08-16-11, 12:32 AM #1
Master Theory (edition 2)
1. Master Theory - relativistic theory, because it is the same problem ("Electrodynamics of moving material bodies"), which solved the Einstein.
2. Einstein gave the absoluteness to a cross-scale, but not to the time. In Master Theory time is absolutely (absent "Twin Paradox"), than it differs from Einstein's Special Relativity Theory (SRT) - a cross-scale is absolutely. But this difference has profound implications. (For example: in Master Theory are absent "Twin Paradox" and "Ehrenfest's Paradox".)
3. Author of Master Theory (Alexander V. Masterov) has proved that the problem (that are solved by Einstein) has an infinite number of solutions. SRT - only one of this infinite number of solutions.
Where did these solutions?
The longitudinal scales of SRT (along the direction of motion) are relative and depends on the relative velocity, whereas (by default) are the absolute transverse (to the direction of motion) scales. The author of Master Theory are assume a regarding of the transverse scope, that let has at its disposal a free parameter. For each value this parameter to can build a individual Theory of Relativity. This theory will be equal footing with Einstein's theory.
Among this infinite number of theories discovered one in which time is absolute. The author named it - "Master Theory".
4. As Master Theory is a solution of the same problem (that Einstein's theory), then all the experimental results that confirm SRT - confirmed by Master Theory. The exception is fact of relativistic dilation time, which today has not been experimentally proved.
5. In Master Theory to exist absoluteness of:
a. light's speed;
b. acceleration (which can be measured indirectly through a mass attached to a spring, for example);
c. number Pi (absent "Ehrenfest's Paradox");
6. Master Theory (as against SRT) is valid in all reference frames (not only in inertial).
7. In Master Theory identified two types of coordinates: real and visual:
a. real-coordinates obey the Galilean Transformations, and can be calculated by integrating an acceleration;
b. visual-coordinates determined by the properties of EMF and can be calculated from a real-coordinates;
c. in Master Theory defined the inverse transformations coordinates (from a visual-coordinates to a real-coordinates).
Further exposition of the theory is impossible because of the strange limitations of this forum.
Read full text: http : //masterov.qptova.ru/MasterTheory/
Download: http : //masterov.qptova.ru/MasterTheory/MasterTheory.zip
08-16-11, 12:43 AM #2
We don't got no stinking limitations . We don't need no Limitations . Sock it to us
08-16-11, 01:08 AM #3
08-16-11, 01:45 AM #4
1) Professional mathematicians and scientists don't name theorems and theories respectively after themselves. Their peers award them this recognition by citing their published work. Thus it is a huge abuse of professionalism to break with this convention and it speaks both to the hubris-blinded judgement of the author and the poor communication skills of the author who spends all his energy making claims and no time demonstrating them. Indeed, this breach has been codified as a hallmark of the physics crackpot: Item 25
2) The author persists in spamming forums with his tripe, and ignores corrections: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29575&st=0
For example: [waitedavid137] In terms of the proper length, we have and so if , then
3) What special relativity isn't is a magic formula that talks about length contraction or time dilation. Special Relativity is the principle that my laws of physics are the same as your laws of physics even when we are in relative (inertial) motion and the physical observation since 1859 that those laws of physics are non-Euclidean giving rise to a hyperbolic geometry which preserves between any two events the invariant measure: . By showing ignorance of what is physics and what is Special Relativity, the author fails to actual address the subject matter of physics -- precise and useful communications about the behavior of reality.
Last edited by rpenner; 08-16-11 at 11:16 AM. Reason: Sign fixed in L = L_0 \sqrt ....
08-16-11, 03:26 AM #5
You propose to discuss a of the particular task solution, which found Einstein (for alpha = 0).
http : //masterov.qptova.ru/MasterTheory/Formuls/at.gif
But such solutions (which Einstein found) infinite much.
Master Theory is the subject of our speculation (alpha = 0.5).
You have an error. (In gamma + change to -)
Last edited by Masterov; 08-16-11 at 03:42 AM.
08-16-11, 05:08 AM #6
Einstein did not have a compelling reason to attach a absoluteness to the cross-scales.
I set free the cross-scales, that provided to me by a free parameter (alpha).
For each value of alpha can build a separate theory of relativity. Such a theory will be equal to Einstein's theory.
In Master Theory a time is absolute. It is a characteristic property of Master Theory.
In Einstein's theory a cross-scales is absolute. It is a characteristic property of Einstein's theory.
08-16-11, 11:46 AM #7
The Lorentz transformation is a hyperbolic rotation which uniquely preserves the measure between two events.
We can see that this preserves the measure: because Further, the product of two Lorentz transforms also preserves this measure.
And this measure says the speed of light is constant -- whenever one observer agrees that a hypothetical particle may pass from one event to another at less than, equal to, or faster than the speed of light all other observers agree.
Your transform does not preserve the geometry of the universe and therefore doesn't say anything physically interesting about it.
08-16-11, 12:37 PM #8
No need to slow down time in order to make it all happen.
08-16-11, 12:39 PM #9
08-16-11, 03:32 PM #10
Masterov, I like the idea of your work but how can you say that time dilation has not been proven? What about atmospheric muon decay? What about atomic clocks flown around the planet compared to those on the ground?
