JavaScript is not enabled!...Please enable javascript in your browser

جافا سكريبت غير ممكن! ... الرجاء تفعيل الجافا سكريبت في متصفحك.


Special Relativity Lite Simplified Version

 Special Relativity Lite Simplified Version

Sizes of basic assaults and comments tending to the notable hypothesis of unique relativity have as of late obtained so forcing an extension that it is all in all correct to talk about a coming emergency. Slowly to a rising number of researchers, the various blemishes of this hypothesis and the dead condition of the logical procedure presented by it become clear. Clearly, the time has come to genuinely overhaul STR and to expose it to restorative correction. With what is it important to start?

In a censure to authors on STR, the reality was over and over put that they were truly mathematicians as opposed to physicists. In building the hypothesis, the recipe of Lorentz's changes previously won, and they attempted "to change" reality to them. What's more, as the choice had been at first made, any remaining other options "had been essentially killed off and it had accidentally closed off a street to them. Consequently, the logical "numerical" strategy won.

In all honesty, positivistic philosophical-systemic techniques absolutizing the spectator s position and denying accessibility of genuine qualities for regular subjects and different peculiarities have additionally assumed a toxic part. Inside the structure of a materialistic approach, the circumstance when every one of two eyewitnesses moving beyond each other would fix elective spatial and time decreases in the other situation and in this way would be correct, never could be thought of. The issue is normal to researchers inclining toward realism in comparative circumstances: and what happens in these two frameworks as a matter of fact? Yet, rather than a response, they here get a positivistic-philosophical "fico": it shows up, there isn't anything really; there is just a single abstract similarity to the peculiarities which is taken as the logical premise.

Thus, two fundamental systemic imperfections which STR advanced made the stop noticed today. Hence, it is important as far as we're concerned to subject an issue inside a relativistic circumstance to more tough systemic examination in which the way to the right arrangement can be found.

Prior, in the article "Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects", we have previously distinguished that makers of STR have shown shameful bias in the thought of explicit space-time relativistic impacts. They have favored relative decreases of lengths and lessening periods as principle impacts, and the impact of a relativity of concurrence has

been driven into the subsequent arrangement, and introduced in the limit of being reliant upon the initial two. Therefore they designedly didn't reason the benefit of confounding of tickers, basing the keep going impact, on the psychological test with Einstein's train that sounds very normal and rather straightforward. Authors on STR have utilized this try subjectively and the quantitative proportion was derived later, in the wake of getting the recipes of Lorentz's changes for existence facilitates.

The result of this partisan methodology was that the impact of the relativity of concurrence ended up in the lawn of STR and the systemic particularity presented by it has remained inadequately considered. There was a deadly mistake in it as will be shown underneath. The particular elements presented by this impact experiencing the same thing, show up so impressive, that it causes an extreme change in the demeanor towards the issue.

It is viewed as that the impact of the relativity of concurrence s "confounding" of timekeepers lays in focuses along the line of relative movement for two moving frameworks. Equations for the worth of this confounding are reasoned in STR. Anyway the significance of certain subtleties of confounding for physical science, as we would like to think considered gravely the hypothesis. In our first article we endeavored all the more profoundly to reveal what is happening.

In reality, the inquiry is that in any focuses eliminated from one another along the line of relative movement of two frameworks, there is an overall twisting and a general removal of the time scale. We will focus on the relative relocation. Obviously, in one of the frameworks, all occasions occurring anytime eliminated from the beginning of directions for two frameworks will occur with relative thwarting, and in other, appropriately, with relative postponement. The worth of this relocation shows reliance on the general speed of the frameworks and the distances between the focuses along the line of movement.

It is essential to understand that the demonstrated dislodging happens along the direction simultaneously, changing from one highlight another. The inquiry is about another absolute component presently space discernment, a job and worth which is vital to accurately assess! This complete element basically mutilates our standard mental strategies. It is important to strain our space-time creative mind a little to get it.

