Relativity Theory and fallacy time dilated

Introduction

 The paper aims to expose several errors of interpretation, committed approach relative motions between bodies in space. These errors gave rise to a theory called "Theory of Special Relativity", also called "Restricted". Following this theory we are willing to accept concepts that go against reason and logic. We are referring to the concept of "time dilation", the "shortening of the length" and the typical example of "twins".

We have seen in some treaties written to expose this theory, add the phrase: "although going against the reason and common sense …" That if the bait used to say that when reaching to move at the speed of light this would happen. What a way to have an utopian dream!

When reading such statements we come to a conclusion that this is an unconscious contempt for human intelligence and inheritance of hundreds of years of civilization. This is the reason that motivated us to try to find out where exactly the error occurred ,hereby allowing us to accept the aforementioned fallacies.

For the development of our test we used paragraphs written in the book: "On the theory of special relativity and general" A.Einstein. We shall only look and refute paragraphs that refer to the "Special Relativity or Restricted. Nothing will be said about the share of "General Relativity".

In short, we aim to provide an environment that helps people to use reasoning.

! Let's take a vote of confidence in the use of common sense and we concentrate on giving credit and apply intuition¡ We start from false premises to admit fallacies. ¡Let"s stop having an utopian dream!

  The structure of study we have used is as follows:

The first paragraphs provide an introduction and helpful to the reader who comes into contact for the first time on the subject of the Theory of Relativity. It intends to explain in the best way we know, the principles and pillars necessary to continue the study. In this part we have used to try to do something more intelligible and pleasant grounds in the aforementioned book. The reader will have to judge whether we succeeded.

  A second part of this essay will be dedicated to denounce the mistake of "confusing the image of an event with the creation of the event itself." This will be one of the main ideas we use. We will use a typical example of "Train Wagon" to discuss the aforementioned error.

We will also discuss and justify if it is incorrect to say that the speed of light has an "abnormal" behaviour. This is the idea that seems to lead us to think that we took that book as a guideline study. As we will discuss it, we must say that your speed is "different" and not "abnormal". It's obviously different because they are "putting in one basket" electromagnetic waves and "bodies". (we cannot weigh potatoes with apples and say that potatoes have an abnormal behaviour).

We can distinguish a third part of the test to determine where exactly the confusion of ideas generate that allow us to admit the fallacy of "time dilation"

This section discusses the so-called "Lorentz factor". Exposed to study the formulas of Lorentz transformations, using a visual procedure, or geometric. The purpose of using this form of proof lies in the intention to show that none of the steps of the mathematical procedure used, involves the concept of "time dilation".

The last part of the essay is dedicated to graphically present example of the fallacy of the "twins" and other approaches proposed in the said book A.Einstein. It also refutes the arguments that seek to justify the validity of the aforementioned fallacy. One of these arguments is "the testing of muons"

TEXT

The concept "time dilation"

  What is it that justifies as true when it accepts as true, the concept of "time dilation"? … We shall answer this question with an example supporting us.

We shall take as guidance the typical example of the twin brothers, as known to readers who have already started studying the subject of the theory of relativity. We believe this can be a fairly intelligible introduction of the concept "time dilation" for the reader who hasn"t yet started studying these subjects.

In most of the books that explain the theory of restricted relativity, also called special relativity theory, discusses the example of the "twins". In this example there are two twin brothers. One acts as a cosmonaut and flies into space, while the other twin remains on Earth waiting for his return. After having launched the rocket and having spent a certain period of time Brother astronaut returns to Earth. According to "what books say" (we consider it as if it were a story), the astronaut brother, if he had reached during his trip a speed close to that of a light, he would find his brother, who has remained on Earth, much older than him. This statement was based on those treaties intervention that define a cause as "time dilation". It"s evident that all this is an assumption since this hypothesis has never been proven.