08-17-11, 12:15 AM #11
No one measures the real speed and transit time. Each measure only the distance and divide this distance by the speed of light.
Aircraft's speed is negligible compared to the speed of light. (Especially - a square of their output of divide.) Relativistic effects are negligible. The vibration or other factors could affect the results of the experiments.
08-17-11, 12:35 AM #12
The point is that the atomic clocks in flight and the atomic clocks on the ground became out of synchronization by an amount that was predicted by Einstein's explanation. It would be extraordinarily odd (albeit possible I suppose) that vibration of the aircraft happened to affect the clocks in precisely this manner.
08-17-11, 05:34 AM #13
I propose to discuss one of these 'paradoxes'.
Rocket's time slow down when it goes from one (A) an inertial reference frame to another (B). Einstein's theory contend that it.
If the rocket return back into the original reference frame, rocket's time slow down in relation to B. As a result: we have two a times, wich have different speeds.
How this can be possible?
For any other theory this paradox would be a death sentence, but not for Einstein's theory. (For some reason.)
08-17-11, 10:50 AM #14
It's hyperbolic geometry.
In Euclidean geometry, the straight line is the shortest path between two points in space. Thus in a triangle, any side is shorter than the sum of the lengths of the other two sides.
In hyperbolic geometry, the inertial path is the path of longest duration between two events in space-time that a material body can traverse at a speed slower than the speed of light.
Let A, B, C be any three distinct events in space time such that it is possible to get from A to B or C by moving slower than the speed of light and it is also possible to get from C to B slower than the speed of light.
In arbitrary inertial coordinates this is:
Since these numbers are all non-negative we may legally square them and preserve the inequalities.
Likewise, we may subtract equals from both sides, so we have a statement about measures:
So my claim is that a) , b) that the equality only holds when all three segments are colinear in space-time, c) that is the elapsed time between any two events in the inertial coordinate system where there is no change of spatial coordinates, thus justifying the common name of "proper time."
It is instructive to compute:
But I don't have the time to typeset the calculation at this time.
08-17-11, 11:33 AM #15
08-17-11, 12:40 PM #16
While I have some difficulty understanding the specifics of the theory presented in the OP, I assume that it is at least in part a language barrier and translation issue. That said, i don't find what I think I understand of the general intent credible.
As to the time dilation issue...
The muon decay proof is the clumsiest, as it cannot be directly observed. It is by it's very nature dependent upon the validity of the principles it "proves". The reasoning is somewhat circular in that if time dilation occurs as described in SR and to some extent in GR, muon decay maybe a proof. If not muon decay under such conditions may be due to some as yet to be understood phenomena/interaction.
The atomic clock in motion issue is also not a proof. Even though, the assumed time dilation observed in atomic clocks in motion both in aircraft and GPS satellites, appears to be consistent with Einstein's predictions, here predominantly an affect of SR, as opposed to a counter affect predicted by GR (which in either case would be negligible), the Lorentz transformations Einstein applies were repurposed theirselves from earlier work of Lorentz and Fitzgerald, originally developed for other purposes.
While it is true that we observe a variation in the rate of electron transitions, which are the basis of atomic clocks, in such cases, we do not really know enough about space itself and even inertia, to know with certainty that the difference is the result of the mechanisms suggested by either SR and/or GR.
In the case of GPS satellites, clocks are synchronized not by an application of relativistic mathematical means. Instead they are just routinely corrected to match time as define by similar ground based clocks. This is most likely because it is just far easier. However, until and unless we carry out a mathematically based relativistic synchronization that holds up over time, we can only assume the origin of the change in transition rate, to be consistent with not the product of relativistic effects.
One further note. The basis for time dilation in both situations is derived from the Lorentz transformations, which also predicts length contractions. A real length contraction has never been observed, or measured by experiment. That does not mean it does not exist, as our means to measure lengths, is not as fine as our measurement of time relative to electron transitions. It may just be that we await the technology to better examine and test both, in a more objective manner and in finer detail.
08-17-11, 01:59 PM #17
here. The periodic adjustments are due to ephemerides, the frequency calculation is done using GR effects (for a list, check the reference). The rest of the fringe stuff you posted about time dilation is just as bad.
Anyways, time dilation is tested directly thought the experiments on transverse Doppler effect.
08-17-11, 02:03 PM #18
I translated your post in two different programs, and readed twice.
I caught the general sense of what you have said, but not sure of the details. (My English is poor.)
I got the main thing: give cause for a specialists to think. I can spent a lot of time on the development of Master Theory, without having to have the information, having scant experience of relativity and electrodynamics. And most importantly: I have no desire that to do so.
I know that some of my former colleagues are making efforts to rewrite Maxwell's equations in the newly discovered facts. But I do not know the condition of the their work.
08-17-11, 02:14 PM #19I can spent a lot of time on the development of Master Theory, without having to have the information, having scant experience of relativity and electrodynamics
08-17-11, 02:39 PM #20
These words I constantly hear from people who are uncapable demonstrate their skills.
Whether you're an exception to this rule?
By physicsup in forum PseudoscienceLast Post: 12-21-11, 08:24 AMReplies: 18
By Reiku in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 10-21-07, 08:46 PMReplies: 40
By Jadebrain_Prime in forum General PhilosophyLast Post: 07-18-07, 11:29 AMReplies: 158