World Science Database
Home Scientists Abstracts Books Events Journals Experiments Topics Index More Find Login
Coming All Video Conferences Video Conference Recordings NPA Conferences Other Conferences


122 days ago
View count: 497

Bookmark and Share

How to Join
What's Wrong with Relativity

When in session, click here to join the video conference: live.worldsci.org

Date:Saturday, October 10, 2009
Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
New York: 2009-10-10 10:00 AM
Rio: 2009-10-10 01:00 PM
Rome: 2009-10-10 04:00 PM
Delhi: 2009-10-10 08:30 PM
Sydney: 2009-10-11 02:00 AM
Length:2 hours
 
Where:Online Video Conference
 
Contact:David Scott de Hilster
Info Tel:310-991-5744
Email:david@dehilster.com
 
Recordings:
2009-10-10 VideoWhat's Wrong with Relativity
Slides:WWRelativitySelleri.pdf
Chat:Click here to read a transcript of the chat
    Guest Speaker:


Prof. Franco Selleri
Physicist
Interests: Quantum Theory, Epr, Relativity

Nationality: Italian
Books: 18
Abstracts: 34
Read details...

In the 1905 paper presenting the theory of special relativity (TSR) Einstein gave a nicely simple description of the clock paradox ideal experiment. He assumed that accelerations as such have no effect on the time marked by clocks. If the same idea is applied to the Sagnac effect, the SRT predicts zero differential retardation, that is, no effect. This is wrong.

Two spaceships accelerating equally from an initial (S) to a final (S�) inertial system, "spontaneously" modify their synchronization. If before acceleration the clocks aboard the spaceships gave c if used to measure the velocity of light, the same two clocks (not manipulated in any way) used again for the same measurement when at rest in S, give a result different from c. Therefore the Lorentz transformations do not apply in passing from S to S�. This is also wrong.

Einstein�s 1918 treatment of the clock paradox introduced a gravitational potential of the fictitious forces, . In the usual ideal experiment, two spaceships A and B have aboard two clocks and and two observers and . According to has a strong action on , with opposite sign and double size of the velocity effect. But does not include in his calculation regarding . No doubt, also this is wrong. There is more.