Search

This article introduces a new field theory formulation. The new field theory formulation recognizes vector continuity as a general principle and begins with a field that satisfies vector continuity equations. Next, independent of the new formulation, this article introduces a new space-time adjustment. Then, we solve the one-body gravitational problem by applying the space-time adjustment to the new field theory formulation. With the space-time adjustment, the new formulation predicts precisely the same precession of Mercury and the same bending of light as general relativity. The reader will find the validating calculations to be simple. The equations of motion that govern the orbital equations are in terms of Cartesian coordinates and time. An undergraduate college student, with direction, can perform the validations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By transforming a compressible fluid into an incompressible fluid, one can derive the Lorentz transformation from the Galilean transformation. This proves that there is a special superfluid linked to relativity, compressible in absolute space-time theory and incompressible in relativistic space-time theory. This special universal superfluid is just the macroscopic physical vacuum, and light is a second sound disturbance in it. The absolute and relativistic space-time theories are two different space-time theories in nature. A change of vacuum density in absolute space-time theory causes a change in the actual space-time standard, and, thus, relativistic effects occur. There are certain discrepancies and corresponding relations between these two space-time theories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lorentz pointed out in 1899 that a relativistic space-time transformation which leaves Maxwell's equations invariant could only be defined to within a common factor on the basis of then-existing experimental data. The present work calls attention to the fact that Einstein's subsequent derivation of the Lorentz transformation (LT) is based on an undeclared assumption regarding the functional dependence of this factor. Consequently, many of the unconfirmed predictions of Einstein's special theory of relativity (STR), such as the remote nonsimultaneity of events and the symmetric relationship of measurements made by observers in different inertial systems, would lose their validity if the above assumption is shown to be incorrect. At the same time, any other choice for Lorentz's common factor is seen to be consistent with the relativistic velocity transformation (VT). Accordingly, predictions of STR that are derived exclusively from the VT would not be affected by such a change in relativity theory. On this basis, an alternative Lorentz transformation is defined that also satisfies Einstein's two postulates of relativity, but incorporates the strict proportionality of the rates of moving clocks assumed in the operation of the Global Positioning System (GPS) rather than invoking the inextricable mixing of space and time coordinates predicted by the LT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A sharp distinction has been made between the confirmed observations that were predicted and form the essential core of the theory of relativity and the untestable explanations that have become the lore of the theory and its vision of reality. The possibility is explored that it is these explanations, not the observations, that are incompatible with quantum mechanics. For example, the curvature of light around the sun is explained as the result of the curvature of space-time. This creates a problem because quantum electrodynamics requires that light follow a least time path. The only way that the curved path of light around the sun can be the least time path is if light is slowed down in the gravitational field as Einstein first proposed. An alternate explanation of relativity is presented that is compatible with quantum mechanics and provides a common explanation for all the forces to which matter is subject. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is asserted that we live in a world in which space itself, a real quantum-fluid-like background medium named quantum space (QS), inherently moves in the ordinary three dimensions about each astronomical body according to a circular differential velocity field, consistent with the local main astronomical motions. Light and all the elementary particles are conceived as persistent excitations (resonances) of this real space itself and therefore this moving QS is their medium of propagation and the ultimate reference for their motions. Within this viewpoint, motions of the laboratory with respect to the resting QS or of the QS through the resting laboratory are perfectly equivalent and generate identical effects. These velocity fields of the QS about each astronomical body rightly produce the inertial dynamics observed within the gravitational fields. Interestingly enough, in this velocity field the orbiting natural planets, stars, and the galactic centers throughout the universe do all very nearly rest with respect to the local moving QS while carrying with them their own velocity fields. This, while naturally leading to the observed (null) results of the Michelson light anisotropy experiments, also increases the go-return round trip time of light and of matter waves in general within our laboratories and thereby correctly engenders all the effectively observed effects, caused by the gravitational fields. It rightly slows down all the time standards (clocks) and the physical processes in general, which is the gravitational time dilation. It also causes the gravitational redshifts of atomic and nuclear spectra and properly simulates the apparently deformed metric of space underlying Einstein's spacetime curvature. This same