Relying on the wrong approach, using false premises that lead to a fallacy (as discussed below), justify that brother astronaut in flight round trip time has been less than the time he will have passed than the brother who stayed on Earth. It admits and concludes that the time is "dilated" …

Always supposing that we could move at speeds within the speed of light, another statement made ??in those mentioned books is associated to the "time dilation" in the following: "moving clocks run slower than stationary clocks . "That is, according to this statement, the clock" astronaut brother "would run slower than the clock of his twin brother who stayed on Earth … We think it is very easy to have an utopian dream and justify it as real knowing that we will never travel to the velocity (c) of light.

We shall see that it would be correct to say, and so we shall admit, that: moving clocks can be seen running much slower than stationary clocks.

With the current essay, we aim to banish the fallacy of "time dilation"  

The basic concepts

  In order to continue the study which will be discussed in order to try and help the reader to start on the subject of relativity, in continuation we shall discuss some basic concepts on which we rely. These concepts outlined in the book: "On the theory of special and general relativity" of Albert Einstein, we have tried to sort and clarify by adding our own examples. These concepts are:

  1. – Relative motions

2. – Inertial Reference System. – Coordinate Systems

3. – First principle of relativity. – Galileo's Principle of Relativity

4. – The addition theorem of speeds according to classical mechanics

 We now turn to discuss them

  2.1. – RELATIVE MOVEMENTS

  Imagine sitting or standing still above ground. Do we realize that the Earth (Planet Earth) is moving? … Surely not. If at this time of immobility we see an aeroplane flying, it is its body that we shall see move. Why? … Because we are taking as reference for its movement in the body fixed to the ground. That is, we appreciate the RELATIVITY of motion of the plane relative to our body. But also, this relativity is reciprocal. We could also say, or ask if aeroplane are watching us move (if their vision means

it would be achievable), while they, who are inside the plane, can consider themselves immobile.

We can contrast the last statement by applying a similar example. It deals in observing a landscape, mountains from inside an aeroplane. We "look" that the mountains are moving towards us we remain immobile inside the plane. Of course, we are assuming that on this day of observation there are no clouds in this picture. If this were not so, and there were clouds still (by the absence of wind), then we would take the clouds like fixed reference system and it would seem that we are (on the plane) when we move, to see them go under to the side of the plane.

Note that we are writing the statement "appear" in quotes. With this we aim to show that the concept of motion is relative. That may seem like the plane is moving towards us, that we are the ones who move towards the plane. This depends on where the observer is located considering the movement.

Perhaps the idea of RELATIVITY in the movements of two bodies has been understood but trouble seeing at the moment its application in the field of physical phenomena. We leave this issue for later. For now let"s discuss how to identify those elements or bodies involved in these relative movements.

Between two bodies which MOVE RELATIVELY to each other, considering one of them as fixed, or perhaps still. We will call Fixed Reference System and represent it as (FRS). The other body that moves towards (FRS), with a certain speed (v), we will call it Moving Reference System, and we shall represent it through (MRS).

To reaffirm the concept of Reference System, we can add the example of a car that is moving. We should be considering as (FRS) the ground (that is the earth) on which it is moving, and the car as an (MRS). Another example of (FRS) can be a tree, and the car in motion with that (MRS) towards the tree.

2.2. – INERTIAL FRAMES. – COORDINATE SYSTEMS

Throughout the development that we shall be doing about the theory of Special Relativity, or also-called "restricted" we shall call Inertial Reference System (IRS) to the reference systems that move considering the following two conditions:

-It moves at a constant speed. That is, there isn"t any acceleration in its movement.

-Its movement is linear, which means that there are no turns or change of direction.

  It"s clear that a Fixed Reference Sistem (FRS) does not imply that it is still. We ask ourselves, "still" to what respect? … We must untie the thought we have been stucked to the Earth. We must think in an outer space. As stated above one (FRS) is to be taken as a reference to relate the speed of distance or the approach of another Moving Reference System (MRS) towards this (FRS). But this does not mean that the (FRS) is also moving at a certain speed.

If we put the two bodies, which may be for example: two celestial bodies, the earth and a rocket or space satellite … in outer space, we can use the following figure to represent the relative motion between the two bodies:

 The (MRS) is moved at a speed (v) respect of (FRS).

