Contradictions of Inconsistency in the Special Relativistic Categories
As I stated at the beginning of this essay, the idea of "selfconsistency", so often used as an attempt to prove the special relativity theory concerns the proponents of the theory; not the theory by itself somehow.
The four main special relativistic theses concern mass increase, time dilation, length contraction, and relativistic energy. As I mentioned earlier, I find it contradictory that four similar mathematical expressions yield opposing theses about increments and decrements in the numerical data coming from the symbolic formulae representing those four theses.
When one looks at the data, as computed through the online calculators on the worldwide web, it becomes obvious that a significant inconsistency exists in the presentation of the numerical data and in the theory of special relativistic categories.
Three of the theses pose the idea of incremental data [mass increase, time dilation and relativistic energy]. While one category of special relativity [length contraction] presents the idea of decremental data.
So, where is the selfconsistency? Three special relativistic categories obtained with the same symbolic formula produce incremental data sets.
And, the fourth special relativistic category obtained with the same symbolic formula as the other three produce a decremental data set.
The reason for this inconsistency in the data sets and the bias in the interpretative theses about increases and decreases is due to the fact that the first incremental data sets result from the mathematical procedure of division of terms, while the fourth follows the mathematical procedure of reciprocals.
The selection of division and/or reciprocals in the same four formulae is due to a theoretical bias with the intention of producing specific interpretative theses.
The theses that mass, time and energy increase in special relativity and that length decreases are selective bias interpretations.
Physicists could have inverted the application of the mathematical procedures of division and reciprocals and could have produced opposing theses: that mass, time and energy decrease and that length increases in special relativity.
There are no material bases to the bias in the selective interpretations based on the ideas of increments/decrements in mass, time, energy and length. The theses are arbitrary, following the arbitrary procedures of division/reciprocals in the formulas for special relativity and for the Lorentz Factor in particular.
One last point. Notice the data sets, as they approach 100% in the computations, ratio vsquare/csquare, then the true significance of the ambiguity of the square roots in the formula becomes obvious as two different numerical values appear according to the fractal expressions [0.99999999, etc.].
v percentage of c
For v = 0.1c, m = 1.005037815259212mο
For v = 0.2c, m = 1.0206207261596576mο
For v = 0.3c, m = 1.0482848367219182mο
For v = 0.4c, m = 1.0910894511799618mο
For v = 0.5c, m = 1.1547005383792515mο
For v = 0.6c, m = 1.25mο
For v = 0.7c, m = 1.4002800840280099mο
For v = 0.8c, m = 1.666666666666667mο
For v = 0.9c, m = 2.294157338705618mο
For v = 0.99c, m = 7.088812050083353mο
For v = 0.999c, m = 22.366272042129374mο
For v = 0.9999c, m = 70.71244595191452mο
For v = 0.99999c, m = 223.60735676962474mο
For v = 0.999999c, m = 707.1069579492319mο
For v = 0.9999999c, m = 2236.0680339452942mο
For v = 0.99999999c, m = 7071.067813726424mο
For v = 0.999999999c, m = 22360.68009119951mο
As I mentioned from the start, and in other essays, the use of roots in symbolic formulas in physics produces multiple answers, as many as the number of roots involved. In these formulas the square roots appear, so there are two possible numerical values. And, as I mentioned, depending upon whether one is working with meters or kilometers in the computations, the numerical values will vary.
In spite of what the physicists are constantly enunciating in the science literature, the numerical values derived from their theoretical symbolic formulas need to be examined with caution. There are omissions and there are errors. And, these omissions and errors have bearing on the theoretical interpretations forwarded in the science literature.
In this particular case of special relativity, one may observe how statements are made that the numerical values prove the theses enunciated. But, in the case of length contraction in special relativity, I would say the numbers appear as of the will to follow specifically chosen mathematical procedures. Change the procedure and reciprocals appear.
To propose the thesis that mass increases, while length contracts may be founded upon reciprocals of numbers from the same formula. But, does this procedure actually mean what it supposedly confirms. It appears to be questionable.
Observations
In this essay, I have limited the spacetime/motion analysis to the wordconcept relativistic mass and its accompanying formula. Each step of the computations proposed by the cited formula were examined in order to discern the relationship of the equation's terms and factors with regard to matterenergy events in spacetime/motion.
