Jump to content

Master Theory


Alexander Masterov
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.gif (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).

 

Master Theory (edition 2)

Consider a light clock with a pair of vertical mirrors (one on our left, the other - on the right) and a beam of photons between them:

Clock_L.gif

 

y.gif - distance between the mirrors

 

0.gif

 

t.gif - period of the clock:

 

Now let the observer move with a speed (right to left and back) (v.gif). The clock (in observer's frame) will move as follows:

 

Clock_L_move.gif

 

Oscillogram:

 

Broaching.gif

 

Because the speed of light in all a inertial reference frames (IRF) is invariable, then (from the viewpoint of an observer) time of flight of the photon beam from mirror to mirror in different directions will be different, inasmuch as moving in one direction - move opposite to the mirror (flight time is lesser), à moving in the opposite direction - will in pursuit of mirror (flight time is bigger). Total time (there and back) are changing:

 

1.gif

 

How can this be?

This is so indeed: the clock nothing to do with the observer do not have. Any properties of the clock can not depend of acrobatic exercises of the observer. Conclusion: a visual-distance between the mirrors changes:

4.gif

 

 

Further exposition of the theory is impossible because of the strange limitations of this forum.

 

Full text read http://masterov.qpto...u/MasterTheory/

Download: http://masterov.qpto...asterTheory.zip

Edited by Alexander Masterov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consequently:

5.gif

 

______________________________________________

 

The longitudinal scale is clear. We proceed to investigate the cross-scale. For this we consider the light clock with a pair of horizontal mirrors (one - from the bottom, the other - from the top):

 

Clock_H.gif

 

Again: 6.gif and the observer move.

 

Clock_H_move.gif

 

Oscillogram:

 

Trak.gif

 

Light will travel long distances over the same time. But light can not move faster "light's speed". Again we change a visual-distance between the mirrors changes:

 

Pifagor.gif

 

 

From the Pythagorean theorem follows:

 

k.gif

 

next:

 

9.gif

 

_______________________________________________

 

DrRocket, Your comment was very to the article. Thank you!

Edited by Alexander Masterov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Your objections to the operation of GPS clocks and the Hafele-Keating experiment would be what, exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare:

 

MasterTheory:

mt.gif

 

 

SRT:

srt.gif

 

 

All theories:

at.gif

 

For h.gif a result is Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

 

For i.gif a result is Master Theory.

 

For each of the intermediate values (j.gif) we can construct theories have, and each of the which (infinitely many) will have as much right to exist as the SRT. But only in the case - time is absolutely, therefore only Master Theory can claim the right to approximate the property of space and time. All other theories (including SRT) - false.

 

Your objections to the operation of GPS clocks and the Hafele-Keating experiment would be what, exactly?
1. Different types of hours are behaving differently on the GPS satellites. (Some clocks - to hurry. Other clocks - to slow.)

 

2. The changing of clocks dynamics may be activate by changes of properties of gravity, but not by relativistic effects.

 

3. Experiment Hafele-Keating (as well as experiments Bertozzi) was performed 40 (or more) years ago. Using of results of very old (a heyday of a electron tube) experiments of dubious quality can not be considered enforceable to build modern physics .

 

4. There is stronger evidence for the existence of time dilation: from the accelerator target are emitted tau leptons (taon). Length of life 3 10 ^ -13. Taon fly very long distances from the target before a decay. If taon flying at a speed of light, and in this case could not overcome such a long distance. Conclusion: to exist a time dilation.

 

This conclusion is erroneous because the limit on the speed of matter declare by Theory of Relativity of Einstein. (The Master Theory is no such limit.)

 

Taon proves that matter can move faster than the speed of light.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Different types of hours are behaving differently on the GPS satellites. (Some clocks - to hurry. Other clocks - to slow.)

 

2. The changing of clocks dynamics may be activate by changes of properties of gravity, but not by relativistic effects.

 

No, the clocks all behave consistently with relativity. The basic change is all in the same direction, dominated by gravity, but the system would not work if the kinematic term were omitted.

 

3. Experiment Hafele-Keating (as well as experiments Bertozzi) was performed 40 (or more) years ago. Using of results of very old (a heyday of a electron tube) experiments of dubious quality can not be considered enforceable to build modern physics .

 

The clocks were able to measure the effect, and the experiment has been recreated with newer clocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but the system would not work if the kinematic term were omitted.
It is possible that your statement is true in Einstein's theory.

 

Within the Master Theory may be false.

The clocks were able to measure the effect, and the experiment has been recreated with newer clocks.
This should double check or publish a link to a results of the younger experiments.

