITY DUE TO THE EARTH, LIKE A STATIONARY OBSERVER ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH, WHO ALSO FEELS ONLY THE GRAVITY BECAUSE THE UPWARD CONTACT FORCE (NORMAL) CANNOT BE TRANSMITTED TO HIM.
TO CONCLUDE, FOR THE SIMPLE SYSTEM [EARTH-OBSERVER] IN WHICH OUR EARTH IS THE FAVORED REFERENCE FRAME THE RELATIVITY OF GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATIONS IS CHARACTERIZED BY THE TWO EQUAL FORCES OF GRAVITY AND INERTIA, WHILE IN RELATIVITY OF UNIFORM LINEAR MOTIONS THE REST POSITION ( CONNECTED TO THE FAVORED EARTH’S SURFACE ) AND THE UNIFORM LINEAR MOTION ARE CHARACTERIZED BY AN EQUALITY BETWEEN GRAVITY ACTING AT A DISTANCE AND THE CONTACT FORCES WHICH CANNOT BE TRANSMITTED TO THE OBSERVER.
IN MY PAPER EINSTEIN BY L. KALIAMBOS I NOTICED THAT THE GALILEAN RELATIVITY OF UNIFORM LINEAR VELOCITY IS THE RESULT OF SHORT TIME CONTACT FORCES, AS IN THE CASE OF EXPLOSIONS ACCORDING TO WHICH NEWTON’S PARTICLES OF LIGHT MOVE WITH RESPECT TO THE SOURCE OF RADIATION. THUS IN A TRAIN MOVING WITH RESPECT TO THE EARTH’S SURFACE THE α , β, AND γ PARTICLES MOVE WITH RESPECT TO THE RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, NO MATTER HOW LARGE IS THE LINEAR MOTION OF THE TRAIN.
'NOTE THAT THE SHIP IN GALILEO’S RELATIVITY MOVES AS A RESULT OF SHORT TIME NET CONTACT FORCES DUE TO NON MECHANICAL ENERGIES ON OUR EARTH. THEN, UNDER A NET ZERO FORCE IT MOVES UNIFORMLY WITH RESPECT TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH, BECAUSE THE MASS OF THE EARTH IS MUCH MORE GREATER THAN THE MASS OF THE SHIP.
THESE SITUATIONS BASED ON NATURAL LAWS INVALIDATE THE EQUIVALENT REFERENCE FRAMES OF EINSTEIN’S SPECIAL RELATIVITY (1905) WHO BELIEVED THAT ANY OBSERVER MOVING WITH AN ELECTRON IN AN ACCELERATOR CAN MEASURE THE SAME INCREASE OF MASS OF STATIONARY BODIES IN LABORATORY. THEN , AS EARLY AS 1907 EINSTEIN WAS SHOWING DISSATISFACTION WITH HIS STRANGE IDEAS AND IN HIS SECOND GENERAL RELATIVITY HE REINTRODUCED THE FALLACIOUS ETHER IN HIS FALSE “ ETHER STRUCTURE” OR THE STRANGE “CURVATURE OF SPACETIME” BASED ON WRONG FIELDS AND ON PHILOSOPHICAL SPECULATIONS. SINCE ALL THESE CONFUSING IDEAS LED TO COMPLICATIONS EINSTEIN IN 1954 EXPRESSED HIS FRUSTRATION TO HIS FRIEND M. BESSO.
USEFUL HISTORICAL NOTES OF RELATIVITY
In the absence of any knowledge about the at a distance electromagnetic forces in nuclear physics which give the contact forces of Galileo’s moving ship, Newton in his first law did not mention the contact forces of short time, which give the uniform linear motions in elastic collisions or in the system [Earth-Observer] under the favored reference frame of our earth, though his particles of light are moving with respect to the source of radiation. Under this condition I showed that the α and β particles along with the γ particles of mass m = hν/c2 move with respect to a radioactive material in a moving train no matter how large is the uniform linear motion of the train. (See my WRONG AND CORRECT EINSTEIN ).
Moreover in the two-body collisions we see that the point of reference is the local position of the collision in which the uniform motions are the result of short time forces. In the same way in an explosion the objects move with respect to the local position of the explosion. However in Galileo’s relativity the ship moves with respect to the surface of the earth, because the mass of the earth is much more greater than the mass of the ship. So in Galileo’s relativity our earth is the favored reference frame. But Galileo postulated his relativity in generalities:
“Any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments”.