The cited formula for relativistic mass presents terms and computations that have no material basis, such as multiplying the speed of light 299,792,458 times. Given that the speed of light is stated to represent the maximum speed/velocity attainable by matterenergy, its multiplication by 299,792,458 times is baseless with the theses regarding special relativity.
And, although the equation is presented such that mmass at rest is apparently the unknown in the equation, in fact, mmass in motion is the unknown. The formula for relativistic mass [similarly as do the formulas for relativistic energy, time dilation and length contraction] employs a common denominator that could be expressed without squares. However, when the denominator is expressed without squares for the terms v and c, the equation appears to make no sense regarding matterenergy events of spacetime/motion.
The equation the use of different massevents [any mass; photon mass] in relation to their respective velocities [v, c, respectively]. Yet, there is no material basis to divide the velocity of one mass into the velocity of another mass with the purpose of supposedly obtaining a relevant statement regarding quantities of mass required for attaining certain speeds. The reasoning appears to follow, but does not, that employed to cause an automobile to go faster by increasing the mass/size of the car's motor and decreasing the chassis/weight of the car. However, the reasoning behind the formula for relativistic mass proposes the idea that more/infinite mass is required for any mass to reach the speed of a light photon in vacuum.
The manner in which the equation/formula for relativistic mass is designed predetermines and supposedly produces the stated thesis. However, the range of numerical values that are possible derivations from the equation appear to contradict the interpretative thesis of relativistic mass regarding more mass and near luminal velocities.
Finally, certain observations are in order regarding the other specialrelativity formulae generally cited in the physics literature.
With regard to relativistic energy, time dilation and length contraction one might expect the numerical relationships and the terms of the formulae to be distinct from one another.
I find it intriguing that for all four cited specialrelativity formulae [mass, energy, time and length] the same denominator is employed in each of these equations/formulae.
Mass suggests to me volume, weight, density, etc., and references all aspects/levels of spatial coordinates.
Time references a directional timeline of moments/processes referencing all temporal coordinates.
Energy suggests to me interrelationships of space/time coordinates referencing all relational coordinates [relation/systems].
Length suggests to me expansion of mass, volume, weight, density, etc., and references all aspects/levels of spatial coordinates.
In this manner, from this perspective, each particular wordconcept requires its own specific relational formulae, probably with distinct denominators in their equations. In my view, it is erroneous to think that the same denominator applies to the four different matterenergy events referenced by mass, time, energy and length.
However, I would suggest that the denominators remain to be reasoned fully as the very concept of specialrelativity itself first needs some adjustments. My own analytical perspective of matterenergy events in spacetime/motion may not entail formulae as stated in this essay, but that theme will be treated when we present our essay on gravity. In order to understand the concept of specialrelativity, the concept of gravity is crucial, but not in regard to Einstein's general theory of relativity. Something else is required in the analysis: gravity.
The contradictions of the special relativity formulas then so far are:
1) three categories show increments in data [mass, time, energy] and one category shows decrements [length], yet all four have the same mathematical expression in their formula;
2) three categories are expressed in the metric system [mass, length and energy] and one category is expressed in the English system [time], yet, all four are assigned the unit 1.0 for measurement.
A third contradiction makes its appearance in the four formulas.
3) There are two categories of mass [mass, length], one category of time [time], and one category defined as velocity/motion [E, mv]. Yet, all four categories [terms] are derived as of the Lorentz Factor, which is an abstraction of the motion of two masses [an assigned mass and photon mass].
a) parallel lines converge through space (a thesis bound to the human stereoscopic vision)
well, two string of street lamps converge on the horizon, you don't need to go to outer space to witness this, this is a feature of perspective, our human stereoscopic vision
there would be a distinct theory of observation for observers without stereoscopic vision,
other animals, fishes, etc.
b) the distance from the object being observed as the human being observes it, the category of an observer, the observer in relativity is that of a human being, again stereoscopic vision and all that that implies
so, the distance of the object in motion from our viewpoint is determinant of what we see, the length contracting of the object for example
if an object passes six inches in front of our eyes at near the speed of light velocity, we will definitely no see it
if an object passes farther away on the horizon of Earth at the speed near that of light, we will not see it
how big does the object have to be for us to see 1% of the object after its length contracting and how far away or how close must it be for us to be able to see it at the speed of light basically, I think that human vision is incapable of seeing anything traveling at the speed of light (aside from light itself, which we see everyday here on earth)
c) an object in the distance, away from us, is already modified in its size (length, width and height) and acquires a smaller size the further away from us that it is….
