The Home of Natural Relativity and Natural Gravity
(January 2012 Version).
(The path that physicists, but for Einstein and Lorentz, would have followed many decades ago)
This is a scientific site, probably of only a little interest to the general public.
Copyright © 2004 - 2012 David V Connell. (email: author@betterelativity.com)
Key words :- Einstein's Relativity, Natural Relativity, Local Constants, Universal Constants, Real Gravity.
I came not from too many years at a learned academy; my mind was not burdoned with excessive exposures to Einstein's Relativity theories, which violated common sense. Instead, 12 years into my retirement I went to the simple, fundamental laws of physics and found that mathematical and physics sense agreed with common sense, destroying Einstein's fantasy. Most physicists should now be echoing John F Kennedy's words "How could I have been so mistaken as to have trusted the experts", their dogma has replaced logic. Now, 7 years later, I have added papers that cross-check relativity with the laws of physics.
Click here to go straight to CONTENTS. (This works on Internet Explorer but not on Firefox).
PREFACE.
This site is expected to be of extraordinary interest to all physicists, ex-students of physics and any others with a real interest in Relativity, who may NOT believe,
or even DO believe,
what they have been told about space and time distortions, an absolute limiting velocity, a transverse(!) Doppler effect, etc. in Einstein's Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR) theories.
These turn out to be mistaken ideas, due to his assumption regarding the velocity of light, as is proved by the fact that it causes the relativistic changes predicted by SR to be INCOHERENT. Fundamental physics tries to be an exact science, yet, using SR values, two physics equations for the same quantity predict contradictary values in a moving frame! That does not make sense (and both predictions are wrong!).
This causes most of SR and GR to be utterly wrong for relativistic circumstances.
For the benefit of some readers, a short review of the fundamentals of relativity is offered here.
The subject of relativity concerns the changes to mass, size and internal natural frequencies of material objects when energy is applied to (or extracted from) them.
The principle of conservation of total energy states that energy cannot be created, nor destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another (e.g. heat, light, noise, electricity, kinetic energy, etc). Raising an object against the force of gravity, or accelerating it to some speed requires energy, which is therefore transferred to the object. As it has become known that energy and mass are two forms of the same thing we can add mass and energy to the above list, mass being where the energy has gone when it seems to have disappeared (often called potential energy).
Certain laws of physics, notably from Neils Bohr’s work (1913), show that changes in mass cause, or are accompanied by, changes to lengths and to the internal natural frequencies of objects. They are called relativistic changes and their new values are usually given in terms of their values before the energy exchange took place, and the energy added.
Relativity is not magical or fantasy; it is a natural consequence of two laws of physics.
End of review.
A new (2006-2009), simple, and coherent theory named Natural Relativity (NR), based on energy conservation, has been derived, which does not produce the above absurdities, or produce any known anomalies, such as the famous Clocks paradox. It also leads to finding that the speed of light is not a universal constant, that the force of gravity results from long known causes (not mass), and indicates that Einstein's theory of gravity is nonsense. Also, it is well known that SR and GR are based on the assumptions that velocity and gravity cause relativistic effects, but no sensible evidence has ever been produced to support these assumptions, whereas the movement of matter against gravity or its own inertia always requires energy, which is shown in NR to be the cause of relativistic changes.
Natural Relativity is a system of relativity physics derived from classical laws of physics, binding them together with the laws of relativity, such that cross-checks are always found to be true.
Stop press! (21 April 2011) In February an indisputable derivation of Natures relativistic changes to mass, length and natural frequencies for both types of frames of reference (stationary and moving) was made in only 15 lines of text instead of many pages, by methods independent of laws of physics, and submitted to a prestigious physics journal, who have rejected it for publication without review. It agrees exactly with the findings of NR, but not with Einstein's SR. It appears that the editors of that journal have a face-saving problem, having declared Einstein's theories are the last word on this subject about 60 years ago. This short derivation may now be seen in "A Relativity Theorem, with Huge Consequences" published in Proceedings of the NPA 8 (July 2011), or in Nature's Magic (this web site).
It is realized that most physicists have been subjected to a lifetime of conditioning that the speed of light is a universal constant and a limiting velocity, that physics constants of proportionality do not change their value between frames of reference in spite of the existence of universal and other constants. But, they are unproved assumptions from around the turn of the 20th century. Getting used to the fact that they, and their consequences, are not true could be a problem for many.
A list of common misconceptions and false assumptions discovered during the derivation of NR is offered below. They are based on accepted principles and logic; they are not postulations. Also included on this web site are some articles on particular associated subjects, which are highly likely to be of interest, one of which being a sensible theory of gravity.
Most of the readers of these articles will attempt to find fault everywhere they are in conflict with the theory they have been taught. It is pointed out here that invalidation of a theory must come from UNDISPUTED physics, logic, or experiment, NOT from conflicts with other theories or beliefs, so, reader beware, there are many such conflicts in these articles where NR logic overthrows baseless assumptions. Nearly all the comments made by Physics Journal's reviewers of my manuscripts have violated this paragraph! They do not seem to know the difference between postulations and proven facts. It is therefore recommended that the articles at the top of the list in "Contents" are read in the sequence given before embarking on the rest.
CONTENTS. ("last updated" dates attached to each item).
Introduction (below) (02Nov2011).
