Gyula Szász

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 10 posts - 136 through 145 (of 145 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #421
    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Bill: And please let me add….

    “I’m thinking that Einstein used the infinite sum
    identity for the Lorentz factor because it’s so
    easy to differentiate but places the first power
    of the gravitational mass on every term.

    But not so for infinite product identities for
    the Lorentz factor which are difficult to differentiate
    but only need the gravitational mass to appear
    in its first factor and no others.

    And I am speculating that it is the influence of the
    choice of treatments that accounts for properties
    that don’t commute. An ambition which I have not
    succeeded at yet.”

    No, Einstein did not understand what mass is. He threw away the gravitational masses.
    The gravitational mass is in the sense invariant that the gravitational charges are invariant.
    And the gravitational charges are connected by a factor g =(G4π)^1/2 with the universal gravitational constant G to the gravitational masses.
    The Lorentz factor is not a correct factor to describe “relativistic masses”.

    During one could consider the gravitational mass as “invariant mass” within the above consideration, the “relativistic inertial mass” comes out of the correct equation of particles motion.
    Gyula

    in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #411
    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Dear Bill,
    The assumption of energy conservation cannot be applied for physical systems because all physical systems are open (non-closed) systems. Furthermore, all interactions are non-conservative interactions (the particles radiate and lost energy). Due to radiations, neither the positions, nor the velocities of particles are exactly known at a fixed time. Therefore, the particles must be described with probability densities. Since the interactions propagate with c, the Minkowski space has to be used for the description of space-time processes. These features are not built in the fundaments of physics.
    What is about conservation laws? The only remaining law is the conservation of particle numbers. The particle number conservations of the elementary particles are connected to charge conservations. The elementary charges are on one side the physical properties of elementary particles, on the other side they cause the non-conservative, continuous interactions which propagate with c.
    The experimentally observed stable elementary particles are the electrons (e), the positrons (p), the protons (P) and the eltons (E). I have labeled the “antiproton” as elton. The four kinds of elementary particles carry two kinds of conserved elementary charges, the elementary electric charges qi ={±e} and the elementary gravitational charges gi = {±g ∙mi}. The elementary gravitational charges can be expressed with the elementary masses me and mP and with the specific gravitational charge g whereby the connection between g and the universal gravitations constant G is g = + (G∙4∙π)^1/2. The gravitation is not universal mass attraction and the gravitation is also not caused by the deformation of space-time around masses. However, the Universality of Free Fall (UFF) is violated.
    The energetic physics which use the energy conservation and which is developed in the 20th century is not suitable to describe correctly physical processes. Instead of the energetic physics, the atomistic physics, built on four kinds of stable particles, must be used in physics.
    Final remark: Not physical theories have to say what Nature is, but Nature requires the correct and comprehensive physical descriptions.
    Sincerely,
    Gyula

    in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #410
    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Dear Gyula,

    Here is the hastily prepared response that I wish
    to post to Gravitations:

    “Ich weiß nicht sicher”, but my identity seems to
    separate the “rest mass” (?gravitational mass?)
    from its motion part; a hopeful but certainly
    uncertain conclusion to draw. But nonetheless
    attractive path to investigate.

    If “covariance” is the wrong concept to attribute
    to my infinite product of the ratios of polynomial
    conjugates identity, then I am fine with calling it
    “The XS” for now. But the “XS” serves to modify
    the Pythagorean addition of vectors, so I’m
    inclined to speculate that it is “ad hoc”, the
    special relativistic part.of the Lorentz factor.

    Got any suggestions as to what we might call
    that XS special relativistic part? It looks
    “covariant” to me, but its being certainly
    hypothetical, and its being a never before seen
    mathematical object, folks who I shown it to
    seem to universally suggest that it is a pure
    mathematical object having no applicability at
    all. When I discussed my interpretation with
    “mentors” on the SciAmPhysicsForum, I ended
    up being “banned for life”, for teaching crack-
    pottery. 🙁

    Sincerely,
    Bill Eshleman

    About03

    in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #408
    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    The correct written formula for the Lagrange density you can find on this website under Theory in “Atomistic Theory of Matter: Stable Particles and a Unified Field” as Eq. (37).

    in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #407
    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    “The relativistic expressions for E and p obey the relativistic energy–momentum relation:

    E^2 – (pc)^2 =(mc^2)^2

    where the m is the rest mass, or the invariant mass for systems, and E is the total energy”

    First of all, is the “invariant rest mass” the rest inertial mass or the gravitational mass for the system? These are generally different. And what is the “total energy”? Furthermore, the energy is not conserved. This equation is an illegal oversimplification and has no relevance in physics. I’m wondering why such an equation is used in academic physics. The energy is not connected with the impulse p according this equation with the mass. Furthermore, the conservation of energy is unable to determine the equation of motions of particles. The whole definition of the theory of special relativity (1905, Einstein) is only a catchphrase and is scientifically without value.

