Master Theory (edition 3)

**Masterov** · 04-21-12, 07:07 AM

Master Theory (MT) is a theory of relativistic.
MT satisfies the same conditions, which satisfies Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (SRT).
Experimental evidence, confirmative SRT, confirm MT.
The difference in interpretation and in a results of experiments that are not public.
For example: in scientific literature there is no experimental confirmation of a formulas:

$E=mc^2/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$

$p=mv/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$

In Master Theory these formulas is stale.

In MT time is absolute therefore heve not "Twin Paradox".
In MT light speed, acceleration and mass is absolute (do not depend on the speed and are the same in all Inertial Frame).
Inertial Frame (IF) are equal in rights.

You can ask me: Einstein's task has non-unique solution?

My answer: YES!

How can this be?

My answer: Please note that a transverse coordinates ( $y$ and $z$ ) of Lorentz Transformations are absolute (whereas Einstein asserted that in his theory of everything is relative).

Einstein (had no no reason for it) gave the absoluteness for a transverse coordinates, but not for - time.

I exempt the transverse coordinates ( $y$ and $z$ ) from Einstein's absoluteness.
I to do free from Einstein's absoluteness the transverse coordinates (I set relative it, I set dependence on velocity for it).

So I got a free parameter.

For each value of this parameter, you can build a individual theory of relativity, which will exist as scientific theory on equal terms with SRT.
Moreover, because the transverse scale also depends on the speed (diminishing) - it is possible to solve the paradox of Ehrenfest (the paradox of a rotating disk).

Thus, Einstein's task has an infinite number of possible solutions, and SRT - only one solution of this infinite set.

Among this infinite number of solutions I've found one, in which time is absolute.
I call this theory: "Master Theory".
Only this theory is correct because it have not SRT's paradoxes.

So: Master Theory have absolutely time, and this difference has profound implications. (For example: in Master Theory are absent "Twin Paradox" and "Ehrenfest's Paradox".)

**Masterov** · 04-21-12, 07:08 AM

Master Theory

Let us consider the light-clock with a pair of vertical mirrors (one on the left, the other - right) and photon between them:

$L$ - the distance between the mirrors.

Time's cycle:

$T=L/c+L/c=2L/c$

Suppose that we (the observer) has a motion with velocity $v$ .

Îscillogram of this motion:

Speed of light in all cases is well-known-constant.
Hence the transit time of a photon from mirror to mirror in different directions will be different.
This is because: moving in one direction - the photon (in the view of the observer) meet-moving to the mirror (flight time is less).
In the other direction - in pursuit of the mirror (flight time is major):

$T=L/(c+v)+L/(c-v)\neq 2L/c$

Acceptably are three variants:
1. Happened a time-dilation $T'\neq T$
2. Happened a curtailment the visual of the longitudinal scale $L'\neq L$ (Master Theory);
3. Happened all (both of the above) (SRT).

We consider the second variant (corresponding Master Theory):

$T=L'/(c+v)+L'/(c-v)=2L/c$

The longitudinal scale of the rate is (for the second variant) calculated as follows:

$L'/L=1-v^2/c^2$

This SRT's formula looked so: $L'/L=\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$

**Masterov** · 04-21-12, 07:08 AM

We proceed to calculate the cross-scale.

For this we consider new light-clock, which have a pair of horizontal mirrors (one - from the bottom, the other - from the top):

Time's cycle: $T=2H/c$

Suppose that we (the observer) has a motion with velocity $v$ .

The trajectory of photon will change into sawtooth and elongated:

Photon has a fixed velocity and can not travel long distances over the same time.

**Masterov** · 04-21-12, 07:09 AM

Consequently: the cross-scale should be reduced.

$H'/H=\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$

Compare all theories:

Master Theory
$L'=L(1-v^2/c^2)$
$H'=H\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$
$T'=T$

SRT
$L'=L\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$
$H'=H$
$T'=T/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$

All theories
$L'=L(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2+\alpha}$
$H'=H(1-v^2/c^2)^\alpha$
$T'=T(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2-\alpha}$

For SRT: $\alpha=0$
For MT: $\alpha=1/2$

For any value of this parameter in the range ( $0<\alpha<1/2$ ) you can build a single theory of relativity.
Each of these theories will have equal rights with Einstein's theory.
But only for $\alpha=1/2$ the time is absolutely
Because Master Theory can only claim the right to property is approximated by a space and time.
Âñå îñòàëüíûå òåîðèè (âêëþ÷àÿ ÑÒÎ) - ëîæíû.
All other theories (include SRT) are false.

