Al sedert 2003 toen het boek The Quantum Theory of Gravitation van Vasily Yanchilin verscheen is bekend dat de algemene relativiteitstheorie niet houdbaar is. De russiche wetenschapper geeft daarvoor verscheiden argumenten die niet weersproken zijn of kunnen worden. Maar hoe zit het dan met de atoomklokken die duidelijk tragere tijd op Aarde dan in satelieten aanwijzen? Hieronder nog eens uitleg waar de fout van interpretatie schuilt. Dit nagaan is ook voer voor wiskundigen en filosofen, want de logica moet toch zegevieren?!
ticking here and there
how to read atomic clocks
When accepting that near mass the unit of length shrinks it will be understood that a distance of 300.000 km varies according where situated in the universe.
NIST claims to have a clock precise to a second in many billion years, but of course this must be precise to less of a billionth in one second since things are not frozen. If the speed of light is taken constant then seen from empty space the bridging process of 300.000 km near Earth takes less time than the duration of a second far away. The general theory of relativity does not correspond with the fast developments in the very young very concentrated universe. Constancy of the speed of light is a hypothesis without physical confirmation. By the way one should not say that the universe originated from a point because a point is a mathematical concept and does not exist in physics because it has no dimensions. Research is needed on giant masses, with a constructed photograph called enormous black holes, whether these might be in a state comparable with dawn of the universe.
Measurements with atomic clocks show that these instruments run slower on Earth than in satelites, but a mistake in interpretation is made. What is read on the lower clock is a number smaller than on the upper clock, but if in satelites, thus not near the Earth mass, a second is slower according the foregoing remarks on bridging a distance then to the second down should be added the difference with the second at the upper clock for correct representation. Or reading the number of ticks down should be in a period equal tot the duration of the second at the upper clock. That number thus increases. Note that ticking is influenced by a small change of processes inside the atom when the unit of distance shrinks, but it is not considered here further, although it may have a retarding effect in ticking due tot required more energy for electrons to change positions.
Counting the number of ticks of atomic clocks at the foot and on top of a tower during a few weeks is what Vasily Yanchilin proposes in his publications, accessible via his site top-formula.net. At the beach and in the Tenerife observatory a few days may be sufficient. The outcome must be in agreement with the principle of least action, which makes a photon follow a path not nearest to mass but at a distance where its "steps are biggest, its oscillations have lowest frequency, and least of these are required".
Philosophers should not well paid ly back but check and eventually present a more esasily comprehensible version of this letter. Adding a summary in another way: Seconds near mass and in empty space have different duration. To compare readings of atomic clocks on Earth and far away a period of same duration has to be taken. If Einstein were right then the clock in satelites would run even faster, producing extra ticks in a period measured on Earth. But such is a bit difficult to register for interpretation since the upper clock is speedier already than the one on Earth. So as explained reckoning with the duration of seconds in satelites may be preferred when the experiment with ticks counting devices is performed.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten