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.