Old Physics for New: a worldview alternative to Einstein’s relativity theory

After years of searching scientific papers, articles and books, I reluctantly started to believe that I was the first to discover that a major element of Einstein's Special Relativity could not be possible since it is inconsistent with experiment. What experiment? The GPS system. Special Relativity dictates that time dilation is a reciprocal effect (meaning that: a stationary clock runs slower from the perspective of the moving clock at the same time the moving clock is running slow from the perspective of the stationary clock). A mind blowing concept but necessary for all of Einstein's relativity pieces to fit properly. In 2008 (along with more recent YouTube videos) I published my discovery that Ground and Satellite clocks (atomic clocks) could not properly sync and function in the way that they obviously do on a daily basis, if Einstein's necessary reciprocal effect were legitimate. But last year, I discovered that Phipps in fact beat me to this discovery! In the first edition of Old Physics for New (2006) he discusses this same obvious GPS fact that the rest of the physics community wasn't able to piece together (possibly because they are too busy concerning themselves with more exciting things such as: extra dimensions, super symmetric particles, time travel and other Disney science topics). And for that reason alone he gets 5 stars!

For those people with weak physical reasonaing and weak mathematical prowess.Relativity is very well verified within its bounds... however EVERYONE acknowledges that is it limited...i.e. it breaks down at small distances where quantum effects become dominant.Just an erroneous book is all

Compared with the dreadful state of physics textbooks Tom Phipps is a shining light in the darkness. Without fear he discusses important questions like Maxwell equations in comparison with Weber and Hertz electrodynamics. Phipps incomparable style to delve into problems, solve them, and explain them to the reader makes reading a pleasure. I learned a lot from that “Old Physics for New”.The problems with Einstein’s theories of Relativity meander through the whole book. The author clearly pinpoints and proves the falsity of covariant Lorentz transformation, Minkovski spacetime symmetry and the other numerous relativity mistakes unfortunately forming the foundation of physics since 100 years. But Tom Phipps stops short of saying “Relativity is false”. It seems to me like a woman claiming to be half pregnant.For young scientists and engineers this book is a reference for many contemporary physics problems and an inspiration to think deeper and farther. But even for the general public it is enjoyable reading like a thriller.

Deficiencies and solutions of concurrent electrodynamics. Very important contribution.

Interesting approach.

This review is on the book ‘Old Physics for New’ (OPFN) written by Thomas E. Phipps, Jr. (TEP) and published by C. Roy Keynes in 2006. He writes what he considers to be a physics theory that is an alternative to Einstein’s theories of relativity (both SR and GR). He presents claims that relativity contains logical contradictions. Then, he presents a new theory called neo-Hertzian theory that he claims has no logical contradictions. He then presents claims that experimental results contradict relativity theory. He provides colorful evaluations of scientists who have worked on relativity theory and experiments analyzed by relativity theory. My evaluation of this book is that it is very poor as a scientific study. His emotional polemic provides a small amount of entertainment for aficionados of polemic and delusion. However, he presents scientific and mathematical mistakes. I don't think it is a good science book. However, it is sort of campy. It is like a parody of physics than an actual theory. TEP doesn’t include dynamics in his analysis because he falsely believes that the kinematics have to stand on their own. This is not true, ever. Because of this fundamental error, TEP repeatedly makes the following mistakes.1) Can’t tell the difference between a logical contradiction and an ambiguity, or being overdetermined from being underdetermined.2) Calls every reference frame inertial even when it is clearly a noninertial frame.3) Dismisses the concept of proper acceleration, which is fundamental to relativity.4) Ignores internal forces that maintain and restore a bodies shape.5) Dismisses scale, locality and infinitesimals.6) Ignores constitutive properties such as elasticity, viscosity, and electrical resistance.7) Can’t keep track of direction.8) Totally ignores all the research already documenting Bremsstrahlung, the radiation given off by an accelerating charged particle.9) Vehemently dismisses the concept