Law degree

Is Albert Einstein’s Special Relativity incompatible with the very equations upon which science’s greatest theory is built? New observations made by many scientists and engineers appear to contradict the great scientist’s ideas. Apparently there are implicit contradictions present within Relativity’s foundational ideas, documents and equations. One individual has even pointed that quotations from the 1905 document and Einstein’s contemporaries as well as interpretations of the Relativity equations clearly and concisely describe a confused and obviously erroneous theory. It is time therefore, for science to update its thinking on this theory with a comprehensive analysis of the history leading up to, during and after that revolutionary year of Special Relativity.

As this is the 100 year anniversary of the original release of Special Relativity, a review of the original assumptions, documents and ideas which led to the acceptance of this theory is timely and warranted. Every year millions of students are taught this theory without a critical analysis of Relativity. Relativity Theory consists of its two variants Special Relativity and General Relativity and is considered the cornerstone of modern physics.

Albert Einstein borrowed from the ideas of Fitzgerald, Lorentz and Voigt to create a new concept of the universe. His first work in this regard later came to be known as Special Relativity and contained many controversial ideas which today are considered axiomatic. Amongst these are Length Contraction, Time Dilation, the Twin Paradox and the equivalence of mass and energy summarized in the equation E=mc2.

This equation became the shining capstone of the new theory along with its first & second postulates, namely, that the laws of nature are the same from all perspectives and that the speed of light ‘c’ is constant in a vacuum regardless of perspective. Further, the theory also predicted an increase in mass with velocity. Numerous examples have been given of the ‘proof’ of the validity of Special Relativity.

Most notably, experiments using particle accelerators have sped particles to incredible velocities which apparently provide confirmation of Einstein’s theory. However, doubts remain in the scientific community who have never totally given up the comfort of a Newtonian world view. This is readily apparent in that they refer to the Newton’s ‘Law’ of Gravitation whilst Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR) are given the polite attribution ‘The Theory of’ or simply SR ‘theory’ and GR ‘theory.’ Einstein would continue working on the ideas of Special Relativity until producing the aforementioned even more controversial treatise.

In his later more comprehensive work called the Theory of General Relativity (1916), Einstein proposed a major re-thinking of cosmology. He conceived of a space time continuum that is curved by mass; in other words, planets, stars, galaxies and other stellar objects cause a curvature of space time. The movement of these objects are determined by the aforementioned curvature.

As a result of these ideas, our understanding of geometry, math, physics, science and the universe would never be the same. However, some scientists are reporting that speed of light is not constant from different experimental observations. One has even reported errors in the fundamental equations. If so, this would require a major rethinking of the known cosmological models and assumptions of modern physics.

Michael Strauss is an engineer who harbored an interest in this subject matter from his earliest math and science courses. For more information: http://www.amazon.com/shops/relativitycollapse or for additional information or to contact the author visit: http://www.relativitycollapse.com or http://www.relativitycollapse.net

Share This

Nasa is relying on the existence of Lagrangian points between every set of planetary bodies it intends to explore in order to implement its plan of successful interplanetary space exploration. Although this at first may seem to be a vague and mystical concept, foreign to all but trained astrophysicists, in fact it is really quite simple to understand.

The Lagrangian in physics is merely nothing more than a set of two simpler equations that can be used as an alternative for Newtons second law; force equals mass times acceleration. A Lagrangian point between two bodies exerting competing forces on a body is therefore a point at which the forces are equal and opposite. According to Newton’s third law, if the net force on a body is zero, it will stay at rest if at rest and if in motion it will stay in motion.

In mathematical terms, visualize a graph of a big bowl. The Lagrangian point is the point at the very bottom of the bowl. This point represents the point at which the maximum energy, the energy from the bottom of the bowl to the top, must be supplied to kick the body out of the bowl in order to prevent the body from rolling back down to the bottom of the bowl and returning to its energy minimum. Therefore, the point at the minimum of the bowl represents the point of maximum stability in terms of preventing the influence of a net imbalance in the forces of the two gravitational forces on it from disturbing it. This point in question is the orbit which has the most stable velocity and angular momentum. The body acted on could be a space station between two large masses such as the earth and the moon or any two interplanetary bodies of significantly greater mass than the spacecraft.

