http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V14NO4PDF/V14N4HAM.pdf
N. Hamdan, A.K. Hariri
Department of Physics,
University of Aleppo, Syria
nhamdan59@hotmail.com , haririak2000@yahoo.com
J. López-Bonilla
SEPI-ESIME-Zacatenco,
Instituto Politécnico Nacional,
Edif. Z-4, 3er. Piso, Col. Lindavista CP 07 738 México DF
joseluis.lopezbonilla@gmail.com
The authors are from the University of Aleppo, Syria that is currently being bombed by Assad and Putin. I salute these physicists. I hope they are still safe.
I had already finished the proofs that should clarify the misconceptions created by Thermodynamics textbooks so that more progress should be made in the exploitation of energy that is vital for our survival.
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/othmanskn
Initial views are published in smashwords but the final nail in the coffin will be written once my patent had been filed in as many places as possible or viable.
I had wanted to prove that we can use Newton's laws to prove E=mc2 but realise that we need the relativistic analysis because non-relativistic analysis that we are familiar with are not the whole truth.
Surprisingly someone had already proven it for me. It is right at the top of google search, "proof of e=mc2 pdf".
I just wish that more physicists will look into this view.
Eistein's General Relativity Theory rely on: from wikipedia,
"a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present."
There are 2 disturbing aspects of these mathematical expressions:
1) speed of matter cannot exceed the speed of light
2) time can be manipulated
http://www.emu.dk/sites/default/files/relativity.pdf, page 82
In terms of Gaussian co-ordinates, every such statement is expressed by the agreement of their four co-ordinates x1, x2, x3, x4.
x4 is time.
Usually mathematical expressions are logical but their assumptions can be ridiculous. We can reinterpret the equations by correcting the assumptions.
Someone should manipulate Eistein expressions such that time only moves forward as we all know.
speed of light also should not be restricted, so we need to understand why experimental data shows that the speed of light is constant in all directions.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=349577
apeiron physics does not appear to be well regarded especially when its editors are stubborn people.
There are lots of mistakes published in the so-called journal.
This on-line journal stop publishing in 2012 but its website still keep its archives.
Wayback machine keeps a record of it as well.
http://web.archive.org/web/20150224192401/http://redshift.vif.com/current_issue.htm
These comment appear to make sense:
"
|
Guest
|
Join Date: Jun 2001
|
I'll split my comments into two halves: those on the journal in general and those on the paper itself.
While I think I vaguely recognise a few of the other names on the editorial board, it rings all sorts of alarm bells that the only three that leap out are Halton Arp, Victor Clube and Tom von Flandern. All three have track records for pushing, well, "marginal" ideas that are intended to overthrow well-established orthodoxes.
Arp's an observational astronomer (now retired, I believe) who's best known for claiming that quasars are actually relatively close by and small, rather than being large objects from the early days of the universe which are very far away. If true, that would screw up all conventional notions of redshifts and measurements of cosmological distances. His evidence is that he can point to many, many cases where quasars appear connected to nearby galaxies. The conventional response is that these are chance alignments between a distant quasar and a foreground galaxy and that Arp found no more instances than would be expected of this happening by chance. For various reasons, Arp wound up very bitter with the "astronomical establishment" and is quite prepared to argue that they've got everything wrong.
Along with his colleague Bill Napier, in the eighties Clube proposed that there was evidence of ancient cataclysms involving comets recorded in myths and legends from around the world. Basically: Velikovsky might have been on to something. While this was a period when interest in cometary catastropies was increasing, but still relatively controversial, and Clube and Napier's ideas and books got a fair amount of popular attention, their fellow professionals more or less just politely ignored them. (I met Napier at the time and he's perfectly rational, but I wasn't convinced by their case.)
IIRC, von Flandern's big idea was to resurrect the old idea that the asteroid belt was formed by a planet exploding with, I recall, the new twist that this had happened on historic timescales. Doesn't believe in relativity and I seem to remember him getting embroiled in the Face on Mars stuff.