In order to apply the calculations that we shall discuss below, we shall establish a coordinate axes that will help us to relate the (MRS) with (FRS).

In these coordinates the axis (X) is common to the two bodies and is a straight line connecting the two bodies. Note that once we have defined this axis due to uniform rectilinear motion (MRS), for now nothing should be added to the axis of coordinates (Y). Later, we shall use this axis when we talk about the location and status of events regarding the bodies (FRS) and (MRS).

Note that, still considering that the two bodies are moving in space, say anything about the third axis. The axis that is generally recognized as the axis (Z). We shall not use it since we are not sizing bodies. We are linking distances and times.   

2.3. – FIRST PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY. – GALILEO'S PRINCIPLE RELATIVITY.

 From now on we shall assume that we always refer to Inertial Reference Systems (IRS), whether we consider it a body as a Moving Reference System (MRS) as if we consider it as a Fixed Reference System (FRS).

The first principle of relativity says:  

If an (MRS) moves towards an (FRS) then pass on to natural phenomena (MRS) according to general laws identical with respect to (FRS).

 To clarify what is meant by this "principle" we discuss the following example: Suppose a train wagon running under a uniform rectilinear motion. According to what we already know, we shall define this body as an (MRS). If we place ourselves as travellers and observers in this car, we will be able to compare that:

The Physical phenomena occur and quantify using the same mathematical variables that must be used within a train wagon that was stopped. We can say that the laws of physics governing are the same.

  We can mention, just as a reminder, several examples of these physical phenomena and the laws governing them: that the force (F) is equal to the product of the mass (m) for the acceleration (a), the law governs the oscillations of a pendulum, the laws governing the fluid dynamics, the fall of a body on an inclined plan, with its corresponding considerations friction coefficients, the first law of thermodynamics, the law of Coulomb, Gauss's law … ext.

  With an existing parity between (MRS) and (FRS) that there will not be any problem between two Inertial Reference Systems (IRS), one can consider either of them (FRS) to be fixed and let"s imagine that the other moves with respect to the fixed one with a straight line and uniform motion. In this way we can establish the relativity of motion, although both are moving in space.

 Galileo Galilei described in 1632, to mechanical phenomena, the principle we have been discussing using the example of a boat travelling at a constant speed on a calm sea. Transcribe the example below:

  Inside behind closed doors with a friend in the main cabin below the deck of a large ship, and carry with you flies, butterflies, and other small flying animals … Hang a bottle that empties drop by drop into a large container placed under the same … Make the boat go with the speed you want, as long as the motion is uniform and no fluctuations in either direction … The drops fall … in the lower bowl without deviating to the stern, but the ship has advanced while the drops are in the air … the butterflies and flies will continue their flight to each side equally, but this will not make them focus on the stern, as if they were obliged to follow the course of the ship …

 Consequently someone doing experiments below the deck cannot differentiate whether the boat is moving or is at rest. Usually the term is used in reference to Galilean invariance this principle applied to Newtonian mechanics.

Both Newton's vision as Einstein were based on a mathematical and physical description of reality. But if Newton had left the bodies (of their response to external actions to them), Einstein turned his attention mainly on the phenomena to which he devoted the first postulates of special relativity. That is, Einstein was more interested in how they worked the events in the Universe.

 (NOTE: We transcribe from the book of A. Einstein, we take as a guideline, a comment he makes in paragraph 5 and may generate some doubt:

  "While held the belief that all natural phenomena could be represented with the help of classical mechanics, you could not doubt the validity of the principle of relativity. However, recent advances in electrodynamics and optics did see ever more clearly that classical mechanics as the basis of any physical description of nature was not enough.

The question of the validity of the principle of relativity changed perfectly well, without excluding the possibility that the solution was in the negative "

  Here it seems that the two concepts interwound should be considered separately, each independent of itself, and that can confuse. A concept will be the "first principle of relativity" conditioned only that the reference systems are inertials. Not subject to the way information is transmitted to an event. We'll explain by explaining the Lorentz transformations. Another concept is that the speed of light is always the same, there is an "abnormal" behaviour. We will discuss this affirmation in chapter 7.   