 

Try to answer the question: why Einstein gave the absoluteness to cross-scale, and not give it to the time? What is the reason?

 

If cross-scale is relative, then time dilation may be any or not to be quite. It no contrary to relativity on the whole.

 

Ie: to refute the Master Theory is sufficient to give good reason to give a absoluteness to a cross-scale.

___________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

Coordinate transformation of Master Theory

 

In Master Theory acceleration is an absolute for all IRF (measured by a spring with a small mass, for example). By Integrating the acceleration we can calculate the actual speed (relative to the initial velocity):

 

3.gif

 

 

By integrating the velocity we can calculate the real-coordinates (relative to the initial coordinates):

 

2.gif

 

Given the expression:

 

8.gif

 

we can obtain the dependence of the real-speed from the visual-speed:

 

4.gif

 

and the visual-speed from the real-speed:

 

6.gif

 

Consequently, the visual-coordinates are computed as follows:

 

7.gif

 

here 8.gif - the visual-time. (And in general: all of the visual position and time followed simbol ', with the exception of speed. Ie: a.gif.) '._.:

 

0.gif

 

The real-coordinates are computed through the visual-coordinates as follows:

5.gif

Edited by Alexander Masterov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible that your statement is true in Einstein's theory.

 

Within the Master Theory may be false.This should double check or publish a link to a results of the younger experiments.

 

 

If it's true within Einstein's theory, then saying it hasn't been been experimentally proved (as you did in your original post) would be false, now wouldn't it?

 

Links to more recent experiments are in the wikipedia article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment#Repetitions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alexander: see A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein along with The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close. What you're proposing here doesn't sound all that different to special relativity to me. You put the emphasis on motion rather than time, but I'm confident Einstein would be happy with that if he was still around. NB: I'm afraid you're wrong about relativistic dilation time, which today has not been experimentally proved.

Edited by Farsight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not eliminate that my theory is wrong. But (more than two years) no one proves the opposite. Nobody give solid argumentation to give a absoluteness to a cross-scale (but not for the time).

 

What if you do it?

 

 

 

____________________________________

 

There is another problem.

 

Time in Einstein's theory can slow down only. (Because of this exist a twin paradox). Time can not be accelerated. And it is not clear: how to a time of a traveller return back to normal, after it has been slow.

Edited by Alexander Masterov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not eliminate that my theory is wrong. But (more than two years) no one proves the opposite. Nobody give solid argumentation to give a absoluteness to a cross-scale (but not for the time).

 

What if you do it?

 

What falsifiable predictions does your theory make? Have you done these experiments?

 

 

There is another problem.

 

Time in Einstein's theory can only slow down. (Because of this exist a paradox of Gemini). Time can not be accelerated. And it is not clear: how to a time of a traveller return back to normal, after it has been slow.

 

Why is this a problem? i.e. where is this contradicted by experiment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare:

 

MasterTheory:

mt.gif

 

 

SRT:

srt.gif

 

 

All theories:

at.gif

 

Consider a thought experiment as follows:

 

A train moves at velocity v relative to the station. On the wall of the station there are two lines a distance H apart according to any observer at the station. How far apart will an observer on the train see them?

 

Now say the train observer holds out paintbrushes a distance H apart, with the lower paint brush coinciding with the painted line, painting a line on the wall. How far apart will an observer on the station see these new lines?

=Uncool-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What falsifiable predictions does your theory make? Have you done these experiments?
There are no limitations on speed.

 

My theory explains the nature of neutrinos. (The actual neutrinos speed exceeds the speed of light.) Taon confirm this fact.

 

Particles impossibly accelerate to speeds in excess of the speed of light. But not because of unbounded growth of mass and energy, but due to the fact that charged particles cease to interact with the EMF, source of wich is stationary. For this reason, neutrino disappear. (Neutrinos do not interact with the stationary matter, because it does not interact with the fields.)

 

From my theory that the energy of the particles in an accelerator can not be huge, how told about it. But you will not find experimental results direct measurement (in a calorimeter) of the energy of charged particles. (All the monstrous in the accelerators of energy exist only on paper.)

 

These results are available, but we do not know about them. If these results are confirmed Einstein's theory, we would know about them. Conclusion: The direct measurement of the energy of the particle of a accelerators contradict Einstein's theory.

 

Master Theory In no twin paradox and the paradox of Ehrenfest.

Why is this a problem? i.e. where is this contradicted by experiment?
It defies common sense.

 

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.

 

A train moves at velocity v relative to the station. On the wall of the station there are two lines a distance H apart according to any observer at the station. How far apart will an observer on the train see them?

 

8.gif

 

Put H in place L.