    If one would describe the four elementary particles, i=e,p,P,E, without radiation field and without interaction to the field, one would have the expression for the Lagrange density

    L(particles)(x) = ∑ (i=e,p,P,E ) mi ⋅ c ⋅ ∂ ν ji(n) ν (x)

    with ji(n) ν (x) = ( c ρi(n) (x), ji(n) (x) ) the particle number probability density and the particle numbers are conserved. Here are the principle uncertainty for the determination of the positions and velocities of particles contained. The integration about finite regions of Minkowski space Ω gives the action integral for the derivation of the equation of motions of the particles, however the subsidiary condition of particle number conservation must also be fulfilled. What Einstein did 1905 was nothing at the definition of special relativity.(unfortunately the text editor does not transfer the lower and upper indexes)

    in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #406
    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Dear Gyula,

    This was to be my first post on your Gravitations forum:

    The subject would be COVARIANCE

    I’d like to discuss covariance. I have attached
    a picture of the identity of 1/(1-x), what I will
    call the “implicit covariant factor.” The right
    hand side of the identity I will call the “explicit
    covariant factor.” Never mind, for now, how the
    probabilities and Shannon Entropy packets are
    derived, they only introduce concepts that the
    reader may not be familiar with, yet. It is left
    as an exercise to show that 1/(1-x) has as a second
    family member, [1/(1-x^2)]^0.5, the covariant Lorentz
    factor when (v/c) is substituted for x, where the
    first factor is the Pythagorean way to add vectors.
    That is, the whole right hand side is how to add
    vectors covariantly; the Lorentz way.

    Now for the intuition; since the first factor on the
    right hand side of the identity is (1+x), then I
    suggest that the whole right hand side is how to
    add scalars covariantly; the proposed way.

    So you might ask? “Covariant inertia explains the
    correct way to view simultaneous, synchronous, and
    coincidental events…what would your so-called
    covariant addition give us a correct view of?”

    Umm, maybe a correct view of where gravity waves
    eminate from… maybe from the covariant part,
    and conserving the gravitational mass addition as
    a simple (conserved) addition with the substitution
    of GM/R/(c^2) for x; where the first power of M is
    an un-creatable, un-annihilatable, constant of the
    universe, the gravitational mass. And the possibility
    that the covariant part is a “captive wave,” capable
    of being radiated.

    Intuition or fantasy? Why or why-not? Don’t ask me,
    I just like the thought of something like “covariant
    addition,” and can not help it. Lorentz and Einstein
    taught us why covariance is necessary to fix the
    Lorentz transform matrix by multiplying by the Lorentz
    factor;

    my feeling is that the addition of gravitational masses
    is also covariant. Rule-me-out, but please don’t throw
    me onto the brier-patch, said brother-rabbit to brother-
    bear.

    And if that isn’t enough, that the covariance is a first
    principle that demands that the speed of light and gravity
    be finite and equivalent, a reversal of a “common-sense”
    notion of causality; and that covariance is the property
    that accounts for chemical electromagnetic bonds on the
    inertial side of the equation and nuclear electromagnetic
    bonds on the gravitational side of the equation.

    Sincerely,
    Bill (Eshleman)

    Dear Bill,

    the role of mass, as used in physics, is widely discussed in

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

    One statement was “the expression m0(1 – v2/c2)−1/2 is best suited for THE mass of a moving body”.
    It is argued that the relativistic mass formula holds for all particles, including those moving at the speed of light, while the formula only applies to a slower than light particle (a particle with a nonzero rest mass) with ϒ = (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2.

    However, the relation E = m(rel)∙c^2 (Einstein) is generally invalid; firstly because moving particles always radiate and secondly, it is not distinguished between the gravitational mass mg and the inertial mass mi. In general, the energy E of moving particle is not conserved and the mg and mi are different by composed particles. Only by the elementary particles, e, p, P and E, we can be sure that mg = mi because they are not composed of other particles. The statement that E = m(rel)∙c^2 holds for all particles is a physically invalid claim.

    Supposing all particles are composed of the elementary particles e, p, P and E the is the gravitational mass

    mg = |(NP – NE)mP + (Np-Ne)me|

    and the inertial mass

    mi = (NP + NE) mP + (Np + Ne) me – E(bound)/c^2.

    Both masses are greater or equal zero and are expressed with the numbers of elementary particles, with the elementary masses mP and me and in the inertial mass also the bound energy E(bound) enters.

