Chanel Outlet At Woodbury

Theory of Relativity

Einstein founded his theory on two principles:

1 In all reference systems Galilean (moving with constant speed and straight line) the laws of nature have an identical expression.

2 The speed of light is constant observed from any such reference.

This means that the phenomena and laws that are observed in a reference frame are identical to those observed from all references, which move in a straight line and constant speed relative to the first. In other words, a person weighs the same kilos when uploaded to a boat as you walk along the shore. And a piece of wood submerged in a bucket of water, rises with velocity equal to the surface, if we make the experience on the mainland, or whether we are uploaded on a train.

And if we simplify the theory, Einstein's relativity is nothing that the application of Newton's Principle of Relativity to light phenomenon. That these principles are false, as is the case, is another matter.

Space and time

addition to these two axioms, Einstein said what they meant, for him, the concepts of space and time. Thus, the space is coextensive with the universe. You can expand and contract according to the formulation of Lorentz, and even curve in the presence of matter. That is an indisputable fact because no one can imagine what this means.

Regarding time, undertook a drastic simplification: The variable time limits their action concurrency. "All of our judgments about the time refer to simultaneous events." In short, play our set pattern of events in time, by the time your clock says.

In other words, it ignores the dynamic time is duration, which is the thermodynamic order, direction, and that the fractal dimensionality is multidinámico greater than unity. Which means that the latter occupies a surface.

is easy to see that, for example, biological time, multidinámico paradigm, moving over an area, rather than following a line like the dynamic: The death of a living, there is no clear end point, as with dynamic time in which the arrival of a train station is a unique moment that can be accurately.

In biological time, however, there is a time when the EEG is flat, one in which the heart stops beating, one in which the hair cells die, etc. Everything is dying as a distinct proper time, covering life time of an area outlined by the death stops.

to test Einstein's relativity of simultaneity, suggested well-known examples of trains, slide rules, etc.. But perhaps the clearest and simplest is that of a cube-shaped room where regular light a candle in the center. So all the walls, along with ceiling and floor are illuminated at the same time, because the distance from the source is equal for all. An observer at the center, it will look like. But one that is separated from the center, for example against a wall, you see that it is lit before the opposite, because the road is traveled by light in the latter case, three times longer. The fact makes, therefore, to be simultaneous for the second observer.

If the bucket is moved, the illumination of all sides will continue to be simultaneous for the observer at the center, assuming he travels to the hub. But if it does because it is located in another reference, and watch as the bucket away, disappears concurrency. For although all the faces really light up at the same time as the distance from the observer to each is different, the information comes with different time intervals.

In summary, each viewer sees something different. And this raises the fundamental question: Is it real what you see each of these observers?. Because we start from a theory of knowledge supported by daily life assures us that "real is what we see." Then, the simultaneous lighting on all sides of the cube is a reality for the observer traveling in the center of the cube. However, for the observer on earth, the fact is the non-simultaneity. We thus have the same fact that has two interpretations.

For some the two events are real, each corresponding to the observer. What justifies saying that the time of each observer is different, because there is no absolute time, but it is local and linked to each reference system.

For me, however, although I admit local time each benchmark in motion, no more real than he who made the six faces are illuminated simultaneously, while he sees the observer at rest is not real. This claim is against him, despite being obviously true, it is very shocking to say that what we see is not real, because it goes against the aforementioned criteria and universally accepted. Later

explain in detail the reasons and implications of this fact, but I hasten to remember, now, that this perception real / unreal due to simultaneity is not an exotic and secluded, but physics itself is full of examples where the reality differs from the observed. And to mention, now, if only sea uno: el palo introducido en un cubo de agua se ve quebrado. Pero, lo que se ve no es cierto, pues en cuanto lo sacamos del agua podemos comprobar que el palo es recto.

Concepto de observable.