of covariant without ever telling us what the word means or providing a citation where we could find out.10) Can’t tell the difference between special relativity (SR) and general relativity (GR). I will call them blind spots. He basically can’t see when dynamics are needed. I will show some specific examples in the following review. However, each chapter is basically a repeat of errors 1 to 10 applied to different physical systems. So his fundamental error is his hypothesis that mechanical forces are always insignificant in relativity. Somewhere in every 'proof' that he provides, he sets the mechanical force equal to zero or insignificant. However, the systems that he analyzes could only exist if the mechanical force is nonzero and significant. So Phipps created the logical contradiction, not Einstein. Kinematics by definition describe the motion of bodies without forces. However, a force can make a body act in any arbitrary way. Therefore, physics using kinematics alone is very badly underdetermined. Kinematics without dynamics is not even called physics. It is called geometry. Calculations using kinematics alone are ambiguous because the presence of nonzero forces can make bodies behave differently from the calculations done by kinematics alone. Kinematics without dynamics is basically a tautology. Kinematics without forces may be self consistent, but it is highly ambiguous. The kinematics of Newton's 'Principia' is a combination Euclidean geometry and infinitesimal mathematics. Newton says straight up that a body that is not subjected to external force moves in a straight line at a uniform velocity(laws 1 and 2), which is kinematics. However, Principia introduces dynamics when it says a force can make a body move in a curve or in a nonuniform velocity (law 3). Newton immediately analyzes circular motion after stating the three laws. By Phippsian logic, any body moving in a circular path presents a logical contradiction to Principia. However, Phipps only applies this logic to Einstein's theory of relativity. Wild as Einsteins theory gets, the Phipps theory that forces don't exist is wilder. TEP follows every ‘kinematics alone’ determination with condescending statements about the history of science. He blames every one but himself for hypocrisy and sloppiness. However, the reader will note in every case that his proof involves making some hypothesis that ‘contradicts’ the kinematics alone. He never, ever tries to support this hypothesis. Kinematics is underdetermined. They are only useful for describing motion, not for predicting motion. The proper use of kinematics alone often ends in an ambiguity, which TEP often finds. One can find an ambiguous answer which is correct (yes or no). However, he adds a hypothetical constraint that makes the motion overdetermined. Thus, he turns the ambiguity into logical contradiction. He then compares scientists to a religious order. Blind spots 1, 2 and 5 are related. An inertial frame by definition is a set of measuring instruments moving at the same velocity on a hypothetical ‘frame’ which no force is acting on. If there are no forces, an arbitrary body moves at a constant velocity as measured by the frame. However, there are hypothetical frames where the frame is being acted on by forces. By definition they are noninertial frames. The body can also be acted on by forces, so it is also moving in an arbitrary manner. So calculations of the motion of a body with arbitrary forces in an arbitrary reference frame are highly ambiguous. TEP has a brilliant trick though. This is the way TEP uses relativity. TEP does repeatedly is finds a frame which is not inertial and calls it inertial. The motion of the body is then well defined, but not consistent with the calculation of done with kinematics. TEP then claims to have found a logical contradiction in the kinematics of relativity. He then says that the kinematics of relativity has a logical contradiction. Therefore, relativity as a whole has a logical contradiction. By the arbitrary choice of inertial frame, TEP could find a logical contradiction in any kinematics. However, he only chooses to do it with relativity. If he wanted to, then he could also find logical contradictions in Newtonian physics in much the same way. Newton specified that his rules are reliable only in an absolute space. Some frames are absolute spaces and some are not. So by judiciously referring to nonabsolute spaces as absolute, one can easily find ‘logical contradictions’ in Newtonian theory. Oddly, he doesn’t seem to know that. TEP also ignores the concept of proper acceleration (reference 1). Proper acceleration is the acceleration of a body caused by a force on the body. The force is objective in that it is nonzero in every noninertial frame. If the body is not