Why was "RELATIVITY" born?

[humanbydefault]

I've realized that the subject of time and space have become a constant source for fantasies and myths among those attracted by the filed of physics around the world... I'm not an exception to that and I feel I do have my own "saying" I'd like to share with the mambers of this active forum.
As a matter of a short introduction I'd like to point out first of all the "TIMMING" in relation to the circumstances the Theory of relativity was brought to life.
Max Plank was working in solving the "Black body catastrophy" dilemma presented by classic mechanics and he saw the solution [as a mathematical one he thought first] in the fact that light was "coming in limited "pieces" or quanta of E-M energy... That was around the turn of the century.
Then, it was a undenieble FACT, that Maxwell proved that the speed of light was the same no matter the frame of observation you may be.
Hertz had observed that light was capable of producing currents when light was projected to a piece of metal. [The preciding evidence for a later photo-electric effect].
Albert Einstein was enchanted with light but on top of all that, he was an absolute believer that the laws of physics had to validate themselves in every circumstance even in different frames of observation.
It's a matter of history by now that he proposed the solution to that puzzle with a bunch of thought experiments where little persons, trains and spaceships traveling in incredible speed where QUESTIONING over and over again the same enigma:
How could we [humans] account for the discrepancies brought about by our own science [read classic physics]when the example light-observer was tackled?
For those who have spent TIME and SPACE in their book shelves to study and follow Einstein line of thoughs, I believe a short conclusion will be enough and that is that he mess with time and space in order to compromise objective discrepancies with observational diecrepancies.
Einstein saw NO OTHER WAY to "fix" the problem other than "contracting space and time" warping
the true along with the very fundaments of physics.
I understand that my statement is a little harsh, but I'm going to prove it to you right here in this thread. Do I believe that Einstein was a dumb? NOT at all! He was a genius and had a huge power of imagining things, but he was "out-of-time" in a field that had already giving the first signs of change... Plank's discoverings.
It's going to take TIME to give you my side and how I see [today] what he wrongly proposed, that's why I appologize in advance to friends like MIKE who become impatient with the length of my posts.
So, I decided to write the whole thing in various parts. I'm not going to open new threads since it is not necessary... what I'm going to do is to send comments to my own thread and this way everything will be located in one place.
Consider this part as an introduction to what's coming. I agree totally with the concerns that some members of this forum have showed about the level of fantasy and metaphysical orientation the concepts of time and space have acquired in a great number of those writing here.
I sympatize with that concern and I invite you all to share with me a little chat about those puzzling concepts in a respectfull and serius manner.

NEXT: "Why SPACE and TIME"

HUMANBYDEFAULT

I've got the feeling that Einsteins lived the last years of his productive life with a very deep fear that one day someone would realized how wrong he was in 1911.
I have reached such conclusion based in a logical basis for my analysis:
He knew that General Relativity was conceived long before the secrets of the quantum world were known to humanity.
The theory of relativity was based in a wrong physical ground and he had to know this fact after 1930. He fought so hard to prove that quantum mechanics had to be an incomplete theory and the true reason for that fight was more personal than theoretical:

Einstein realized [my personal opnion and never published before today] that if quantum mechanics was in fact based in "Uncertainties" his long-life achievement suffered from a deadly sickness not even his world-wide reputation could save from the disaster.

My next post will be a testimony of my personal experiences in the filed of relativity. They are not a "copycat" of any other view. Could it be original? I don't know about that! The fact is that for someone to claim its authorship he or she will have to present dated evidences before these ones.
HUMANBYDEFAULT

There wer two basic physical principles upon Einstein based its relativity theory:

1>> The speed of light propagates at 300,000 km/s [aprox.]

2>> a phenomenon occurring in one inertial frame has to be EQUIVALENT in any other inertial frame. There has to be a COORESPONDANCE between different observational frames with respect to an outside event.

If a car is running at 40 miles and another car moves at 20 miles/h then the relative speed between them is 20 miles/h. A bird flying in opposite direction to them at the speed of 5 miles/h would move at 25 miles/ h from the slowing-moving car and at 45 miles/h from the fastest-moving one... Piece of cake!
This is the principle of equivalence he believed to be UNIVERSAL in every possible inertial frame.
Was he right?

YES AND NO! The principle is valid [true] IF and only IF the inertial frames or observers belong to the MACROWORLD. A FILED OF REALITY WHERE OBJECTS HAVE A DEFINED POSITION AND MOMENTUM!!!!!!

