Abstract (MT)
The article treats the
following questions: 1) The exact definition of the
Second postulate of the Special theory, 2) The Ratio of indefiniteness "exact velocity c of the
light signal at an inexact (asymmetric) closed contour" or "inexact (average) velocity c of the light signal at an exact (symmetric)
closed contour" and 3)
The single place of the
experiments of Michelson-Morley and Sagnac in the relative theory.
Keywords: special theory, second postulate, ratio of indefiniteness, experiments of Michelson-Morley, experiments of Sagnac
INTRODUCTION
The realization of Cognition
in cognitive closed
contours is a natural
law (Theory of the Cognition:
attainment of Cognition in an open configuration
is not possible).
[1] We presented this circular order in the measurement of speeds, wherever the relative ratio
come up to light as an objective impossibility
(prohibition) for simultaneous accurate measurement of length and time.
[2] The same is in
direct relation to the Second postulate of the Special
theory, namely:
– In cases 1a), 1b), 2a), 2b) and 3a), 3b) the Ratio and Postulate
are mutually incompatible. This
means that they can not be
simultaneously veracious – or Ratio is true, and the Postulate is wrong, or Postulate
is correct, and the Ratio is wrong. [2]
– In cases 4) and 5) the Ratio and
Postulate are in full agreement. This means that they are
at once true. [2]
EXPOSITION
It remains to show
from where this drastic
contradiction stems. For this purpose, we will take out the definition of the second postulate directly from the
original article. [3]
In the preamble: "…that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of
motion of the emitting body."
In § 2: "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary”
system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by
a stationary or by a moving body."
In the expressed
assertions a priori everything would be logical and utterly OK, if it were specified
what does the term "empty space" (emptiness) and if the definition “stationary” it were not
enclosed by quotation marks.
As soon as the light
signal is moves this
means that the same has a objective, material content, mean that the
same is a "thing". While
the emptiness has the meaning of perfect
blank, has the meaning of "nothing". As
soon as the light signal moves in emptiness, this
means that it moves relative to this
bleakness. And to think
that the emptiness is also located in
some movement, that
the "nothing" might
drift, it's frankly craziness. We could say that the emptiness merely there is no way to
express something other except zero movement...to be absolutely stationary. I.e. we are
sure that the light moves
with a speed c
in relation to this
absolute lower bound of movement
– velocity zero.
On the other hand the importance of the quotes is, first, that the peace is conditional and
second, that the concept "stationary
system" does not refer to any
definite system, but applies to all
inertial systems, whether they
are moving in different directions with different speeds. That is, according to the Theory, the light beam behaves absolutely
equally in all systems...inexplicably how. As if by some unknown, hidden
mechanism takes their
movement.
Actually, the use of
the speed of light acting as
the only absolutely unchangeable scale, it is not thus elementary, as the relativists
think.
The Universe consists
of myriad systems moving with a myriad speeds
in a myriad directions. Generally speaking, it represents a dynamic, vector reality, suggesting all sorts of asymmetries. Obvious impossibility
is this multitude to be treated with a
scale-vector.
The astute insight into this, one
species, chaotic picture is hinting that it would be easy for covering if
everything in it were a gradation of stationary scalars. However how the dynamic,
vector reality to be transformed into a stationary, scalar (applies and for the
scale c)? Obviously,
such a principled twist cannot be achieved only with the quotes in the
definition.
The realization of the situation in depth speaks unambiguously that, for purposes of comparison, it is imperative that all systems in some way to reduced under a common denominator.
I.e., through appropriate
organization of the movement of the
light signal the systems should
be brought to one system which means be gone to
their standardization in essence.But which be a this system?
The mind indicates
that this should be the system
with characteristics "zero speed", "zero direction" (anyone can explained yourself why). To be able the
speed of light to play the role of universal scale, all systems must
be placed under the common denominator
of the peace, respectively, to be adduced to the only one absolutely motionless system – to the emptiness.
