Frequently Asked Questions
Flat Universe, No Space
Contraction, No Time Dilation
Series #4 Flat Universe - and - Common sense
Question - (4-A)
you explain in words, what is the nature of the changes that have been
introduced by Einstein, as a consequence of the theory of General
Theory of Relativity because he wanted to
explain the experimental data existing at that time. Theories existing
at his time were not coherent. Einstein's suggested that space and time
are distorted. His equations imply that "time" is another dimension
similar to the coordinates X, Y and Z describing a classical volume of
space. According to Einstein, one could transform space into time, and
time into space, just as we change of coordinate when we turn left or
right or move up or down.
This equation means that we have
decided that "Time" is identical to "Space". This is a mathematical
postulate. However, even if we have decided mathematically that it is
so, there is no guarantee that it is what really exists in Nature.
Nature can have decided otherwise. Our mathematical definition
is therefore mathematically correct but can be physically wrong.
width, depth and height. With these
three dimensions, all volume of space is fully considered without
leaving any room for anything else. When we fill a bottle with a
liquid, the volume of the liquid increases freely at the third power
(and not the fourth) of the linear dimension of the bottle which
corresponds to three dimensions.
this three-dimensional volume of matter keeps
existing as a function of time. However, the properties of time are
"physically" different from the properties of space. Mathematically, in
Einstein's theory, the mathematical sign in front of the parameter
"time" (squared) is not the same as for space. It is negative. Finally,
common sense shows that the physical meaning of time is different from
the physical meaning of space. We must not be ashamed of using "common
sense" in modern science.
reach of mathematical models. These two
fields are fundamentally different although they work together as
counterparts. These two fields do not deal with the same fundamental
principles. No experimental or observational apparatuses are necessary
to do mathematics. However, observations or experimentation are
absolutely necessary in physics.
Question - (4-B)
used Newton's method. All physical
phenomena could be explained with a mechanical model. That model was
using diagrams to give clear illustrations and mechanisms whose
components were functioning using plain logic. However, in the 20th
century physics, "conventional logic" is no longer acceptable among the
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS of relativity and quantum mechanics. It is clearly
rejected. Common sense is no longer considered as a valid argument,
when explanations are looked for. Why should "common sense" be banned
in an argumentation in favor or against a physical model?
recognized that modern physics uses descriptions that
cannot be represented physically. It has been said several times that
nobody can understand relativity. This is not surprising since the
physical interpretation of modern physics is not compatible with
conventional logic and common sense. Only the internal mathematical
century, the return to logic and common sense in Newton's physics gave
an agreeable relax, following the mediaeval times when the alchemists
did not bother to verify the coherence or the cause of the phenomenon
observed. The scientific philosophy of the 20th
century returned to the beliefs of the mediaeval age when alchemy was
expanding. Conventional logic applied to physics, which has been used
previously in science at different epochs by Aristotle, Galileo, Newton
has been abandoned again in the twentieth century.
gross error (and much pride) to claim that it has
been demonstrated that no realistic physical model
can exist to describe Nature. This return to the denial of common sense
is the most striking characteristic of modern physics (quantum physics
and relativity) of the 20th century. It is confounding to discover that the 20th
century science is applying the same occult principles in describing
the basic principles of relativity (neither mass-energy nor momentum
conservation) and quantum mechanics (with the Copenhagen
interpretation). It took centuries of laborious work before achieving a
logical level of fundamental understanding from which finally, Newton
established logical arguments to explain physics.
establishment does not allow to formulate
any logical objection against the physical bases of relativity. That
opinion is automatically rejected. One must then admit that Einstein's
theory of relativity brings the twentieth century back to the
mystifying power of occult sciences of the mediaeval ages. The most
disconcerting observation is that, even famous "scientists" (like
Richard Feynman) are proud (reference to Feynman in: "Absurdities in Modern
Physics: A Solution" , chapter one)
of having gone back to these primitive interpretations, claiming
blatantly: "So I hope you can accept Nature as she is - absurd."
common sense, (mass-energy conservation) we
are led to abandon Einstein hypotheses? Is the universe simply
mathematically flat? Therefore, all physical phenomena can be explained
without space contraction and time dilation?
experiments and observations can be explained
without Einstein's hypotheses. Einstein's hypotheses are useless. There
are only three dimensions in space. All matter in the universe evolves
in time, just as explained by Newton. Then, we can say that the
universe is mathematically flat.
