Light is not the best means to study relativity
Author:
Makanae, Masahiko
Category:
Research Papers
Sub-Category:
Relativity Theory
Language:
English
Date Published:
March 22, 2016
Downloads:
973
Keywords:
Einstein, light, relativity, inconsistency
Abstract:
In 1905, A. Einstein published his paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”[1]. In Section 1, the equation “ tB - tA = t’A - tB ” was provided; it describes a method for confirming the synchronization of two clocks by using a ray of light that makes a round trip between the clocks. Based on this method, Einstein established the Special Theory of Relativity (STR). In other words, his STR does not hold without the concept of light. The approach of employing a light ray is also useful for measuring distance; therefore, it is applied in many modern technological fields. However, there are other approaches, such as SONAR, that can be employed to achieve the same of purpose. In thought experiments aimed at confirming the above synchronization, another method that does not cause a time lag between the two clocks can be used. Using this method, STR becomes very simple and even non-scientists can easily confirm the synchronization of the clocks without any need for calculations. From the above, we can say that light is not the best means to study relativity.
Comments
Thank you very much for the current comment of yours on August 22 2015 8:50pm.
First, for the other readers of GSJ, I state that the following arguments of mine do not relate directly to my article uploaded in this page entitled “ Light is not best means to study relativity.”
Regarding the one of your comment that “I think you need to read textbook of STR written in Japanese before study about Einstein's paper”; I think that this includes the most important issue that is not only in the field of physics, but in all of academic field.
Because I believe in that; when we try to validate somebody’s perspective or his/her theory, we should directly read his/her paper which explains his/her perspective or his/her theory by himself/herself, first. If we read the text or instruction book written by other person before reading or studying his/her paper, it is possible that we read the original paper with the bias which was provided by the text or instruction book written by other person.
Of course, it is better to read many texts written by other person after reading the original. But I believe that; from the viewpoint of formal logic, we should read and valid the original paper first. Therefore, unfortunately, Mr, Motoki Mimori, I cannot accept your advice above. I am very sorry, and I wish that we will finish this discussion if you can.
From the above perspective of mine, I strongly hope that every persons who want validate “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” as the premises of Einstein’s STR already read the sections 1,2 and 3 of his paper.
If the readers of this GSJ’s page, which uploaded my article entitled “ Light is not best means to study relativity”, have not read yet directly the sections 1,2 and 3 of “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” , please do read and validate them before reading my article “Light is not best means to study relativity” or any other texts written by other persons.
By the way, about the issue that I described as “Could not ensure logical consistence when using light and the universal equation "time=distance/speed" together” is a total mathematics issue as elementary level. Therefore, I think that I don’t have to be obedient to your suggestion “you (i.e., me) should study physics more deeply” on August 22 2015 8:50pm, as far as we discuss this issue.
In any case, I thank you very much.
Best regards,
Masahiko Makane
It is my honor that I could talk with you.
About 1, actually, time is relative and it is not absolute in the system of STR.
But, it does change in the calculation when light was chosen as the standard of measuring distance. It is also related to Lorentz contraction. Though I am not believing them.
And about 2, I think you should study physics more deeply. Relationship between time, distance, velocity is defined differential. "v=dS/dt" is the precise understanding about them. "v" is velocity(m/s), "S" is distance(m), "t" is time(s, second).
In the system of STR, time is relative. So this formula is difficult to treat in the system of STR.
I think you need to read textbook of STR written in Japanese before study about Einstein's paper. It is available at bookstore in university.
About 3, I have to read Einstein's paper. At this point of time, I cannot talk about this because I have little knowledge about STR. I am sorry.
Thank you for reading.
Sincerely
Motoki Mimori
Thank you for your response.
It is OK to change your mind. No problem at all.
I understood that in the conventional perspective of STR using light is only way to unravel relativity very well.
However, regardless of whether it is correct to use light, there exist the other major mistakes of Einstein, as below:
1. Error in judgement of definition of concept of "time".
2. Could not ensure logical consistence when using light and the universal equation "time=distance/speed" together.
3.Error in disjunctive judgement which was shown in the part of conclusion of Section 2 of his paper [1].
About 2 above, I recommend reading the article entitled "c–v is not usable for dividing the “light path”".
Anyway, from the view point of formal logic, we should throughly consider the premises of some judgment.
In any case, I thank you very much. It was nice to talk with you.
Best regards,
Masahiko Makanae
I noticed a problem.
Molecules of atmosphere or other materials are moving. Their mass change because their velocity change.
I think only light can become the standard of synchronization of clocks.
I am sorry for changing mind. I think we should study STR more deeply before discussing.
6 total records on 2 pages
Add a Comment
<<< BackHelp keep GS Journal progressing to become the most valuable scientific research website on the net!