The Theory precisely such adaptation is trying
to do (anywhere uses this system for real, and on words assures us in the
contrary). But as it offers through a purely textual leveling of the systems, we
must agree that there is no how to become. Confused is the
approach of keeping the reasoning,
which falsifies the conclusions.
In short, Einstein treats the speed of light as measured in one
direction – between two points
in space. While, repeat, Cognition
in such an
open configuration is objectively
impossible both as a philosophy
and as physics. The only exception is
the system in an absolute
peace – the emptiness. However, at last it should be realized
that this system is actually
existing and plays a key role in the
development of the Universe.
That is how
the question stands with the Second postulate as a mixed
physical and philosophical problem. Will add a further that we also will strive
to complete unification
of the systems will chase their seemingly
(adduced) stop-state
... there is no another useful course.
But we will tread on the true way.
It is in this right direction
the philosophy and physics begin to run in
one common cognitive furrow.
Now let us to focus
on contemporary inaccurate
definition of the Second postulate, as follows:
The contemporary summarized inexact definition of the
Second postulate: The light signal moves with a constant velocity c in all systems, and all directions, independently of the movement of the systems themselves, respectively, from the
movement of its source.
The physics of this
formulation we will illustrate
the following treatment:
Inertial system
K', with origin O', is moving towards an absolutely
stationary system K (emptiness), with origin O, on the right with
velocity v along
the axes X'= X. On the axes X' and X to the right
are placed mirrors A' and
A, and to the left
– mirrors B' and B. In peace of K' concerning K is available the identity: distance O'A' = distance OA = distance
O'B' = distance OB.
At the moment of coincidence of the origins O'=O is emitted light signal.
In accordance with physical
laws, at the moment O'=O
of emission of the signal, its front
will go equally in all directions
– for as a single sphere around the center
O'=O. But system K' is moving and in
the next moment center O' will move to
the right from center O. Precisely
with this moment of dislocation
O'≠O of a system K' the Second postulate
failed thus to keep up, and trying to overcome it by
magic. Upon careful insight in
the summarized definition of the Postulate shows that the same prescribes
on the front of the light two incompatible ways of
behavior (positioning) concerning a system
K', as follows:
The front of the
light signal behaves differently in systems K and K': According
to the
part of the definition "The light signal moves independently of the movement of the systems, respectively, from the movement
of its source", the its front in the moment O'≠O
must remain symmetrical sphere only
around
center O of the system K (the
emptiness). The same sphere will already stands asymmetrically towards a center O'
of K'
(and towards the center On of any other moving system Kn). It
means that this single front of
the signal will reach simultaneously
to the mirrors A
and B
in a system K and obviously
no way to reach simultaneously
to mirrors A'
and B' of the system K'
(and up to equidistant from the origins On
mirrors An
and Bn
of any other moving system Kn).
The described picture observes the laws of physics and that is why it stands to reason.
The front of the
light signal behaves equally in systems K and K': According
to the
part of the definition "The light
signal moves with a constant velocity
c in all
systems, and all directions" (the signal moves in the
same way in all systems),
its front in the moment O'≠O
must represents a
symmetrical sphere and around center O and around center O'
(and around center On of
any other moving system Kn).
By this logic the front will reach simultaneously
and up to mirrors A and B of system K, and up to
mirror A' and B'
of system K' (and up to equidistant
from the origins On mirrors An and Bn
of any other moving system Kn).
That is, identical movement of the signal at
the different moving systems Kn means
the same to spread like countless equally spheres around different points
of space.And that cannot happen.
It turns out that the
front of the signal now must be
independent from the movement of
a system K' (of all moving systems Kn) , now must accompany a
system K'
(all moving systems Kn).
In a word, it is clear that the definition of the Second postulate is composed of two irreconcilable,
mutually exclusive statements:
1) The light signal moves
with a constant velocity c independently of the movement of the systems,
respectively, from the movement of its source
(once emitted, the light signal forgets for its source).
2) The light signal moves
with a constant velocity c in all systems, and all directions.