Estamos, ya, en situación de introducir un concepto nuevo que completa lo ya expuesto. Porque cuando observamos, por ejemplo, una estrella situada a cien mil años luz, podemos decir que lo que vemos ahora "fue" real hace cien mil años, cuando la estrella estaba allí, con cuya explicación la mayor parte de los ciudadanos estaría conforme y no sería preciso insistir más. Generalizando diríamos que todo lo que veo fue real en un cierto momento anterior al tiempo que mark my watch.

But it happens that is not enough, not true, that statement, because due to the time it takes for information to reach the observer, change the reality of the object. In other words, the star that we located a hundred thousand years did not see it as it was then, but we see it amended. In this picture we see the real object, old, modified, called "observable".

This is the foundation, more seriously, our disagreement with the theory of relativity, because while for her to observe is, or was, a real fact. For us, the observable is not, nor has it been, a real fact. How

relativity relates the observable real event?. Quite simply, saying that the difference between them is nothing that they are referring to different coordinate systems: they are a single event seen from two different references. So to relate sufficient to establish a coordinate transformation.

Einstein undertook this study to the more general case of reference systems with curvilinear axes, which is the most boring math exercise of all physics. But further work is useless, because by expressing the coordinates of a point depending on the other system, it is assumed that both the point is the same. However, we will soon see that in both systems any of the universe, we get two different observers without common points. What prevents the proposed transformation. In fact, this failure occurs if any of the axes represents a temporary variable.

Before justify everything said so far, I would add that not only we will face the standard "real is what I see, what I see," but that from now on, it is necessary to modify the scientific methodology . Because if the theory provides, for example, that at some point two objects are illuminated simultaneously, such as two faces of the cube above, the experiment did not confirm the theory if the outside observer notes that, in effect, light simultaneously. Since we know that it actually happened that should see them, lit, one after another, as we have seen to define the above example of the cube.

Therefore, returning to the methodological approach, previously, I have to transform, if possible, the observable fact real, and the latter is the same as the theoretical assumption, if the theory is true. So back to the example, the observable fact has to be non-simultaneous illumination corresponding to a true simultaneous lighting. Real

than observable.

As has been said, the discrepancy between real and observable is manifested in many areas of nature. To Bertrand Russell's observation of reality was an eminently subjective: Everything we see through our senses. So for that reason alone, the reality is different from the symphony to hear the trained ear of the conductor of the orchestra, that the amateur listener, or can not hear the muffled

And that initial difference due to the senses, we must add the different interpretation of reality than our rational mind gives different information received, in view of a waterfall, the engineer thinks of his energy exploitation, the painter in the beauty of its lights, and the philosopher, perhaps, in the explosive vitality of nature. Ultimately, each one looks and plays a different reality.

In the field of physics, have cited the case in which a straight stick, inserted in the bucket, it seems to be broken. But there are many that can be added as a result of the various phenomena of light and observed on a reference in movement: thirsty pedestrians traveling on the desert are subjected to make them see mirages in the distance, lake water those who dive. For a terrestrial observer, the observable fact is that the Sun revolves around Earth. But for a solar observer on Earth would that rotates like a top on itself. And we know the universe, the real fact does not match any of the two observables.

In Foucault pendulum same thing happens: Turn the Earth if the observer gets on the plane of oscillation, or rotate the plane if the observer is sitting on Earth.

And in all such experiments are observed and measured Doppler frequencies that are different from the real.



doubling of real and observable object.

of the discrepancies between actual and observable, set up to now, we must add that we have cited as a new fact is that due to the time it takes for the propagation information, observable value changes. In fact, there is a split between the real and observable object, in which each is independent enough to move at different speeds.

I divide the study into three phases:

First, we are in the presence of a static universe in which observer and universe remain at rest, and second, the universe is in expansion / contraction while the observer remains at rest, and, third, the universe remains at rest and the observer is moving.

start with the first:

Universe and observer are at rest

Everything is, which was always. This world fits in a single reference. Would in the case of an absolute space, with an absolute time.

materialize this observation by placing clocks perfectly synchronized, the various objects in the universe. In other words, in all parts of the world watches the same time mark. This is the real fact. We

the observable: If a telescope to observe the Sun, I'll see you there mark the clock at a delay of eight minutes in respect of which I have my hand on Earth. Is the time it takes the image of the clock, located in the Sun, to cover the distance that separates us and make us accessible information. Something

similar will happen with all the clocks located in other celestial bodies. Signal a delay compared to mine which is the time it takes light to travel the distance of each body to Earth.