Einstein was fascinated with LIGHT, as we all know by now. He began to ask himself [even since he was a teeneager] about the possibility of riding upon a ray of light and being able to see the light as it moves in his side... child stories...!

Light is not of the dominium of CLASSIC MECHANICS. We know [thanks to Heisenberg's work] that there is a fact [law] that prohibits a practical measurement of momentum and position of a quantum of energy... "The uncertainty principle."

The second fact, I'd like you to take into consideration is that light in fact moves AWAY from its SOURCE at the incredible speed of 300,000 km/s, but just from the source!!!!

If we added to the case above a ray of light and we would try to see the equivalence among all of them the answer to that effort would be:

IMPOSSIBLE!

HUMANBYDEFAULT

IT'S IS IN REALITY absurd to insist in a CLAIM that all inertial frames have to "respond" to an equivalence with respect to light since the last is ruled by entirely different RULES!!!
In 1905, and later on in 1911 when he decided to give the theory its last "final touches" the uncertainty nature of the quantum world was unknown... but not TODAY.

It is entirely IRRELEVANT talking about a need for a comprehensive equivalency between two different physical relams of nature when we are trying to include as a "moving inertial frame" LIGHT ITSELF!!!!!

Allow me to illustrate my saying with an example.

Pay close attention to it since the "devil" is in the details!!!!

A sorce of light emits one single photon. Let's IMAGINE that there were 3 or five or as many inertial frames [observers] as you want, and all of thos are moving at a high speed in random direction... simple isn't it?

The exact moment [instant in time] where the single photon is shot away from the source [moving at the incredible speed of 300,000 km/s from the SOURCE] we attempt to prove that light actually moves from all the inertial frames at the speed of light.

First problem>>> The actual measuring process of the photon's momentum REQUIRES to pinpoint its position in space... remember that all of our inertial frames have a exact position [in the four coordinates: X,Y,Z, and time]

Except for LIGHT!!! We could never ever say where the photon is but only how fast is moving from its source... following me so far????

So, at ZERO-TIME light was moving away from its source at light speed and for the experiment point of views the other were at rest... time is almost zero.

No equivalency is acceptable when light has no exact position.

I've been having some problems trying to send my post. I don't know if you are experiencing the same problems as I have.
I'm sorry for not being able to finish my thoughts...
I'll try in another opportunity I could have.

Until my next encounter with you...

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[mkirkpatrick]

To explain to ourselves that this is where we are! Relativity is only relative to us and "things" about us! It has absolutely No value, and no substance, in the eternal Now! It is unreal and false in the eternal, "relatively real in the world about us. It was not born, but rather is a figment of our imagination. Thanks HBD,good thread.

kind regards michael.

[humanbydefault]

Of course time seems to "run" slowly as we increase the distance from the planet's surface! It's a fact that a satellite orbiting the Earth at 4.1 radii from the center of the planet will see a time contraction of 11 seconds in each rotation... The problem was a theoretical one faced by those working in the program called "Global Positioning Satellite."
The whole logic in it is simpler than we could think. If you draw a circle with [let's say...] a radius of 1 inch and around it you do the same but with a radius of 4 inches then what would happen if you decided to make the point o two pens moving at the same exact speed following the figures?

Piece of cake! The pen moving on the outside circle will fall BEHIND with respect to the one with a smaller radius... right? FINE!
It wasn't necessary at all the complicate things the way Einstein did. Assuming light could also propagate following an ARC [hypothetically speaking of course] instead of in a straight path as it does, it would be pretty easy to see why the light ray forced to spin in the larger orbit will be left well behind.
E-m energy DOES spin around in atomic orbitals and that is the reason time lags from one harmonic to the next!
Back into special relativity, light in the vacuum can not propagates in curves [unless being affected by other reasons we all know] but assuming it could, for the sake of our thought experiment, it is "VISIBLE FOR OUR IMAGINATION" why both systems were time-incompatibles.
The only way to make a PERFECT system of correspondence between all possible inertial frames would be to assume the very center of the circunference [circle] as the time-reference point.
The satellite [and this is a fact] did not showed evidences of a great time discrepancy while moving in a shorter orbit [2 radii from the center of the Earth]. It was only when it reached the altitude of 4 radii or more that a time lag was causing real problems while directing a bombing operation against a target [for example]... let me remind you that GPS was a secret military program in its beginings, well it still is.
The only point in the Earth capable of making A UNIQUE or COVARIANT reference frame would be the CENTER OF THE EARTH.