2.4. – THE THEOREM OF ADDITION OF SPEEDS ACCORDING TO CLASSICAL MECHANICS.

  To discuss this theorem we take as guidance the book referred to Einstein. However, we shall introduce some variations in syntax and in the words used, in order to make it more intelligible: "Suppose a railway wagon travels with constant speed (v) on the line, and imagine that a man walks inside the direction of travel speed (w). With what speed (W) advances the man with respect to the track to walk? The only possible answer would appear from the following consideration:

If the man remained still for a second, he would advance with respect to the route, a distance corresponding to the speed (v) of the wagon. But within this second let"s imagine that he actually walked, therefore we must also time his velocity with that of the wagon corresponding to the speed (w) with walking of the man. Therefore, in this second advances regarding the route, a stretch in which they must join the action of the two speeds:

 W = v + w

 (NOTE: We have changed the book: "a stretch (w) that is equal to the walking speed" with "a stretch corresponding to the speed (w) with walking")

The quoted paragraph continues:

  "We shall see that this reasoning, which expresses the theorem of addition of velocities according to classical mechanics, is unsustainable and that the law that we"ve just written is actually invalid"

 As we shall be explaining much further that if the above written commentary written in the "book" of A. Einstein is based on the interference of the speed of light (c), this warning is wrong. Part of a false premise, and, therefore, is a fallacy.

  What is meant by a thought experiment

  In this paper we use by way of a thought experiment called "light clock" or the example of the "wagon train" used by Einstein.

For a reader who has started on the themes of "relativity" would not need to comment on what it is to speak of a "thought experiment". But, for the sole purpose of wanting to reach the broadest possible readership area, we believe that we must define this concept in order to initiate and continue our essay.

On this issue several authors find that their Web pages define this concept. For this reason we believe that now it would be superfluous to attempt to draw and give our own definition. Therefore, to start the exposure of our work, we shall use the example of two such definitions:

  -It is a hypothetical procedure performed in the imagination and whose goal is to investigate the nature of things.

Unlike real experiments that need not be carried out only in the "laboratory of the mind."

In fact, it is often technically impossible to perform them without so, their conclusion becomes confusing.

  -It is a resource of imagination used to investigate the nature of things. In its broadest sense it is the use of a hypothetical scenario that helps us understand some reasoning or some aspect of reality.

  These arguments have to do with "possible" and "necessary" so appealing to logic and metaphysics, and are not infallible, there are several ways you can fail.

In philosophy they have been used at least since classical antiquity, some before Socrates, and were equally well known in Roman right. The seventeenth century witnessed some of its brightest implemented by Galileo, Descartes, Newton and Leibnitz. And in our time, the creation of quantum mechanics and relativity are almost unthinkable without the crucial role played by mental experiments.

Witt-Hansen stated that Hans Christian Orsted was the first to use the Latin-German Gedankenexperiment (experiments conducted in thoughts)

Although mental experiments are widely accepted, both in science and in philosophy and ethics, politics and other disciplines, also have detractors, dogmatic empiricists generally appealing to common sense rather than analysis. Pierre Duhem, for example, is adamantly opposed to its use in science.

An example of mental experiment in science may be the experiment in by which Galileo would have refuted the Aristotelian theory whereby heavier bodies fall faster than lighter ones.   

Mental experiment "wagon train". Lorenz factor appearance

  To justify or want to validate the concept of "time dilation" is used to known example, which appears in all treatises on the theory of relativity, which was used by A.Einstein, called the train wagon (See following figures a, b, c). This example assumes an operator who goes over the train wagon (O1) and an observer (O2) who is fixed on the floor. This example is presented as a way of demonstrating to obtain various measures this time as calculated by a person travelling with a clock, Operator (O1), or by another person that stays on the ground observing (O2 ), and while observing the time between the start and end of the event.

Figure a)

Represents a train wagon at rest, which contains a mirror on top. At the bottom, let"s assume there"s a torch light and at the same time a way of being able to detect the arrival of a light beam emitted by the operator (O1), has been reflected in the mirror. His journey, round trip is 2 l 1.   

With that aforementioned frame of mind, the operator (O1) to quantify the time it takes the light beam to make a round trip, total time (T1), use the following expression:

 (T1) = 2 l1 / c

 Where "l1"" is the distance which exists between the light emitting source and the reflecting mirror and "c" is the speed of light.

Figure (b).

Unlike the case (a) is now considered the wagon in motion. The figure shows three positions of the carriage in its forward movement as indicated by the arrow above the figure. The carriage moves to the right with velocity (v).

It has placed an observer (O2), fixed on the ground, and we want to determine how long this observer calculated to carry out the above experiment (beam emission, reflection, return and detection of return).

  Figure (c).

Figure (c) shows us how to calculate the time the event takes to cover the longitude:

l 2 + l 3, shown in Figure (b). In the rectangular triangle the longitude of the leg which acts as a base is equal to half the displacement of the train.

  (NOTE: To avoid overloading the reader's attention untrained in mathematical developments, we omit the steps leading to the final expression, it is precisely this that we want to bring out.

Chapter 13.1.2 this issue will be expanded)

  Performing the corresponding steps, and substituting the value T1 = 2 d / c, obtained in case (a), we shall obtain the following results:

In whose expression with an aim to simplify its writing has encompassed as value (L):

The value of (L) treaties on the subject of relativity called "Lorenz factor." Later we shall discuss the reason for this name.

In the above relation between T1 and T2 it is deduced that: T2> T1 (i.e., T2 is greater than T1) as (L) is always greater than unity. In other words, the time recorded by the observer (O2) located on earth, will be greater than that recorded by the operator (O1) located above the wagon. This is the idea that we should stay as it is intended to justify the fallacy of "time dilation" which will be discussed below.

 (NOTE: We can skip the following comment without being lost in the path we follow in this essay. Nevertheless, if we want to document the claim that T2> T1, we can proceed as follows: Note that (c2)(speed light = 300,000 Miles / second) is always much larger than (v2) and therefore its ratio will be worth much less than the value one. Subtracting a "1" the value of this ratio, we obtain a lower figure unit. Consequently the value to be obtained within the sign of the radical will be a decimal, very close to one. In the expression of (L) by dividing "1" by a decimal value less than one, we will always obtain a value greater than one, so (T2) equals to (L) times (T1).)  

Mistake in confusing the vision of phenomenon transmission process with the process of creation of the same. Application by mental experiment of the train wagon

 Although the answer: (T2> T1) obtained by mental experiment of the train wagon is correct, it is possible that it may be the first step to induce a mistake. Perhaps this leads us to think of the idea of "time dilation" in thinking that this is the same "type" of time no more than observed from two different viewpoints. This is not so. We are evaluating two different concepts.

Therefore, we cannot establish an equivalence relation between two types of numerical different times, nor can we mix water with oil arguing that they are two liquids! .. One is the OWN TIME of the phenomenon. This is the time that which would chronometer the operator (O1) and that is: (T1) = 2 l1 / c. (Observe the figure a)) This time will always be the same whether the wagon remains still or moves. The other time (T2) is the amplitude corresponding to the DISPLAY TIME and also TIME INFORMATION.

If we accept that equivalence would occur, as it seems to be happening, as follows. Let"s suppose that the event rather than the emission of light beam was the "Tic-Tac" of a clock. The OWN TIME of the event would be that which would record the operator (O1) that is inside the wagon where the event occurs. This is inherent to the event time. But, to resemble both types of time: OWN TIME and DISPLAY TIME is when we say, wrongly of course, that the time clock is dilated. And from here, we can admit all sorts of fallacies, such as that the twin "astronaut" seen from his brother on the Earth that his time passes less quickly than this own time… time dilations linear shrinkage of objects … …

In summary, by identifying the IMAGE of an event over time of one event leads to erroneous conclusions. We cannot do a CONVERSION between the two types of time. We cannot establish a relation of numerical equivalence between the aforementioned times.

  We insist on this important issue, even at the risk of being too repetitive. We recall that (T1) is the time observed the operator (O1) mounted on top of the car (see Figure "a").

In current physical treatises we find that we reach the following conclusion:

The time interval (T2) measured by the observer (O2), fixed on the floor, is longer than that measured the operator (O1) which moves the wagon. This effect is known as "time dilation". The shortest time measured by the person travelling with the "clock". This moves with the train and not towards the clock.

Although this conclusion is true, we must be careful with the interpretation to be given to this fact not to turn away from reality and logical reasoning. To understand the following example we compare:

  "A person who looks in a convex mirror will see her figure deformed. It will look short, fat, and flattened. Should we choose this figure like its real form? .. Clearly not. He knows his real figure is the other and that is exactly the one with which to think and reason.

 We should equate this example by wanting to argue that it produces"time dilation". The process, from its start to completion, requires a certain time inherent in itself, we shall call it OWN VALUE of the event (in this case will be) the OWN TIME. The duration of the process: Start-End, we should take into account, is given by always reading that the operator (O1) that travels along with the clock. It's the one in the figure a) it gives it the longitude: 2l 1. Comparing it with the example of the mirror, our image is real. Another thing is if we observe the phenomenon with a convex mirror, we do not know for what it shall serve us, at least for now! … we'll talk later. We deform its vision by adding an extension to the end point of the image (by displacement of the train). The faster the train speed, the more deformation.

We let ourselves be hypnotized by that aforementioned illusion so that the deformed shape associate with the reality of the event. Thus, we have seen in books about this topic, comments such as: "a moving clock runs slower than a stationary clock." These treaties are imaginary examples exposed of rockets unmanned at speeds that are a utopia … of twins where the brother who returns from space travel finds his other brother, who had remained on Earth is much older … (see Chapter 16). Of course he is… he"s using the convex mirror!

We insist that in reaching these conclusions it is confusing the OWN TIME that takes the process of being observed, that is Sart-End, for example space travel, from a biological process … with the time it takes THE PATH OF OBSERVING of process. Thus, for the operator (O1) its route is: 2 l 1, while for the observer (O2) this path is:

l 2 + l 3. But, remember, if we take the TRAVEL TIME PROCESS monitoring, as the PROPER time of the process, we will be taking as valid the time observed by a "convex mirror"

The delay caused by being stretched the path of the source of information, in this case the light has been wrongly called "Time Dilation". We stated "in this case of the light", we could have assumed another moving body. For example a ball thrown at any speed (obviously in an infinitesimal lower course (c)) and that bounces off the top of the carriage at a certain angle of incidence towards its final destination. Just to get to the destination they light a lamp that signals the completion of this event to the observer (O2).

For any projectile, for example the aforementioned ball, and by increasing the projectile's path it produces an increase in the MEASUREMENT OF THE LONGITUDE OF OBSERVATION. Can we call this "time dilation"? … It does not confuse the reader that we"re quoting the "ball" as an example, as we have seen written in a treaty on this issue. Speaking of this issue, we read in a book the word "harmful": … "the time is stretched to a muon moving" … ensuring reference to the lifetime of a muon. (In Chapter 18 we will discuss this topic)

We say there is a lengthening of the "observation time" NO process itself, because the observer is fixed takes longer to detect the end of the event. Another comment we've seen written is also misleading: "… all the physical, chemical and biological are delayed with respect to a stationary clock when such processes occur in a moving frame." Perhaps it would be clearer if instead of saying "are delayed" would have been written "are seen delayed" by an observer …" In the case of a pendulum, (for example: left = tic, tac = right side) the observer (O2) will experience the delay of the final of with respect to its start, but this does not indicate that the inherent time of this event has been changed. (See Chapter 14) The observation of a distorted interpretation would have led us to wrong conclusions. It's just a mirage obscuring logical thinking.  