So I see the universe, observable universe, is rejuvenated as to the real. But the farther away rejuvenated the area observed. So with the telescope look like objects were thousands, millions or billions of years.

only develops a split time between real and observable object. Most of the objects were displayed as I see a younger age than are the corresponding real objects. In contrast, no cleavage space and things, and the observer, still where they always were.

The observable universe, which shows us in this scenario does not exist, nor has it ever, as it is formed by pieces of real universe at different times in its history.

The universe expands or contracts, while the observer remains at rest.

Our clock shows a time T. Pointed a telescope located on the sun clock and see that points one hour T minus eight minutes, T-8. Imagine now that the latter clock comes to us at a speed that is easy to reasoning, we choose equal to half the speed of light: c / 2.

With our telescope we observed the solar clock, which, although it has started its journey toward Earth at the time T-8 will remain static until eight minutes have elapsed since he left in his journey to Earth, the clock real. At that time, the clock that we see in the Sun marks the time T.

Meanwhile, as the real clock travels at half the speed of light takes to go all the way, Sun-Earth, sixteen minutes. As has been eight will be "really" halfway through its journey. So we have produced a split space between the real clock and the observed, since both occupy a different place in space: The real is half way, while the observable has just separated from the Sun but also kept the split time, as the clock tells the time observable T, while in real, but not see, time is T +8 . Each benchmark has its local time.

In the eight minutes of actual clock reach Earth. And so will the clock observable. So the speed with which it has made the route is double the speed c of the real object, and distance traveled by the Sun-Earth in eight minutes, while the actual clock has taken sixteen.

note that the speed "real" c / 2 is "observed" with a double value c.

Once the clock on earth disappear, spatial and temporal unfolding. The clock observable coincides with the real, is on our side, and marks a time T +16, the same as ours. In other words, the clock has come observable sixteen minutes from T to T +16 in eight minutes of our watch, that is real, what has moved their hands at different speeds. It thus confirms that the timing of any reference in motion has a local time, whose second term are different than the real clock.

summarize, therefore, that while all real clocks are synchronized and marching in unison, the observable not only are not but accelerate as they approach the observer. Or fall behind when they leave, as we shall see in the way back the clock to the sun

But first I want to make this thought: If the actual clock speed had come to light, there we found out they started their march from the Sun until the time came to Earth. This means that the clock observable at an infinite speed travel. So the observer would simultaneously watch in the Sun, Earth and all the infinite points between two celestial objects, pointing out all the schedule.

imagine, now, starting the clock back to the Sun, when T. Aim the telescope at the sun As the actual speed is the same as before c / 2 the watch the sun come after 16 minutes of leaving Earth. But we can not notice it until eight minutes later, when our clock strikes T +24. At that time we will see that the observable watch the sun come and check the T +16. Therefore the observable clock has taken 24 minutes to travel a distance of eight light-minutes, so speed was of c / 3.

Again we note that a real speed c / 2 in a move to expand the observable speed is different and equal to c / 3.

As to local time, we found that during the trip back the clock observable has been delayed eight minutes, so we conclude again that his seconds are different, slower, underestimated.

In summary, a speed "real" is "seen" differently depending on the object come or go. And in both cases the velocity "observable" is different from "real" value.

If the speed of propagation of the information would be infinite none of this would not happen, we would all clocks always marking the same time as ours.

The universe remains static while the observer moves.

remains to study the third case. To move only the observer, the real world objects remain fixed, as in the case of static universe, where they were. There is therefore no space splitting. Only one split temporary delay which varies by moving the observer.

see, for example, an object whose clock is ticking T. This value is always lower than the clock that marks the observer. But when seen in the clock of the object can vary depending on the simple approach / departure from the observer, without the need to elapse time at all.