**Masterov** · 04-21-12, 07:10 AM

Lorentz's error

Lorentz's relativism is based on the formula: $x^2-(ct)^2=(x')^2-(ct')^2=0$
But this formula is lying.
The correct formula is as follows: $x^2-(ct)^2=(x'-vt')^2-(ct')^2=0$

Why not?

I'll give the answer below:

I remind to you of a school-task about the two foot-passengers and the dog:

1. Two travelers go on the road with the same velocity ( $v$ ) at a distance ( $L$ ) from each other (one behind the other).

2. A dog runs between travelers (at velocity $c$ ).

QUESTION: how long time the dog ran ahead, and how long - ago.

Every schoolboy knows the answer to this ask: ldog's time will be different because:

1. When the dog runs back (to meet to lagging-traveler) - the dog's time will be the lesser: $T_1=L/(c+v)$ .

2. When the dog runs forward (to rush to the advance-traveler) - the dog's time will be the greater: $T_2=L/(c-v)$ .

Let the two mirrors will be in place of travelers.
Let the photon will be in place of dog.
So as it shown in this picture:

Please note: photon's time are different.

$t_1=L/(c+v)$
$t_2=L/(c-v)$
These two values are the roots of the equation:
$(x-vt)^2-(ct)^2=0$
for $x=\pm L$

Einstein, Lorentz, Minkowski argued that dog's times (on both sides) is the same:
$x^2-(ct)^2=0$
$t_1=L/c$
$t_2=L/c$

**AlphaNumeric** · 04-21-12, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Masterov

For example: in scientific literature there is no experimental confirmation of a formulas:

$E=mc^2/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$

$p=mv/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$

In Master Theory these formulas is stale.

You have had this particular misunderstanding of yours retorted again and again.

Originally Posted by Masterov

In MT time is absolute therefore heve not "Twin Paradox".

Then you cannot reproduce the experimental results seen which verify predictions of special relativity. You open your post with "Master Theory (MT) is a theory of relativistic.
MT satisfies the same conditions, which satisfies Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (SRT).
Experimental evidence, confirmative SRT, confirm MT.

You contradict yourself.

Originally Posted by Masterov

How can this be?

My answer: Please note that a transverse coordinates ( $y$ and $z$ ) of Lorentz Transformations are absolute (whereas Einstein asserted that in his theory of everything is relative).

Einstein (had no no reason for it) gave the absoluteness for a transverse coordinates, but not for - time.

Completely false. I suggest you learn some relativity before making erroneous claims about it.

Originally Posted by Masterov

Moreover, because the transverse scale also depends on the speed (diminishing) - it is possible to solve the paradox of Ehrenfest (the paradox of a rotating disk).

There is no actual paradox, all the 'paradoxes' in relativity are what you get if you try to interpret relativistic results using a non-relativistic point of view.

Again, you show you don't know any relativity. You haven't moved in since the last time you posted your nonsense.

**Masterov** · 04-21-12, 11:09 AM

Master Theory has two types of coordinates: visual and real coordinates.
The foresaid of me to bear relation to a visual coordinates.
The real coordinates are independent of the properties of all fields.
Real coordinate have not any limit of velocity.
The real coordinates can be calculate by double (in time) integration of acceleration.
Acceleration is absolute and for all inertial reference frames is equal and can be measured (a weight with a spring, for example).

**Masterov** · 04-21-12, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric

You have had this particular misunderstanding of yours retorted again and again.

Verbal objection without experimental results can not be accepted as argument.
The argument can be the results of experiments only, in which the energy of relativistic particles is measured by a calorimeters.
I am ready to recognize a table so argument, if experimental results filled it.
The table should have two columns: "velocity" and "energy".
Energy must be measured in the calorimeter.
For all values should be determined a measurement accuracy.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric

In MT time is absolute therefore heve not "Twin Paradox".

Then you cannot reproduce the experimental results seen which verify predictions of special relativity.