Newton and Galileo knew already about the relativity of movement in their old days...It wasn't something new. However they assumed that time was absolute and that it could be a common reference for any other inertial frame every where in the universe. A sort of "universal clock." Now! I wonder myself if that universal clock could actually exist somewhere... I tell you what, It may indded exist but so far from here that we will never reah it...
I'll try to explain: In my thought experiment above I assumed an impossible theoretical point of view [nothing really unusual in physics as I'll explain later] where light could move in any chosen path other than the straight line. Considering two circular perimeter or path with different radius between them I could [easily] observe that one light beam [the one moving with agreater radius] stayed behind the other. Reality shows us that a satellite shows a time differencial NOT BECAUSE IS TRAVELING CLOSER TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT but because moves in a greater angle from the Earth's core... This are facts gentlemen!
I then assume this phenomenon to conclude that it is the actual radius and therefore the angle of the momentum followed by an object what defines its own inertial frame and its own space-time attributes and nothing else.

Suppose that you have two objects moving at the same speed in complete geografic position in the planet [one over the U.S.A. and the other on China] exact 180 degrees angle from the center.

As both move in opposite direction we can say that there is a time differential in the inertial system of coordinates. We would be looking at a MIRROR-IMAGE of the same inertial frame! In the center of the Earth every space-time reference is the image of the one moving exactly 180 degrees from the other...
Think about it!

This is part of my response to Tony staton's post:
But concerning the generation of space and time I did wrote a lot in this forum and in my book. I said that I refused to accept gravity as the result of warped or curved fabric of space-time and the reason for that is because I see gravity as the result of a quantum mechanical process occuring inside the SUN.
In my book and my posts I have referred to the conexion between spin and time [read my article "The young experiment" right here in this forum if you want to see my side of the story] Anyway!
I do believe as you stated that space and time are being generated [created] but in my picture I assume that reality [space and time are a consistent reality] being borne in stars and no where else.
Earth rotates around the sun [in my views] not because space-time was warped by the solar mass, because there is a quantum mechanical process of spin amplification around the sun in a "MACRO-SCALE."
The true reason for attraction between electrical bodies do have a time interpretation since I have said before [here in this forum] that harmonics spinning around the atomic core (I called them standing nuclear waves) DO rotate IN THE CONTEXT OF SPACE-TIME different one from the other.
I depicted a horse race where in each harmonic [track] a horse [energy] could move only at discrete rate of time... It's all in the article "The young experiment." I also published it in a web page called sidewlakastronomer.com

I do believe that what we called space and time or what we refer to it in our science is all "produced" by the process of interaction of energy at a huge scale inside stars. Just like inside an atom we find orbitals [harmonics] the same way in the macro-world there are planetarium orbits around the source of that reality: stars. Those individual star-systems are also spinning around a center where all galaxies are connected and right in the very core of that spinning system would be found our "universal clock."

I know! Too far to be prove! I know the response that some members of this forum will write... so I would say that I had anticipated their inertial thoguht of frames this time right? [just kidding!].

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

Show me an ABSOLUTE CASE OF "STRAIGHT MOVEMENT IN SPACE."
You know what? Time's up!
There ain't any! Gentlemen a "fix point" whether it is located right on the Earth's surface or in outerspace it is moving in a radius from the sun and from any other star system in this vast universe!
There is NO straight path for anything! Not even for light! Light is the fast propagation or momentum followed by a quantum of E-M energy in space... But the question remains... what about the nature of space-time?
Once we try to compare the path of any moving object [even light included] with another using an arbitrary point of reference the results will be an entire disaster [see catastrophe instead]. If I am right when I said that gravity and the "thing" we refer as space-time frame is the product of a process originated in stars along the universe... Then it is conceiveable and logical to assume that such process is rotational and therefore it bares a spin configuration! If that so! then it is also logical to say that at the very core [see center] of that process time is trully COVARIANT with respect to every single inertial frame in the area.
We can't try to include inside our solar system's space-time inertial frame another external frame that do not belong here... like an object moving in a different constallation, but whatever is moving inside the system inside the boundaries of the solar gravity [orbits] could be covariant to the center of the system itself. Newton was right when he saw that star could be the absolute time holders! Only his imagination was running far away from the real one... He had the sun right here and he missed it!
But in a sense he was still right! If he was refering to THE universal clock, then it wasn't our sun but the very center of the universe what he was pointing out!
A unique point in the universe where time meets the end of its meaning!
A place where time has no meaning, a strange location where all the time in the universe could be covariant and calculated but also the point in space where the concept of reference also lost its true meaning... the horrible place where science ends...
Could that be the place where God rests?
That wouldn't be physics would it? so let's leave that to the "others."