    COVARIANCE is connected to the covariant equation of motion of particles, which carrying two kinds of fields, however, neither the positions, nor the velocities of particles are exactly known. This uncertainty is a principle problem at the motion of particles. In multilinear algebra and tensor analysis, covariance and contravariance describe how the quantitative description of certain geometric or physical entities changes with a change of basis. In physics, a basis is sometimes thought of as a set of reference axes. However, as a “set of reference axes” cannot be connected to “inertial frame of references” because the observers cannot define constant velocities with real physical particles. In the Minkowski space a basis with four unit vectors e0, e1, e2 , e3 can be introduced, and also an invariant distance between two points. However, it is dangerous to define covariance with the use of Lorentz factor ϒ = (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2. In the equation of motion of particles all appearing term are covariant terms.

    in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #403
    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    I have worked out the “Lorentz-Invariant Theory of Gravitation” on the basis of “Fundamental Principles in Physics” and will be published soon. The fundamental principles lead to Atomistic Theory of Matter. The theory has unified the gravitation with the electromagnetism.

    in reply to: Atomistic Theory of Matter #402
    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    In the modern physics, developed in the 20th century, the accepted relations of energetic physics, the equality of gravitational and inertial masses m(g) = m(i), the equivalence of mass and energy E = mc^2 and the quantization of light with E = hν are all physically invalid relations.

    in reply to: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury #401
    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    The Atomistic Theory of Matter and the Theory of Gravitation belong scientifically together. The gravitation is caused by conserved elementary gravitational charges. As a result of these circumstances is that the deformation of space-time about masses, as the general relativity stated, in not a physical correct description of gravitation.

    The Standard Model of Astrophysics speculate scientifically about Big Bang, Black Holes, Dark Matter, deviation of light in the gravitational field, event horizon, accelerated expansion of the Universe, etc. However, all these scientific speculations have no physical basis.

    The detection of gravitation waves – published by Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett, 11. February 2016 – was firstly successful. However, the origin of the gravitation waves was not the merger of two Black Holes, but rather the merger of two neutron stars. “Cold” neutron stars have the greatest mass density in Universe, ca. 3.8 x10^12 kg/cm^2.

    Not theories have to say what Nature is, but Nature requires the description with consistent and comprehensive theories.

    in reply to: Atomistic Theory of Matter #400
    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Preamble (Created by Gyula I. Szász)

    I have recognized two key observations in nature: The first is that the Universality of Free Fall (UFF) is violated. The second is that all microscopic objects are essential smaller than the wavelengths of their electromagnetic radiations.
    The first key observation is sufficiently founded in my lecture

    The basic for the UFF violation is that the gravitational and inertial masses of macroscopic bodies are in the range of 1% different. The weak equivalence principle which stated the equality of these two masses is invalid. This induced me to create a new design of gravitation. It is neither a universal mass attraction, nor it is caused by the deformation of space-time around masses. Gravitation is caused by elementary charges and as well attractive as repulsive gravitational forces occur.
    The second key observation gained from experimental date about size of microscopic objects and the wavelengths of their radiations. The Figure 1 in Section 7 in my book Physics of Elementary Processes; Basic Approach in Physics and Astronomy, ISBN: 963 219 791 7, published also in http://www.atomsz.com, summarize the observed results, beginning with atoms up to nucleons and neutrinos. The main message from this is that light emissions through microscopic objects are wave processes and not a corpuscular phenomenon.
    These two key observations initiated me to create a new, atomistic based physics, an Atomistic Theory of Matter (ATOM), quite the contrary to the energetic physics developed in the 20th century based on the energy conservation, on quantization of energy and on two relativity theories. The basic of our theory are taken from the observed four stable elementary particles, the electron (e), the positron (p), the proton (P) and elton (E). I have labeled the fourth particle as elton and not as “antiproton”. These particles can be subdivided in two classes; the electrons and positrons with the masse me and the protons and eltons with a larger mass mP whereby mp/me = 1936.152. The mP and me are considered as elementary masses which do not change during particle reactions. Further, in analogy to the elementary electric charges qi = {±e} I have introduced elementary gravitational charges qi = {±g∙mi} for the elementary particles i=e,p,P,E. The universal gravitational constant is G=g2/4π. Thus, the four kinds of elementary particles have two kinds of conserved elementary charges qi and gi and the elementary charges causes the interactions between the particles and the continuous interactions fields propagate with c. The following features are also added to the basic principles of atomistic physics: neither the positions, nor the velocities of particles are ever exactly known and all physical systems should always be described in finite space-time regions. The ATOM is also a quantum theory; however, in this theory only the sources of the fields are quantized.
    No further scientific assumptions; no additional physical hypotheses are needed to develop a comprehensive description of nature. One has only to use the appropriate mathematical formalisms. The theory unifies the description of electromagnetism and gravitation; however, the energy is not conserved. The electromagnetic interaction is by a factor of ca. 10+40 stronger than gravitation. The theory is able to interpret as well subatomic data, as astronomic processes in Universe in physical and mathematical consistent level. For the description of nature only five natural constants are needed: c, e, me, mP and G. The main aspects of the Atomistic Theory of Matter are explained and the derived results are discussed on the website http://www.atomsz.com.

Viewing 10 posts - 136 through 145 (of 145 total)