For the reasoning is clear, we imagine that the observer jumps up and moves away at an infinite speed of the object. The actual elapsed time is zero, however, the clock will be observed on the object hit another jump and will increase its delay in a time equal to it takes light to traverse the space jump given by the observer.

We start now from the position of the Earth really. Our clock marks the time T. While the Sun brand T-8.

If we move away from the Sun at a distance equal to the current Sun-Earth, the delay will mark the respect of our solar clock is sixteen minutes, T-16.

This way if we have done at an infinite speed. But if we had traveled, as in previous examples at the speed c / 2, and split with a time T on our watch, to get to our destination according to T +16, and it took us 16 minutes to transfer. We watched the sun clock and the distance that we are, necessarily, must have a difference with our 16 minutes. Therefore fix a time T. That is, while the clock of the observer has traveled 16 minutes in the Sun, only 8 minutes have passed.

benchmark in the observer, it is the Sun that has isolated Earth-Sun distance in eight minutes, then the speed at which the sun go away is the speed of light c. In other words, the observed rate is twice the real.

Then we made the reverse journey. Our clock is ticking T, and the Sun T-16. We traveled to the real speed c / 2. Until we reach a common position of the Earth have spent sixteen minutes, so that our clock indicate the time T +16. Given its position of the Sun brand, necessarily eight minutes less, or T +8.

benchmark in the observer is the Sun which is near Sun-Earth distance in a time of 24 minutes. Therefore, the observed rate is c / 3. Again, a real speed c / 2 has been allocated a different observable speed c / 3. We

short summary to point out that when the actual speed of separation is c / 2 if the object that is away from the observer is the observed velocity c / 3, but if the observer who moves away from the object's speed observed is c.

same thing happens when you approach a real speed c / 2. If the object that is near the observed rate is c, and if the observer then the observed rate is c / 3. Finally, in the general case in which observer and object, move, and no real point, with the exception of the holder of the observer, it is accessible in real coordinates, the observable that point, in each system, is unique and different from that observed in another system, because the spatiotemporal unfolding of each are different. What makes them different points in time and place. There is no link them to a coordinate transformation.

disputed Newton's Principle of Relativity

These simple considerations allow us to challenge the principle of relativity to Newton. Since it is evident that some phenomenon as displacement clock at the speed c / 2 shows differently, if the observer is, or is, and whether it is the object that is, or comes.

Therefore, any experiment on the inertial reference shall be observed in different ways, depending come or go: In one such case, for example, the rate was twice the observable real, well, all phenomena that occur the real object reference will be played twice as fast in the observable. This in turn implies the existence of gravitational, acceleration, temperature, etc. higher than in the real object reference.

Suppose, for example, a serious drop in the benchmark that away from us at speed c / 2. And the grave takes a real time of ten seconds to reach the ground. But as in our observation, the speed is moving away w / 3 therefore take to reach the ground 15 seconds.

If the reference in which experience comes to us, to the same real speed c / 2, and the actual time of fall is also 10 seconds, now we see that the decay time is half real time, ie five seconds, as the speed at which we observe the phenomenon is real double.

In other words, the observed gravity varies, depending on the benchmark come or go where you experiment. And ultimately, the observed phenomenon is different in both cases than the actual value. If the benchmark, which moves, is the observer, we come to similar consequences. This implies the falsity of Newton's Principle of Relativity.

was thus proved that the observable is different from what "was" real, when it passed the point where now we see the observable.

Many of the phenomena astrophysicists tell us about violent explosions, and temperature variations of magnitude of some stars, galaxies, QSOs, etc.. is not nothing but tales of the observable object. What we show in a few hours or even seconds, took the real focus for thousands of years, and of course all was more peaceful than what we see now. You can add to that part of the universe that is observed with a redshift less than one, the observable is more peaceful than the real, in contrast to higher values \u200b\u200bis much more violent. These latter are observed in time spent, so that one day play, and make us visible, the big bang.

