The Fundamental Assumptions of the Theory of Relativity Shown False, Yet Many Predictions Match Observations. This Work Shows Why

Affiliation(s)

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Instituto de Fsica, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Instituto de Fsica, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

ABSTRACT

The Theory of Relativity (TR) is now in conflict with a number of trustworthy experimental observations, most of which discovered recently with the help of the tightly synchronized clocks of the GPS. With base in these observations, the present work appoints mistaken assumptions in the construction of the TR, that beginned with a wrong interpretation of the null results of the Michelson light anisotropy experiments. The assumptions of the TR about the nature of space also become unfair within the scenario of the Higgs mechanism, underlying the Standard Elementary Particle Model, according to which space is filled up with real Higgs condensate (HC), responsible for giving mass to the elementary particles. The HC is a real and very powerful quantum space (QS), stable up to 10^{15} degrees Kelvin that rules the inertial motion of matter and the propagation of
light. This QS is the locally ultimate reference for rest and for motions of
matter and propagates light at a well defined velocity *c* with respect to the QS and *not* with respect to all
inertial references. The presence of the HC cancels the reciprocal symmetry
between observers that in the TR is the source of many unresolved or badly
resolved paradoxes. It also eliminates the intrinsic isotropy of light with
respect to all possible inertial references. On the other hand, the recent
experimental observations show very clearly that this real QS is moving in the
ordinary three-dimensional space according to a Keplerian velocity field round
each astronomical body, consistently with the local main astronomical motions,
thereby creating the observed gravitational dynamics. This spacedynamics is the
quintessence of the gravitational fields and implies that earth is very closely
resting with respect to the QS, which explains the null results of the
Michelson light anisotropy experiments. All the conventional tests of the TR
have been made with atoms or elementary particles at very high velocities
within the earth based laboratories. In reality these experiments do not test
the assumptions of the TR, but simply show the effect of motion with respect to
the local QS. The equations of the TR describe well the corrections of time,
mass, energy etc., however in these expressions the relative velocity must be
replaced by the velocity with respect to the local QS. This spacedynamics has
been shown in References [4]-[6] to correctly create the observed gravitational dynamics on earth and in
the solar system as well as the galactic gravitational dynamics without the
need of dark matter. This theory also correctly accounts for all the
experimentally confirmed effects, caused by the gravitational fields on the
propagation of light and the rate of clocks and moreover apoints the physical
mechanism accelerating the expansion of the universe.

The Theory of Relativity (TR) is now in conflict with a number of trustworthy experimental observations, most of which discovered recently with the help of the tightly synchronized clocks of the GPS. With base in these observations, the present work appoints mistaken assumptions in the construction of the TR, that beginned with a wrong interpretation of the null results of the Michelson light anisotropy experiments. The assumptions of the TR about the nature of space also become unfair within the scenario of the Higgs mechanism, underlying the Standard Elementary Particle Model, according to which space is filled up with real Higgs condensate (HC), responsible for giving mass to the elementary particles. The HC is a real and very powerful quantum space (QS), stable up to 10

Cite this paper

Schaf, J. (2014) The Fundamental Assumptions of the Theory of Relativity Shown False, Yet Many Predictions Match Observations. This Work Shows Why.*Journal of Modern Physics*, **5**, 1617-1639. doi: 10.4236/jmp.2014.516163.

Schaf, J. (2014) The Fundamental Assumptions of the Theory of Relativity Shown False, Yet Many Predictions Match Observations. This Work Shows Why.

References

[1] Lorentz, H.A., Einstein, A., Minkowski, H. and Weyl, H. (1923) The Principle of Relativity. Dover Publications, New York.

[2] Ives, H.E. and Stilwell, G.R. (1938) Journal of the Optical Society of America, 28, 215-219.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.28.000215

[3] Eisberg, R. and Resnick, R. (1974) Quantum Physics. John Willey and Sons Inc., Boston.

[4] Schaf, J. (2012) Journal of Modern Physics, 3, 714-749.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2012.38097

[5] Schaf, J. (2014) Journal of Modern Physics, 5, 407-448.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2014.56053

[6] Schaf, J. (2014) Recent Progress in Space Technology, 4, 44-66.

[7] Dixon, L. (1996) From Superconductors to Supercolliders.

www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/26/1/26-1-dixon.pdf

[8] Higgs, P.W. (1964) Physical Review Letters, 13, 508.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508

[9] Englert, F. and Brout, R. (1964) Physical Review Letters, 13, 321-323.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321

[10] Kibble, T.W.B. (2009) Scholarpedia, 4, 8741.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4249/scholarpedia.8741

[11] Hatch, R.R. (2007) Physics Essays, 20, 83-100.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/1.3073811

[12] Miller, D.C. (1933) Review of Modern Physics, 5, 203-242.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.5.203

[13] Hatch, R.R. (2004) GPS Solutions, 8, 67-73.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10291-004-0092-8

[14] Hatch, R.R. (2004) Foundations of Physics, 34, 1725-1739.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10701-004-1313-2

[15] Pound, R.V. and Snider, J.L. (1965) Physical Review B, 140, B788-B893.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.140.B788

[16] Brault, J.W. (1963) Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 8, 28.

[17] Ashby, N. (2012) Private Communication.

[18] Bailey, H., Borer, K., Combley, F., Drumm, H. and Krienen, F. (1977) Nature, 268, 301-305.

[1] Lorentz, H.A., Einstein, A., Minkowski, H. and Weyl, H. (1923) The Principle of Relativity. Dover Publications, New York.

[2] Ives, H.E. and Stilwell, G.R. (1938) Journal of the Optical Society of America, 28, 215-219.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.28.000215

[3] Eisberg, R. and Resnick, R. (1974) Quantum Physics. John Willey and Sons Inc., Boston.

[4] Schaf, J. (2012) Journal of Modern Physics, 3, 714-749.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2012.38097

[5] Schaf, J. (2014) Journal of Modern Physics, 5, 407-448.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2014.56053

[6] Schaf, J. (2014) Recent Progress in Space Technology, 4, 44-66.

[7] Dixon, L. (1996) From Superconductors to Supercolliders.

www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/26/1/26-1-dixon.pdf

[8] Higgs, P.W. (1964) Physical Review Letters, 13, 508.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508

[9] Englert, F. and Brout, R. (1964) Physical Review Letters, 13, 321-323.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321

[10] Kibble, T.W.B. (2009) Scholarpedia, 4, 8741.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4249/scholarpedia.8741

[11] Hatch, R.R. (2007) Physics Essays, 20, 83-100.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/1.3073811

[12] Miller, D.C. (1933) Review of Modern Physics, 5, 203-242.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.5.203

[13] Hatch, R.R. (2004) GPS Solutions, 8, 67-73.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10291-004-0092-8

[14] Hatch, R.R. (2004) Foundations of Physics, 34, 1725-1739.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10701-004-1313-2

[15] Pound, R.V. and Snider, J.L. (1965) Physical Review B, 140, B788-B893.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.140.B788

[16] Brault, J.W. (1963) Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 8, 28.

[17] Ashby, N. (2012) Private Communication.

[18] Bailey, H., Borer, K., Combley, F., Drumm, H. and Krienen, F. (1977) Nature, 268, 301-305.