Thomas Miles:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 15:15:23 +1000, "Alex Kudrasev"
wrote:



Alex,
From what I have read about your ideas, they seem to be consistent
with mine. I presented a paper at last month's NPA conference in
Storrs, CT describing my Inertial Theory.

Ah. The NPA. Those would be the folks who believe the "scientific
method" goes something like this:


"The central theme that concerns nearly all members, both because of its
highly honored position in current dogma and because its rather simple
mathematics makes it comparatively easy to deal with, is special
relativity (SR). A very large majority in the NPA believe it is
seriously flawed, and a clear majority believe it is totally invalid.

... There is no other issue on which the authoritativeness of modern
physics can be more effectively challenged; and so I have urged my NPA
allies to concentrate our efforts most intensely on criticizing and
replacing SR. Some argue that it is far better to spend one's energy
promoting a new and better theory, than to concentrate on tearing down
an existing one; and yet since we are far from widespread agreement on
what alternative theory to promote, it seems that more can be gained by
convincing as many as possible of the inadequacy of the current theory,
thus enlisting more help in the search for and perfection of a new one."

[Taken from: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Deneb/Steps.htm]

Perhaps you could explain a few things. If special relativity is totally
invalid, why is the standard model able to explain _every_ phenomenon so
far discovered to the level of precision available with current technology
(with the exception of gravity, which is covered by general relativity to
about the same level of precision)?

For example, starting with nothing but the relativistic wave equation
and the quantum mechanical replacements, p = -i\hbar d/dx and E = i\hbar
d/dt, I can derive the (a) qed lagrangian and maxwell's equations in about
two (somewhat terse) pages of straight forward arithmetic, (b) from qed,
obtain the electron magnetic moment which agrees with experiment to
thirteen decimal places, the limit of the experimental precision?


I maintain that the direction and speed of light are independent of its
source.

I have a hard time understanding what you mean by "direction". Does
this mean that I'm kidding myself when I point a flashlight in different
directions and illumuinate different parts of a room? As for the speed
being independent of the source, how does that differ from special rel-
ativity? If you mean that the speed of light is independent of direction,
then what you maintain is sufficient to derive all of special relativity,
precisely as einstein stated it. What you maintain is equivalent to
the requirement:

ds^2 = ds'^2
= (cdt)^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
= (cdt')^2 - dx'^2 - dy'^2 - dz'^2


I went into some detail as to why I believe that the MMX does not
include an angle of reflection. The erroneous assumption about that
angle some 125 years ago lead to employing the Pythagorean Theorem which
then produced the "gamma" function that is at the heart of all
relativity equations.


That's not where the "gamma" function comes from. To the best I can
determine, what you "maintain" above about speed and direction is
sufficient to obtain the "gamma" function, as you refer to it. If
what you mean by "indepedent of direction" is something strange,
then you won't invalidate the use of \gamma in lorentz boosts. You'll
invalidate the three-dimensional rotations, which have been around
long before einstein.

Michelson had two choices when he modeled the equations
using the boat-in-a-river analogy, and he simply chose the wrong one.

The michelson-morely experiment is relevant to special relativity only
for the historical value in tracing the events which prompted einstein to
look for a deeper and more universal explanation to maxwell's equations.
The scientific value of the experiment today is nil. Scientific evidence
for the validity of special relativity today is obtained every day in the
most mundane calculations of scattering cross sections, scattering angles
and charged particle transport in beamlines and spectrographs. The
validity of special relativity is tested at the edge of technology by the
experimental verification of theories like qed which can be used to predict
the splitting of hydrogen spectral lines (e.g., the lamb shift) and
the glashow-weinberg-salam model of the electroweak interaction which
place stringent limits on the predictions of superallowed \beta decay rates
and give values that are precisely in agreement with experiment.

The NPA's idea that special relativity can be easily attacked because
"its rather simple mathematics makes it comparatively easy to deal with",
is rather flawed. Any obvious issue which could be elucidated from the
"simplistic mathematics" by a brute force experiment, was ruled out
long ago by the obvious experiments that would make the "simplistic
mathematics" an issue. In any case, if what you "maintain" above means
what I think it means, then the only way you could have managed to avoid
reproducing special relativity is by either (a) violating your own
assumptions, or (b) making an arithemetic error.