spacedynamics moreover crucially predicts the very small genuine anisotropy of the velocity of light of nearly 8 km/s, fixed with respect to the earth-based laboratories and caused by the earth velocity field alone. This small anisotropy was detected systematically by sensitive Michelson interferometers rotating in the earth-based laboratories but was inexplicably discarded as spurious by enthusiasts of the theory of relativity. Spacedynamics also rightly points out the genuine physical origin of the excess time delays in the roundtrips of radar signals within the solar system and the observed anomalous (non-Doppler) red-/blueshifts of radiation coming to us by passing near heavy bodies. It also forthrightly explains the absence of effects of the solar gravitational potential on the GPS clock rates and the origin of the apparent bias of earth-based clocks synchronized along very long baselines when confronted with the highly stable clock ticks of distant pulsars. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay deals with the conception of space time and equivalence principle giving a rejustification for the new meaning of relativity as proposed by Einstein. Experiments and examples which can feed hack with a scrutiny and ably detect even a slightest flaw in Einstein's theory of relativity and gravitation are given in order to reach to a scientific conclusion in a more logical manner in light of present known scientific events. Hawking [The Theory of Everything (Jaico, Delhi, 2008)] argued that the psychological arrow is determined by the thermodynamic arrow of time and both always point in the same direction. Few examples of stochastic processes are discussed which may not allow one to reach to the same conclusions as Hawking argued regarding the arrow of time. I have discussed varying speed of light theories and their Lorentz symmetry breaking which seem to exist in some comer events of nature and are supposed to be a part of early Universe evolution. First relativity principle also known as relativity principle is usually considered as a complete symmetry among infinitely large class of observers moving with constant relative velocity with respect to each other. Such symmetry also exists in general relativity between an observer in an accelerated frame and another one in a weak gravitational field. A rationale approach has been developed to give the coherent idea of space time and the principle of equivalence when introducing to relativity. Einstein gave his theory of relativity nearly a century back. Many new scientific events have been discovered since then. But the concepts of relativity remain unparallel though many experiments at very microscopic and large scales have raised many intriguing questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is shown in this article how it is possible to calculate so-called special relativistic phenomena maintaining classical conceptions of relativity, using the substantiated conception that the velocity of electromagnetic radiation is determined by the minimum energy principle. In this context the characteristics of time and space get a different interpretation than that of relativistic physics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A central observer at Greenwich builds in real time a diachronic representation of 4-D(t) space-time by assigning two distinct times to a given remote event, such as a meteorite impact on Mars: (1) diachronic time read on his Greenwich clock (GMT) at observation time, and (2) synchronic or local Einstein time as directly seen from Greenwich on the Mars clock. In a spherical coordinate system the Greenwich diachronic observer uses local Einstein time relative to diachronic time as a radial coordinate, leaving the role of the fourth coordinate to diachronic time. In a 4-D(t) conceptual framework the same diachronic time applies integrally to all directly observed local Einstein times, thus implying an infinite diachronic speed for incoming light. In the 4-D(t) conceptual framework the detection of a photon is considered to be an instantaneous transfer of energy and momentum across the time gap between emitter and receiver. The Lorentz transformation can be obtained by requiring that history updated now and here be the same for another observer flying by. Some results are (1) the conventional (synchronic) speed of light c is identified with the flow of time, (2) the twin paradox is resolved in a twin-symmetric fashion, and (3) a new solution for the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox maintains harmony between special relativity and quantum mechanics. The diachronic approach presents the pedagogical advantage of using a single diagram to display space-time relationships of events in two coordinate systems in relative motion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The intrinsic theoretical power and mathematical beauty of (special or flat space-time) relativity and its relevance to ultimate reality are examined in hindsight in sufficient detail. The four-dimensional space-time continuum nature (or character) of space and time (known as the world-space or the four-space or the Minkowski space) and the associated Einstein--Poincaré truly manifestly Lorentz covariance requirements on the mathematical description of any physical system (i.e., on all laws of physics) in this four-space continuum do indeed lead us to the ultimate physical reality that the mathematical formulas (or laws) of physics are discovered, not invented, and thus are meant to be a true and honest representation of the actual behavior of nature. However, at present, Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is the only existing truly manifestly Lorentz covariant field theory. All other existing many-body theories are not Lorentz covariant theories but are, indeed, "Lorentz