The Lorentz transformation cannot be physical

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

The Lorentz transformation cannot be physical

Unread postby Chan Rasjid » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:57 pm

Dear scientists,

I have done a major rewrite of my 2015 paper:
"The Lorentz Transformation Cannot Be Physical",
pages: 5,
http://www.emc2fails.com

I think the present version gives a much clearer explanation than the old paper.

Abstract. "The Lorentz transformation will always remain only as an abstract mathematical transformation that cannot be incorporated into any theory of physics. The reason being there is no natural principle that ensures real physical space positions and time be also mapped onto real positions and time. Any application of the Lorentz transformation will only result in space and time that have no relation to our physical world. All physical theories founded on the Lorentz transformation are invalid. This includes Einstein’s special relativity, particle physics, electromagnetism based on the Maxwell-Heaviside equations."

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
Chan Rasjid
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: The Lorentz transformation cannot be physical

Unread postby Laradex3 » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:51 pm

Chan,

See my topic "Torsion Gravity Angular Momentum Magnetism" for more details than just what I post here.

As to relativity, I mentioned two papers that use it. Teleparallel Gravity requires Minkowski spacetime. I also provided an abstract from Phys.org about Special Relativity. Got the whole paper from Physics Essays. The authors use Galilean transformations for motion in space, and do not use Minkowski spacetime.

What was NOT included in the abstract, but was included in the full paper, is that they use a Lorentz transformation for time dilation.

Wallace Kantor, in his book, The Relativistic Propagation of Light, includes experiments done by himself and other scientists, along with the mathematics, to prove that the Lorentz transformation is unphysical. It is also unphysical because it relies on mathematical covariance, which both Kreschmann and Einstein candidly admitted has no physical consequences. Mathematical covariance simply uses the same formula, the Lorentz transformation, in both stationary and moving frames.

What Kantor means by the relativistic propagation of light, is that unlike Einstein and his theories of relativity, the velocity of light depends on the motion of the source.

Laradex3
Laradex3
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:44 am

Re: The Lorentz transformation cannot be physical

Unread postby Chan Rasjid » Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:03 pm

Hello,

I would not understand how "they use a Lorentz transformation for time dilation". How could LT produce any physical and dilated time?

It is difficult to imagine how light speed may depend on the motion of the source. It would imply light does not completely detach itself independently from its source - a beam of light would be like a living entity expanding in length.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
Chan Rasjid
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: The Lorentz transformation cannot be physical

Unread postby Laradex3 » Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:33 pm

>Hello,

>I would not understand how "they use a Lorentz transformation for time dilation". How could LT produce any physical >and dilated time?

Like most relativists, they believe that the LT for time gives physical results. They argue that in an inertial frame that moves faster than another inertial frame, time runs more slowly. They use the hypothetical example of a jet airplane, with a clock on board, to say that it runs more slowly than a clock on the surface of the earth. The authors also say that time runs more slowly on the International Space Station than on the surface of the earth.

>It is difficult to imagine how light speed may depend on the motion of the source. It would imply light does not >completely detach itself independently from its source - a beam of light would be like a living entity expanding in >length.

Kantor and other scientists experimentally proved that the light coming from a moving source has the speed of c+v, in an inertial frame. Take a moving train with speed v. Its headlamp is not on. Turn the headlamp on. A pulse of light exits the headlamp. Its speed is c+v. Light coming from the headlamp will continue at this speed unless conditions change.

The "ballistic" theory of the propagation of light gives the same result. It considers light to be a stream of particles. The train's motion adds to the speed of the particles exciting the headlamp.
Laradex3
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:44 am


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest