@ I S S U E

APEIRON Vol. 7 Nr. 3-4, July-October 2000 Page 225

@ I S S U E@ I S S U ECorrespondence, conference threads and debate

General Relativity Revisited

Numerous physicists have challenged GeneralRelativity Theory (GRT) from its firstintroduction by pointing out contradictions andabsurdities within its framework. It is thepurpose of this note to discuss the fundamentalerrors from which all the problems documentedby others find their origin. The basic flaws inGRT involve simple mathematics; fundamentalprinciples of mathematics are violated.

Reference will be made herein to Gravitationby Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thome and JohnArchibald Wheeler (W.H. Freeman & Co., NY),because for some 30 years it has been astandard textbook for courses in GRT, and isconsidered the “bible” by EstablishmentPhysicists. All quotations are from the 1998Edition (21st Printing).

From its very beginnings, all mathematics(arithmetic and geometry) was consideredseparate from the physical sciences. Then earlyin the 19th Century, Carl Gauss, allowed that...geometry should be ranked, not witharithmetic, which is purely aprioristic, but withmechanics... We must confess in all humilitythat, while number is a product of our mindalone, space has a reality beyond the mindwhose rules we cannot completely prescribe.[Gravitation, page 195] So Gauss was the firstto suggest that abstract space is really part ofphysics. Gauss was, sort of, the father ofcurved-space; he devised a geometry ofhyperbolic space. Later, for his General Theoryof Relativity, Einstein adopted an elliptic spacegeometry devised by Riemann.

Now curved-space geometry means thatthere are no straight lines: “The ‘ideal straightline’ is a myth. It never happened, and it neverwill.” [Gravitation, page 11] But sans straightlines, there are no rectangles or cubes;furthermore, parallel lines and circles aredisallowed, and the sum of the angles of atriangle does not equal 180°. Also inRiemannian geometry, which is not a

mathematics of precision, there are no parallellines, and irrational numbers (like √2) andtranscendental numbers (like π) are excluded. Inaddition, infinity becomes a real number, aplace in space. “If spacetime is considered fromthe point of view of its conformal structureonly, points at infinity can be treated on thesame basis as finite points.” Roger Penrose(1964) [Gravitation, page 936] If the reader isthinking “How odd!” then he has his headscrewed on correctly.

Geometry, by reason of its axioms, is therigorous foundation of general arithmetic,including the arithmetic of irrational numbers.Arithmetic was subservient to geometry untilwell into the 19th Century. Today arithmeticoccupies a dominating position.

But in 1921, Albert Einstein disputed all thissaying: “As far as the laws of mathematics referto reality, they are not certain; and as far asthey are certain, they do not refer to reality.”[Gravitation, page 43] The arithmetic laws ofreckoning are, of course, known with absolutecertainty; so according to Einstein, “they do notrefer to reality;” Einstein is serious when hesays this; in his mathematics one plus one doesnot equal two; it only approximately equals two.Remember arithmetic and geometry areinterrelated; when Einstein adopted a newgeometry, he of necessity introduced a newarithmetic, and the old arithmetic laws do notapply. Fortunately for all, the PhysicsEstablishment alone adopted Einsteinmathematics; it is not used in the real world ofbusiness, finance, engineering, etc.

Space is properly defined as the set of allpossible points, and a straight line is adimension of space. Thus, space is an extensionof number, and number gives a measure ofspace; sans number, space would beunintelligible. Ultimately, space (geometry)rests upon the laws of arithmetic, and none ofEinstein’s protestations can ever change this.

Einstein not only adopted a new geometry,but he also added a new dimension (time) to

Page 226 APEIRON Vol. 7 Nr.3-4, July-October 2000

space; then he promulgated that famous dogmaof physics concerning the interaction betweenhis new “curved spacetime” and “physicalmass”: “Space acts on matter, telling it how tomove. In turn matter reacts back on space,telling it how to curve.” [Gravitation, page 5]The magic of how physical mass exerts a force(or whatever) on abstract space and vice versahas never been explained, but no one darequestion it.

The beleaguered graduate student eitheraccepts this nonsense, or gives up a career inphysics.

Mathematics and physics move in twoentirely different orbits; the former isnecessarily abstract while the latter concerns thematerial universe. It is the height of folly to tryto combine abstract mathematical entities (likenumber, space and time) with material entities(like mass, charge and energy fields).Furthermore, there is not any reasonable way tocombine space with time; there is just nocommon sense nexus between these twomathematical entities, and certainly physicalmass cannot exert any influence on abstractspace, nor can it affect number and time.

In Section 1.7 of Gravitation, which treats“The effect of matter on geometry,” one reads:“The idea that every physical quantity must bedescribable by a geometric object, and the lawsof physics must all be expressible as geometricrelationships between these geometric objects,had its intellectual beginnings in the Erlangerprogram of Felix Klein (1872)...” [page 48] Itis not explained what the term “intellectualbeginnings” means, but Klein’s thoughts wereat variance with curved-space geometry, and henever suggested any nexus between geometryand physics.

In his Göttingen lectures during the 1920’s,Klein said that there are precise fundamentalnotions of a point, straight line and plane andargued that these notions must be consistentwith the geometrical axioms of connection,order and continuity. Klein called these “theleading concepts and statements which onemust of necessity put into the front rank ofgeometry,” and said “they are the intuitivepossession of every person, and that they are of

such obvious simplicity that no one couldquestion them.” What did Klein think ofcurved-space? He objected to this geometry,because it violates the continuity axioms; Kleinsaid: “I regard it, rather as the death of allscience.” [cf. F. Klein, Elementary Math-ematics from an Advanced Standpoint (Dover,NY, 1939)]

Science is that body of knowledge acquiredthrough the analysis of cause and effect bymeans of common sense and right reason. So ifone disputes common sense axioms, he alsodeals a death blow to all science and in factdenies truth itself. Truth becomes contingentupon subjective fancy and is divorced fromobjective reality.

The term “space” includes “straight lines”,and Cantor’s axiom relating real numbers topoints on a line states: If all “real numbers”(points on a line) are divided into two classessuch that every “number” (point) of the firstclass is “less than” (falls to the left of) every“number” (point) of the second class, thereexists one and only one “number” (point)which determines this division of the set of“real numbers” (points on a line) into twoparts. The identity between real numbers andpoints on a straight line shows that straight lines(and hence space) are subject to the laws ofarithmetic; so curved-space is invalidmathematics, and contrary to Einstein’saforesaid dictum, Euclidean space and the lawsof mathematics do indeed reflect reality.

Contrast Einstein’s views with those of thecelebrated mathematician, Eric Temple Bell:“The world that impinges on the senses of allbut introverted solipsists is too intricate for anyexact description ...By abstracting andsimplifying the evidence of the senses,mathematics makes possible a rationaldescription of our experiences ...Abstractness,sometimes hurled as a reproach atmathematics, is its chief glory and its suresttitle to practical usefulness.” E. T. Bell,Mathematics (McGraw-Hill, N.Y. 1951) p. 19.

John O. Campbell


Earth Expansion?

Had my name not been mentioned by Dr.Kokus in his letter to Apeiron (vol. 7, 1-2,p.123) I should not have been inclined tocomment on the letter. However, as it was I feelit necessary to correct an apprehension of his onmy work and to show that the conclusionresulting from it is not warranted. I apologisefor the length of the reply.

First, Lee has not added two more“coincidences,” as stated by Kokus, but hasgiven physical relationships resulting from theprobable development of the Solar System(S.S.). And he most definitely is not “alwayscomparing the ratios of two gas giants to twoearthlike planets, or the ratio of an earthlikeplanet and a gas planet to the ratio of a similarpair.” Rather, he has compared many bodies—like and unlike—, shown how they may or maynot be related physically and/or chemically, andderived a number of formulae (mostly of theform A = B×Cn) showing the mathematicalrelationships. And he has shown how theserelationships can be explained by a singlesequence of related and inevitable events. Withthat off my chest, please permit me to explain,both astronomically and geologically, why mystudies prevent me from accepting the“expanding Earth” hypothesis.

Some years ago I began an exhaustivetheoretical investigation of the physical andchemical properties of the bodies of the S.S.Using the stratigraphic geology principle ofhistorical succession, i.e. present to past, andassuming the S.S. has been a closed forcesystem throughout its lifetime, the probable topossible sequence moving back in timesuggested that a single body containing the totalmass and volume of all the planets and satellitesonce orbited the Sun at 5.3 AU. (Where it camefrom is unimportant, here.) This body was ineffect composed of a series of shells of massand volume of decreasing density from thecentre: Mercury (core), Venus, Earth, Mars, Io,etc. to Saturn, the outer shell. This structure, iftrue, negates Kokus’s basic assumption ofsimilar compositions for the planets. The bodywas prolate ellipsoidal in shape. Let me now

proceed forward from that body to the presentusing only the physical properties ofconservation of force, angular momentum,Newton’s Third Law, and impulsive force toillustrate essential relationships.