Condition 1) is a comprehensible
regularity arising from the symmetrical
movement of the light signal into the emptiness (system K).
While on condition 2), considering that
the systems move in countless different
ways, this its symmetry in each goes beyond the normal understanding about the nature of the movement.
With the
distinction between conditions 1) and 2) of the Second postulate
came to light and all its inconsistencies with the Ratio of indefiniteness, namely:
Just in
condition 1) are
derived the Lorentz transformations. And, quite naturally, just
with condition 1) the Ratio of indefiniteness reconciles completely.
Condition 2)
however is paradoxically, is contrary to the natural facts. And, accordingly, the Ratio of indefiniteness stands against him.
To put it plaintext
into, the Ratio of indefiniteness is a real natural regularity, and the Second postulate represents a combination of two theses
– correct and wrong. The Ratio supports
the correct, contained
in condition 1) and denies the wrong,
created by the mind, forming
a condition 2). [2]
The World of movement
is World of asymmetriesis World of opposites, of differences). Their
technological elimination requires
a redefinition of the Second postulate in which the
moving systems Kn will
be adduced to the absolutely
stationary system K (a
kind, stopped, attached to it). It was only then this "Summarized exact definition of the Second postulate" will cover all systems and all directions.
Put differently, there is
neither a ground, nor possibility the infinite
multitude of moving inertial system K', K"...Kn to follow the regulation of the today's Second postulate. But yet
the general principle (of
opposites) on which they are
subordinated, allows them all to
be unified, and thereby entered into the integrated theory. Allows leveling of the
systems to absolutely stationary system K (emptiness), to its privileged characteristics. The nulling of the differences-asymmetries of the systems
we will demonstrate again with the upper staging
(with the two signals (the two beams) – on the right to the mirrors A' and A and on the left to the mirror B' and B).
Behavior of the light
signals in the absolutely stationary system K: Since K is a masterbatch system for the signals, the question of their movement
in it is clear. The
signal to the right at X, starting from the origin O, covers with
exact velocity c the exact distance of
going OA. Then
reflected and again covers with exact velocity c the exact distance of
return AO=OA.
I.e., the signal covers with exact velocity c the exact (the symmetrical) closed contour OAO=2OA. Consequently, covers with exact velocity c and the exact
bisected (unidirectional,
an open) distance OA.
For the signal, to the left on X
(on the distance OB) refers literally the same reasoning. Undoubtedly, in system K reigns absolute precision and symmetry (described by the Special theory). The
signals simultaneously leave from
the origin O, simultaneously reach
the mirrors A and B and simultaneously return in the origin O. We could say
that the stationary system K is the inaccessible territory of the absolute truth, because this system is actually unattainable (only
in it is possible Cognition in an open configuration,
respectively, synchronization of clocks).
And so far with the
precision and symmetry. In
the moving systems Kn obviously the things cannot stay the
same way (in the nature not become miracles). In this
case, two versions of conducting
the survey are possible (as a manifestation of the Ratio of
indefiniteness):
Real behavior of light
signals in the moving system K' – variant "exact speed c/inexact (asymmetric) distance": According to the
movement of K'
towards K,
mirror A' will flee from the
signal to the right along X'. Is why
it, of going , will covers with exact velocity c, apart from distances O'A', more and some
additional distance DO'A' – or the total distance O'A' + DO'A'. However, the
reflected signal will be intercepted by the origin
O'. That way
about it the distance A'O' = O'A' appears shortened
with some value DO'A'. Therefore, the same, on
return, will cover with exact velocity c
the distance O'A'- DO'A'. I.e., the
signal will cover with exact velocity c
the asymmetric closed contour O'A'O'=О'А'+DО'А'+О'А'-DО'А'=2О'А'. Respectively, here
of the exact velocity c corresponds
the inexact bisected (unidirectional, an open) distance O'A'.
For the signal, to the left on X'
(on the distance O'B') refers literally the same reasoning, only that
the effects at "going"
and "return" are reversed.
