Misidentification of Newtonian physics with Einstein's Relativity By Roger J Anderton 1

1. Misidentification of Newtonian physics with Einstein's Relativity By Roger J Anderton 1

2. Misidentification of Newtonian Physics with Einstein's theory of Relativity There is a relationship between Newtonian physics and Einstein's 1905 relativity. What I am dealing with is that the connection between the two has been done wrong. So first the issue why it has been done wrong - 2

3. PART ONE 3

4. I have this from Bruce Harvey's website “Einstein's errors” The Physics of Bruce Harvey, whose research parallels a lot of mine. Bruce: Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity is most probably plagiarised from the work of Lorentz and Poincaré. I agree, it looks like Einstein copied Poincare-Lorentz theory. 4

5. Einstein patent clerk circa 1905 he was dealing with issue of patents synchronizing clocks by light signals, and he would have had access to Poincare's work dealing with the physics of those inventions. 5

6. One place I read suggested – Einstein was aware of the need for citing information sources in relation to Patents for inventions, because it was a money issue. But on issue of ideas – he knew they were free! So when it came to use the ideas he recognised no obligation for citing where he got them from, hence his 1905 paper on relativity had no information sources for what he was working from. Ideally the journal he published in should have asked for information sources. But he got away with being published without citing any. 6

7. So it looks like Einstein copied the ideas for his theory. That's how we get the connection between Newtonian physics and his theory messed up, or as I refer to as misidentification of the connection between Newtonian physics and special relativity. Really its effectively a copied theory and messed up. A clear explanation of the theory in relation to Newtonian physics should have been written. But Einstein messes up. 7

8. Bruce continues: Because it [the theory] contains their results in the form of mathematical equations, it is hard to criticise within the framework of the scientific method which demands that theory produce equations which stand the test of experimental verification. However: •Einstein is wrong to say that the speed of light is a universal constant. 8

9. Yes. But there are a few provisos I would add- looking at this in more detail its very hard to work out what Einstein is talking about in his 1905 paper. Particularly there are things like translation issues with what Einstein says in German gets translated as something different when its English. But I pass on that. 9

10. Next Bruce spots the mistake: • Einstein is wrong to say "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed [in Bruce's paper] will not require an 'absolute stationary space' provided with special properties," Yes. But the proviso I add is that Einstein discards aether in 1905 and brings it back in 1920s. While the mainstream seems firmly locked in believing Einstein 1905 not Einstein 1920. 10

11. Next Bruce says: • Einstein is wrong to say that space and time are distorted. That’s more difficult to deal with. Given what Einstein does in 1905 with its mistakes, he is then trying to work further upon that 1905 basis with his general relativity. So space and time are distorted in curved space-time for general relativity and he needs that to compensate for his other mistakes. And its distorted in the 1905 theory for flat space-time. 11

12. The problem now is becoming how much of Einstein needs to be thrown away, because he is building one idea on top of another. He goes wrong at the very beginning, but the later stuff added is to compensate for what he did at the beginning. 12

13. Anyway, Bruce: The speed of light is a very interesting phenomena. It does vary, but that variation is impossible to measure in any local experiment. There is a non local experiment in which the speed of light is measured via the exchange of radio signals between earth and a space probe on the other side of the sun. While the earth and the probe follow well defined orbits, the radio signals are found to be delayed when they pass close to the sun. The speed of light measured over the scale of planetary orbits shows experimental variation. Locally along its path, it would always be measured to be the same numerical value because the rulers and clocks used to measure it would be affected by gravitational potential in the same way. I think that’s clear enough 13

14. Bruce: If we could measure the local one way speed of light, we would find it added to our speed through the stationary system, but we cannot do this because we have no way of synchronising two clocks to time the one way speed of light between two points. I think what has to be emphasised here is means “added”in Newtonian physics way of adding velocities. Because Einstein changes velocity addition equation for his special relativity. He has a mess and he's finding he has to keep changing things to make a bigger mess. 14