The first step, here of no interest, wasremoval of the outer Saturn shell; but withoutwhich none of the following would havehappened. (This step permits a simplecalculation of the tilt of Saturn using that ofJupiter.) Consider only the three stages sketchedin figures A, B, and C. A more completesequence is given on the Internet at the RMITUniversity website.1

Figure A is of the initial body with Saturnremoved, the dashed lines giving the outer facesof the Uranus and Mars shells. Note that theratio of the radii of the total body and Uranusshells is 1.234:1 and the ratio of the radii of theUranus and Mars shells is a little less than1.198:1. Figure B shows Mars (X), a compositeMercury (core)/Venus/Earth sphere (Y), and acomposite Neptune (core)/Uranus sphere (Z).To be precise Mars should not be shown but asI wish to discuss all the inner planets I add ithere with no error. Figure C shows the planetsEarth (A), Venus (B), Mercury (C), Neptune(D), and Uranus (E).

Note that in figure B, using x1024 kg and km,sphere Y has a mass of 11.18 and radius7912.6, while sphere Z has a mass of 189.6 andradius 32089.2; giving ratios of 4.1182 and4.055. In figure C the ratios of the radii forspheres A/E and B/D are 4.100 and 4.091,respectively.

The important point for the body in figure Ais that within itself it is a closed force systemwith the force at the centre equal to zero. If were-adjust the internal masses, and the forcesystem remains closed, then the force at thecentre must ideally remain zero. (In the “realworld” probably only closely so.) In figure Bthe sum of the forces exerted by X and Y at thecentre is 0.98 (0.7241/16) of the force exerted onit by Z. (Newton’s Third Law closely obeyed.)Very closely, then, the internal bodies are inequilibrium. And if these bodies are broken upand/or ejected by a central impulse along theircommon diameter then the bodies when finally


in equilibrium must have force equality (or verynearly so) at the centre – at 5.3 AU from theSun. Let the bodies be broken up to give thoseshown in figure C. The body order can beproved. Calculation of the sum of the forces ofthe six planets in their present orbits exerted ona point at 5.3 AU, when the planets are on acommon radius from the Sun, shows that theforce is very nearly zero.

Further, should the bodies move out fromJupiter and pass into control by the Sun theyshould do so when the total of the angularmomenta of the six bodies about the Sun justexceeds that of the total of the angular momentaof the same bodies about a point 5.3 AU. Andcalculation shows this to be the case.

It is from figure C that I drew mymeasurements and ratios for my letter inApeiron, vol. 5 and from which Kokus obtainshis misapprehension.

Figure C allows one to deduce that twoimpulses drove out the five bodies; the firstdriving out Earth and Uranus, the second theremaining three bodies. In this case, due to thesimplicity of the formation and the locations ofUranus and Earth it is a requirement that theratio of the forces of spheres A and E on thecentral point of the body should be equal to theratio of the forces on a point at 5.3 AU of theplanets in their present orbits when on acommon radius from the Sun. The two ratiosare close –0.724 and 0.720.

Also, if the impulses were slightly inclinedto the common diameter then it can be shownthat tilt1/tilt2 must (ideally) equal radius1/radius2

and it clearly is closely so for Uranus and Earth.Make the tilt for Venus (180+2.67)° rather than(180-2.67)° and the ratio is obeyed by Venusand Neptune, which latter planet turned tworevolutions plus its present measured tilt.(Comparing like bodies, two other couples

obeying this rule are Mars/Moon andTriton/Pluto.) Further, because of the simpleejection of Earth and Uranus, if their rotationshave not been changed since ejection by forcesoutside the couple then it should be possible tocalculate by simple mathematics one rotationfrom the other. And it is easy to calculate theone from the other. (Yes! I know Earth isslowing down but there is a generallyunrecognised mechanism which intermittentlyaccelerates it.) Again, the figures permit one topredict qualitatively (i) the variation of thehydrogen/helium ratios between the gaseousbodies (something the Nebula Theory failed todo before the fly-byes) and (ii) the order ofdecreasing deuterium concentrations in thegaseous and terrestrial planets (ditto). And soon and so on.

Because using the above sequence explainsso many physical and chemical relationships,and because Dr. Kokus cannot accept similarexpansion rates for bodies with unlikecompositions (neither can I) then relationshipssuch as force equality and angular momentumas given above cannot be accounted for wherebodies expand and “create” mass. They mustbecome “coincidences,” and I cannot accept theproperties as being coincidences.

To me, all the above and its implication forno expansion was expected as I had alreadyaccidentally proved geologically thatexpansion, as the expansion hypothesisrequires, was impossible. (I am certain the Earthhas undergone minor expansion and willcontinue to do so for some time.) Why?Because in an even earlier study than my S.S.one I attempted to relate major Earth surfacetectonics and other physical phenomena withthe notion of an internally asymmetric Earthstructure. While doing the study I discovered amethod of using palaeomagnetic poles for


plotting the movement of a continental plateback in time to give latitude, longitude,rotation, and speed of movement. Presentdogma, of course, says this cannot be done.During the study it became clear why presentAPWP palaeomagnetic methods of determiningplate paths sometimes give correct results andsometimes give quite false results. [Icommented on it in a small, personallydistributed paper, a copy of which I send withthis letter for you, Mr. Editor, to give to whomyou will. (See pp.71-3.)]

The plate path plotting method is brieflyexplained in the book Gondwana Eight2 andnoted in an abstract in Abstracts of 30th.International Geological Congress.3 It may,shortly after you receiving this letter, be on theInternet at the RMIT University website.Calculating and plotting is a bit tedious, beingthree dimensional, but is purely mathematicaland non-subjective to the operator. Aftercalculations, plotting onto a globe of the Earthcan be carried out using a plate template,flexible ruler, compasses, and pencil. It takesonly a few plate path plots on a globe to showmovements cannot be explained by Earthexpansion. This is despite the “evidence” givento support expansion; which evidence issubjective and/or explainable by alternativephysical processes.

Pardon my bluntness, but expansion of theEarth, as presently espoused, is a no-no.

References

[1] Lee, Frank (17/11/99) “The Single Body BreakupHypothesis for the Solar System” Internethttp://petralia.civgeo.rmit.edu/franklee/franklee/html (Introduction paper and papers A to E.)

[2] Lee, T. Frank Lee (1993) “The determination ofthe positions of the Gondwana continents back tothe Ordovician using a method of plate pathplotting” In Gondwana Eight, Proceedings of theEighth Gondwana Symposium, Australia, 1991,pp. 523-529 but see especially pp.528 and 9.

[3] Lee, T. Frank (1996) “Meeting of the Indian,Tibetan, Tarim, and Siberian Plates in theCainozoic by Plate Path Plotting – A MultipleCollision Event.” In Abstracts of the 30 th.International Geological Congress, vol.1, p.231,abstract No. F-5-4 00577 0484.

T. Frank Lee102 Mill Street

Ballarat, 3350, VictoriaAustralia.

Reply to M.W. Evans

Dr. Evans has raised objections to myprevious paper [5] on the basis that it does notuse the non-Abelian Stokes theorem to provethe existence of the B(3) field. The non-AbelianStokes theorem has indeed been proposed in theworks of several authors, e.g. [1]; it is wellknown and it represents the equations of isospincomponents.

Non-Abelian generalizations of other laws ofelectrodynamics have also been found, e.g. [2].

However, I have unfortunately not found acorrect form of the non-Abelian Stokes theoremeither in Dr. Evans’s work [3], which he refersto, or in any other work by the AIAS group. Tothe best of my knowledge, the correctconnection between spin and isospin has not yetbeen established. Therefore, I consider that Dr.Evans’s critical comments [4] on my papers [5]are without foundation.

Dr. Evans’s comments clarify almost nothingin his own debate with Drs. Comay and Hunter.Dr. Comay’s answer to my work [5a] is evenmore irrelevant to the essence of the problem(see [5b]).

References

[1] I. Arefeva, Theor. Math. Phys. 43, 353 (1980); N.E. Bralic, Phys. Rev. D22, 3090 (1980); M. B.Mensky, Lett. Math. Phys. 3, 513 (1979); P. M.Fishbane, S. Gaziorowicz and P. Kaus, Phys. Rev.D24, 2324 (1981); L. Diósi, Phys. Rev. D27, 2552(1983); J. Szczesny, Acta Phys. Polon. B18, 707(1987); Yu. A. Simonov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 50,134 (1989); B. Broda, J. Math. Phys. 33, 1511(1992); in Advanced Electromagnetism:Foundations, Theory Applications. Eds. T. W.Barrett and D. M. Grimes (Singapore, World Sci.,1995), p. 496-505; D. Diakonov and V. Petrov,hep-th/9606104; F. A. Lunev, Nucl. Phys. B494,433 (1997); M. Hirayama and S. Matsubara,Prog. Theor. Phys. 99, 691 (1998); V.I.Shevchenko and Yu.A. Simonov, hep-th/9802134;M. Hirayama, M. Kanno, M. Ueno and H.Yamakoshi, Prog.Theor.Phys. 100, 817 (1998);V.I. Shevchenko and Yu.A. Simonov, Phys. Lett.B437, 146 (1998); R. L. Karp, F. Mansouri and J.S. Rno, hep-th/9903221; M. Faber, A.N. Ivanov,N.I. Troitskaya and M. Zach, hep-th/9907048; M.