All told, I think we can gather from the composition of the editorial board that the journal is likely to take a more than sympathetic line on "out there" papers. And that does certainly seem to be what they mainly publish based on my skimming through the contents of their past issues. Even amongst the author names, the only ones I recognise are people who already have a reputation for being outside the mainstream, if not downright cranky.
The paper? A rather weak attack on special relativity, somewhat reminiscent of the old ones by Herbert Dingle. Traunmüller's argument basically boils down to saying that if clocks slow down as predicted by Einstein, then they're not correctly measuring time. And proposes a way of getting them to do so correctly: divide the time measured by your clock by the slowing down factor predicted by Einstein!
His argument is that this then defines an absolute time and hence physics can progress as if relativity had never been proposed. The problem is that different clocks running faster and slower isn't the only reason why relativity has no absolute time: moving observers can not only disagree about times measured on clocks, they can also disagree about whether events are simultaneous or not, even without having to look at any clocks. Traunmüller's paper simply doesn't address that aspect.
So basically an attack on special relativity by someone with only a superficial understanding of the theory. You can safely ignore it."
While I think I vaguely recognise a few of the other names on the editorial board, it rings all sorts of alarm bells that the only three that leap out are Halton Arp, Victor Clube and Tom von Flandern. All three have track records for pushing, well, "marginal" ideas that are intended to overthrow well-established orthodoxes.
Arp's an observational astronomer (now retired, I believe) who's best known for claiming that quasars are actually relatively close by and small, rather than being large objects from the early days of the universe which are very far away. If true, that would screw up all conventional notions of redshifts and measurements of cosmological distances. His evidence is that he can point to many, many cases where quasars appear connected to nearby galaxies. The conventional response is that these are chance alignments between a distant quasar and a foreground galaxy and that Arp found no more instances than would be expected of this happening by chance. For various reasons, Arp wound up very bitter with the "astronomical establishment" and is quite prepared to argue that they've got everything wrong.
Along with his colleague Bill Napier, in the eighties Clube proposed that there was evidence of ancient cataclysms involving comets recorded in myths and legends from around the world. Basically: Velikovsky might have been on to something. While this was a period when interest in cometary catastropies was increasing, but still relatively controversial, and Clube and Napier's ideas and books got a fair amount of popular attention, their fellow professionals more or less just politely ignored them. (I met Napier at the time and he's perfectly rational, but I wasn't convinced by their case.)
IIRC, von Flandern's big idea was to resurrect the old idea that the asteroid belt was formed by a planet exploding with, I recall, the new twist that this had happened on historic timescales. Doesn't believe in relativity and I seem to remember him getting embroiled in the Face on Mars stuff.
All told, I think we can gather from the composition of the editorial board that the journal is likely to take a more than sympathetic line on "out there" papers. And that does certainly seem to be what they mainly publish based on my skimming through the contents of their past issues. Even amongst the author names, the only ones I recognise are people who already have a reputation for being outside the mainstream, if not downright cranky.
The paper? A rather weak attack on special relativity, somewhat reminiscent of the old ones by Herbert Dingle. Traunmüller's argument basically boils down to saying that if clocks slow down as predicted by Einstein, then they're not correctly measuring time. And proposes a way of getting them to do so correctly: divide the time measured by your clock by the slowing down factor predicted by Einstein!
His argument is that this then defines an absolute time and hence physics can progress as if relativity had never been proposed. The problem is that different clocks running faster and slower isn't the only reason why relativity has no absolute time: moving observers can not only disagree about times measured on clocks, they can also disagree about whether events are simultaneous or not, even without having to look at any clocks. Traunmüller's paper simply doesn't address that aspect.
So basically an attack on special relativity by someone with only a superficial understanding of the theory. You can safely ignore it."
No comments:
Post a Comment