______________________________________

Next is unintelligible

Edited by Alexander Masterov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no limitations on speed.

 

My theory explains the nature of neutrinos. (The actual neutrinos speed exceeds the speed of light.) Taon confirm this fact.

 

Why do supernovae neutrinos arrive only slightly ahead of the photons (the latter of which are slowed by passing through the dense matter of the shock wave)? SN 1987A was 168,000 light-years away, and yet the neutrinos only preceded the photons by a few hours.

 

Particles impossibly accelerate to speeds in excess of the speed of light. But not because of unbounded growth of mass and energy, but due to the fact that charged particles cease to interact with the EMF, source of wich is stationary. For this reason, neutrino disappear. (Neutrinos do not interact with the stationary matter, because it does not interact with the fields.)

 

From my theory that the energy of the particles in an accelerator can not be huge, how told about it. But you will not find experimental results direct measurement (in a calorimeter) of the energy of charged particles. (All the monstrous in the accelerators of energy exist only on paper.)

 

These results are available, but we do not know about them. If these results are confirmed Einstein's theory, we would know about them. Conclusion: The direct measurement of the energy of the particle of a accelerators contradict Einstein's theory.

 

If we had results that contradicted relativity, we'd hear about it.

 

Master Theory In no twin paradox and the paradox of Ehrenfest.It defies common sense.

 

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.

 

Argument from personal incredulity is not persuasive. It defies your common sense. Nature is under no compulsion to be understandable by you, or anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8.gif

 

Put H in place L.

So you're saying that the observer on the train will see the lines as closer together, according to your theory?

______________________________________

Next is unintelligible

I don't see how. The train observer holds two paintbrushes a distance H apart. How far apart will the station observer think the two lines caused by the paintbrushes are?

=Uncool-

Edited by uncool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These results are available, but we do not know about them. If these results are confirmed Einstein's theory, we would know about them. Conclusion: The direct measurement of the energy of the particle of a accelerators contradict Einstein's theory.

 

Are you suggesting that the scientific community is intentionally withholding experimental results and analysis in order to "prop-up" special relativity? If so I have two questions.

 

1) Why?

2) What is your evidence for this?

 

I can assure you that every practising physicists and mathematical physicists would love to be the one that overturns Einstein. It has not happened as special and general relativity are internally mathematically consistent and agree with nature to some huge degree of accuracy. The so called paradoxes are not really paradoxes and are due to misunderstandings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do supernovae neutrinos arrive only slightly ahead of the photons (the latter of which are slowed by passing through the dense matter of the shock wave)? SN 1987A was 168,000 light-years away, and yet the neutrinos only preceded the photons by a few hours.
Oh! This is very interesting information. I am about it knew nothing.

 

I thank you for this information. It is an argument in the proof of the Master Theory. (The speed of neutrinos exceed LS, as I expected!)

 

I will answer your question, we associate with the neutrino relativistic particles whose velocity is slightly less than the speed of light, because these particles have greater penetrating power. for us is not there a particles If the particles have a velocity equal to or greater than the speed of light, because our matter they do not interact. We can indirectly detect them (in fragments of their decay). When such a decay are born lighter neutrinos, speed of wich ever more than the speed of light.

 

The fact that the rate of neutrinos is only slightly greater than the speed of light imply the presence at this rate the thermal component. (Emitted neutrinos particles are in Brownian motion.)

 

Perhaps neutrinos (that you mentioned) are not the first wave of neutrinos. Neutrinos can be produced in a sequential (cascading) decay of unstable particles, such as the tau lepton (which itself has the properties of neutrinos). Speed of this neutrinos can have greatly exceed the speed of light.

 

If we had results that contradicted relativity, we'd hear about it.

 

And I thought so earlier as well. But ... alas. I'm mistaken.

 

I'll talk about known to me circumstances.

 

Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences made decisions about the inadmissibility of criticism of Einstein's theory three times. This decree forbade the publication of scientific results which contradict Einstein's theory.

 

Attempts to publish material contrary to Einstein's theory is often suppressed even on the Internet. At best, such attempts on the forums are faced with insults or complete ignorance.

 

To protect Einstein's theory are used techniques the medieval Inquisition, that it outside the scope of scientific theories. Einstein's theory is a religious doctrine. A narrow circle of interested people have an interest in existence of Einstein's theory. These people control the scientific institutions around the world. Special Relativity and its author is a symbol and proof that these people are the most intelligent among us. Therefore, any attempt to publish material (contrary to Einstein's theory) are perceived as aggressive and anti-Semitism.

 

The media instills in us the idea of the divinity of Einstein's theory. I've get arguments like, "Do you consider yourself smarter than Einstein?" This question used as test for assessing mental health by many my opponents.

