[General] Relativity

Chip Akins chipakins at gmail.com
Tue Oct 31 06:46:19 PDT 2017


Hi Grahame (and Andre)

 

A while back, we briefly discussed the idea that SR is not “logically self-consistent” even though many conclude that it is mathematically self-consistent.

 

Regarding logical self-consistent issues…

 

In order to address this point I think we would need to take a look at the “landscape” as it relates to “relativity”.

 

While doing this, if we look at causes, which is to say that we use the concept of cause-and-effect as our guiding principle, as you have properly stressed, we can come to logical conclusions which simply do not agree with SR in all details.

 

So we can take a look at many of the known conditions to guide the development of a composite view of the causes for “relativity”.

 

Sound waves travel through a medium.  Sound waves exhibit the Doppler Effect simply because they travel at a “fixed” speed through a “homogeneous” medium, regardless of the velocity of the object emitting the waves.  

 

Light also exhibits the Doppler Effect in space.  

 

So there is an indication that some similarities may exist between the causes of the Doppler Effect in sound and in light.

 

Einstein stated that “light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source”, which is an incomplete statement, logically inconsistent, because the velocity c in empty space has no meaning, unless we use the fixed frame of space, or some other reference, as the logical reference for that velocity. A velocity simply must be stated in reference to something.

 

Einstein also stated that, “Absolute uniform motion cannot be detected by any means.” Which is indicated by experiment as well.  So no problem here.

And he then followed with the assertion that “This is to say that the concept of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning.” (Paraphrased)  

This second conclusion is not fully logically supported by the evidence presented, and is logically inconsistent with the assertion that “light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source”.  There are alternate interpretations of this evidence which are more causal and logical than this.

 

First, our inability to measure something does not necessarily make it meaningless. There are a myriad examples we can give of things which we cannot directly measure, but we have come to accept, because of indirect evidence which stipulates their existence.

 

We can however, from the evidence, reconstruct a set of conditions, which is causal, and yields results which match observation.

 

For example, if light is made of “stuff” that propagates through a fixed frame of space at c, and if matter is made of confined versions of the same “stuff” also propagating (in confinement) at c in a fixed frame of space, then we would have exactly this set of circumstances.  We would not be able to detect our motion through space by using an apparatus like the Michelson-Morley experiment.  Note: This approach does not relegate as meaningless anything which may in fact be quite important.

 

But if “the concept of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning.” Then how do we explain “light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source” and the resultant Doppler Effect when a moving object emits light?

 

While I am fully aware of the explanation that EM radiation is represented by vector “fields”, and that they somehow could propagate through an empty space at a fixed velocity justified only by the math. That is a less satisfactory answer logically because it does not present physical cause.  This consideration, and the Doppler Effect, coupled with the underlying physical cause mentioned above, for us not being able to detect our own motion through space, yields two logically consistent reasons for looking at space as a sort of medium, with a “fixed” frame.

 

Lorentz transformations are a natural result of the situation mentioned above regarding the constitution of light a matter.  These transformations are required under the circumstances where light and matter are made of the same “stuff” and that stuff moves at the fixed speed c in a fixed frame of space.  This all occurs in a 3 dimensional Euclidian space.

 

So there is a more logically consistent, causal view, than the one proposed by SR.

 

When we run the math describing the situation where space is a medium in which the propagation of disturbances is a fixed velocity, and light and matter are made of these disturbances, we obtain the set of Lorentz transformations, and cause for “relativity” is shown, precisely and clearly.  This is a logically consistent basis, and one which shows cause.  In contrast to SR, which is a different interpretation of the same starting information, but does not show cause, and does not appear to be as logically consistent.

 

Are there ways to present this and related information which better illustrates the case from a logical basis? 

Thoughts?

 

Chip

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171031/92ae0eea/attachment.html>


More information about the General mailing list