It is indeed unfortunate that Newton under Galileo’s generalities for formulating his laws connected with the principle of relativity believed that all inertial frames are equivalent. He wrote:
“From the positions and distances of things from any body considered as immovable, we define all places, and then with respect to such places, we estimate all motion… And so, instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative ones”.
Under this condition in “Linear motion-Encyclopedia Britannica” one reads:
“In classical Newtonian mechanics, there is no important distinction between rest and uniform motion in a straight line; they may be regarded as the same state of motion seen by different observers, one moving at the same velocity as the particle, the other moving at constant velocity with respect to the particle”.
In fact, in the Galilean relativity one can distinguish the stationary observer from the moving one, because the motion of the ship is the result of short time net contact forces due to non mechanical energies on our earth. Also when pushing a book with uniform velocity the work that you do against friction is apparently lost-it is certainly not available to the book as kinetic energy and forces that do not store energy are called dissipative forces of non mechanical energies like the energy of photons.
It is well-known that the energy of the sun’s rays is indeed the source of various forms of non mechanical energies that make life possible on earth. The energy of the winds responsible for the motion of Galileo’s ship is also derived from the energy of the sun’s rays falling on and heating the surface of the earth. To conclude, all uniform linear motions on our earth are the result of short time contact forces of non mechanical energies due to sun’s falling rays. Also all observers move with respect to the earth’s surface because their mass is much less than the earth’s mass.
And yet, Newton also wrote:
“The center of the system of the world is immovable. This is acknowledged by all, while some contend that the earth, others that the sun, is fixed in that center”.
Today under the useful model of Big Bang some cosmologist believe that the primordial Big Bang was immovable in our observable universe but our observable universe is a part of an eternal cosmos in which we cannot identify any rest frame of reference. ( See my papers OUR EARLY UNIVERSE and OUR UNIVERSE). The reason the true “immovable” center of the world cannot be identified is inherent in Newton’s laws of motion.
In the Galilean relativity the contact forces (wind and friction ) cannot be transmitted to the sailor. Thus when the ship starts the force of the wind is greater than the frictional force and the ship accelerates. In this case since the contact forces cannot be transmitted to the sailor the sailor feels only the inertial force like the observers on an accelerating car.
However in a space craft orbiting about the earth the gravity acting continuously at a distance is transmitted to the astronaut. In this case the acceleration of the astronaut causes the inertial force (centrifugal force) which cancels the gravity, and the astronaut feels weightless like an observer at the center of the earth.
For such rotating systems taking into account NEWTON’S BUCKET ARGUMENT and the barycenter of a binary star system I revealed the reference points in both uniform motions (collisions) and gravitational accelerations. But for our very simple system [Earth-Observer] the barycenter is at the center of the earth, while in the compound system [Sun-(Earth, Observer)] the barycenter is at the center of the sun which cannot affect the motions of all observers on the earth because the acceleration of earth around the sun cancels the gravity due to the sun.
These fundamental situations invalidate Einstein’s equivalent reference frames of his special relativity according to which a moving observer with an electron in an accelerator can measure the same increase of mass of stationary objects in the laboratory. Under this fallacious idea in his general relativity influenced by his reading of the critiques of Newtonian science by Hume and Mach Einstein believed that the inertial frames are moving with respect to the fallacious “fixed stars” connected with the fallacious “ether structure” or the strange “curvature of vacuum”. In fact, in the Galilean relativity the dropped stone always falls along a tower or along the mast of the moving ship no matter how large is the mass of the sun.
Ironically Einstein in his general relativity used Newton’s inertia, which invalidates his concept of relativistic mass. On the other hand the experiments of the increase of mass of accelerated particles, the mass defect in atomic and nuclear physics, the bending of light, the gravitational red shift etc. are due to our discovery of photon-matter interaction occurring under a length contraction and a time dilation. Note that Einstein’s hypotheses of the “ether structure” or the strange “curvature of specetime” based on wrong fields and philosophical speculations cannot replace the well-established laws (See our NEW REVOLUTION IN PHYSICS ).
CONTRADICTING RELATI VITY THEORIES OF EINSTEIN LED TO THE CRISIS OF PHYSICS
Though the Michelson experiment (1887) rejected the fallacious Maxwell’s ether, Lorentz (1904) in order to explain the increase of the electron mass of Kaufmann’s experiment (1901) under the influence of Maxwell’s wrong moving fields (1865) based not on laws but on the fallacious ether suggested that the null result of the Michelson experiment can be explained not by the rejection of the ether but by the time and mass dilation when the objects move through the ether. Einstein in 1905 used the same mathematics of Lorentz but rejected the ether on which the mathematics could be justified under the assumption that the ether affects the length of the moving bodies. Under this confusion and since Newton in his laws did not determine the favored reference frame of the earth, Einstein in his special relativity believed that all inertial frames are equivalent and suggested relative motions between two randomly moving observers. So he concluded incorrectly that the observer moving with an electron can measure the same increase of mass of the stationary bodies in the laboratory.