Hirayama and M. Ueno, hep-th/9907063; R. L.Karp, F. Mansouri and J.S. Rno, J. Math. Phys.40, 6033 (1999); K-I. Kondo and Y. Taira, hep-th/9911242; R. L. Karp and F. Mansouri, hep-th/0002085, and references therein.

[2] A. Mukherjee, Z. Phys. C32, 619 (1986); K.Harada and I. Tsutsui, Z. Phys. C 41, 65 (1988); J-G. Zhou, S-M. Li and Y-Y Liu, Phys. Rev. D48,961 (1993); P. Majumdar and H.S. Sharatchandra,Phys. Rev. D58, 067702 (1998); P. Majumdar andH.S. Sharatchandra, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl., 73,620-622 (1999), and references therein.

[3] M. W. Evans et al., Apeiron, 6, 222-226 (1999).

[4] M. W. Evans, Apeiron, 7, 116-119 (2000).

[5] V. V. Dvoeglazov, Apeiron 6, 227-232 (1999);physics/9801024; see also physics/9907048.

Valeri V. DvoeglazovEscuela de Fisica, UAZApartado Postal C-580

Zacatecas 98068 Zac. MexicoE-mail: [email protected]

Time Dilation in Special andGeneral Relativities

The special theory of relativity (STR). Recallthat time t plays a role of the forth coordinate inthe united Minkowski space-time. As a result,according to STR, the duration of physicalprocesses depends on movement velocity v.This is expressed by the known equation ofrelativistic time dilation (increase)

dt=dτγ=dτ(1-v2/c2)–1/2. (1)Here the relativistic (coordinate) time figures atleft, and the “classical” (proper) time at right. Inthe non-relativistic (Galilean) approximation ofsmall velocities dt→dτ, we have to deal withthe proper or invariant time (independent ofvelocity).

One should pay attention to a poorexpression: “time dilation.” As known, thechange of time rate is conditioned by changingthe time standard. But in the given case, dt anddô are measured in the same seconds.

The increase of the lifetime of movingelementary particles (the relativistic time islarger than the proper one) is the knownconsequence of eq.(1).

The general theory of relativity (GTR). Letus consider now the general-relativisticrelationship (see, e.g., [1])

dtS=dτ(1–2|Φ|/c2-v2/c2)-1/2 (2)

corresponding to eq.(1) and based onSchwarzschild’s solution. As seen, it indeedtransits to (1) in the case | Φ|=0, and we have apure gravitational time dilation (increase) in thecase v=0. Thus, the stronger a gravitational fieldthe larger the duration of physical processes(the general-relativistic time is larger than theproper one).

For example, the reading of an “airplane”clock (th) in the known experiments on theinvestigation of the gravity influence on theclock rate [2-4] must be smaller than thecorresponding reading of a clock on the ground(tg):

th< tg. (3)However, this experiments give an oppositeresult:

thex> tgex. (4)Emphasize that the observed change of atomicclock rate is here conditioned by its ownconstruction.

Thus, the previous conclusion [5] of thefailure of GTR is confirmed experimentally.

References

[1] Moeller C. – The Theory of Relativity, p.280(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972)

[2] Hafele J.C. & Keating R.E. – Science, 1972, 177,p.166.

[3] Alley C.O. at al – Experimental Gravitation.Proc.conf. at Pavia, ed. B.Bertotti (AcademicPress, 1977).

[4] Briatore L. & Leschiutta S. – Nuovo Cim., 37B,p.219.

[5] Strel’tsov V.N. -The Failure of the GeneralTheory of Relativity. JINR D2-96-427 (Dubna,1996).

V.N. Strel’tsov

Relativistic Gravidynamics &Black Holes

Relativistic gravidynamics. According to thespecial theory of relativity and taking intoaccount the Newton formula to the potentialenergy, we have

íg=í(1+ Φ/c2) (1)for the photon frequency radiated in agravitational field (GF) (see, e.g., [1]). Here, í isthe photon frequency in the absence of GF


(Φ=0). Emphasize that this equation is aconsequence of relativistic gravidynamics or theLorentz-covariant theory of gravity (see, e.g.,[2]). A 4-vector potential Φi, the timecomponent of which represents the Newtonpotential, is its base. As a result, we have for the“potential” 4-momentum

pgi=m Φi, (2)

describing the GF influence on a particle withmass m. Whence it directly follows that thephoton is gravitationally neutral since its massis zero.

As clearly seen from eq. (1), the stronger GF,the smaller the frequency of a radiated light. Inthe limit, when | Φ|→c2, νg→0. Thus, atoms(nuclei) being part of a massive body (star) losea radiation ability. Such a formation whichsends no signals in the surrounding space andinteracts with the external world only by itsstatic GF is named the black hole (BH) orcollapsar. On the other hand, the BH atoms,evidently, also lose an absorption ability sincetheir energy levels amalgamate in fact. Besides,the interaction of photons with electrons, nucleiand other BH microobjects (accompanied byenergy exchange) becomes, it would seen,impossible since their total energies are zero.

Based on the limiting relation | Φ|=c2 and theexplicit expression for the potential of mass M,we obtain for the gravitational radius

rg=kM/c2, (3)where k is the gravitational constant.

Let us consider now the equation of therelativistic law of energy conservation for a trialbody with mass m in GF

Mc2γ+m Φ=mc2 (4)Here, the Lorentz-factor γ=(1-v2/c2)-1/2. Leanedon the limiting relation, we find that γmax=2;whence for the limiting velocity (named thesecond cosmic velocity) we obtain

ν2=√3c/2 (5)Remark that rg≈1.5 km for the Sun. The meanmass density of the corresponding “ball” BH isρs≈0.3·1015/cm3, i.e., it exceeds considerably thenuclear density. Only bodies with mass greaterthan 5 Sun masses have the mass densitysmaller than the nuclear one after collapse.

General relativity (GR). Earlier, the failureof this theory was proved (see, e.g., [3]) and, in

particular, it was shown that GR contradictsdirectly the experiments on “gravitational timeslowing down” [4]. As we see below, thistheory gives contradictory results also in thecase of the discussed problem.

Recall that the horizon of events in GR isdefined by Sæhwarzschild’s radius rS=2rg. Thisquantity stipulates reducing the light velocity tozero, which depends on the gravitationalpotential in GR according to the formula

cg=c(1+2 Φ/c2) (6)Thus, if the velocity of material bodiesincreases approaching to a massive object, thevelocity of photons, on the contrary, decreasesaccording to (6). The effective repulsion of lighttakes place! As a result, material bodies passphotons running up to BH (beginning fromr≈4.5 rg).

On the other hand, according to (6), the lightvelocity on the Earth surface must be

cE=0.9999999986c (6E)This means that protons with energy reater thanEp=18 TeV and electrons with energy Ee>9.6GeV pass the light. The electrons of theStanford linear accelerator answer the lattercondition. Thereby, the light velocity loses itsfundamental property of the limiting velocity ofinteraction transmission.

References

[1] V.N. Strel’tsov, “Special vs. General Relativity,”Apeiron 6, 243 (1999)

[2] Idem, “On the Lorentz -Covariant Theory ofGravity,” Ibid., 55-61.

[3] Idem, The Failure of General Relativity, JINRD2-96-427 (Dubna, 1996).

[4] Idem, “Gravitational Time Slowing Down” vsGeneral Relativity,” Apeiron 7, 124-5 (2000).

V.N. Strel’tsovLaboratory of High Energies

Joint Institute for Nuclear ResearchDubna, Moscow Region 141980, RUSSIA

The Problem of Changing theMotion of Inertial Disc Applyingthe Einstein Relativity

Introduction

The ratio between circumference and radius ofthe rotating disc is preserving the radius higher


than at the inertial disc in Einstein relativity.[1], [2]

Solution

Let us have the inertial disc. The observer onthe disc has fulfilled the circumference andradius of the disc with the given number oflinear measures. Then the disc will rotate. If theratio between circumference and radius of therotating disc is higher than at the inertial discand the radius is the same as before rotation, thenumber of linear measures fulfilling the disccircumference should be higher than beforerotation.