Seemingly behavior of light
signals in the moving system K' – variant "inexact (average) velocity
c/exact (symmetric) distance": Because to the right the mirror A' will flee from the signal with velocity v, seemingly
it seems that, on going to him, the same covers the distance O'A' with velocity c-v. However, the
reflected signal will be intercepted by the origin
O'. Therefore,
seemingly seems that on return to
O' this
signal covers the distance A'O' = O'A' with velocity c+v. I.e., the signal as if covers the closed contour O'A'O '= 2O'A' with an average speed (c-v+c+v)/2=c. Respectively,
now of the exact bisected (unidirectional, an open) distance O'A'
corresponds average
(inexact) velocity
c (it is
important to know that the used
constant c
presents an average value).
For the signal to the left refers
literally the same reasoning, only that
the effects at "going"
and "return" are reversed. That is, in moving
systems Kn the closed contour OnAnOn = 2OnAn
is asymmetric (OnAn ≠ AnOn).
Therefore the bisected distance ОnАn is not quite correct, but it is the most accurate (the asymmetry is
bisected). In the
real systems Kn is achieved a border accession to the absolute truth.
Strictly speaking, in a
system K' is in force the following dependence: The
signals simultaneously leave from
the origin O', obligatory
at different moments reach the mirrors A' and B', and again simultaneously
return to the origin O'. Proofs of this exact chronology of events
according are experiments of Sagnac and Michelson-Morley. Actually,
to seen clearly the meaning
of their results, we will unite them in one
as mentally unfold
Michelson's interferometer and the wheel of Sagnac on 1800,
equating so them
with the upper staging
for a movement of the light signals in a system
K', namely:
The two light signals
start simultaneously from the origin O'. Their arrival to
the mirrors A' and B'
is registered by the device of Sagnac. The result is known – the signals
arrive at different moments, as
evidenced by the displacement of the
interference pattern (depending
on the velocity v of the system K'). [4]
The return of the two
signals back to the origin O' is
registered by the appliance of Michelson. The result
is known – the signals
return simultaneously, as evidenced by the lack of
whatever it is displacement of the interference pattern. [5]
whatever it is displacement of the interference pattern. [5]
And here is the comparing of the
closed contours:
The contour in the
system in absolute peace K –
distance 2OA, velocity c.
The contour in the
moving system K' – distance
2O'A', velocity c.
The contour in
an arbitrary moving system Kn – distance 2ОnАn, velocity c.
The conclusion is obvious:
The closed contours in all
systems and all directions are
equal (2O'A
'= 2ОnАn = 2OA). I.e.,
the route "going-return" completely eliminates (compensates) the asymmetry. The closed contours ignore the movement equating the
systems to the system in absolute
peace.
All this allows us
to redefine the second postulate in the following way:
Summarized exact
definition of the Second postulate:
At the closed
contour "going-return", the light
signal
moves with a constant velocity c in all systems,
and all directions, independently of the movement of the systems themselves, respectively, from the
movement of its source.
CONCLUSION
Precisely this definition
corresponds of the real movement of
the light and it is in order precisely it to enter into scientific circulation. And
the other can remain for personal use of those who still have not understood
what what's going on.
Reference
[1] Николов А. – Разгримиране (25), (26), (27), (28) на
Специалната теория
(Nikolov A. – Removing the make-up (25),
(26), (27), (28) of the Special theory)
[2] Nikolov A. – Ratio of indefiniteness in the relative
physics,
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/4884
Николов А. – Разгримиране
(29), (30), (31), (32) на Специалната теория,
(Nikolov A. –
Removing the make-up (29), (30), (31), (32) of the Special theory)
[3] Einstein A. – On the Electrodynamics
of Moving Bodies, 1905,
[4] Sagnac effect
[5] Michelson-Morley experiment
___________________________________________________________________________
Alexandar Nikolov ©
2010-2013
All rights reserved (COPYRIGHT © 2010-2013)
Няма коментари:
Публикуване на коментар