In his special relativity Einstein used also the fallacious electric field of Maxwell which violates the principle of relativity in the induction law (1832). Of course the biggest error in the history of physics is his derivation of the incomplete equation E = mc2 which violates both conservation laws of mass and energy. In fact, I showed that the increase of the electron mass in accelerators is du not to Einstein’s relativity but to the absorption of the photon energy and mass according to our discovery of Photon-matter interaction
hν/m = ΔW/ΔΜ = c2
In 1907 Einstein influenced by the speculations of Mach believed that Newton’s absolute motions of rotating systems are relative to the fallacious “fixed stars”. Since he was not satisfied by this strange idea of two observers tried to develop his general relativity by suggesting “The ether structure” or “The curvature of spacetime” under the hypothesis that the systems are equivalent. So in his chapter “General relativity” of his book “The evolution of physics Einstein wrote:
“Take two bodies, the sun and the earth, for instance. The motion we observe is again relative. It can be described by connecting the c.s. with either the earth or the sun. From this point of view, Copernicus' great achievement lies in transferring the c.s. from the earth to the sun. But as motion is relative and any frame of reference can be used, there seems to be no reason for favouring one c.s. rather than the other”.
In my paper EINSTEIN By L. Kaliambos I noticed that the two contradicting theories of special and general relativity cannot be related with the principle of relativity deduced from Newton’s laws and the gravitational force acting at a distance. On the other hand Einstein believed that his photons are treated as quanta of the fallacious Maxwell’s fields moving through a fallacious ether. Since such ideas led to complications in 1954 Einstein expressing his frustration to his friend M. Besso wrote:
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous".
Indeed after 9 years the two American physicists French and Tessman (1963) showed experimentally the fallacy of Maxwell’s fields. Historically, Despite the detailed experiments and observations which led to the discovery of the Galilean principle of relativity for uniform motions (1632), Descartes in his Optics (1637) asserted that light consists of pulses propagated through a medium (ether).
Since the principle of relativity was deduced from Newton’s laws, to Newton it was clear that light consists of particles moving with respect to the source of radiation. Then, under the Michelson experiment (1887) which rejected the ether and the experiment of French and Tessman (1963) I developed the model of dipolic photons (1993) which solved the CRISIS OF FIELDS AND RELATIVITY .
On the other hand the orbiting electrons in atoms invalidate dramatically the special relativity because they are characterized by a mass defect which is responsible for the generation of the photon mass during the quantum jump of atomic orbitals.( See my WRONG AND CORRECT EINSTEIN ).
Especially Einstein in his general relativity using the gravitational accelerations tried to replace the well-established laws of forces acting at a distance by introducing various strange hypotheses of fields, gravitational waves etc. For justifying a reference frame connected with Mach’s speculations he suggested the so called “curvature of spacetime of four dimensions by re-introducing the ether connected with the fallacious “Fixed stars”. Much more later despite the enormous success of the time-independent Schrodinger equations in three dimensions (1926) Einstein (1938) suggested six dimensions. Note that his principle of equivalence invalidates dramatically the relativistic mass of his special relativity, while his conclusion of the bending of light predicted by Newton and confirmed by Soldner in 1801 invalidates his second postulation of special relativity.
In the “Criticism of the theory relativity-WIKIPEDIA” one sees also that Einstein’s special relativity is not compatible with his Principle of Equivalence:
“As it was shown by Einstein, the only form of accelerated motion that cannot be described is the one due to gravitation, since special relativity is not compatible with the Equivalence principle. Einstein was also unsatisfied with the fact that inertial frames are preferred over accelerated frames. Thus over the course of several years (1908–1915), Einstein developed general relativity. This theory includes the replacement of Euclidean geometry by non-Euclidean geometry, and the resultant curvature of the path of light led Einstein (1912) to the conclusion that (like in accelerated frames) the speed of light is not constant in extended gravitational fields. Therefore, Abraham (1912) argued that Einstein had given special relativity a coup de grâce. Einstein responded that within its area of application (in areas where gravitational influences can be neglected) special relativity is still applicable with high precision, so one cannot speak of a coup de grâce at all”.