Anonymous | The points of view of four scientists are consentient in the material “TRUE IN FORCE”. Whether is it possible from it to extract positions with which many scientists will agree?
2034 days ago  Quote('79953','88','5','6895')">Report spamTRUTH IN FORCE
Dear Prof. Joseph J. Smulsky,
Now there is an active discussion between members NPA (Smul.: Natural Philosophy Alliance). There are ideas which are already developed by you, and also there are other useful materials. I send a part to you.
10.07.06. K.F.M. (Prof. Kanarev Phillip Mihajlovich- http://Kanarev.innoplaza.net).
Dear Prof. Phillip M. Kanarev,
1. Thank you for letters of Domina Eberle Spencer and Francisco J. Müller. These materials really have the big interest for me.
2. In 1967 - 1968 at the analysis of the theory of relativity (TR) I have understood, that its main mistakes is an incorrect understanding of interactions of the moving charged particles and a bad way of their description.
Based on the experimental laws of electromagnetism I have derived the differential equations for force of action of one charged particle on another, which (the force) depends on distance between them and their relative velocity. I have solved this equation and have received the formula of force:
F= q1*q2*[1-(v/c1)**2]/{eps*(R**2)*[1-(v*sinfi/c1)**2]**1.5)},
where c1= c/SQR(eps*mu) is speed of light in a medium with permittivity eps and magnetic permeability mu; fi is angle between charge distance R and their relative velocity v.
On it, in essence, all subject of Special TR was closed. It can be thrown out and forgotten. All interactions it is necessary to determine with assistance of this formula of force.
3. For all years of TR existence its criticism has concentrated around of transformations of coordinates and time, their validity, reality, discrepancy of consequences etc. The works on the analysis of interactions were so rare, that they practically were not took into account. Therefore I was extremely pleased with that in letters of these scientists the question is interactions, expressions for force of acting one moving charge on another. I can tell that I have met works of the adherents.
4. Many interesting reasonings are submitted in Francisco J. Müller’s letter: about force, about ether, about sources of the TR. I also was convinced at my analysis that the illogicalness and irrationalism of TR already are contained in separate works of predecessors. Therefore I agree with Müller’s conclusion: to leave a circle of logic contradictions of TR it is possible only after revising of 19 centuries electrodynamics.
18.07.06. Joseph J. Smulsky
Dear NPA,
(Smul.: NPA - Natural Philosophy Alliance, founded 1994: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Deneb/)
As I see it the purpose of the NPA is to determine the experimentally valid foundations of science. In order to study the foundations of the special theory of relativity we must determine whether Einstein's postulates are valid or not. The good thing about Einstein is that he did state his postulates clearly. The bad thing is that we now have many proofs that both of his postulates are incorrect..
Einstein's first postulate is that the velocity of light is a constant. We have many proofs that the only valid postulate on the velocity of light is the universal time postulate which Prof. Moon and I began to develop in 1947. Perhaps we should have a session at the 2007 NPA meeting in which we restudy the proofs of the universal time postulate. With this beautifully simple postulate there is no need for the archaic concept of an ether.
Einstein's second postulate is that the Maxwell equations are a correct statement of the foundations of the subject of electromagnetic theory. Yet in the last chapter of Maxwell's beautiful book on electromagnetic theory he says that the keystone of the theory should be an equation for the force between moving charges. The equation for the force between moving charges that is equivalent to the Maxwell equations is expressed in terms of an absolute velocity of the moving charges. However, it is not possible to measure absolute velocities. As Gauss pointed out only relative velocities can be measured. In the New Gaussian Electromagnetic theory we have developed an equation for the force between moving charges which is consistent with all of the experiments hitherto analyzed. Perhaps we should also have a session in 2007 NPA in which we show how each of the applications hitherto analyzed can be derived from the New Gaussian Equation for the force between moving charges.
The subject is now beautifully simple and explains all of the experiments hitherto analyzed but the NPA members do not seem to understand this fact. Let us try to understand each other and come to a common understanding of our beautiful universe.
Sincerely yours, Domina Eberle Spencer
Smul.: Spencer Domina Eberle, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA.