infinitesimal, then there the effects of the proper acceleration can not be ignored. For example, an electric charge that has proper acceleration gives off Brehmsstrahlung radiation. The amount of Brehmsstrahlung radiation can be calculated by special relativity (SR). The existence of Brehmsstrahlung radiation has been experimentally verified by cyclotron radiation, and is used to make synchrotron radiation. Brehmstrahlung radiation is mentioned in every introductory text on EM theory. Somehow TEP missed all that. If his ‘alternative physics’ can’t model Brehmsstrahlung radiation, it is not an alternative to SR. To model Brehmsstrahlung radiation, a theory has to include proper acceleration.TEP introduces a concept called neo-Hertzian field equations. He basically replaces the partial derivatives in the Maxwell equations by total derivatives. He then shows that one gets ‘the actual results’ by neo-Hertzian calculations. However, his neo-Hertzian equations are equivalent to the standard Maxwells equation unders some conditions that are often unrealistic. Forces intrude. For instance, he assumes without proof that the del operating on a vector field, V, yields a zero vector. This is not the case, especially in Faradays experiments.Page 19 first sentence, TEP says ‘If del operating on V yields zero, 2.3 reduces to 1.8.’ Equation 2.3 does not reduce to 1.8 because for a physically relevant vector field, del of V does not equal to zero. Completely incompressible fluids don’t exist in relativity or in Newtonian physics.Equation 2.3 is an equation using U and V as arbitrary vector spaces and del is the gradient operator. However, not all vector spaces are physically consistent. If a vector space is physical, then the dynamics severely constrain the vector space. Del of V does not always equal zero. Suppose that we use the assumption that del of V is always equal to 0V in electrodynamics. Let V be the electric field, E. If del of V is always zero, then there can be no pondermotive force. Let V be the strain, S, in any material body. If del of E is 0E, then that body has to be absolutely rigid in the Newtonian sense. Let V be the stress field, S, of a material body. If del of S is zero, then that material has to be a perfect fluid (i.e., without viscosity). TEP actually presents these hypotheses in specific examples. The assumption of del of V equal 0V in many of these specific examples. TEP has a blind spot with regards to the meaning of the phrase: 'arbitrary' vector field. 'Arbitrary' does not mean what TEP thinks it means !-) Suppose that V=(X,Y,Z) represents the position of a fluid element. Then del acting on V is the strain on the fluid element. According to the laws of elasticity, the strain is proportional to the stress which is the gradient of the pressure. The pressure is the infinitesimal force divided by the infinitesimal area. So if there is any elasticity to the fluid, and if there are no forces acting on the fluid, the del of the strain can be zero only when the strain is zero. Suppose V is an arbitary vector field, If del(V)=0V, then V(t). Then, V does not vary explicitly with position (x,y,z). Furthermore, physicists assume that the test particles that they use are so small that the effect of stress is unnoticeable. The assumption is that the measuring instruments are small enough so the forces maintain the shape of the instrument. Basically, the hypothetical instruments are taken to be of infinitesimal size. This assumption IS NOT unique to relativity. Some of his arguments seem to be aimed at the concept of infinitesimals rather than Einsteins theory of relativity. He points out several contradictions related to the reality of rigid bodies which he attributes to relativity. He basically blames Einstein for advanced calculus. He does not like the way elasticity has been incorporated into relativity. He does not question the assumption that Faradays coil can be deformed. However, his arguments have an strange resemblance to some religious arguments put out by the Roman Catholic Church just before Galileo’s trial. The Jesuits had discussion infinitesimals banned on the basis that the concept could cause social disorder. I strongly recommend that anyone buying OPFW also buy Amirs book on the history of infinitesimals (reference 2). You may recognize some of Jesuit arguments in all of TEPs books. TEP is much more a religious mystic than Einstein !