Until my next

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[Guille]

The ultimate concepts, are all absurd. The idea of 'point' is absurd (thus, point particles are absurd), as well as streight line, or even a line 8thus, string theory's particles is stupid too), and a plane is also absurd 8therefore, string theory's membranes are absurd), the idea of force is to0 abstract (no physicist can determine what 'force' really is), energy is also too abstract, and also any idea of 'dimension' either spatial and temporal. Matter is all we've got left, and it seems it also is too conceptual.

[humanbydefault]

I am not familiar with Professor Mikowsky’s work [forgive my spelling if wrong] I know he was Einstein’s math professor during his days at the gymnasium. My views on the subject on space and time are deducted from my [own] personal “thought experiments” and not from his, which I respect and admire by the way. To be honest with you, almost all the “my theories aimed to describe reality” at some point contradicting orthodox position on the subject…
Probably a good reason to deserve so much CENSORSHIP from the side of some moderators… But you know what? I am counting on them, somehow they may me realize how taught will it be to change present theories and consider [at least] some new ones.
HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

Am I contradicting the father of modern physics here? You bet! Einstein is my idol as well as for many of those writting their fantasies here too. However I see him in the context of his time. He did not believe in the true nature of matter. He thought as the entire scientific community still does it about the "sacred" existence of particles with different elemental status and right to existence. Einstein was pretty confortable with the concept of "particleness" even when it come to define light. He didn't want to get deep into the obvious contradiction of duality but he agreed with the actual existence of subatomic particles in general. I disagree. I also disagree with his idea or views of a force called gravity as the result of the presence of mass in space [cosmos]. He included the mass of the sun and the mass of the rest of celestial bodies "in the same bag." That's not right!

Gravity is not an inherent property of mass but stars alone. The quantum mechanical process occuring inside the layers of the sun [stars] is the only one responsible for the presence of ORBITS used by planets to rotate around it/them.

Comets move across entire solar systems because they are spinning in elliptical orbits MADE [CREATED] by other star systems with a higher reach.
Is it possible that life on Earth had come from another star system via comets?

I do think so! It is highly possible that events were developed that way... I just don't see how we could prove it in retrospectve. We may find life or a form of it in a future comet and that could be a tip although not a hard evidence... unfortunately.

Show me an evidence [a substantial one] giving irrefutable evidences of neutral mass attracting neutral mass...? It's all an absurd! The geometry [as someone wrote in this forum before] is highly applicable in the case of relativity trying to explain gravity here on Earth, but it is not apllicable to the rest of the universe... And you know what? THEY ALREADY KNOW IT!

Show me a star without a "jupiter"? This challenge is in my book too... Just one example will do it! One star without a planet, moon asteroid or innert mass [celestial body]. There ain't any!

But why! Because gravity is manufactured inside stars and once it is there it will ATTRACT any neutral piece of ex-star COOLED after centuries or eons of hanging around in space... That's why!

We can't find systems of plain planets!! Ahuge planet "playing the roll of a sun" and attracting other planets to rotate in elliptical orbits... Show me one case and I'm out of here for good!

Thank you!

then... I stay!

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[dleviwing]

HBD;
I would agree that gravity is not an inherent property of "Matter", but it is the result of an interaction between ethereal matter and structured matter. Mass represents the quantity of uniform motion of a system such as a particle. This along with the standing wave function will determine the rate that ethereal matter will be condensed by the structures. The flow produced will impart linear uniform motion on the ethereal matter and thus condensing it until the wave function of the structure and the wave function of the ether are balanced harmonically. The next phases of condensing are the other so called forces of nature but are actually the same process. This process should not be viewed as being exclusive to stars.

BTW: Einstein is extremely over ratted.

[baudrunner]

RE: not exclusive to stars..

Suns are what happens when a lot of matter accumulates in one place. Worlds are what happens when only so much matter accumulates in one place. Jupiters are what happens when not enough matter accumulates in one place to create a sun but too much matter accumulates to create a world. Worlds and giant planets like Jupiter have their own satellites and their revolution around their parent bodies are effected by the same influence that effects the revolution of the planets around a sun. Gravity is not "created ' by a sun, it is the result of the spatial displacement of a massive object.

[dleviwing]

Baud;
I think Einstein and his worshipers have that concept well covered.

BTW: They are still wrong.