No!

No exist experiment that would prove that the time may be slow.

Completely false. I suggest you learn some relativity before making erroneous claims about it.

Moreover, because the transverse scale also depends on the speed (diminishing) - it is possible to solve the paradox of Ehrenfest (the paradox of a rotating disk). ”

There is no actual paradox, all the 'paradoxes' in relativity are what you get if you try to interpret relativistic results using a non-relativistic point of view.

Again, you show you don't know any relativity. You haven't moved in since the last time you posted your nonsense.

Your objections have no an arguments.

**AlphaNumeric** · 04-21-12, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Masterov

Verbal objection without experimental results can not be accepted as argument.
The argument can be the results of experiments only, in which the energy of relativistic particles is measured by a calorimeters.
I am ready to recognize a table so argument, if experimental results filled it.
The table should have two columns: "velocity" and "energy".
Energy must be measured in the calorimeter.
For all values should be determined a measurement accuracy.

Simply demanding the evidence in one form when it has been measured in another, which requires some understanding of relativity to grasp, doesn't mean the experiments aren't valid.

If you're unwilling to have an honest discussion about it why should anyone give you the time of day?

**Masterov** · 04-21-12, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric

Simply demanding the evidence in one form when it has been measured in another, which requires some understanding of relativity to grasp, doesn't mean the experiments aren't valid.

If you're unwilling to have an honest discussion about it why should anyone give you the time of day?

All words spoken long times and many repeat.
The argument can profit only an experiments.
Words without the experimental results can no longer be an argument.

The argument can be the results of experiments only, in which the energy of relativistic particles is measured by a calorimeters.
I am ready to recognize a table so argument, if experimental results filled it.
The table should have two columns: "velocity" and "energy".
Energy must be measured in the calorimeter.
For all values should be determined a measurement accuracy.

If you have arguments that are based on experimental results, then I am ready to discuss them.
If you have only words, then we have no topics for discussion.

**Masterov** · 04-21-12, 01:21 PM

Matter can travel faster than light.
Matter, whose velocity is greater than the speed of light with fields of fixed matter it does not interact.
Matter (whose velocity is greater than the speed of light) called - neutrino.
Matter (whose velocity is greater than the speed of light) in our visual space does not exist.
And if you overclock any matter to velocities in excess of the speed of light, then the matter will disappear (move to neutrino).

**AlphaNumeric** · 04-21-12, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Masterov

The argument can be the results of experiments only, in which the energy of relativistic particles is measured by a calorimeters.
I am ready to recognize a table so argument, if experimental results filled it.
The table should have two columns: "velocity" and "energy".
Energy must be measured in the calorimeter.
For all values should be determined a measurement accuracy.

If you have arguments that are based on experimental results, then I am ready to discuss them.

The behaviour of particles at relativistic speeds, including their energies and momenta, are measured by experiments. The formula $E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2}$ is derived from precisely the same postulates as $E = \gamma mc^{2}$ . In fact they are equivalent to one another under a reformulation. As such the values have been measured.

You don't know this because you don't know any relativity. As such you don't understand that the behaviours have been tested. Instead your extremely poor grasp of physics and maths limits you to understanding only the most basic of results, so you demand everything is phrased in terms of it. If you knew some relativity, actually had a working understanding of it, you'd see how the predictions have special relativity related to the predictions of quantum field theory. If special relativity were wrong, if it's description of momentum were wrong in the way you claim it would be seen in collidors.

Simply refusing to look at any of the data because you're too ignorant to understand it doesn't mean the data hasn't been obtained. Your continued refusal to listen to what is a very simple thing to understand just shows how no one should listen to anything you have to say because you're obviously both ignorant and dishonest.

Have fun wasting your own time.

**Masterov** · 04-22-12, 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric

The behaviour of particles at relativistic speeds, including their energies and momenta, are measured by experiments...

I've already read conjurations similar to it many times.
All those who write conjurations similar to it - believe it.
But no one has seen the experimental results.
No one is able to provide them.

No need to adjure.
We need the experimental results.

All words spoken long times and many repeat.
The argument can profit only an experiments.
Words without the experimental results can no longer be an argument.