How this relates to Nasa and its plans for future space travel is that they have the ability to use the Lagrangian formulas to calculate the Lagrangian points between different planetary bodies and therefore to determine the location of these orbits. Therefore, it is possible to build space stations as stepping stones between the earth and the moon, the moon and Mars, and on and on as far as you want to go. As it would be unrealistic to expect any spacecraft to be able to return to earth from far out in space in the case of an emergency or the need to make repairs, this makes the possibility of extending space travel outwards into the solar system and theoretically beyond feasible within the constraints of our technology and budgetary considerations.

Sources:

1) NASA Reveals New Plan for the Moon, Mars & Outward
By Leonard David; Senior Space Writer - Space.com

David Craig;

Nasa and General Astronomy Information;
M.S. - Physics: University of Minnesota;
B.S. - Computer Science: University of Oregon;

Share This

We are about to experience a major paradigm shift based on a natural law which has yet to be fully understood but whose existence is demonstrable.

In the ongoing debate between “Intelligent Design” proponents and those who espouse the “scientific” evolutionary point of view, something is becoming increasingly obvious.

In this question of man’s origins, the stakes are much higher than they are for other sciences because the answer to that particular question will also answer questions about our destiny. It is forcing us to consider what the source of the answers to our carefully controlled questions really is.

The field of man’s origins has become the battleground on which materialism is fighting spirituality for the right to be the basic tenet of human existence.

Science, with its proven effectiveness as a methodology that harnesses the forces of nature to improve man’s condition, has replaced the formerly prevailing religious world view.

This has led to an ideological pendulum swing to the side of “facts” to such an extent that any idea is held in contempt if it challenges the belief - the world view - that an external, material universe will dictate to us what is and what is not true.

The argument against the “Intelligent Design theory” is that ID has no basis in science at all and is simply a throwback to the olden days of witch burnings and government by divine right.

Intelligent Design would appear to be losing the battle except for the fact that huge and growing numbers of people are backing it, including powerful politicians and scientists in top positions.

This is partly because of advances and discoveries in branches of science unrelated to evolution. We’ve all heard of how the observer and the thing observed are bound at an intimate level when dealing with the physics of the very small.

These other branches of science have demonstrated that when our observations are taken to another plane and the peripheral noise that surrounds everyday life is eliminated as a factor, it becomes obvious that we are connected to the universe around us in ways and at a depth previously unsuspected.

Science, simply stated is based on the process of first formulating a theory. If a natural law can then be demonstrated to confirm that theory through experiment, the theory is accepted as scientific fact.

Outer reality can be demonstrated to be a reflection of an inner state.

This confirms ID because it eliminates accident as the determining factor in external events. This natural law does in fact exist and can be replicated by all men of good faith. It only requires focused will, desire, and time, to overcome the peripheral noise.

A paradigm shift occurs when conditions have developed to permit it and the need is overwhelming in a critical mass of a population.

People of influence in any domain who are backing I.D. are doing so because they know from personal experience that outer reality is a reflection of an inner state. That is how they’ve reached the positions of influence they are in.

This is the natural law which will be the basis for the next major paradigm change. The precursor to this paradigm change is the revolt currently taking place against a world view that would have man as an accident in a mindless machine. Taken to its extreme, that is what the theory of evolution is perceived to be saying

The conditions permitting this change, mainly instant, mass, free communication brought about by computers, now exist in western society and it’s a matter of only a little time before the shift manifests.

When a world view appears to be at the height of its powers and impregnable, that is when it is ripe for a fall, to be replaced by a more comprehensive science that will not lose any of its power but will satisfy a need that we were previously unable to address.

Copyright © 2006 Paul Freynet

Paul Freynet is original in thinking and fearless in writing. Visit his site at:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/towerview/

Share This