Ways of perceiving the event information (E)

  In this chapter we briefly comment on how to perceive the information that has been generated by a given event, thinking that this comment can help us when we shall discuss in Chapter 18.2 "false muons test".

The perception of information from a given event is what really gives us faith for its existence. So, is the confirmation that the event has occurred. Perhaps this is what makes it cause confusion to accept the vision of an event like the gestation and birth of the own event, when in fact the information has occurred. By saying "event" refers to various types of events. For example, the explosion of a bomb or the occurrence of (Tic) by the encounter of a pendulum in one of its limited paths.

This information will consist of a signal indicating that the event has occurred, for this transmitter element and a sensor signal or signal translator located at the receiving station of the information.

In the case of the example of the bomb explosion its information could be transmitted, depending on each case, either sound waves or electromagnetic waves. Obviously, this would depend on different variables. Among them the distance of the point of creation of the event to the point of reception of the information. Maybe it was an acoustic signal produced by the noise itself caused by the explosion.

In the case of example (Tic), by short distance that upon finding the receiving station of the information, it is possible that electromagnetic waves are used as the signal transmission element. In the above examples and the other similar ones, of which one will involve physical variables are the duration of information, space and speed to be allocated to aforementioned information.

A somewhat different behaviour will be found in the event corresponding to the creation of a muon. We reported that a muon is a subatomic particle that breaks into other subatomic particles shortly after being produced. The information you are transmitting a muon is the reality of its own existence. The time information is your "time to exhaustion". That is the time from its creation to its break up. The information we are getting is taken of the existence of the body of the muon.

We should stay with this idea. We believe that for the moment there is no need to add more concepts that could ensure the path of our exposition.

Another false deduction in the experiment of the train wagon

 Chapter 2.4 In commenting on the addition theorem of speeds in classical mechanics, we quote a few paragraphs of that book to A.Einstein we had some doubt about whether to refer to "… this law is not valid in reality" meant to imply that the speed of light had an "abnormal" behaviour. We think it should be understood that the speed of light (c) behaves "different" but not "abnormal" compared to other body speeds. There are bound to be different because it is the progress of an electromagnetic wave and a "body" It is important to note this distinction of adjectives to avoid falling into confusion.

In the aforementioned book, which we take as the standard monitoring, and all books on the subject of relativity, mentioned that the speed of light (c) has an "abnormal" behaviour. Qualified as "abnormal" because the behaviour of the speed of light does not satisfy the laws of classical Newtonian mechanics, that is, the addition of speeds. We contradict that statement by saying that it is very normal for this to happen because, again, we're comparing bodies (which have mass) with electromagnetic waves. (We don"t weigh potatoes with apples)

To justify the "abnormal" behaviour of the speed of light have the example of a moving train carriage. The question we ask is:

Should we admit as an "abnormal" behaviour, the speed of light (c), using as guidance demonstration example of the typical train wagon moving?

A drawing will help us remember this example and see the fallacy incurred.

Currently it is reasoned that an OBSERVER (O2) if to calculate ground speed (c) of a light beam emitted by an OPERATOR (O1) mounted on top a train with a speed (vt) should add both speeds, that is: VT = c + vt (In keeping with the principles of Newton). And yet, it is argued that the speed of light is always the same regardless of the reference system is taken. This is what makes classify as an "abnormal" behaviour

To argue that the behaviour of the speed of light is NOT "abnormal" and, therefore, fits into all logical thinking, we will use the following figure in that study two different cases.

Case A.

We assume that the person (O1) is above a train wagon, which travels at a constant speed (vt), and from the back throws an object, for example a ball at a speed (vp).

CONDITIONS OF RELEASE:

Let"s take conditions that this release is directed forward and straight.