Conclusion

If the number of linear measures fulfilling thedisc circumference is given before rotation, itcannot be multiplied by rotation. Therefore theratio between circumference and radius of therotating disc cannot be higher than beforerotation. So the inertial disc cannot change themotion if applied the Einstein relativity.

References

[1] Feynman R.P., Leighton R.B. and Sands M.: TheFeynman Lectures on Physics, 4-th. Edition,Addison-Wesley, 1966.

[2] Ullmann V.: Gravitation, Black Holes and thePhysics of Spacetime, 1-st. edition, CzechoslovakAstronomical Society of the CzechoslovakAcademy of Sciences, 1986.

Arthur BolsteinAcademy of Sciences of the Czech Republic

Brectanova 36, 040 01 Kosice, Slovakia

“The Universe: finite or infinite?”

In Apeiron Vol. 7 Nr. 1-2, on pages 126-127,Christopher John Davison argues that theuniverse must be completely infinite, that isinfinite in duration and in size. The core of hisargument is his asking “those who claim limitedsize and lifespan to explain how space andmaterial came into existence from nothing, howit will disappear again, and to explain thesituation beyond the edge of a finite-sizedUniverse.” The answers are as follows.

Either the universe arose from and waspreceded by absolute nothing or else it, or itscreator, always existed, that is had no

beginning. Only those alternatives are available;the positing of anything other than nothing as abeginning immediately requires accounting forthat something’s existence so that the onlyalternative to a beginning of nothing is nobeginning at all.

Thinkers over at least the past 4,000 yearshave consistently come to that conclusion and,since the universe arising from nothing seemedimpossible and ridiculous, they consistentlyconcluded that the universe arose fromsomething that always existed, something thatso to speak was the cause of its own existence.Shakespeare has King Lear say, “Nothing canbe made out of nothing.” And, that sooverwhelming limitation has made thinkersthroughout the ages opt for the infinite.

But, under closer examination the infinitethat this line of reasoning requires has problemsas severe as does the universe arising fromnothing. Further, the universe arising fromnothing is not so insuperable a problem as it hasappeared. Somewhat in the manner thatAlexander resolved the challenge of theGordian Knot [he drew his sword and cut theknot in half] it can be shown not only that theuniverse could have arisen from nothing butthat it must have, as follows.

The Problem of the Infinite

We can readily grasp the idea of nothing; itis easily within our ken. But, the idea of infinityis much more difficult. We use expressions suchas “without limit” and “unending” to convey theidea but we do not really comprehend [“in ourgut” so to speak] what “forever,” “always,”“without limit” really signify. To us the symbol,∞, subtly means a specific quantity standing atthe end of a long list of increasing numbers, butits true meaning is that that list of numbers goeson and on, that if we go out and “stand on” themost distant number we will see still moregoing on and on, forever.

So, for the universe to extend in spaceforever and for it to have existed forever is atleast as troubling as for it to have arisen fromnothing. Furthermore something existingforever means that it is its own cause. But, thatcontradicts the essential requirement that a


cause exist independently of what it causes, thatthe cause “precede” in the causal sense thatwhich it causes.

To account for existence it is necessary toshow why it is as compared to the alternative, itnot being. Thus one must begin at thebeginning, it not being. The starting point isabsolute nothing—the state before there wasanything, before everything. It is the only statethat requires no explanation nor accounting forits existence. It is naturally what one wouldexpect before anything started.

How a Universe Could Arise fromNothing

The problem with a universe [or anything asLear said] arising from nothing is thatconservation must be maintained. The inputsand outputs, the amounts at the start, anyintermediate stages, and the finish mustreconcile. There can be no overall loss nor gain.But, starting from nothing while maintainingconservation would appear to preclude anyprogress at all. Yet, paraphrasing Descartes, “I[part of the universe] think, therefore theuniverse is.”

The resolution of the dilemma is: The primalnothing changed into something and aconservation-maintaining equal-but-oppositeun-something

That Our Universe Did Arise fromNothing

That initial event was so unstable that itexploded too immediately for the two oppositesto recombine and cancel. That explosion was animmense shower of matter particles and energynow referred to as the “big bang.”

But there is another difficulty in the universeso arising from nothing - the transition. How isit possible to accommodate the transition fromnothing to something plus its opposite withoutan infinite rate of change at the beginning ?There is only one mathematical form that can sochange and fit all of the circumstances andrequirements of the situation: the ±[1–Cos(2πft)] function [the ± for the two equal butopposite components that maintainconservation]. The infinite series of derivativesof the function make for the smooth transition.

The development1 from that event, a logicaland mathematical derivation of all of thefundamental laws of physics (Coulomb’s Law,Ampere’s Law, Newton’s Laws of Motion,Newton’s Law of Gravitation, relativity,radiation, fields, photons, atomic structure,nuclear structure, ..., all of the physics of thecontemporary universe) from the necessaryconditions and nature of that origin, shows thatour universe is the joint operation of thesomething and the un-something, whichtogether result in the universe’s fundamentalparticles.

Thus was the origin of the universe. As forDavison’s “how it will disappear again,” it is ina long-term exponential decay that began withthe “big bang” and never completely ends.However, just as the area under the curve ε-t = 1, so the material universe is finite.

Roger Ellman320 Gemma Circle

Santa Rosa, CA 95404, [email protected]

Reference

[1] Ellman R., The Origin and Its Meaning, The-Origin Foundation, Inc., 1996, seehttp://www.The-Origin.org for where, howavailable.

Response to Ellman: “Nothingcan be made out of nothing”(King Lear)

In Apeiron Vol No. 7 I argued that it isrational to regard the Universe as infinite inboth size lifespan. Roger Ellman`s reply madethe traditional finite -universe case. At least wehave agreement as far as the choices areconcerned. Either the Universe is limited in sizeand lifespan, appearing from nothing and in duecourse, after its finite existence ends,disappearing again into nothing. Also there isnothing beyond the limits of a finite-sizeUniverse. Or, the alternative which is a universeif infinite-size and lifespan.

One of Ellman`s initial comments clearlydemonstrates the finite mindset, saying that theinfinite view is somehow positioning thecomponents of the Universe at “the


beginning.”Moreover, those who take this viewmust “account for” these components and that astate of nothing does not need to be accountedfor. His second paragraph ends in a truestatement: “the only alternative to a beginningof nothing is no beginning at all”

The Universe had no beginning, becausenothing does not have the ingredients to makesomething. In other words something mustalways have been here, because the Universe issomething and something needs to be made outof something. Ellman quoted Shakespeare’sKing Lear,” Shakespeare has King Lear say:“Nothing can be made out of nothing.”Shakespeare was wise to have King Lear makethis true statement.

The letter goes on further to mention theadmitted difficulty in taking the infinite view:“the infinite that this line of reasoning requireshas problems as severe as does the universearising from nothing. Further, the universearising from nothing is not so insuperable aproblem as it has appeared.” The GordianKnot, (a simple solution to a difficult problem)is used to “prove” that the Universe “must havearisen out of nothing.

I cannot see why this was used, the cutGordian Knot then consisted of two pieces of“something” both pieces having been made outof something. Literally, (according to the finiteway of thinking), there was nothing to cut in thepre universe state of nothing. Nothing cut intwo is still nothing and there is no simplesolution to reverse this.

I share Ellman`s difficulty which he goes onto mention understanding infinity in the sameway which we can understand finite concepts.To quote Ellman again: “So, for the universe toextend in space forever and for it to haveexisted forever is at least as troubling as for itto have arisen from nothing.” Troubling it maybe, but I do not understand the “so” in that laststatement. No part of the preceding text hasexplained that infinite size and lifespan are asdifficult to explain as making something out ofnothing.Infinite size and lifespan are difficultindeed perhaps impossible to grasp;nevertheless to me and a few others it is therational choice when faced with the alternative,

that is: creating the Universe out of nothing andreversing this process.(making everythingdisappear again), also having a border beyondwhich not even a single atom or photon oranything else is to be found.

The next point is interesting: “Furthermoresomething existing forever means that it is itsown cause. But, that contradicts the essentialrequirement that a cause exist independently ofwhat it causes, that the cause ‘precede’ in thecausal sense that which it causes.” The onlyrational assumption I can see is that theUniverse did not have a cause. If you had acause which preceded the Universe then the“cause” would have been “something” andcould be described as being the Universe in anearlier form. Now you are saying that there wasa “time” when there was nothing. A state of“nothing” cannot contain “something;moreover, that which has permanent existencecannot possibly have had a “cause.” Lookingfor a cause for the universe is like looking forthe largest possible number, it does not exist.

The expression “the beginning it not being”in the following paragraph, has no meaning forme except to reveal a “start and finish” mindsetwhich in my view must be overcome. The stateof absolute-nothing is mentioned as “requiringno explanation nor accounting for itsexistence.” To me a state of nothing doesrequire a great deal of explanation if it isfollowed or preceded by all of the componentsof the Universe.

