加载中…
个人资料
驱云赶雾
驱云赶雾
  • 博客等级:
  • 博客积分:0
  • 博客访问:2,707
  • 关注人气:7
  • 获赠金笔:0支
  • 赠出金笔:0支
  • 荣誉徽章:
相关博文
推荐博文
谁看过这篇博文
加载中…
正文 字体大小:

狭义相对论的是非真伪真相大白

(2011-01-20 07:36:13)
标签:

杂谈

 

狭义相对论的是非真伪真相大白

  

各位网友,我这里想向大家提供大家无法看到的关于相对论问题的新发现,权威学术报刊和网络论坛是不会发表和保留所有否定性的重大发现的文章和帖子的,就连主流学界进行的重大实验,如强子对撞机和美国教授的时间机器,由于不产生预期的肯定性结果,报刊是同样不会刊载负面结果的,因此争论了百年的关于相对论的是非真伪大家都无法知情,由于关系重大,笔者以为不能捂着盖子,不让民众知情,本博客就是为了把是新发现的真相告诉大家。

一说起科学家和科学,言必称爱因斯坦及其相对论,被称之为最伟大的科学家和最伟大的科学理论,但是我在此谨以个人人格向全球科学界郑重宣称:导致狭义相对论诞生的关键实验——“迈克尔逊——莫雷实验,其0结果已经真相大白,(见《发明与创新》2007年8月号),相对论(至少狭义相对论)的是非真伪已经真相大白,被著名实验 “迈克尔逊——莫雷实验”证明为真理的不是相对论,却是经典物理。

你会说:你苏某(本人实名是苏钟麟)算老几,竟敢蚍蜉撼大树,但我以为权威不是真理的标准,关于相对论,真正的科学家,凡看过“0结果的真相等5个相对论的致命错误”(见附件),你就不会再公开声称相对论是正确理论了,因为你一看就会恍然大悟,无可辩驳;如果你不是物理专业人员也不要紧(相对论究竟应归属哪个专业,也难说清),你也未必看不懂,如有不甚明了之处,可以提出,并欢迎提请国内外专家学者给予公开评判,对于笔者所提问题,如有差错,可以批评指正。如果那5个致命问题最终无人驳回,那么,理应确认:相对论(至少狭义相对论)是20世纪一大世界性思维误区,相对论及其上层建筑将成为史无前例的学术垃圾。

现在的问题是思维的逻辑性和严密性不高的爱因斯坦和漏洞百出的相对论为什么会得到至高无上的评价?笔者经常与人辩论,知道一些人的心理特点,大凡缺少主见者只有在吹捧他人,塑造权威的时候,才显得“高明”,早先有人说全世界只有两三个人“懂”相对论,更多人“不懂”,相对论就是被这少数“懂”的人吹到大红大紫,但是他们连表现在“爱因斯坦火车”和“同时性的相对性”中显而易见的逻辑混乱,出尔反尔都没觉察,近于瞎吹,而更多“不懂”者尽管可能对问题有所觉察,但是,由于相对论已经被吹成气候,为了不被人说你不懂相对论,也只好附和了,于是,相对论的伟大就这样被公认下来了。只有笔者天真无邪,说皇帝什么新衣也没穿。

自从上大学近代物理课以来,出于对物理的偏爱和对真理执着的追求,笔者对相对论推敲了数十年,80年代还写了数万字的“相对论十问”向中中科院和清华北大求询,并按其指点向《大学物理》投稿,无果,自1996年起在《发明与革新》、《发明与创新》、《新科技》投了多篇文稿,归纳起来有0结果的真相等5个相对论的致命错误

 

附:0结果的真相等5个相对论的致命错误

1 “反相派的先祖”:谁是最伟大理论”相对论”的第一个挑战者?他就是爱因斯坦,笔者以为爱因斯坦既是相对论的始祖,也是“反相派的先祖”,因为在“同时性的相对性”中,他认为光的速率与火车运动有关:在“爱因斯坦火车”上,由于火车的运动,车头车尾同时发出的光(至少地面看是同时),由于火车的运动,车头的光信号比车尾先到达中点,所以火车上看“不是同时性事件”,

   但是,根据“光速不变原理”,光速在任何时候都是不变的,它与参考系的运动无关,当以火车为参考系时,不论火车动与不动,两头的光都以相同的速率走完相等的距离而同时到达中点,哪来不同时?。那么在“同时性的相对性”中,老爱岂非第一个反对“光速不变原理”和狭义相对论?爱因斯坦出尔反尔,逻辑混乱,其思维的逻辑性和严密性,能在普通大学生之上吗?

2、谁比谁年轻?

   设双生子二人分承甲、乙两飞船,沿相反的反向,以相等的速度相对高速飞行,(起落和中间调头的加速时间相对极短而不计或抵消)双方都符合狭义相对论的惯性系条件,多年后他们回来一起合影留念,你说那照片上谁比谁年轻?

爱因斯坦认定光速是不变的,而是时空变,但时空的改变与观测者的相对速度有关,那么同一事物的时空改变会有不同的值,结果同一个人会被不同运动状态的宇宙飞行员视为不同的年龄段:少年、中年、老年和一盒骨灰。爱因斯坦思维的悖谬不就昭然若揭了吗?何必拿诡辩性的“佯谬”来遮掩?