Moving Frames of Reference. (19Sep11)
SR's Problems - Some Common Misconceptions, and Many Invalidations of SR. (02Nov2011)
Speeds of light clarifed (08Jan2012)
Physicists' 100 years Errors Summary. (04Nov11)
Nature's Magic for basic stuff. (27Dec11)
The Natural Source of Gravity. (08July11)
Mass, Matter, and Real Gravity. (Jun08-19Nov11)
NR discussion and Summary (21AUG11)
Curvilinear Motion Evidence. (17JAN09)
Red Shift is Due to the Doppler Effect . . . . Isn't It ? (22JUL10)
The Necessity of Solving the Clocks Contradiction of SR. (SEP05 - Feb11)
The Faked Derivation of Einstein's Mass-Velocity Equation. (2004-2010)
Introduction.
Einstein's SR theory is an early attempt at finding the exact relation between mass and velocity and exploring the consequences. The erroneous assumptions regarding the velocity of light resulted in SR being inconsistent in its predictions and significantly affects calculations using very high velocities. Even then his resulting equation was correct for one particular (common) type of experiment - acceleration of charged particles in an electric field. NR shows that the electric field was the cause of the limiting speed, not "relativity". Thus, all experiments of that type confirmed his equation, but this was wrongly assumed by everyone (it seems) to be for all methods of acceleration, not just for electric fields, with far reaching consequences.
The more popular, so-called conventional derivation of his equation (a less complicated method) was also found to be faulty. And, SR is seen to offend some principles of physics and relativity, using distortions of Time and Space to 'solve' some of them. Those distortions are then carried forward into his general theory of relativity (GR), which is based on his strange concept of gravity where mass supposedly distorts space. It is shown on this website that gravity does not emanate from mass, so mass cannot distort space! Obviously, nothing can distort space, and distorted axes of a frame of reference can only lead to unwanted complications. Space is merely the gap between two points.
Most experiments confirming relativity have been assumed to confirm Einstein's versions. However, the NR relativistic change in length differs from that of SR in moving frames, and the change in mass differs at relativistic speeds, both of which are very small and not directly measurable, thus most experimental evidence is applicable to both theories. One whole group of experiments (measuring the so-called Transverse Doppler Effect) was found to confirm NR and SR predictions, but the reason for the agreement with SR was found to be invalid due to a widespread false assumption. For relativistic speeds, two sample experiments apparently agreeing with SR, but, according to NR should not have done so, were examined and found to be faulty (whether deliberate or by accident is not determinable!). One of these was not correctable, the other (see "Curvilinear Motion"), when more deeply examined, was found to support NR and disagree with the constant velocity of light assumption (a basic postulation of the SR theory).
Very few experiments were published in this area and the extremely few others have, naturally, also been assumed to be faulty. Thus, all valid experiments agree with NR, but not with SR. As Einstein once said, hundreds of experiments agreeing with a theory do not prove it is correct, but just one disagreeing with it will prove it wrong.
How often, in the history of science, was the first theory of a strange new subject found to be perfect? But this is assumed to be true by the proponents of SR, even more than a hundred years later!
The derivation of the relativistic changes to mass, length and natural frequencies in NR avoids making any doubtful assumptions. Long accepted, undisputed physics and logic are used to determine those changes, without recourse to distortions of time and space, disagreeing with the SR predicted changes as indicated above, one of which incidentally exposes the constancy of the speed of light assumption to be invalid.
Relativistic changes (in mass, size and resonant frequencies) are confirmed to exist, and the contradictory and paradoxical situations associated with SR do not arise. All this is accomplished using only long accepted, undisputed physics.
Some readers may think the above claims are impossible, BUT NOT SO, other methods (2010, 2011) confirm the NR changes . . . so please read on.
ONCE THE FOUNDATIONS ARE CORRECTED, IT ALL FALLS INTO PLACE.
The first full version of the manuscript expounding this new theory, which complies with all the applicable laws of physics and principles of relativity, gives the formal proof of these claims and was first submitted to a physics journal for publication in January 2006, and improved versions submitted to several journals since then, always rejected for vague reasons, but after several years was finally published in SEPTEMBER 2009 (Physics Essays 22, 3, 402-12), with the title "Natural Effects of Applied Energy, Motion, and Gravity, on Mass". That paper was found to require some corrections to minor errors found in the published version, but mostly were modifications to some of the consequences declared therein. Interested parties are invited to contact the author (see Comments below), or the publisher, for these changes.
Hence this web site describes the benefits of Natural Relativity for general consideration and readers may decide for themselves whether it should have been published in a physics journal before 2009. Happily, the author (many years retired) has no career to enhance (or have destroyed, as has happened to some critics of SR) so it is of little importance to him where it is published, but 'when' was important.
It is again pointed out here that invalidation of a theory must come from UNDISPUTED physics, logic , or experiment, NOT from conflicts with other theories, so, reader beware, there are many of these in these articles (where NR logic overthrows baseless assumptions) and such conflicts should be carefully examined. It is probable that none can be classified as a matter of opinion (no physical evidence for either point of view).
It is up to the qualified readers of the articles on this web site and the full thesis to apply the facts disclosed in them to their areas of expertise or interest. This author cannot be expected to explain how this information exposes the flaws in the many theories associated with relativity which abound (due mostly to false assumptions and misinterpretations), or explain the anomalies, in all of them.
Comments, feedback etc. are welcome. Also, If you are excited about what you have read here, please say so, otherwise I may feel that I have wasted 8 years of my declining years (not many left now).
Click contact to send a message. Senders' e-mail addresses will not be disclosed to any other parties.
Number of comments received to date is . . . 2! Please use this new mailto address.
Web site "hit rate" now over 900/month.
Web site inaugurated 25 April 2007 and continuously updated.
Click here to return to CONTENTS.