Third order
Dear Han Geurdes,
Suppose the red object 2 is falling towards our blue planet earth. The earth is object 1. Then as we are thinking in forces we state equation 1. We then divide the mass m out and we see our result. This is equation 3. But now suppose the force experienced by object 2 is different from the force performed by object1. Physics states the heavy force is not equal to the slow force. The heavy force is the force created by mass attracting other mass. The slow force is the force created by resisting against acceleration. If equation 3 is not the perfect solution then the dogma created by thinking in forces in not suitable to explain the phenomena. The second order thinking is at the end.
Suppose the better description for the force experienced by the object 2 is equation 4. The we could divide out mass m. This is equation 5. The d(dx/dt)/dt can be replaced by g. This is equation 6. Then we can differentiate this equation by dt to remove the time t in equation 6. This leads to equation 7. Putting the mass back into the equation leads to action is minus reaction of the third order. We created the third order dogmatic. Lets note that the third order dogmatic did not introduce a second reference frame.
The reasoning with a new reference frame starts by stating that the object 2 is in an other reference frame. This reference frame has an velocity Vr. The v is for the velocity. The r is for it is a relational velocity and that is relativistic. One now has to explain how an object goes from one reference frame to another reference frame. How can we distinguish between particles? This is all not clear and it will not be clear because there is no observed fact that indicates the reference frame. One just states it and hopes that the reasoning will make it acceptable.
It appears that the time t' in the system with quote, has the relation formulated by equation 9. This then gives equation 10. Suppose the impulse p' differentiated by its own time is equal to the impulse p differentiated by its own time. This is equation 11. The law with forces went wrong (action force is minus reaction force went wrong) because force is exchange of impulse per second. And the seconds in system 1 is not equal to the seconds of system 2. So if we start with equation 11 then we can put a dt/dt in that equation. This is equation 12. Now lets rearrange this to equation 13. The dt'/dt in equation 13 can be replaced by equation 10. This results in equation 14 which is equal to equation 4.
From the aging string discussion we know that any time relation t' = function(t) results in a dt'/dt = d(function)/dt that is not equal 1 or constant. But is still dependent on t. Differentiating that t out leads to a higher order differential equation. The relation equation 9 is just the simplest relation, resulting in a third order equation.
This was the differententiate t out discussion: Differentiate t Out
The second order time was based upon the first three equations but the first three equations failed in describing nature and so also the second order time failed. Forces are accelerations times mass and that also failed.
Stating time progresses differently in system 1 compared to system 2 is assume to be changeable from verbal to mathematics. Equation 9 and 10 are valid.
If equation 15 is observed in an Euclidean space (if rotating gravitational ellipses are observed in an Euclidean space) then it should be science to write down equation 15. The reasoning with or without reference frames does not change the fact that it is science.
If we compare the equations 3 and 15 then something has changed. In equation 3 mass is resisting the change in velocity. In equation 15 the third order mass is resisting the change in acceleration. From the simple fact that equation 3 is not the way nature is, we can deduce that equation 15 is the better equation and so second order mass should consist of a new sort of mass (third order mass) that is resisting against the change in its acceleration. With this reasoning the second order dogmatic has come to an end. Relativity was the dogmatic superseding the second order theory.
The red object 2 is in the system without the quote, it is in the Euclidean space if we do the Euclidean reasoning. The red object 2 is in the system with the quote, if we are doing the relativistic reasoning.
But at the same time red object 2 is stated to have interaction with object 1. Otherwise the two objects would not see each other and they would not have an interaction with each other. But they do have an interaction with each other.
Having interaction means that there is a connection between the two objects, this means that they are in de same (interaction) system. But now there is the statement that they are not in the same system. The existence of the second system is based upon not observed properties. It is simply stated to be there without prove. The creation of properties without observed facts, is a problem because one cannot convince someone else on the existence of the property.
The velocity of object 2 is a property in the Euclidean system and cannot be used to state that it is in a relativistic reference system. Because then there would be something (that is observable there) that distinguishes system 1 and system 2 and that is not there.
If there is another system, how can the object return to the first system? And how does it bring is interaction to the first system if it is in the second system. Creating the second system is based upon thoughts, non-observed facts. This makes it hard to understand because agreeing in the existence of the second system makes you understand the relativistic reasoning. While non- agreeing in the existence of the second system makes non-understanding the relativistic reasoning. But is the second reference system needed to a have a scientific explanation? I do not see the necessity of the relativistic reasoning. The Euclidean reasoning explains the observed facts well enough.
If the second reference frame exists then one should be able to point at something that is the second reference system. One cannot point a something because Euclidean space consists of a continuum. One cannot split up a continuum because one cannot distinguish between its infinitely small pieces. These pieces do not allow the transition to the second reference frame. All the infinitely small pieces is one Euclidean space. And simply claims all.
Do you agree so far? All the best, Stefan Boersen
Om vrij te zijn moet je niets wensen of vrezen wat van anderen afhangt. (Epictetus 50-130)