Verbal objection without experimental results can not be accepted as argument.
The argument can be the results of experiments only, in which the energy of relativistic particles is measured by a calorimeters.
I am ready to recognize a table so argument, if experimental results filled it.
The table should have two columns: "velocity" and "energy".
Energy must be measured in the calorimeter.
For all values should be determined a measurement accuracy.

If you have arguments that are based on experimental results, then I am ready to discuss them.
If you have only words, then we have no topics for discussion.

$E^2-p^2c^2=m^2c^4$

$p=Ev/c^2$
From this expression we obtain:
$p^2c^2=E^2v^2/c^2$

Substituting this expression into the first:
$E^2-E^2v^2/c^2=m^2c^4$
$E^2(1-v^2/c^2)=m^2c^4$
$E^2=m^2c^4/(1-v^2/c^2)$
$E=mc^2/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$
$p=mv/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$

These formulas are lie.

**AlphaNumeric** · 04-22-12, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by Masterov

These formulas are lie.[/center]

$E^{2}=(mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2}$ is experimentally verified to a high accuracy. Your claims are therefore falsified. Job done.

**Masterov** · 04-22-12, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric

$E^{2}=(mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2}$ is experimentally verified to a high accuracy. Your claims are therefore falsified. Job done.

Yes. I've read similar statements many times for several years.
But no one was able to provide experimental evidence for this.

Verbal objection without experimental results can not be accepted as argument.
The argument can be the results of experiments only, in which the energy of relativistic particles is measured by a calorimeters.
I am ready to recognize a table so argument, if experimental results filled it.
The table should have two columns: "velocity" and "energy".
Energy must be measured in the calorimeter.
For all values should be determined a measurement accuracy.

**origin** · 04-22-12, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Masterov

Yes. I've read similar statements many times for several years.
But no one was able to provide experimental evidence for this.

You have been given the experimental evidence multiple times and every time you ignore it. Don't you realize your disingenuous nature is obvious to even a casual observer of your posts? You're not fooling anyone.

**Masterov** · 04-23-12, 02:51 AM

Originally Posted by origin

You have been given the experimental evidence multiple times and every time you ignore it. Don't you realize your disingenuous nature is obvious to even a casual observer of your posts? You're not fooling anyone.

Yes. You made to me a links to an articles.
But all of them have no experimental results which been got by calorimeter.

**Masterov** · 04-23-12, 03:58 AM

Why - calorimeter?

The radius of the trajectory of a relativistic particle in both theories (MT and SRT) deviates from the classical trajectory equally:

$R=m_ov/eH\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$

But the causes of this deviation is different:
In SRT: $m=m_o/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$ .
In MT: $F_{Lorentz}=evH\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$

Both theories predict that disperse faster than light charged particle in an accelerator is not possible. But each of theories points to different of the cause:
In SRT: $E=m_oc^2/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$ .
In MT: $F_{Coulomb}\sim \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$

Both theories predict that disperse faster than light charged particle in an accelerator is not possible.
But each of theories points to different of the cause:
MT indicates that the Coulomb's force will tend to zero when the velocity of a charged particle approaches the velocity of propagation of the electric field (the speed of light).
(A telega can not be faster than a horse.)

MT indicates that the use of electrostatic equations for relativistic electrodynamics is not valid.
Settle a dispute between both theories can an experiment only in which the energy of relativistic particles is measured directly in the calorimeter.

**origin** · 04-23-12, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by Masterov

Yes. You made to me a links to an articles.
But all of them have no experimental results which been got by calorimeter.

Of course not that would be a stupid way to measure the energy of sub atomic particles. I guess you insist on that requirement so that you can ignore all of the pertinent data that shows your ideas are wrong.

You are so transparent. Rather pitiful.

**Masterov** · 04-23-12, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by origin

you can ignore all of the pertinent data that shows your ideas are wrong.

All the experiments whose results confirm SRT, confirmed MT also.

Thousands of experiments with relativistic particles have been implemented in many countries over the past half century.
In hundreds of these experiments measured the energy in the calorimeters.
But none of these experiments did not get into print.
If these experiments confirmed the SRT, the results of these experiments have been published without fail.
Inference: the results of experiments in which the energy of relativistic particles was measured in the calorimeters not confirm SRT.
MT explains this discrepancy between the theory with experiment.