-) Naval chronometers were proven useful only after the clockwork involved was made very small. If they weren’t made very small, the centripetal and Coriolus forces caused by the ships motion would desynchronize them. So the instruments in ‘Principia' of Newton are presumed to be ideally small, like these chronometers. The larger the measuring instrument, the more nonlocal the measurement. The earth would not be an ideal instrument to measure the gravitational pull of the moon, since the tidal forces of the moon deform the earth. TEP dismisses the whole concept of small measuring instruments. This becomes very apparent when TEP discusses the experimental results of Michael Faraday. Michael Faraday was a rather revolutionary experimenter in electromagnetism who originally introduced the concept of field. Faraday did so with no formal mathematics. He relied mostly one pictures showing what he meant by field. One of his ground breaking experiments proved electromagnetic induction. Faraday introduced a Faraday law showing how the electromotive force (EMF) in a coil is proportional to the rate at which the magnetic flux through the coil changes. TEP has a ‘field’ day with the EMF experiment, because Faraday uses a total derivative in ‘Faradays Law’. Maxwells equations use partial derivatives, not total derivatives. TEP dismisses ‘proof’ of Faradays Law from Maxwells equation because he doesn’t understand the dynamics of electric circuits. A real electric circuit does not maintain its shape and position because the electromagnetic field is consistent with Maxwells equation. The shape of the metal circuit is maintained by the contact forces between an electron and the rest of the wire. Therefore, Faraday fixed his circuit on a table. So the contact forces of the table on the coil keeps the circuit from moving. Furthermore, the centripetal acceleration of the electric charges cause a emission of a small amount of Brehmsstralung radiation which also applies force. Therefore, the contact forces keep the gradient of the relevant vector fields from being zero. The total time derivative is the same as the partial time derivative because the contact forces keep the coil from rotating and changing shape. If the circuit was in a plasma rather than a stiff solid wire fixed to a table, the EMF would be changing direction. The circular current would be precessing. The shape of the plasma would change. Finally, the density of the plasma would fluctuate so the gradient of strain would not be zero. If the circuit were really big like a large cyclotron, the Brehmsstrahlung radiation would distort the shape. Then, Faradays original formula would be ‘wrong’. However, it works fine as long as there is a coil that keeps its shape and orientation through contact forces.Although he drops the force of electron on metal early in the book, he brings them back in the middle. He reintroduces the forces that he dropped on page 105 equation 5.18. He suddenly calculates a new force that he thinks he discovered. However, it appears to me to be the same forces of metal on electron. However, he implicitly claimed such forces were negligible when he decided to build a kinematics only theory. Hence, he contradicts himself in equation 5.18. TEP analyzes the GPS without know the difference between SR and general relativity. No physicist has claimed that SR is sufficient by itself to model the GPS. SR is a special case of GR that is applicable only when the mass-associated gravitational potential is nearly constant. The satellites and ground base are clearly at different gravitational potentials. So one needs the full GR to correct the GPS. Oddly, he explains the difference between SR and GR elsewhere in the book. However, he arbitrarily decides to use SR in analyzing the GPS knowing full well the engineers involved were using GR. SR was not considered complete enough because the gravitational field is inhomogeneous. Worse, TEP uses the same ‘logic’ to determine a contradiction between the Hefele-Keating experiment of 1972 and SR. TEP claims that the HK results contradict SR. This is not true because all the clocks in the experiment have a different proper acceleration. TEP ignores force, so he has to ignore proper acceleration. The synchronization of clocks is caused by the proper acceleration on each clock, NOT the relative velocity. The force on the clocks actually cause the ‘time dilation’. So TEP has conjured another logical contradiction in SR by ignoring the dynamics of SR. Hefele and Keating took the dynamics into account (reference 3 and 4) by choosing their reference frame so the earth’s center of mass was stationary. If TEP had read the HK articles carefully (references 1 and 2), then he would have seen that the measured asymmetry was mostly caused by the centripetal acceleration of the clocks. The centripetal acceleration is caused by a force. Hefele said several times in his articles that the physical clocks used in his system are in noninertial frames. Phipps hypothesizes that the clocks are in inertial frames. Phipps never addresses the claims of Hefele. Phipps doesn't even refute Hefele's arguments, he just ignores them. Thus, one can