3、0结果的真相

   从“迈克尔逊——莫雷实验”的0结果,爱因斯坦突发奇想,肯定了“光速不变原理”,建立了“狭义相对论”。但是,只要你认真分析,不难发现,原本推出干涉条纹将要移动的数学分析存在一个大漏洞,那就是疏忽了反射定律,考虑到反射定律,反射光速率等于入射光速率,则分光镜后分成的透射和反射两支光的速率完全相等,(稿件中有前后两种数学推导的比较)。因此不存在干涉条纹的移动,这就是0结果的真相。

   因此,迈——莫实验证明,经典物理学正确无误,爱因斯坦疏忽大意,画蛇添足,终究带来史无前例的学术垃圾。

   有网友说:反射定律不含“反射光速率等于入射光速率”,不知何意,新的大中学教科书真的把这一定律的关键删除掉了,但是《高等光学》还留着没删。

4反例:根据迈克尔逊——莫雷实验的0结果,爱因斯坦断定光速与参考系的运动无关,从而确立光速不变原理和狭义相对论,但这在逻辑上缺乏充足理由,因为有反例:根据以上3,两分光速等同改变不也是0结果吗?所以,0结果不能证明光速不变。

5、反证

   退一步来说,反射定律如果没有“反射光速率等于入射光速率”,那么你也无法回避:“反射改变不改变光的速率?”这问题。

   如果你肯定:反射改变光的速率,那么“光速不变原理”还能成立吗?

   如果你否定:反射不改变光的速率,也就是说“反射光速率等于入射光速率”,那么你就不得不承认上述0结果的真相,“光速不变原理”同样失去实验基础,狭义相对论根本没有生存空间。

 


In order to reveal to the whole world The truth  in the critical experimental results that cause the birth of Special Relativity

1.“Ancestor of Opposition Relativity School”: Who is the first person that challenges the greatest principle of relativity? He is Einstein. I think that Einstein is the ancestor of Relativity, and also the “ancestor of opposition relativity school”, because in the “relativity of simultaneity”, he thinks that the velocity of light is relating to the movement of train: In the “Einstein’s strain” for proving “relativity of simultaneity”, the train head and tail emit light simultaneously (at least simultaneous when viewed from the ground). As the train is moving, the light from the head comes to the middle point earlier than the light from the tail. So, this is not an “event of simultaneity” when viewed from the train.

However, the “invariant speed of light principle” tells us that the light speed is invariant irrespective of the reference system’s movement. If the train is used as the reference system, the head light and the tail light will go to the middle point at the same time no matter the train is moving or not. So where’s non-simultaneity? So in the “relativity of simultaneity”, is not Einstein the first person that opposes the “invariant speed of light principle” and special relativity? Einstein has no logic here. The preciseness of his thinking is not better than that of a common college student.

 

2. Who’s the younger?

       Suppose two twins take an airship each, and fly at the same speed on opposite directions, (time for take-off, landing, and turning is omitted for it’s little, or it may be countered) and both of them meet the conditions of the inertial system of special relativity; many years later they come back to take a group photo. Who’s the younger?

       In Einstein’s eye the light speed is invariant but the time and space change. However, the change of time and space concerns the relative speed of the observer. So, the change of the time and space of the same thing will have different values. A result is that the same person will be held by the aviators at different movement statuses as staying in different ages: youth, middle-aged, old, and a box of ashes. The occurrence of the “twins paradox” included above is the unavoidable result from the combination between absolute “invariant speed of light principle” and “principle of relativity”. The quibbling “paradox” theory used to fool the world around shall be pierced through now.

 

3. The truth of result 0

Based on the result 0 from “Michelson-Morley Experiment”, Einstein caught a sudden thought, accepted the “invariant speed of light principle”, and established “special relativity”. But, one person with careful analysis will find that the mathematic analysis for deduction of interference fringe movement has neglected an important factor, namely law of reflection. When law of reflection is taken into account, the velocity of reflex equals that of the incident light. So, the velocities of the transmitted light and reflex are absolutely the same, (my original article has compared the earlier and later mathematic deductions). Therefore, there’s no movement of interference fringe. So it’s the truth of result 0.

      Thus Michelson-Morley Experiment is the best proof of the correct classic physics. Einstein by his neglect brought the world a big mistake. 

   Someone said that law of reflection includes not “velocity of reflex equals velocity of incident light”. I don’t know his meaning. The new Chinese tutorial of physics had deleted the critical part of this law. But Advanced Optics retains it.

  

4. Counterexample 

       Based on the result 0 of Michelson-Morley Experiment, Einstein judged that the light speed is irrespective of the reference system’s movement, and then he established his invariant speed of light principle and special relativity. However, his logic is not enough, because there’s counterexample: The result will be 0 when the two beams of light change their speed at the same degree. Therefore, result 0 cannot prove invariant speed of light.

 

5. Counterevidence

   Even the law of reflection contains no “velocity of reflex equals velocity of incident light”, this problem cannot be shunned: “reflection changes not the velocity of light”.

       If you agree to: Reflection changes light velocity, then how can this “invariant speed of light” be correct?

       If you disagree to: Reflection changes not light velocity, that means “velocity of reflex equals velocity of incident light”, then you have to admit the truth of result 0. Meanwhile the “invariant speed of light principle” loses its experimental foundation: the special relativity will no more exist.

   The precise logic has decided that even great scientists cannot solve the crisis of relativity mentioned above.

0

阅读 评论 收藏 转载 喜欢 打印举报/Report
  • 评论加载中,请稍候...
发评论

    发评论

    以上网友发言只代表其个人观点,不代表新浪网的观点或立场。

      

    新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板 电话:4000520066 提示音后按1键(按当地市话标准计费) 欢迎批评指正

    新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 会员注册 | 产品答疑

    新浪公司 版权所有