A true statement now appears “conservationmust be maintained” (which supports theconcept of a universe of infinite life span). Thisappears to be a reference to the well-knownfundamental principle of classical physics, thelaw of conservation of mass, which of coursestates that matter cannot be created ordestroyed). Ellman resolves this as follows:“The resolution of the dilemma is: The primalnothing changed into something and aconservation-maintaining equal-but-oppositeun-something.” At this point I am still lookingfor an explanation as to how nothing justchanged into something.

It is very important to read the nextstatement from Ellman: “That initial event was


so unstable that it exploded too immediately forthe two opposites to recombine and cancel.That explosion was an immense shower ofmatter particles and energy now referred to asthe ‘big bang’.” What is “it”? What exploded?Where did it come from? Was the tiny objectthat contained the seed of all the components ofthe Universe, created from nothing at thispoint?

Ellman goes on to quote a formula showingmathematically all of the components of theUniverse smoothly appearing from nothing, anumber of scientific laws are mentioned,Newton`s Laws of motion, etc., a list offundamental physics not connected with thisdiscussion. To me the law of conservation ofmass is central to this discussion together withthe rational assumption that the Universe hadno cause.

My question: how it will disappear again?Receives the reply: “it is in a long-termexponential decay that began with the ‘bigbang’ and never completely ends.”

This appears to be saying that the Universeindeed has an infinite amount of time to go nowthat it has been created out of nothing, but is“decaying.” “It is in a long-term exponentialdecay that began with the “big bang” andnever completely ends.” But, where does thismaterial go? (Where does it decay to?) if itcannot be destroyed as in the most fundamentallaw of physics. If something decays it merelychanges form leaving all of its components inexistence, Ellman is using decay to meandisappear.

Chris Davison17 West Down, Great Bookham

Surrey. UK. KT23 [email protected]

Farewell, the SRT with the LT

From I.J. Good’s “Bingo” refutations [1], theApeiron readers clearly see that thoserefutations are invalid and the LT’s absurdity isincorrigible. This letter confirms the LT’s self-inconsistency, clearing up confusion stirred byGood.

Concerning “STONE and EGG”

So far the discussion about the STONE andEGG has been made over and over [2].Unfortunately, Good still did all he can todisregard the crucial issue that the so-called 4-D(dimension) invariant equation is worthnothing, because and only because meaninglessSTONE and EGG can equally make the LTsatisfy it. He continues repeating his “Bingorefutation” by arguing that “stones and eggs arenot measures of length or time” [1a]. Good didmake a fresh-discovery that suffices to prove hisintellectual level, despite his failure to make adistinction between STONE and stones, EGGand eggs.

Regarding “implicit assumption”

In my argument, clearly, y′/c = y/c (ory′/u = y/u) is mathematically derived by using c(or u) to divide two sides of the identity y′ = ythat is one of the LT equations. Then, what hasthis to do with “path,” P or P′? Where is the“implicit assumption” [1a]? Obviously, it isfabricated by Good to impose on my head.

Good is very good at following Einstein,who is well known to be used to shift point atissue due to lack of solid knowledge inmathematics, physics and logic etc. WhenLogic-boy within his theory-family is sick hesends for Mathematics-doctors, if Math-girl isill he consults Physics-doctors, or the like.

It sounds as if Good is arguing with me notabout the truth but books of Einstein’s theory,when he, reveling in his own “standard usage,”said “Xu’s … physical interpretation of the LTdiffers from that in the books” [1a].

Regarding “physical meaning”

“It is necessary to discuss its physicalmeaning or interpretation. The LT is not merelyalgebra”[1a], Good said. “Necessary,” ofcourse! Unfortunately, however, the same Gooddid his utmost to disregard physical meaning of(say) y or y′, so as to need a futile appeal to“beating about the bush” through “paths P andP′“or so. What is it meant by the coordinate(say) y? Is physical meaning of its absolutevalue, |y|, a length? And, what does y/c (or y/u)mean? Before having correct answers to these


questions, it seems only too early for Good tomention the LT’s “physical meaning orinterpretation.”

As is well known, the LT rests on Einstein’sphysical model. As a result, before the physicalmodel is made clear, one cannot have a clearidea about LT’s “physical meaning.” Yet,besides disregarding the physical meaning of yor y′ as shown above, Good did his effort toevade a consideration of Einstein’s physicalmodel, where the speed v is referred to therelative speed between two frames, not merely“the velocity of O′ relative to O” [1a].

Moreover, if the LT “cannot be applied totwo distinct events” [1b] or any event, “eachand every” or not, as Good believes, then itshould be thrown away with need of no reasonmore. If Good still disagrees, he’d better gain aclear idea about coordinate representation andits application.

Concerning the LT’s “self-consistency”

To refute Good’s defense for the “self-consistency,” consider and compare two distinctevents xP and Pr

that lie in the same plain Q

normal to x-x′-axis as shown in Fig.1, whereprimed inertial reference frame (IRF) movesalong the x-x′-axis at a speed v relatively to

unprimed IRF. Clearly, the two events have thesame value of x-coordinate, x1

, but one is in x-

x’-axis and another not, so that

xP : ( x1 ,0,0, xt ); (1)

Pr: ( x1 , y1 , z1 , rt ), (2)

where 1y ≠ 0 and 1z ≠ 0, and xt or rt is time

interval taken by the sphere-light emitted from

origin O (or O′) to reach xP or Pr , as Einstein’s

physical model demands (cf. Fig.1), viz.,

xt = x1 /c; (3)

rt = r/c = 21

21

21 zyx ++ /c. (4)

That is, the sphere-light will reach xP and Prat

different times due to x1 ≠ r:

xt ≠ rt . (5)

Putting ( x1 ,0,0, xt ) and ( x1 , y1 , z1 , rt ) of (1)

and (2) into one of the LT equations, gets x′-coordinate for point xP and Pr

, respectively, as

xx' = γ( x1 − v xt ); (6)

rx' = γ( x1 − v rt ). (7)

That is, the said one of the LT equationsrequires, noting (5),

xx' ≠rx' , (8)

which means that points xP and Pr are no longer

allowed to lie in the same plain Q. This comesinto conflict with Einstein’s physical model,where the primed IRF has a translational motiononly (see Fig.1), so that both points xP

and Pr

should always keep in plain Q.To keep xP and Pr

in plain Q as they should,

(8) has to be replaced by

xx' =rx' , (9)

which in turn, however, will force (6) and (7) to

have the result

xt = rt = t1 . (10)

In this case, (1)-(4) can be re-written as

xP : ( x1 ,0,0, t1 ) ; (11)

Pr: ( x1 , y1 , z1 , t1 ); (12)

t1 = x1 /c; (13)

y y′

x x′O O′

z z′

Px

Pr

v

x1′x1

Q y y′

x x′O O′

z z′

Px

Pr

v

x1

Q

Fig.1(b)(a)


t1 = 21

21

21 zyx ++ /c. (14)

From (13) and (14) one attains

x1 /c = 21

21

21 zyx ++ /c,

which can, deleting the subscripts without lossof generality, be rewritten as

x y z x2 2 2+ + = .

Here, then, is an absurd result, a blatant andexplicit one, unless

y = y’ = z = z’ ≡ 0. (15)Clearly, however, (15) is incompatible with

the two of the LT equationsy = y’ and z = z’

that are not necessarily equal to zero.Undoubtedly, there is inconsistency between

purpose and capability of the LT. The LTpurports to describe any event in the so-called4-D space-time world except space-like region,but in fact it is radically impotent to. Thisinconsistency is incurable, unless giving up thefabricated Einstein’s physical model. Eq.(10)says the sphere-light from the origin should

reach Prand xP at the same time t1 . That is, the

originally supposed spherical wave-frontsuddenly melts into a plane wave-front in plainQ (see Fig.1). How explicitly absurd!

Eq.(15) implies that the relativistic 4-Dspace-time world Einstein attempts to constructsuddenly melts into a poor 1-D filiform-hole!

From the above (or cf., [2]-[5]), few fails tosee that the LT proves itself invalid andmeaningless, physically or mathematically,without help of any assumption beyond the SRTframe, implicit or not, of mine or not.

About Einstein’s light-speed postulate

Einstein’s light-speed postulate, i.e., theprinciple of invariance of the velocity of light(PIVL), is the hallmark of the SRT, andEinstein’s physical model predicates on it. ThePIVL is, however, stated in many ways that arenot necessarily consistent with each other. Mostof those statements known to me are ambiguous

or incorrect, having terribly misled mostphysicists.