15. Bruce: As we have seen, even placing two clocks side by side, synchronising them and then moving them apart causes synchronisation errors. You will have to refer to rest of Bruce's papers for that. Bruce: These errors will always conspire to give the same numerical result for a one way measurement of the speed of light. Two way measurements to a mirror and back will always be affected by the length contraction and the slowing of clocks to give the same numerical result. Einstein's error is to assume that this numerical result is the speed of light. 15

16. Yes what is being messed up by Einstein here is one-way speed of light and two-way speed of light. Bruce: It is a measurement of the speed of light. Thus it is legitimate to say that 'The "locally measured speed of light" is a universal constant.' It is an error to précis that statement to 'The speed of light is a constant.' more of a semantics issue. I wouldn't like to talk about it like that. 16

17. Bruce: The key to understanding Einstein's theory is the ownership of light. All his derivations require one system to be called stationary and the other moving. The trick is to make the stationary system own the light. The observer in the moving system then uses stationary system light to synchronise his clocks. By this trick Einstein temporarily gives to his two systems the properties of the stationary and moving systems of a Lorentz-Poincaré world. Properties which in his interpretation of "the relativity principle" may not exist. Einstein messing up in other words if we treat Einstein as copied Poincare-Lorentz theory then he messes up here, creating problems not in the theory he copied from. 17

18. I argue with people to find out their point-of-view. And it is possible to argue with a relativist pointing out problems with Einstein's theory, and it turns out that some of them don't believe in Einstein's theory but are believing in Poincare-Lorentz theory, and so they don't acknowledge the mess that is being pointed out to them in the THEORY because they believe a different THEORY than what you are arguing against. BUT of course they are still calling it Einstein's theory even though its really the earlier theory they are working from. They don't even recognise that its the earlier theory they are working from. So Einstein's copying has really messed up talking about relativity.18

19. Anyway Bruce points out about Einstein copying: (Einstein most probably plagiarised the relativity principle from Poincaré who published1ii it in "The Principle of Relativity" Bull. des Sc. Math xxviii 1904) His derivations are a fudge because he uses this ownership of light trick to justify using c+v and c- v in his equations in spite of the fact that he latter asserts that the result of such sums must always be c. So you see Einstein is really messing up in a big way. If he had given references in his 1905 paper, it would have been far easier to look back to what he was working from to see where he was messing up. So he is making a mess and making it extremely difficult to check what he is messing up from. 19

20. Bruce: Einstein's basic assertion is that their is no "privileged system" by which he means that there is no ether which can have a physical effect on bodies moving through it. There are a lot of things to note here. Really aether is a medium for light and a privileged frame associated with that medium. If you throw away the privileged frame bit of aether then you are still left with the medium bit. So there is a non-relativistic aether and a relativistic aether. Throwing away the non-relativistic aether does not mean throwing away the relativistic aether as well. But Bruce is dealing with the physical effect bit of distance and time interval measurements- 20

21. Bruce: Therefore according to Einstein's axioms; clocks cannot be slowed, rulers cannot contract and mass cannot increase. These according to Einstein are artefacts of observation caused by observing objects in relative motion, not real physical effects. As such they appear to be reciprocal. That's the point of view that those changes are an illusion effect of observation and not physical effect. Einstein keeps changing his mind as far as I can tell between thinking its a physical effect and thinking its a non-physical effect. And relativists say different things. 21

22. The last bit that of “they appear to be reciprocal.” - that means whatever the effect is it has to obey relativity and what one observer observes in an inertial frame so does another inertial observer observe while travelling at a different speed.22

23. Bruce: Both observes see the other's clocks running slow. Both observers see the other's rulers to have contracted in the direction of motion. Both observers find moving objects harder to accelerate and say their mass is increased. Einstein gives no reason for this other than the will of God. By will of God – means you just have to accept that is how Nature operates. But really its just a messed up understanding of how Nature operates as coming from Einstein.23