There is already length contraction, width contraction, height contraction of all objects around us that we come into contact with on a daily basis as far as our eyesight, perception is concerned
This law of observations, vision, perspective only gets worse as objects get further away from us
Everything that we see at a distance is contracted in our view, in our observation,
But everything contracts (gets smaller) in our vision the farther away the object is on all three length coordinates (length, width, height) to state that at the level of relativity, when an object approaches the speed of light the length contraction only occurs along the linear axis of travel of the object viewed is erroneous, it has already been reduced, contracted in spacetime at all speeds and even at rest in our vision,
Even at rest, there is length contraction, forget about relativity…
At the speed of light or near the speed of light we will not even see the object, even if it is that infinitely away from us…
If the length contraction formula were true and correct and exact, then it would have to have the variable of distance computed into its equation/terms
An object three feet away from me has one size reduction, and an object three kilometers away from me has another reduction size, and an object three million miles away from me has another reduction size, and… you get the picture.
To say that someone could see 1% of an object's linear length travelling near the speed of light is ludicrous.
d) the force of an automobile upon impact appears to have more mass/weight/force/momentum
a light photon electron upon reaching the speed of light appears to increase its mass…of course, its force is being measured no doubt, tipping the scales in that sense… the act of measurement of the electron surely slows down the speed of a photon and measures the mass…
e) tachyons supposedly lose energy and gain speed, or when they lose speed they gain energy…of course, same rule…
f) it is impossible to measure a photon's mass as it is at its c speed, the act of measurement affects the mass value
g) warped spacetime, light bends around a planet that has gravity, it is not that spacetime itself is warped, whatever that would mean, but that the gravity of that planet, star, etc., body affects the travel trajectory of a photon…which means it has mass as it is tugged on by the gravity of the planet…its mass may be next to nothing, incommensurable, but it is there proven by the curvature in the travel path…
h) gravity pulltocenter discussion
The two converging line of the street lamps is apparent, dependent upon our vision, our stereoscopic view…to translate that into a thesis about how light bends and meets at a point infinitely so in space is silly… the two converging lines of the street lamps never meet in reality, as we approach their apparent juxtaposition on the horizon that we see, they constantly separate from one another… we can measure their nearness on the horizon in a drawing landscape, but in reality they remain apart…
i) as with the converging street lamps the laws of relativity, the theory of observation appear right here before us on Earth, we don't need to travel out into space to understand what the human being can apprehend, or not, observe or not, perceive or not…it's all right here in the spacetime/motion around us.
I think physicists believe that what they see in space relativity is different from spatial aspects right here on Earth is simply because they do not compare what they see here with what they are imagining in the theoretical posits of spacetime.
They need to do more comparisons to understand that the high math and formulas that they have devised over the years are not all that
They need to rethink things… or step aside and let others think things over.
Aside from rethinking the formulas for special relativity, it is necessary to consider the concept of gravity. It should be obvious after reviewing this analysis the reason why Albert Einstein developed the General Theory of Relativity about gravity years later, 1916, after his paper on the Theory of Special Relativity, 1905. Gravity is no where to be found in the formulas of special relativity.
A rethinking of the ideas about special relativity concern then, not just observations about the distance of the observer to the object, but the laws of gravity exercised upon the object [and the observer].
These statements might sound as though I am encouraging an analysis of special relativity and general relativity. I am not. Have to reword this to emphasize that these theoretical concepts pertain to the theory of observation, not to the theory of spacetime/motion of matterenergy as such. Obviously, observation refers to observing spacetime/motion matterenergy events, but that is as far as it goes in describing and explaining how spacetime/motion exists and works.
©2014 Copyrighted. Charles William Johnson. All rights reserved. earthmatrix.com