Unfortunately, Good’s understanding of thePIVL is not correct either. He made an addressas [1a]: “that c is an invariant is of course oneof Einstein’s assumptions.” Obviously, thestatement that “c is an invariant” can exactly beunderstood as c = constant = 2.99792458×1010

cm, to which none but fools contrived by Goodor Einstein would object. Here, once moreGood proves himself a fresh-discovery maker,dyed-in-the-wool.

About the PIVL, although Einstein stated [6]that the speed of light is independent of thevelocity of the source, he really purports tomean that the speed of light from any source isisotropic in all IRFs. In the case of two IRFs asshown in Fig.2a, where a source at origin O ofunprimed system that at t = 0 coincides originO’ of (moving) primed system emits a sphere-light, and at t ≠ 0 the spherical wave-frontreaches points P, P’, Q and Q’, the PIVLdemands that those points should be in one andthe same spherical wave-front and have

OQ = OP and O’Q’ = O’P’.Clearly, the PIVL concept contains two

contradicting connotations, the “isotropicpropagation” and a single sphere-light. In otherwords, the PIVL requires a single sphere (oflight) to possess two centers O and O’ oreven an infinitude of centers if taking accountof the general case of all IRFs. Here, then, is ablatant and absolute absurdity! The LT, in thefinal analysis, purports to “transform” or turnsuch absurdity into a marvel.

Yet, it is simply impossible! In fact, thewave-front to the left of origin O’ appears atpoint Q’, not coincided with point Q, as shownin Fig.2a. That is, if “isotropic” works, two,instead of one, wave fronts must coexist.

Similarly, in the case when the source is setat the origin of primed system, O’, at t’ ≠ 0 twowave-fronts have to appear respectively at

))( x

c c

v vQ′ Q′ ct′ ct

Fig.2

(a) (b)


points Q’ and Q at the left hand as shown inFig.2b, so that

OQ = OP and O’Q’ = O’P’.Thus two wave fronts irresistibly arise, too,

unless “isotropic” is abandoned.In either case, two connotations implied by

the PIVL are incompatible. That is, either asingle light-sphere holds but “isotropicpropagation” vanishes, or “isotropic” is possiblebut two (even up to an infinitude of) wavefronts emerge. This, “not with empiricalevidence”[1b], suffices to conclude as: It isridiculous to claim that the PIVL has beenconfirmed experimentally.

Pointless debates about the speed of lightwill never be ended among scientificcommunity, until it is recognized that

A statement about the velocity of light hasno meaning, unless it is clear and definite wherethe source of light lies and what the speed iswith respect to;

A distinction should be made between(genuine) electrodynamics problems and“purely optical” phenomena such as Dopplerand star aberration, for only the former involveinterpretation via dynamic process ofelectromagnetic interactions. Thus, none ofelectrodynamics experiments can serve asevidence for the PIVL;

The zero-result of the Michelson-Morley(1887) experiment is nothing but a negation ofvarious “ether” theories (in vacuo), and a proofthat the velocity of light is isotropic and equalto c only with respect to the IFR the source liesin. That is, the source frame is a privileged one.Anyway, the experiment is no confirmation ofthe PIVL;

The de Sitter (1913) binary stars argumenthas a logical gap that escapes an attention ofgenerations of scientists, and is henceunqualified as evidence for the speed of lightindependent of the source’s speed (cf. [2c][4]);

There still are a great deal of wrongfulverdicts and confusion more in the light-speedproblem, to be cleared up or rectified (cf. [3]-[5]);

In fact, the ungrounded PIVL is just the rootcause why the LT is self-inconsistent, and whythe SRT has produced so many “paradoxes”

that have not yet been settled. Good proveshimself failure to grasp the PIVL concept. Thisperhaps is main reason why he finds no way toaccept my irrefutable argument.

Concerning “messy notation”

The SRT is riddled with confusion misled bymessy notation. Here I deal with confusionhidden in the so-called relativistic formula ofspeed addition, which is well known derivedfrom the LT and has a form as

u + w = 21 /

++u w

uw c . (16a)

Shifting the denominator in (16a) to the left-hand directly yields

(u + w)(1 + uw/ 2c ) = u + w, viz.,

u + w = (u + w)(1 + uw/ 2c ) (16b)

that conflicts with (16a). Then, which is therelativistic formula Einstein purports, (16a) or(16b)? Obviously, (16a) is an expression withserious confusion due to messy notation, andhence can never hold.

To avoid such confusion, it is necessary touse (say) symbol ⊕ and ∅ to denote relativisticplus and minus, to distinguish betweenrelativistic and ordinary addition. Then, (16a)should be written as

u ⊕ w = 21 /

++u w

uw c . (17)

From (17) one can arrive atc ⊕ v = c ∅ v = c ⊕ c = … ≡ c, (18)

instead ofc + v = c − v = c + c = … ≡ c. (19)

Since the SRT rejects the Galileantransformation, any form in Galilean speed-addition is not allowed to appear in anyrelativistic formula except for (17) only. Inother words, all such forms as (c + v) or (c − v)appeared within the SRT should absolutely bereplaced by (c ⊕ v) or (c ∅ v). Then, if doingso, all relativistic formulas are doomed tovanish. For example, the relativistic Dopplerformula for the source receding from theobserver, should be written asν = ν′[(1 ∅ v/c)/(1 ⊕ v/c) 1/ 2] = ν′[(c ∅ v)/(c ⊕

v) 1/ 2] ,

which will, in view of (18), giveν = ν′[c/ c 1/ 2] = ν′ (20)


instead ofν = ν′[(1 − v/c)/(1 + v/c) 1/ 2] .

Thus, clearly, it is Einstein and his followers inmore or less degree including Good, instead ofme, that were “misled by … messy notation“[1b].

“Life is short”[1a]. Since 1905 Einstein’stheory has been ingurgitating thousands uponthousands lives of physicists and others.Relativists make a perfect fetish of it and defendit, while dissidents devote their lives to fight it.

It is time to end such a catastrophic situationin scientific history of mankind. Farewell, theSRT together with the LT! Now that Good hasspent so much energy and time on defending thepoor LT in past [1][7], he is hoped to spare a bittime more for re-recognizing it, and havesomewhat a progress.

References

I.J. Good, Apeiron, (a) 7(1-2) 2000, pp119-120, and(b) cf., every issue (or binary-issues) of from 4(4),1997 to 6(3-4) 1999.

Xu Shaozhi, (a) Apeiron, 7(1-2) 2000, pp120-123; (b)cf., Apeiron, 3(2-3), 1996, p86; and every issue(or binary-issues) of from 4(4), 1997 to 6(3-4),1999; (c) Hadronic Journal Supplement 13, 1998,pp147-172.

Xu Shaozhi and Xu Xiangqun, GalileanElectrodynamics, 3(1) 1992, pp5-8; 3(3) 1992,p60; (b) Physics Essays, 9(3) 1996, pp380-385.

Xu Shaozhi, Investigation of Invariance Problem inthe Special Relativity, Chin. J. Sust. Engin.Electron. (Chin. edi.), 16(5) 1994, pp64-77.

Xu Shaozhi and Xu Xiangqun, Apeiron, 1(16), 1993,pp8-11; 1(19) 1994, pp34-35 and pp36-37; 2(2)1995, p48; 2(4) 1995, pp122-123.

A. Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of MovingBodies, in The Principle of Relativity, ed. A.Sommerfeld, Methuen, London, 1923.

I.J. Good, Physics Essays, 10(2) 1997, pp327-333;10(3) 1997, pp454-465.

Xu ShaozhiP.O. Box 3913, Beijing100854, P.R.of China

[email protected]

Closing Argument with Xu: aPostscript

When I wrote my “closing argument” (Ref.1), I intended to abandon my debate with Xu,but I don’t want people to think I’m bonkers.

On page 121, column i, of Ref. 2, Xu says that,in Ref. 3, p. 144, col. ii, I denied that ′y is a

length and he called that a funny mistake. Ofcourse ′y is a length. I said it refers, in theprimed system, to the same event to which y

refers in the unprimed system. I used the wordsrefers to not represents. If someone says “bigfeet” referred to a penguin he doesn’t mean that“big feet” represents a penguin unless he isusing “big feet” as a nickname like“Goldilocks.” My usage, combined with thecontext, would have made my meaning clear toEnglish-speaking readers. Linguisticmisunderstandings can have unfortunaterepercussions.

Coming back again to the notorious STONE-EGGS argument, I think Xu should have ittranslated into proper English. As far as I cansee at present he is saying that if stones andeggs satisfy the Lorentz equations then they (thestones and eggs) satisfy the invariance equation(the equality of “intervals”). The flaw is thatthey don’t so they don’t.

In Ref. 2, p. 121, Xu offers a new argument.In it he mentions a Fig. 1 but it was not printedso, in fairness to Xu, I will postpone myresponse although I think I know what it wouldbe. It is possible, however, that someone elsewill respond first and save me the trouble.

