Physics Corrected: Part Two – Curt Weinstein

06-MAR-14

“Length contraction” in physics has presented a consistent picture of reality. Who would deny it (except for me)? And I only deny it because there are other ways to explain reality that don’t have that short coming -- my only trouble is that I don’t know what that short coming is, as yet.

OK, we have already jumped on board with the late Professor Dr. Albert Einstein, verbally confirming that gravity is the aether for light.

As I have written earlier, the great Professor Licer still likes the Lorentz contraction, which is used in General Relativity. I have said that I prefer the formulation of the Relativistic Bernoulli Effect (to explain the same phenomena).

This disagreement, I am hoping, will be more than the right-triangle argument (i.e., that the triangle’s interior angles sum to pi/2 vs. the number of parallel lines in a plane through a point not on the line). That is, these are two very different looking postulates that are mathematically equivalent. A friend of mine learned his younger brother was “color-blind” when the brother queried, “What’s the difference between red and green apples?” I am hoping that the Relativistic Bernoulli Effect is something different from the length-time contractions of Special Relativity, even if we can’t see it yet.

Maybe, however, Special Relativity is dead. Professor Einstein replaced Special Relativity with General Relativity. General Relativity seems to work. Fast moving things seem to interact less well with their surround, because:

1) Einstein: Length of the fast moving thing has contracted, so there is less of it to interact with its surround.

OR

2) Einstein-like: Length of the surround has contracted, so there is less time for the interaction.

OR

3) Einstein sort-of-like: Some combination of (1) and (2) throwing in time contraction/dilation as needed.

OR

3) Weinstein: The (Relativistic) Bernoulli Effect (RBE) suggests that the fast moving things don’t interact with their surround as well as the stationary things. Here, nothing changes size or time.

RBE or BE works for an airfoil. Generalize the concept. Even Einstein said that things change as an object moves fast so that it doesn’t interact with its surround. OK, length contracting is one view, which I feel gets too complicated. RBE is a different view, which is simple. Occam’s Razor, if you please.

But what have I done, other than rename Einstein’s Length-contraction/time-dilation? Perceptually, there is a difference. The way we will think about science will be put back on track.

Einstein’s falling elevator is a Special Relativity invention; it doesn’t work for General Relativity. You can tell the elevator is falling because of the increase in energy of the light. To be more specific, shine a light “up” and it is red-shifted, while shining a light “down” and it is blue-shifted. The sphere of light from an exploding spherical “firecracker” will tell you in which direction the gravity field is strongest. If there is no additional gravity (all gravity is due to the spherical elevator and the firecracker and the man, oops – never mind the man, the man is gone) then the light will radiate out with equal frequencies in all directions. In an external gravity field, like from the Earth, there will be different energies of the light (not due to the explosion). Light traveling against the gravity will be red-shifted. Light traveling with the pull of the gravity will be blue-shifted. Pseudo-horizontal (horizontal from inside the elevator) light will be blue-shifted as if falls.

So Special Relativity is out. General Relativity is unnecessarily complicated. I don’t like the new geometry. I like 3-D Euclidean space and time moving forward at a steady pace. I don’t even care for Daylight Savings Time. (I figure, just change the time everybody has to show up for work; 9am for these dates, and 8am for those dates.)

Update: see http://weinsteinsletter.weebly.com I dumped gravity, having found the aether. I give a different explanation of the red shift.

06-MAR-14

“Length contraction” in physics has presented a consistent picture of reality. Who would deny it (except for me)? And I only deny it because there are other ways to explain reality that don’t have that short coming -- my only trouble is that I don’t know what that short coming is, as yet.

OK, we have already jumped on board with the late Professor Dr. Albert Einstein, verbally confirming that gravity is the aether for light.

As I have written earlier, the great Professor Licer still likes the Lorentz contraction, which is used in General Relativity. I have said that I prefer the formulation of the Relativistic Bernoulli Effect (to explain the same phenomena).

This disagreement, I am hoping, will be more than the right-triangle argument (i.e., that the triangle’s interior angles sum to pi/2 vs. the number of parallel lines in a plane through a point not on the line). That is, these are two very different looking postulates that are mathematically equivalent. A friend of mine learned his younger brother was “color-blind” when the brother queried, “What’s the difference between red and green apples?” I am hoping that the Relativistic Bernoulli Effect is something different from the length-time contractions of Special Relativity, even if we can’t see it yet.

Maybe, however, Special Relativity is dead. Professor Einstein replaced Special Relativity with General Relativity. General Relativity seems to work. Fast moving things seem to interact less well with their surround, because:

1) Einstein: Length of the fast moving thing has contracted, so there is less of it to interact with its surround.

OR

2) Einstein-like: Length of the surround has contracted, so there is less time for the interaction.

OR

3) Einstein sort-of-like: Some combination of (1) and (2) throwing in time contraction/dilation as needed.

OR

3) Weinstein: The (Relativistic) Bernoulli Effect (RBE) suggests that the fast moving things don’t interact with their surround as well as the stationary things. Here, nothing changes size or time.

RBE or BE works for an airfoil. Generalize the concept. Even Einstein said that things change as an object moves fast so that it doesn’t interact with its surround. OK, length contracting is one view, which I feel gets too complicated. RBE is a different view, which is simple. Occam’s Razor, if you please.

But what have I done, other than rename Einstein’s Length-contraction/time-dilation? Perceptually, there is a difference. The way we will think about science will be put back on track.

Einstein’s falling elevator is a Special Relativity invention; it doesn’t work for General Relativity. You can tell the elevator is falling because of the increase in energy of the light. To be more specific, shine a light “up” and it is red-shifted, while shining a light “down” and it is blue-shifted. The sphere of light from an exploding spherical “firecracker” will tell you in which direction the gravity field is strongest. If there is no additional gravity (all gravity is due to the spherical elevator and the firecracker and the man, oops – never mind the man, the man is gone) then the light will radiate out with equal frequencies in all directions. In an external gravity field, like from the Earth, there will be different energies of the light (not due to the explosion). Light traveling against the gravity will be red-shifted. Light traveling with the pull of the gravity will be blue-shifted. Pseudo-horizontal (horizontal from inside the elevator) light will be blue-shifted as if falls.

So Special Relativity is out. General Relativity is unnecessarily complicated. I don’t like the new geometry. I like 3-D Euclidean space and time moving forward at a steady pace. I don’t even care for Daylight Savings Time. (I figure, just change the time everybody has to show up for work; 9am for these dates, and 8am for those dates.)

Update: see http://weinsteinsletter.weebly.com I dumped gravity, having found the aether. I give a different explanation of the red shift.