Dear NPA brains:
This is F Muller, ex-president of NPA. I have been absent from all exchanges since almost a year. My academic work does not allow any free time. I would like to inform all, however, that last December I published a booklet, (200 pgs) exhaustively analyzing EInstein's 1905 paper. It is a line-by-line demolition of said paper. Einstein did not prove anything, neither space contraction, nor time dilation, even less the E=-mc2 equation. All is a fake of a proof. It is almost hard to believe that this paper was ever published, when Planck was at the editorial board of the Annalen. Einstein himself NEVER returned to it, as early as 1907. He started changing all his reasonings. The conclusion is that, if you take that paper out of the history of science, Relativity would be the same as it is now, since it is the work primarily of Lorentz, Poincare, Larson (before Einstein) and then Max von Laue, Minkowski, Lewis, Tolman, Planck himself, etc, etc. So after I finished this study, which collects material accumulated in 30 years, I said: it is all a waste. Yet, not all, because the irrational aspects of Relativity theory still attached to it, are typically due to Einstein's interpretation of it. In a sense, Lorentz started it all, with his mathematical transformation of X' into X(SQR(1-V2/c2). Something he considered only as a mathematical transformation to facilitate keeping the wave equation invariant in moving frames. Then Einstein took the reciprocal view of it, that ALL frames are equivalent. Hence the source of all paradoxes. This "reciprocity" is what Einsteinian followers praise of him. Yet, it is a crime. In a sense Einstein perfected the half-crime begun by Lorentz. Einstein made a "shortcut into nonsense". He facilitated the adulteration of Physics into pure Mathematics.
After realizing the futility of the 1905 paper I concluded that the real authors to be analyzed are the ones just preceding Einstein, specially those who developed the electromagnetic theory of mass,:Thomson, Wien, Searle, Heaviside, Hasenohrl, Poincare, Lorentz and Abraham. It is here where we should find contact of relativity (if any) with reality. Heaviside, for example, demonstrated the variability of mass with velocity, with a strict classical electromagnetic approach. He got the Lorentz factor, (SQR(1-v2/c2) much before Lorentz (1889) and without any idea of mathematical transformations.
Interestingly, Heaviside considers also the approach of the "current elements", (those of the German electrodynamics) but only to discard it. So the challenge to find the "FORCE" equation, that Maxwell left without formualting, fell to Lorentz. He was the one who tried to connect the German electrodynamics, using charges q and velocities V, with the Maxwellian approach, that used fields only H,B, E and D. That formulation, as Domina says, is still an unresolved topic, since we know that Lorentz Force violates Newton's 3rd Law. (Resort to electromagnetic momentum will not "cure" the problem).
So there is where we stand. In spite of the formal perfection of Maxwellian theory, as demonstrated by Post in a beautiful monography, it remains, in my opinion, an incomplete theory. Its aethereal base was stripped off after Maxwell published his treatise, so, in a sense, both schools of thought, Amperian (German) and Maxwellian are, in practice, working without any need of an aether. Yet, there is a reactivity due only to "space" that I think cannot be covered by the German electrodynamists nor by the Maxwellian. What Quantum Physicists call the "living vacuum" is but an echo of this "aether" whose electromagnetic reactivity is adscribed to "empty "space, (an obvious philosophical atrocity: pure nothingness cannot due anything). How important is this basic aether concept? It does not enter the equations, yet guides our mind to pinpoint the SEAT and location of actions, forces and energies. It all depends on how much you want to do of PHYSICS as something MORE than pure mathematical calculations. For Maxwell the aether was a heuristic guide. Yet, its very success was its ruin: it became too mechanistic. Lorentz had a better picture, when he considered both, waves and particles, as "conformations" of the aether. In this way the opposition between the aether's rigidity and its frictionless nature is avoided. (A wave in the sea, for example, does not have any "friction" respect the water. It belongs to a different level of reality. Water and the wave-form are but an echo of the ancient ideas of "matter" and "form". Unfortunately mechanistic philosophy on one side, and Cartesian dualism on the other, have made scientists impervious to a true notion of natural philosophy (based on the matter/form composition). I see the catastrophe of Einstein's relativity so irreversible, that unless we go to a deep philosophical reconsideration of the WHOLE enterprise since Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Ampere, etc, etc, we will be all going in a circle. Not too consoling thoughts, but the lesson I learned writing the mentioning booklet is in order. In a sense, as Wesley said long time ago, fighting Einstein is like killing a dead horse. But the POSITIVE remedy will not be completely found till the philosophical cancer is uncovered. Einstein was a victim of the many little errors and perplexities accumulated by his predecessors. As I said, he combined them all and made a perfect crime: HIS version of special relativity theory. A shortcut into nonsense. Yet, criticizing him only, will no lead us anywhere. In a sense I am at square one. I hope you are not.
Thank you.
Francisco J. Müller
Smul.: Francisco J. Müller, 8025 S.W. 15th St., Miami, Florida 333144, USA, http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Deneb/muller.htm.
20.06.06. Joseph J. Smulsky, JSmulsky@mail.RU.
|