References

I.J. Good, Apeiron 7(1-2), 119-120 (2000).

Xu Shaozhi, Apeiron 7(1-2), 120-123 (2000).

I.J. Good Apeiron 6(1-2), 144-146 (1999).

I.J. GoodDepartment of Statistics, Virginia Tech

Blacksburg, VA 24061-0439, U.S.A.

A response to Chappell’s lastword

Chappell (Apeiron 6, 251-253, 1999; inshort 6, 251) correctly implies that the last wordon record, on a given topic, is often given toomuch weight. This is especially true of thosereaders who want to agree with the ‘last word’.But in our debate he has had two shots to myone, so I will now even the score. Any fairreader who is concerned with our debate should


read not just the latest arguments but therelevant earlier ones as well, especially 5, 242.In the present response I will on the wholerestrict my attention to Chappell’s insults, ratherthan to technical matters, until I have been ableto study Chappell’s references, and until one ofmy papers submitted to another journal hasbeen accepted.

For me or my arguments, Chappell uses thefollowing hyperbolic descriptions:‘preposterous’; ‘severe insult’; ‘arrogance’;‘dreary’ [logic makes you sleepy when it refuteswhat you want to believe]; ‘haughty’;‘contemptible’ [as if I wasn’t saying what Imeant, — it would have been sufficient to haveclaimed that I had misunderstood him. Note thata good definition of arrogance is the expressionof contempt. An example of an anonymousarrogant statement is “Half-baked ideas ofpeople are better than ideas of half-bakedpeople”.]; ‘overzealous’; ‘so anxious to attack’[incorrect reasoning should be attacked];‘concoctions and accusations’ [I don’t concoctanything in technical discussions, but of courseI am not infallible]; ‘strange assumption’; ‘sotypical’; ‘carelessly assumes’, ‘look in themirror Dr. Good. Study your own words morecarefully’. I again beseech the reader to look at5, 242.

Thirteen insults in two pages must be closeto a record. “The lady doth protest too much,methinks”. Thirteen eyes for an eye? Some ofmy best friends insult me but, to parodyChurchill’s remark about the pilots in the Battleof Britain, seldom have so many insults beenhurled in so few words. This kind of‘dissentery’ is apt to provoke dysentery.

It would take too much spacetime (joke) toreply to all of Chappell’s diatribe. I havealready apologized (5, p. 243, col. ii, first para.)for describing some dissidents as ‘flat-earthers’.Do I have to apologize repeatedly? I think Icopied this expression ‘flat-earther’ fromanother writer who probably had in mind thosewho don’t believe in curved spacetime. Theanalogy is strengthened by the fact that worldalso means universe. But my efforts concern theself-consistency of KSTR, not that of theGeneral Theory of Relativity.

Chappell (6, p. 251i) thinks that my frequentappeals to my adversaries to ‘admit errors’ isarrogant. I consider it merely blunt. I will nowemphasize that everybody, not just dissidents,should confess to their errors and shouldacknowledge the people, if any, who havepointed out those errors. I have set a goodexample in Good (1999), and also in at leasttwo places concerning non-physics topics. (Inthe physics example, the error is easilycorrected.) Dingle (1972, 42-46) consideredthat it was a ‘moral issue’ for members of theestablishment to admit error. What’s moral forthe goose is moral for the gander. DoesChappell think that Dissident Dingle wasarrogant?

Dissident Campbell (4, p. 132, col. iii) is‘absolutely certain’ of the LT and is thereforeequally certain that all arguments to thecontrary, past, present, or future, includingevery one of those of Dissident Xu Shaozhi, arefallacious; but Xu S. [6, 249] heads hisarguments to the contrary with the description“Sciences Confronting a Revolution”. Neitherof them have said explicitly that the other iswrong. Xu Shaozhi hasn’t withdrawn hiscomment (4, p. 86i) “It cannot be said too oftenthat … Campbell’s disproof [of the LT] is asingenious, direct and clear, succinct andeffective as we have ever seen” [my italics]. Theargument of Campbell’s was indeedinconsistent with the LT and Campbell calledhis argument obvious. When I questioned itsobviousness, Campbell replied that things areobvious only according to one’s ability.

Perhaps it is time to stop casting asparagusand other vegetables at each other. (There aregentlemanly discussants on both sides.) Weshould try to explain, with the utmost lucidity,why various arguments are right or wrong orpartly wrong, or too vague (“not even wrong”),whether those arguments are our own or not.Can anyone cite places where my opponentsJ.O. Campbell, J.E. Chappell, Jr., H. Dingle, G.Galeczki, I. McCausland, S. Mooney, P.F.Ofner, Xu Shaozhi, L. Szego, G. Walton, XuXiengun have admitted error in relation toKSTR? I know of an admission by T.E. PhippsJr. (4, 128). He and Galeczki are formidable


dissidents, and deserve much respect. But, as faras I know, Galeczki hasn’t yet confessed to anerror that I pointed out in Good (1995 and1997).

References

Dingle, H. (1972). Science at the Crossroads(London: Martin Brian & O’Keefe).

Good, I.J. (1995). Intl. J. Theor. Physics 34, 779-799.

Good, I.J. (1997). Physics Essays 10, 327-333.

Good, I.J. (1999). Physics Essays 12, p. 190.

I.J. Good

Personal Motives and Remarksin Scientific Debate: I.J. Goodvs. Objective Time

I agree with editor Roy Keys that space inscientific journals is best devoted to scienceitself, and that personal remarks, insults, andquarrels tend to detract from the progress ofscience. Yet with the great proliferation ofsociological studies of science that followedupon Thomas Kuhn’s enormously influentialThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions(1962)—the most crucial idea in which was thatscientific paradigms are often chosen for non-scientific motives that may not be consistentwith data from nature—it has became obviousthat science is very much a cultural andpersonal endeavor, in which science per se isoften very difficult to separate from the humanelement.

In line with Kuhn’s thought, themultidisciplinary critical movement known associol or cultural constructivism has clearlydemonstrated, despite straying off base in someinstances, that what scientists promote asobjective truth often reflects more of thecultural, social, or personal biases of thescientists, than of what rationally interpreteddata from external nature requires. TheEdinburgh school of history of science has evenargued that scientists strongly tend to endorsethose ideas that best enhance their own powerstructure. Underlying such analyses is the veryimportant and well supported claim, advancedfrequently by social scientists, once in a whileby life scientists, and yet very rarely by physical

sefentists—beguiled as they are by thesupposition that they more than any otherscholars deal in precisely computedcertainties—that “all facts are theory-laden:”i.e., that a meaning cannot be attached to anyempirical data without adopting a particulartheoretical viewpoint in the interpretation ofsaid data.

To illustrate this point, take the case ofrelativistic “time dilation.” Several kinds of20th-century experiments have shown thatvarious kinds of clocks will change their rateswhen the forces impressed upon them vary (andmuch earlier, the same was shown to hold forpendulum clocks). Einstein was credited withan ingenious “leap of faith” in claiming that insuch cases, not merely the rate of the clock buteven that of time itself is varying. Soon nearlyall physicists, enthused over the concept thatthey could transcend common sense and showthat nature does behave in what previously werejudged irrational ways, joyously embraced andpromoted the concept of “time dilation.” Yet tothis day there has been not one single scientificdemonstration, nor even a claim of any, thatwhat the “hands” of a clock do is also what timeitself does—and I suspect there never can beany. The onlyy basis far such a claim remains aphilosophical one: the acceptance of the hyper-operationalist view that there is nothing to timeitself except what the clock reveals. Thisimplies the highly illogical claim that ameasuring device has been built to meausureonly itself; but then, modern physicists havenever shown much respect for logic, imaginingit is inferior to what they call “science.”

In Feb. 2000, as spokesman for a delegationof four Natural Philosophy Alliance members, Imade this same argument verbally to a group ofabout 16 establishment physicists holding theplanning meeting for the Physics Section of theAmerican Association for the Advancement ofScience. At the same time, carefully phrasingmy presentation to be as diplomatic as possible,I undermined two other commonly advancedsupports for special relativity (SR), by pointingout that (1) the 1887 Michelson-Morleyexperiment can be interpreted in at least fivedifferent ways—or “four reasonable ways, plus


the SR way,” as I quickly rephrased it—and that(2) working particle accelerators have been builtwihout any recourse to SR in their design (Ithas often been .claimed that they would notwork if SR were not true). Not a single word ofprotest or debate was voiced by these evidentlydumbfounded physicists, whose two mainleaders shook my hand as the meeting endedsoon thereafter. Yet the proposal I soonthereafter submitted for an NPA symposium atthe 2001 meeting was curtly rejected—for thefifth time since 1995, again without a singlecomment on the substance of the ideas weoffered. At least one referee, as revealed in whathe wrote, had been present at this PhysicsSection meeting.