Einstein defines "Time" as what is shown on clocks.
We have seen in the book: Einstein's
Classical Mecanics (chapter two)
that, due to mass-energy conservation, when potential or kinetic
energies are absorbed by the particles (electrons) of the atoms, there
is a real physical change of clock rate. Consequently, it is not
acceptable to believe that "Time" really changes its rate, just because
clocks run at a different rate. Using Newton's mechanics with the help
of the de Broglie wavelengths of matter, we must examine all physics
effects that can be explained realistically.
that all variations of clock rate and change
of lengths (of rods) are calculated using the de Broglie relationship.
Since this mechanism could be calculated around 1920 using quantum
mechanics, and also that no new hypothesis is required, why does this
explanation, leading to a change of physical length, not recognized
that this calculation, giving a natural
explanation (to a change of clock rate and the change of length of
matter), has not been done previously. Unfortunately, at the beginning
of this century, it seems that physicists have given up hope of finding
a logical realistic explanation. Einstein's relativity was accepted too
rapidly. As mentioned by Popper, it was claimed (and still is)
is a final theory, and that physics has reached the end of the
road! (see: Absurdities
acute need for Einstein to suggest a physical
mechanism to explain his predicted "space contraction" and "time
dilation". All sorts of bizarre explanations were suggested. Einstein
could not find any physical mechanism explaining how space could
dilate. Finally, it was recognized that no possible explanation
was compatible with common sense. Common sense was then no
longer accepted in argumentation. This became a dogma.
was readily available to everyone.
It is important to notice that the de Broglie mechanism is quite
natural and leads naturally to length contraction (and dilation)
without any new hypothesis. Even more, all the mathematics of quantum
mechanics would be unsuccessful if the de Broglie's mechanism is
incorrect. De Broglie's model and quantum mechanics render Einstein's
hypotheses useless and superfluous. The recognized correctness of the
predictions given by the mathematics of quantum mechanics must be
considered as a excellent proof of the validity of a reality
of physical contraction and dilation of matter.
Question - (4-E)
that we must simply apply Newton's physics
everywhere using proper units to calculate local phenomena?
to be a fundamental law of Nature. We have seen
above that in any frame of reference, the application of Newton's laws
always leads to a correct answer. It is so, because we have taken into
account that the units are changing when we change frame. Consequently,
we see now that Newton's physics is invariant independently of the
frame where we are located. It is quite natural to use the units
existing at the place where the phenomenon takes place.
calculate what happens inside an external
frame, we must calculate the real number of ALL the units existing in
that other frame, before using Newton's physics. Then, after Newton's
physics has been applied, the number of proper units calculated in the
external frame can be transformed into the units of our frame. When
using physical relationships, (Newton's equations) proper values must
always be used. This leads to logical and correct predictions.
Question - (4-F)
cannot change because an observer (alone) is
located in a different frame. Therefore it seems that a so called
"relativistic" phenomenon should be observable on both the initial and
the final frame. For example, the advance of the perihelion of Mercury
must also be observable by an observer located on Mercury. Is this true?
We know that there is an advance of the perihelion
of the orbit of Mercury around the Sun. This means that the direction
of the axis of the ellipse rotates slowly around the Sun. Also, this
means that when the direction of the axis of the ellipse is pointing in
the direction of a given star at one time, the rotation of the axis of
the ellipse is such that the axis will no longer point exactly in the
same direction (toward the same star) after a rotation of Mercury
around the Sun. This is true whether we are stand on Mercury, on Earth
or anywhere in the universe. This is a real physical phenomena.
expressed using different units. One can
calculate the number of units (seconds) measured on another frame,
using the transformations obtained by the application of the principle
of mass-energy conservation.
New Choice of Questions
Return to top of
Go to: Previous
Series of Questions
Go to: Next Series of
Return to list of
Return to list of