deduce right away that Phipps did not carefully read Hefele's article. If the reader does not believe me, then he can read Hefele and Keatings articles for himself (references 3 and 4). The Hefele-Keating experiment was analyzed using the full GR treatment (reference 3). The conditions of the experiment where chosen so that SR in and of itself largely characterizes the experimental results (reference 4). The deviation from both SR and GR were determined in the two articles that present the study. If TEP had read these articles carefully, he would see that the results were consistent with GR. The Marinov motor has been analyzed by TEP (page 110-115) other physicists. TEP conjures a logical contradiction by ignoring all internal forces in the circuitry. However, another physicist (Wesley, reference 5) points out that the metals are subject to a force from the metal itself.The force of the atomic nuclei of the metal on the electrons is actually what generates the pondermotive electromotive force which in this case is the same as the electromotive force. Because these internal forces keep the momentum from changing, the appropriate inertial frame for this problem is one where the moving center of mass is stationary. In this inertial frame, and this inertial frame alone, the total time derivative is appropriate. However, formulations in other frames will require the explicit use of a partial derivative. '' This article (reference 5) preceded the book by about 8 years. There probably are other articles, as the omission of internal forces is obvious. However, there is absolutely NO discussion of internal forces in the Marinov motor. He expects the Marinov motor to run with no internal forces at all.Note that TEP misrepresents Wesley. Wesley adds an additional component to the Lorentz force law in order to characterize the force of the metal on the electron. However, Wesley never claims that this 'new' force component in not Lorentz invariant. Wesley does not claim that this 'new' force component is not Lorentz covariant. He does claim that the additional force component is due to charge separation and the forces that keep the circuit together. TEP totally misunderstands Wesley's article (reference 5). TEP he projects his own conclusions onto the conclusions of Wesley's article. TEP spins the conclusions to support his prejudices. This shows more wishful thinking than insight on the part of TEP. Wesley's article is very interesting aside from TEPS misrepresentation. The link is in reference 5. The weirdest ‘mistake’ is one of omission. TEP says that covariance is nonsense. He compares physicists who assume covariance to a mystic society bowing to an idol with the boiler plate ‘covariance’. He accuses them of all sorts of dirty tricks because of their need to vindicate their idol, Einstein. TEP distinguishes between Lorentz invariance and Lorentz covariance with great emotion and historical polemic. However, he doesn’t even begin to explain covariance. I don’t think that he know what covariance is, himself. He never provides any math or even any image that can tell us what covariance is. If anyone can show me what he means by covariance, then I will be grateful.References1) Wikipedia entry on: Proper Acceleration[...]Proper_acceleration‘In an inertial frame in which the object is momentarily at rest, the proper acceleration 3-vector, combined with a zero time-component, yields the object's four-acceleration, which makes proper-acceleration's magnitude Lorentz-invariant. Thus the concept is useful: (i) with accelerated coordinate systems, (ii) at relativistic speeds, and (iii) in curved spacetime.’2) [...] How a Dangerous Mathematical Theory Shaped the Modern Worldby Amir Alexander3) [...]Hafele, J. C.; Keating, R. E. (July 14, 1972). "Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains". Science 177 (4044): 166–168. Bibcode:1972Sci...177..166H. doi:10.1126/science.177.4044.166. PMID 17779917.4) [...]Hafele, J. C.; Keating, R. E. (July 14, 1972). "Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Observed Relativistic Time Gains". Science 177 (4044): 168–170. Bibcode:1972Sci...177..168H. doi:10.1126/science.177.4044.168. PMID 177799185) [...]The Marinov Motor, Notional Induction without a Magnetic B FieldJ. P WesleyAPEIRON Vol. 5 Nr.3-4, July-October 1998

I brought this book on the recommendation of one of the lead figures who promote the Electric Universe theory. The bottom line is that I had no where near enough brains and or education to get anything from this book. I note it was a second addition so presumably the first addition sold. But I just can't believe it would have had anything but a very limited market. Maybe 1 star is unjust .But my gut feeling this book was more about boosting the authors ego than it was education.