The extraordinary circumstance created by the relativity of concurrence

Prior, we had previously caused to notice the unanticipated issue created by the impact of the relativity of synchronization. Assuming we join the space-time beginnings of directions of two frameworks anytime (O=O') then in all excess places of the line of their relative movement, the overall uprooting of the time scale will happen. In result synchronize in two frameworks those occasions which happen immediately in point O=O ' can. Specifically, just the quick upsides of the vector amounts present now can measure up. All leftover occasions show up with some relative time-shift, and this reality of relative hindering/delay is vital for the overall examination of the two frameworks. In reality these two frameworks show fundamental relative nonlinearity. Occasions meet in one point and afterward change along the x pivot.

Thus, with singular momentary occasions everything is sufficiently basic. What's more, how might it be with a synchronous examination of two and more occasions happening at different places in space? Here seems a significant issue. The element of relative preventing/postponement of occasions in random focuses makes the demonstration of such examination unthinkable on a basic level! What does this infer?

The traditional demonstration of estimation of spatial boundaries suggests concurrent coordinating of the closures of a deliberate article with marks on a layout. Obviously, that the impact of a relativity of synchronization makes such old style demonstration of direct estimation experiencing the same thing when the subject and a layout are in two frameworks moving beyond each other, basically inconceivable. We should investigate this issue exhaustively. In this way, it is systemically unthinkable, impermissible, to analyze space fragments straightforwardly in two frameworks! We have a similar issue concerning time increases. Their immediate correlation is additionally strategically erroneous. This outcomes in the way that immediate correlation of any cycles comprising of two and more occasions becomes inconceivable. Specifically, it concerns any movement along any non-zero spatial section or during any non-zero period.

Furthermore, presently we should recall Michelson s analyze and the "stringently logical" allowance of the notable Lorentz's changes based on its outcomes. Considering the issues found by us, the assumption for experimenters and hypothetical mathematical computations of the makers of STR take a gander at best, guileless or absurd. The approach, with which they were directed, is totally impermissible. It in mechanics of Newton one could join concurrent cycles of movement of a boat and a stream (in the old style instance of crossing a quick waterway) in one spatial drawing or a realistic chart, and afterward get the resultant speed from a right triangle. In relativistic mechanics, this is impermissible! There can be no immediate correlations of spatial fragments, periods and cycles of movement, particularly on one direct chart! No immediate examinations of vectors spreading in the existence, of right triangles made out of them and basic equations of changes! Explicit relative space-time nonlinearity of the universes, of the equal progressions of an improvement of occasions in two frameworks makes us decline previous crude strategic techniques and to look for other people (most likely, circuitous) strategies for correlation. Occasions happen in the exceptional time extents in every one of two streams, and the erratic exchange, blending of recipes, and upsides of variable information are totally impermissible in these streams.

There is no such thing as thus, the right technique of direct correlations and can't exist on a basic level.

What then, at that point, do the equations of Lorentz's changes offer us? Here, every one of two moving experimenters freely (emotionally) settles on a choice about what moments to consider as the start and the finish of the demonstration of estimation of a spatial portion or time-frame inside this cycle. In any case, for all that, as it has been shown in our past article, the arrangements of the two experimenters go against each other. Hence it is no big surprise that the aftereffects of such estimations are unique. The circumstance where every experimenter thinks about that there are decreases of lengths of portions and periods in the other framework is the impact of these abstract examinations. Evidently, the mental worth of comparative correlations and estimations is explicitly emotional and similar to the worth of routine visual or acoustic deceptions.

Given Lorentz's changes are reasoned from one-sided (non-objective) philosophy and concern just private emotional - illusionary parts of the real world. They don't exactly measure up for the superfluous objective spectator. Looking for the unimportant estimations of two experimenters moving beyond each other and being familiar with the shortfall of a right technique for direct correlations, this spectator ought to come unavoidably to the resolution that denying any assertion about such examinations in principle is essential. Furthermore, in the reasons for the deceptions of relative decreases, he

Special Relativity Lite Simplified Version

مهند الأسود

    ليست هناك تعليقات
    إرسال تعليق
      الاسمبريد إلكترونيرسالة