Finally, if the principle of Newton is false, a fortiori that of Einstein who literally supports that.


Is there an absolute space and time?

We emphasized that the observed velocities are different depending on the object or the observer, who approaches or away, because it allows us to obtain other important conclusions.

In the general case of withdrawal, as an observer and object move, part of it shall be the distance from the object and partly to the observer. Since we know how much speed we attribute to one or other, we can break away speed observed in infinite pairs of values, a sum corresponding to the distance from the object and another to the observer. Moreover, we have seen that turning these speeds observed in the corresponding real, the formulas are different for each of the addends, therefore, we get many real speed values \u200b\u200bas do the total decomposition of the observed rate.

In summary, observed rate value may represent infinite values \u200b\u200bof actual speed. Which means that it is impossible to calculate the real value from the observation that we make with a spectrometer. Unless we introduce some additional assumptions. The most common is that the Earth, where our observatory is at rest. Which we know that is a false hypothesis.

phenomenon I call Principle of Impossibility. And it can be stated as saying: If there are additional data, it is impossible to calculate the actual speed with the simple measurement of observable speeds.

But of all these possible values \u200b\u200bof actual speed, only one true. This implies that all possible decompositions of the velocity observable, only one is being carried out.

And this in turn implies that there exists an absolute space and that space for any reference moves to a single speed. What is the principle of absolute.

For the same reason, when measuring the elapsed time information in an observable phenomenon we do not know how much of that time has been affected by the motion of our reference and which by movement of the object observed. So as the decomposition time is made observable will have a total different measure of real time. (See appendix). But real time as you are, necessarily, there must be an absolute time, which is what corresponds to the movement of the two references with respect to the absolute space.

If these arguments add the discrepancies with the theory presented in the experiments carried out, as the Fizeau experiment (14%), the Zeeman (rejected by arbitrary selection of the results), Montilla (100 %), and observations as the advancement of the perihelion of Mercury (87%), etc. we can conclude that the theory of relativity is false. Appendix



formulation that relates the observed velocity and time, with the real object when both undergo the same point is so simple that I propose below. To do distinguish the four cases mentioned in the text above: first, the object is approaching or moving away, the observer, and second, the observer approaches or moves away from the object.

1. The observer is fixed and the object is approaching.

OA
The real purpose comes from point A toward the observer O and takes real time to make the journey T AO T = AO / V (V actual speed)
The observer learns that A is after after a time t '= AO / c and thereafter runs AO observable in a time t = t
AO / v, (v velocity observable) so that T = t '+ t (I)
And if we know the relationship between actual speed and observable, we replace the values \u200b\u200bof t in relation (I): AO / V = \u200b\u200bAO / c + AO / v remains v = cV / (cV) (II)

2. The observer is fixed and the object is moving away. OCA


The real object is from O to A in a real time T
At that moment the observer sees the object in C and we write OA = OC = v T VT
while CA is the space that the real object takes to travel to the actual speed for as long as the information travels a distance OC:
OC / C = CA / V
And as OA = OC + CA is replacing
VT = v T + v T. V / c
v = cV / (c + V) (III)

3. The object is fixed and the observer is approaching. OA


The observer goes from O to T in real time so that OA = VT
observable in terms of time t = T + t 'where t' is the time that the clock is advanced to for the observer to come to A: t '= OA / c so that
OA / v = OA / V + OA / c accordingly
v = cV / (c + V) (IV)


4. The object is fixed and the observer moves away.


OA OA The Observer has come in real time so that T = VT OA
observable in terms of time t we must now subtract the lost time the clock at A with distance:
t = T - t 'or
OA / v = OA / V - OA / c of where
v = cV / (cV) (V)


time
Securities observable in real function in the previous cases.

As observable relationships with real time, easily deduced as follows:
fixed observer - object is approaching: t = (CV). T / c
"" "away: t = (c + V) . T / c
fixed object - observer is at hand: t = (c + V). T / c
"" "away: t = (CV). T / c