 

The fact that: Master Theory are this scientific debate on your forum without abusive attacks - first case of very many.

 

Nature is under no compulsion to be understandable by you, or anyone else.

Nature is elegant in its simplicity. Isotropy of space is simple to understand, but generates the Pythagorean theorem, and that (in turn) generates the number Pi, which is anything but simple.

_______________________________________________________

 

I'd like to hear the happy coincidences behind how GPS works if relativity is false.
I share to your desires. But this information is forbidden to publish. Alas.

 

 

 

Are you suggesting that the scientific community is intentionally withholding experimental results and analysis in order to "prop-up" special relativity? If so I have two questions.

 

1) Why?

2) What is your evidence for this?

I answered those questions above.

 

I can assure you that every practising physicists and mathematical physicists would love to be the one that overturns Einstein. It has not happened as special and general relativity are internally mathematically consistent and agree with nature to some huge degree of accuracy. The so called paradoxes are not really paradoxes and are due to misunderstandings.

And I thought so earlier as well. But ... alas. I'm mistaken.

 

So you're saying that the observer on the train will see the lines as closer together, according to your theory?
Yes.

 

But I was wrong. I (for some reason) decided that your line is vertical, while it is horizontal.

 

The distance between the lines:

 

9.gif

 

The lines will seeming farther from the observer than it in real.

 

It is our usual circumstances, when the scale of the object decreases (increases) if the object is move off (approach to) us.

 

Relativistic effects of Master Theory and the visuals are of the general nature.

 

 

 

Edited by Alexander Masterov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh! This is very interesting information. I am about it knew nothing.

 

I thank you for this information. It is an argument in the proof of the Master Theory. (The speed of neutrinos exceed LS, as I expected!)

 

There is no evidence they exceeded c, however. Going faster than light in a medium is not a limitation of relativity. As such, this is not evidence that supports your theory.

 

 

Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences made decisions about the inadmissibility of criticism of Einstein's theory three times. This decree forbade the publication of scientific results which contradict Einstein's theory.

 

Attempts to publish material contrary to Einstein's theory is often suppressed even on the Internet. At best, such attempts on the forums are faced with insults or complete ignorance.

Inadmissibility of flawed work requires no conspiracy. It is not very different from the patent office not accepting applications for perpetual motion machine. The foundational principle is well-established, so it's a waste of time to find the inevitable error(s). Einstein's theory has been confirmed to a high degree of precision, so material contrary to the theory is much, much, much more likely to be flawed. It is not unknown for people to take "you're wrong" as an insult, and the proponents of these alternative hypotheses never seem to admit error in any event — their misconceptions are rooted too deeply; that's one of the problems with presenting the ideas on a forum. That and the unwillingness to subject the work to the same rigor that conventional science undergoes. Not "suppression". If it's on the internet, how can anyone claim it has been suppressed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no evidence they exceeded c, however. Going faster than light in a medium is not a limitation of relativity. As such, this is not evidence that supports your theory.
Master Theory explains this phenomenon. I do not expect to more.
Einstein's theory has been confirmed to a high degree of precision
Above I have shown that exist bases for infinite number relativistic theories. Einstein's theory, only one of many. We should be defined: which of the theories is more correct. All the theories will be confirmed experimentally, with varying degrees of accuracy.

 

The so called paradoxes are not really paradoxes and are due to misunderstandings.
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.)

Edited by Alexander Masterov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong question. The clock experiments I mentioned show that it happens. It's a straightforward consequence of c being constant in all frames.
If it is - true, then twins can not apart grow old and tame have an absoluteness.

 

Once again 'paradoxes':

 

The time dilation no depend on an direction of the rocket speed. (On absolute value speed only.)

 

However, if the rocket started from B but in the opposite direction, then the time dilation in relation to A will be different.

 

So what will be the slowing of time in the end?

Edited by Alexander Masterov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The measurement of time is not absolute, it depends on the frames employed. The twin "paradox" is due to the fact that it is the space-time interval that is invariant and not the spacial distance or time interval separately. The twin that stays at home follows a different path in space-time than the twin that does the round trip.Therefore we would not expect their clocks to agree. There is no paradox here at all, just a quirky fact of nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The measurement of time is not absolute, it depends on the frames employed. The twin "paradox" is due to the fact that it is the space-time interval that is invariant and not the spacial distance or time interval separately. The twin that stays at home follows a different path in space-time than the twin that does the round trip.Therefore we would not expect their clocks to agree. There is no paradox here at all, just a quirky fact of nature.
Einstein's theory compelled you deceive yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.