All this shows that it is not enough to keepone’s attention focused on science (andphilosophy), and to advance sound arguments,if those in power hold personal biases that makethem prefer to suppress such arguments. Thepersonal element in scientific debate, especiallywhere a challenge to a widely-held paradigm isinvolved, tends to overwhelm any motive ofkeeping the debate focused on science itself.Kuhn was correct to claim that defenders of theprevailing paradigm usually do all they can tokeep it from being overthrown, and that evenmore than church, state, or any otherconstituency, scientists-in-power constitute theharshest opposition to fundamentally new ideas,and to “the advancement of science”—a phraseironically embedded in the very name of theAAAS.

Turning now to the comparatively minorirritant represented by I.J. Good (Apeiron, inthis issue and earlier), let me note that he doesnot, as he claims, have to answer me once morein order to even up the number of exchanges.My first criticism of him was in reply to a greatnumber of previous attacks by him against theideas of several critics of modern physics, aIl ofwhom happened to be members of our NPA.

Secondly, Good seems to have a lot oftrouble distinguishing between a criticism andan insult. Criticisms abound in scientificliterature; they are integral to the advancementof knowledge. As the dictionary reveals, theybecome insults only when they involve

insolence and rudeness. Although all criticismsof a theory so wholly erroneous as is SR mayappear to be insults to those who deeply revereit—as so many do—the “insults” Good accusesme of are basically no more than such criticisms as are proper in scholarly debate; theyare motivated not by personal hostility, but by asincere wish to determine the truth, and in thiscase to defend the unjustly accused, Further,some remarks he cites—e.g., “so typical”—areso mild as to be non-insulting by any standard.

Evidently I need to repeat a point I made inmy last communication (Apeiron, vol. 6 no. 3-4,July-Oct. 1999, pp. 251-53), which Goodclearly has not yet understood: a major reasonmy remarks are not insults is that it is notinsolent or rude to point out the objective factthat someone else has been rude—any morethan to make the objective comment that a manis fat means that the commentator is fat.

Priority in the causal chain also helps todetermine just who is guilty, or most guilty, ofbeing insulting. Long before I entered thedebate, Good was levelling real insults againstcritics of SR, such as calling them “flat-earthers.” He now says he has apologiaed forthis; yet I have already shown that he didnothing of the sort, but instead only lamely triedto characterize his obvious insults as non-insulting.

The harshest word Good cites from my textis “contemptible.” Yes, I used this word, inconjunction with the words “arrogance” and“haughty,” to describe his accusation, madewithout the slightest semblance of proof, thatsome of us dissidents are intellectuallydishonest. All three af these words are worthreemphasizing, and it might be appropriate toadd still more adjectives, such as “libelous,” toprovide a fully adequate objective descriptionof this chronologïcally prior attack againsthonest scholars.

What stands out most clearly in Good’s latesttext is that at this point he has been sooverwhelmed with the personal element in thedebate that he refrains entirely from dealingwith scientific or philosophical issues—hardly aconstructive approach, and not necessary evenwhen the personal element is heavily involved.


He claims that he must delay dealing withtechnical matters until he can explore certainreferences new to him. Yet my lastcommunication concentrated mainly on atechnical topic omnipresent in the literature,and by Good’s own admission already familiarto him: Einstein’s celebrated thoughtexperiment that purports to prove thatsimultaneity is relative to motion.

If Good would successfully grasp myargument (a reformulation of that first advancedin 1962 by Melbourne Evans), he would realizethat Einstein’s claim is crucially flawed not onlyby disagreement with the second postulate ofhis own SR, but even beyond this, by violationof the most fundamental principle of logic: thelaw of non-contradiction. That so manyphysicists and others have endorsed andpromoted this erroneous argument for so longboggles the mind, and illustrates once again thatclear facts can easily be denied if the reader’scultural, social, or personal biases—in this case,evidently denial of the importance and validityof logic—are strong enough to swamp them out.Only what is in the minds of SR supporters, notwhat is in nature ot logic, argues against theobjective fact that time flows evenlyeverywhere.

His comment on my term “dreary” revealsthat Good imagines that to argue in favor of SRis to promote “logic,” which “refutes” the ideasof us dissidents. “Logic?” Hardly so. Instead SRis the very apotheosis of illogic, aimed not onlyagainst the sound physics of Newton, but alsoagainst the most important insight of ancientGreek scholarship in general: the idea thatnatural processes are rational processes, whichcan be understood rationally in the course ofbuilding an objective picture of the universe.

Good’s concluding remarks about howdissidents striving for the best alternatives to SRoften disagree with each other are entirelyirrelevant to the issues I have raised. Of coursewe dissidents often disagree, and this situationreflects the very healthy degree of toleranceprevailing in our movement—never betterdisplayed than at the international conference ofthe Natural Philosophy Alliance in Storrs,Connecticut this past June 5-9, at which 52

attending auhors from 10 different nations madeimportant steps towards constructing the realand objective physics and cosmology of the newmillenium (Good was invited, but remainedaloof). All this stands in stark contrast to theconformity strictly enforced within theestablishment whenever challenges to their mvstfundamental ideas is involved. I too disagreewith some of the dissidents Good disagreeswith, and admit that a few of them are ratherweak thinkers. But of course I would nevercriticize themes harshly as he has, or for themotives he holds. I believe they all deserveconsiderable praise, at least for realizing thatsomething is drastically wrong in contemporaryphysics and cosmology—not least the extremeintolerance of dissent.

John E. Chappell, Jr.P.O. Box 14014

San Luis Obispo, CA 93406, USA

ERRATA

Vol. 6, No. 1-2

Cover and contents: The article by Dr.Jesudason was incorrectly identified. Thecorrect title is “Time’s Arrow, Detail Balance,Onsager Reciprocity and MechanicalReversibility: II. ThermodynamicalIllustrations”Page 59, line above eq. (18): FimUi/dt shouldread Fi=mUi/dtPage 61, Ref. [19]: before the second Idem,[20] has been omitted.

Vol. 6, No. 3-4

Page 199, line 3 after eq. (3): should read “…that φ is the time component…” “ : line before Example: “i.e.” should read“cf.”Page 243, left column, lines after eqs. (3) and(4): some anomalous marks.Page 254, left column, line 3 of secondparagraph after “Space is 3-dimensional’2”:“flat’space’” should read “that ‘space’.”


Vol. 7, No. 1-2

Page 98 line 7, equation (6.5): should read

“2

22 2

11 sin 1 cos

= + − − +

ss

c vw c i v i

n c n.”

Page 101 line 21, equation (9.5): should read

“ 12

' ' ''

= + ∆

dl c T c

c.”

Page 102 line 2, equation: should read

“ 21'

8=l at , where t is the pulse duration

divided by frequency.”

Corrigendum

In his reply to a critical article by G. Hunter inApeiron Vol. 7 (1-2), M.W. Evans stated (p. 30)that Dr. Hunter “does not cite the replies [12]that clear up the confusion in [11].” Reference[11] is a publication by Dr. Hunter in Chem.Phys. 242, 331 (1999). Reference [12], thereply by Dr. Evans to reference [11], was inpress at Physica Scripta at the time the issue ofApeiron appeared. This reply, therefore, couldnot have been cited by Dr. Hunter. Although apreprint of the reply was available on anInternet website maintained by the U.S.Department of Energy from June 1999 onwards,it cannot be assumed that Dr. Hunter was awareof the existence of this preprint.

Dr. Evans further writes that “In ref. [11]Hunter adopts the same method of citingcriticisms, but not citing replies.” While Dr.Evans is technically correct in pointing outlacunae in the citation of replies to criticismsreferenced by Dr. Hunter in his two

publications, it is preferable for authors to avoidsuch statements in scientific debate. In future,every effort will be made by the editors toprevent the recurrence of such incidents, inparticular by ensuring that replies to criticismsare subjected to the same scrutiny as the criticalarticles themselves.

The Publisher

Change of Format

Effective in 2001, Apeiron will cease to appearin a paper format, and will be available onlineonly via the Internet at http://redshift.vif.comwithout charge to individuals. The @ Issue(correspondence) section of the journal will bediscontinued, while submitted manuscripts willbe posted to an “Under Review” area. Thechange of format will allow greater frequency ofpublication, and is to be accompanied by newrequirements for authors. Henceforth, allmanuscripts shall be submitted by electronicmail or on diskette in Microsoft Word format.Manuscripts should be prepared using thedocument template available from Apeiron orManuscript Authoring Toolkit available fromthe American Institute of Physicshttp://www.aip.org/pubservs/compuscript.html.All mathematical expressions must be properlycreated and formatted using either the MicrosoftEquation module or the Mathtype program.Authors wishing to obtain further informationabout preparing manuscripts may send anenquiry to [email protected].

The Publisher

@ I S S U E

Documents