In this case, with these conditions is correct to deduce that the overall speed (VT) that the observer on the ground (G2) will assign to the ball is the sum of the speed at which it sees passing the train (vt) plus the sum of the speed at which the ball has been released (vp). That is:

VT = vt + vp

 We justify this statement:

  The set (Train-Ball), System of Moving Frame, carrying a common speed. The ball has (or contains) an "inertia" stored as kinetic energy (due to its mass) that is what makes you want to consider that it "contains" the same speed train (vt). This (vt) would be revealed if the train would stop abruptly, "dry" the kinetic energy appearing carrying accumulated. The ball would be fired towards the front wall of the carriage at a speed (vt).

We can indicate that this is the speed that would record the observer on the ground if the carriage window will let the ball fall freely. (This would make the whole ball unlink along with (Train-Ball)

If, in addition, the person who is above the carriage throws the ball at a speed (vp) this speed must join with (vt).

 Case "B"

In this case we assume that from the back of the car and just passed the observer on the ground, it emits a light beam.

We cannot compare this case with the former. In the former case the "ball" came travelling with the train coming together as a set (Train-Ball) including carrying the ball in their mass physical property of INERTIA. The value of this was gaining the momentum as the train was accelerating its speed up to the speed it had to go past in front of the point where the observer was located on earth. The "ball" was already passing in front of the observer, not created at that time. If the train had to be stopped, it is evident that we should exclude the component (vt) of the speed.

In the present case, there is no involvement of a physical phenomenon until it just passes in front of the observer. At this time by pressing a switch creates the phenomenon electromagnetic that manifests and transforming into beam light.

The effect of this physical phenomenon spreads ever (we understand the rule now empty and enter other considerations) to a certain speed (c). This is the only speed. Considering the propagation of light as a wave phenomenon, we cannot consider that its "mass" had been gaining inertia as the train was speeding up to the point where the observer is located on the ground, as we mentioned in the case of ball.  

Comments

 The speed (c) will always be the same and deceives us or makes us hesitate to believe in the Case of Example "A", and to discuss as the case "abnormal", the behaviour of the speed of light.

The physical phenomenon of producing an electromagnetic wave has no history until the very moment it occurs. We do not owe nor can we assign any type of "inertia". The waves do not suffer any disturbance before or after being created in any reference system. There should not be treated alike bodies "having mass" with electromagnetic waves.

Perhaps a topic that lends itself to reflect and meditate on, is the one which has to answer the question: what should happen when it comes to chemical or biological phenomena? .. By analogy to the creation of electromagnetic waves we can think in the creation of a chemical compound. Does it begin to exist as from the time of the reaction of its elements? .. If we say yes, we are admitting that their items before the reaction had no inertia … However it seems logical to admit that this is not true. The compound that it forms in the reaction will participate of the inertia that had its components. We note that this case, we are dealing with "material" is not the same as when we discussed the creation of electromagnetic waves.

We conclude that the speed of light is inherent in itself, independent to its surface is adhered source of transmission. So it is not a "strange" case that always has the same value.

Maybe here we should go back to repeat the warning: "not to confuse the image of the event with the event itself." The event occurs just when the spark appears. The image of the event is the electromagnetic wave, according to what we know, will always have the same speed.

It"s possible that we may be tempted to think of the existence of photons instead of using the concept of electromagnetic wave. But still, we can say that photons did not exist as such before provoking the appearing of phenomenon, and, therefore, did not come incorporated with the speed of "wagon". You don"t have to consider the possibility of its inertia.

In summary, we cannot consider the speed of light of the same nature as the speed of any body. It must be the speed of light as an entity apart from the speed with which we move in real life.

Here appears a mistake in that book A.Einstein. In paragraph 7, in which the title appears: "The apparent incompatibility of the law of propagation of light with the principle of relativity" at the end and at the conclusion of what has been exposed, transcribed what he says:

"… Thus, the propagation velocity of the light beam relative to the wagon turns out to be less than (c).

But this result goes against the principle of relativity why, according to this principle, the law of propagation of light in a vacuum, as any other general law of nature, should be the same if we take the wagon as reference body if we choose the tracks, which seems impossible in our reasoning. If any light beam propagates over the embankment with the speed (c) the law of propagation relative to the wagon seems to have to be, for that matter, a different … in conflict with the principle of relativity.