invariant" theories only in the sense that they predict Lorentz invariant results (but the mathematical structure of these theories in the world-space is frame dependent and not form invariant), and thus they are simply mathematical models that we have constructed and/or invented to assist us in the exploration of nature, and nothing more. Specific cases (or instances) that clearly demonstrate the awesome intrinsic theoretical power and mathematical beauty of relativity are presented. Thus we show that the Lorentz transformation is a part of physical reality in the sense that it exists in nature and not necessarily in the human mind (i.e., the laws of physics are nature's laws and not ours). Also, a rather serious attempt is made here (probably for the first time and, of course, with only partial success) to understand "nature's arrow of time" from the point of view of (special) relativity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Einstein's equivalence principle was initially the equivalence of an accelerated frame and uniform gravity. In spite of being often challenged, Einstein insisted on the fundamental importance of his equivalence principle to general relativity. It is shown that existing criticisms, starting from Synge and Fock, are due to misunderstandings and misconceptions in physics and/or inconsistent considerations. These include the misinterpretations of Pauli, Bergmann, Tolman, Landau and Litshitz, Zel'dovich and Novikov, Dirac, Wheeler, Thorne, Hawking, and others. It has been overlooked that Einstein's equivalence principle implies uniqueness of the gauge for a given frame of reference. The recent criticism by Hong has the distinction of starting from his intuitive, though inadequate, observation that "a homogeneous field is characterized by the fact that any part of it is representative of the whole." It is pointed out that his notion of uniform gravity disagrees with experiment on the gravitational redshift. His arguments concerning acceleration also disagree with special relativity, while repeating the same mistake of Landau and Lifshitz. Moreover, it is pointed out that the crucial role of Einstein's equivalence principle in general relativity is firmly established because the Maxwell--Newton approximation, which is rigorously derived in the theoretical framework of general relativity, is unambiguously supported by experiments. Thus the Schwarzschild solution is actually invalid in physics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dingle's question [Science at the Crossroads (Martin Brian & O'Keeffe, London, 1972] is answered in an obvious manner, and a Minkowskian or space-time geometrical interpretation is added to exemplify again the mutual compatibility of the Einsteinian and Minkowskian approaches to KSTR, the kinematics of the special theory of relativity. The debate with McCausland is continued. He attempted to save his earlier claim of an inconsistency in KSTR, in which he had taken a familiar statement of Einstein's literally and out of context. McCausland is challenged to derive the literal interpretation of Einstein's statement from the (special) Lorentz transformation (LT). McCausland [Phys. Essays 9, 484 (1996)] required, contrary to KSTR, that synchronicity of clocks not depend on the choice of inertial observer. McCausland [Phys. Essays 12, 438 (1999), Section 4] criticized Einstein's discussion of the point, but he appeared to base his argument on an erroneous statement by Dingle. The lack of invariance of synchronicity is a simple deduction from the special LT. There are better derivations of the LT (from Einstein's basic assumptions) than the original one, at least one of which was first published by Einstein [Relativity: The Special and General Theory (Wings Books, New York, 1961)] in 1918. It was elegant but it contained an error. This error was eventually noticed and corrected by Good [Phys. Essays 13, 580 (2000)]. Whether or not McCausland had accepted that or any other improved derivation, the debate might have been better focused had he confined his attempts to showing an inconsistency in the LT. The self-consistency of KSTR cannot be proved; it just becomes increasingly probable when its inner coherence is developed and when additional intelligent attempts to derive an inconsistency are found to be fallacious. The erratum for Part IV of this series of articles is further easily corrected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The results of the Hafele and Keating experiment prove that Earth does not rotate around the Sun. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A grave conflicting aspect is uncovered for the conventional wisdom in relativity theory regarding space-time units. No account has ever been taken of the undeniable fact that these units are contingent on nature, resulting in the present convention in which the same space-time units are used in all reference frames. This convention runs counter to Einstein's denunciation of an absolute space and an absolute time propounded by Newton. This conflict can be resolved only by our recent proposal [Phys. Essays 11, 521 (1998); 12, 368 (1999)] for introducing separate space-time units for each reference frame. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The definition of physical time is suggested here, reflecting both its metric properties and topological concepts introduced by time dimension in space-time manifold; and the properties of continuous monotonie and forced increment of metrically detailed coordinate of massive particle in its coordinate tuple. Time ambivalence allows connecting the flow of time with variability of systems. Besides, the suggested definition of time includes two primary (undefined) concepts: time extent and increment of such extent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]