24. Anyway, Bruce continues on, and I am going in a different direction. What you should have now is some understanding or hints of understanding why the connection between Newtonian physics and Einstein's relativity is messed up. 24

25. Second part Two types of Newtonian physics 25

26. Mainstream has misidentified Newtonian physics. As shall propose there can be thought of as two versions of Newtonian physics in relation to Einstein's relativity, and the mainstream has chosen the wrong one. 26

27. As per how MS (mainstream) deals with SR (special relativity) and NP (Newtonian physics) have Lorentz transforms x' = g(x- vt) t'= g(t-vx/c^2) g = gamma factor for small v g tends to 1 so that x' tends to (x-vt) and t' tends to (t-vx/c^2) this is then treated as SR tends to NP as low speeds call this NP#1 ….....27

28. Now this is incorrect, it should be NP#2 28

29. To deal with NP#2 we need to look at how the maths of SR was derived, and it came from Newtonian Physics. 29

30. Treating what Einstein is doing as mere clock synchronization to keep light-speed as constant we form the equation c'^2 t'^2 = (c^2-v^2)t^2 equation formed as follows: 30

31. Consider a box with light moving from one wall to the other wall

32. v c (c+v) ….32

33. For outside observer: Box moving at velocity v, light in box emitted from wall with velocity. By Newtonian physics we would have velocity of the light as c+v for outside observer. 33

34. Next light bounces off 2nd wall

35. v c (c-v) ….....35

36. Now outside observer would by Newtonian physics observe (c-v) 36

37. Next thing done is say let time t be same for both directions, and form the distance (c+v)t and (c-v)t and multiply them together gives (c^2-v^2)t^2. If we were in the box not outside the box the distance would be (c't') squared. i.e. claiming speed observed is c' and in time interval t'. (c't') squared is then set equal to (c^2-v^2)t^2 37

38. The equation is c'^2t'2 = (c^2-v^2)t^2 It seems reasonable at first to say c' =c Then we get c^2t'2 = (c^2-v^2)t^2 But then we get t' not equal to t. And it is the path that SR takes to get the time dilation equation. It is clock synchronization by what is called keeping the two-way speed of light as a constant. Newtonian physics would set t' =t and then c' would not equal c, call that NP#2. 38

39. So if do by NP#2 then treating t' = t and have c' not equal to c Thus NP#2 and SR are looking at the same equation c'^2 t'^2 = (c^2-v^2)t^2 but in different ways. Now Newtonian physics is really NP#2 not NP#1. MS is falsely claiming Newtonian physics is NP#1 when its not that. Its instead NP#2. KISS (keep it simple stupid) ...39

40. Conclusions The whole process of Einstein's relativity as has been handed down to us by Physics texts is to build upon numerous mistakes. 40

41. The Lorentz transformations are being presented as reducing to Gailean transformations at low speeds. So Special Relativity is said to reduce to approximately being Newtonian physics (NP#1) at low speeds. Really – Lorentz transformations were derived from Newtonian Physics (NP#2). So if you are treating the Lorentz transformations as Special relativity then the identification between Newtonian physics and Special relativity has been messed up. 41

42. After such a fundamentally big mistake as this. False claims are then made about interpretation of experiments, about interpretation of theory and maths etc etc. 42

43. Videos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5S-hA9uKEM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajhFNcUTJI0

44. Many of us can look at Einstein's relativity and decide its wrong. (Some people of course look and decide its not wrong.) But of those who look and decide its wrong, they can then follow 2 options: 1. throw Einstein's relativity away and start again OR 2. try to fix Einstein's relativity 43

45. There are of course many other options. So when it comes to supplying an alternative to the Mainstream - there is just too many options, so we can't unify on one point-of-view to counter the Mainstream view. 44

46. THE END