Problems in the theory of relativity.

Problems in the theory of relativity.

When in a new theory of nature, if taken borrowed the formulas math, or are equal to phenomena already known, it will end up being a double explanation of the same physical phenomenon.

The theory of relativity includes both the theory of special relativity and general relativity, formulated by Albert Einstein in the early 20th century, aiming to solve the existing incompatibility between Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism.

All know the famous Albert Einstein's formula E=mc², has been suggested by some scholars that the Italian de Pretto has advance report of two years on the equivalence of mass and energy E = mc² present in the theory of relativity (1905) by Albert Einstein.

The Italian Olinto De Pretto already had enunciated and defended the relationship between mass and energy for the first time using the formula "mv²" and published at the beginning of 1904.

On page 30 of his book, De Pretto had enunciated and defended the relationship between mass and energy for the first time using the formula "mv²" where the letter "v", was the speed of light; Unlike the theory of relativity of Einstein, in the formula of Pretto V represented a variable and not a constant:

Two years later, in 1905, Albert Einstein explained his theory on the equivalence of mass and energy, indicating the relationship E = mc², where the letter "c" (universal constant defined) indicated, also, the speed of light. The scholars Verona Zorzi and Hope stated that Olinto de Pretto was the first to arrive at the intuition of Einstein's famous formula and that even would have inspired his work in the elaboration of the theory of relativity.

Zorzi, Hope and subsequently Bartocci , have been described in this type of scenarios Einstein could have seized the essay De Pretto before saying, in turn, the theory of the equivalence of matter and energy. However, there is no documentary evidence of such a relationship. On the contrary scholar Schio Ignazio Marchioro, which in Schio Papers published an essay on de Pretto, recognizing the value of the scientific contribution, calling him brilliant, but casts doubt on the relationship with Einstein and asserts that the two formulas only have a similar occasional.

The anomaly in the advance of the perihelion of the planets

The Einstein formula (1915) for the anomaly in the advance of the perihelion of the planets was;

The Gerber formula (1898) for the anomaly in the advance of the perihelion of the planets was;

The Einstein formula (1915) for the anomaly in the advance of the perihelion of the planets was obtained for the first time in 1898 thanks to the theory of gravity developed by an unknown German physicist, a school teacher, named Paul Gerber. His theory was that the gravity was spreading to the speed of light and that the force between two masses should be corrected by a term that depended on the speed at which they were moved. The formula of Gerber-Einstein explains the anomaly of mercury, of the rocky planets of the Solar System and even the Moon (when they are corrected additional effects due to the rest of the planets and bodies in the solar system). The work of Gerber had little impact because its derivation was rather unclear and years later were discovered to contain plot errors.  Einstein always said that in 1915 it was unaware of the work of Gerber and that even if he had known it would have not influenced the development of his general theory of relativity.

The Gerber formula gives for the perihelion shift:

It was noted by the Einstein's relativity and critic Ernst Gehrcke in 1916, that this formula is mathematically identical to Albert Einstein formula's (1915) for general relativity.

Where e = eccentricity, a = semi-major axis, T = orbital period.

Einstein wrote in 1920:

Mr. Gehrcke wants to make us believe that change perihelion of mercury can be explained without the theory of relativity. So there are two possibilities. Or you yourself invent special interplanetary masses. [...] Or you trust a work of Gerber, which already gave the right formula for the shift of the perihelion of mercury before me. Experts are not only agree that the derivation of Gerber is bad to the bone, but the formula cannot be obtained as a result of the main assumption made by Gerber. The work of both Mr. Gerber, is completely useless, a failed attempt to theoretical and flawed. I argue that the theory of general relativity has provided the first real explanation of the motion of the perihelion of mercury. I have not mentioned the work of Gerber at first, because I didn't know when I wrote my work on the motion of the perihelion of mercury; even if it had been aware of this, I would have had no reason to mention it.

Verification of the theory of relativity

But on May 29, 1919, all these difficulties were defeated by Albert Einstein, with the results of the expedition which measured the curvature of the starlight passing through the Sun, because as Einstein said that it was a result of the gravity of the Sun, which was checked with the data taken in a total eclipse of the Sun.

Many were the criticism of the values of the data that had been predicted Einstein, and the data obtained by the expeditions, but nobody could overcome the fact that the light actually curving, to observe in photographs taken by Eddington. And so Albert Einstein was exalted to the elite of human wisdom. In this way the final result was proclaimed by Sir Arthur Eddington:

«... the result obtained (for the deflection of light deflected in a limbo of the Sun) can be written as 1.61 "±0. 30".»

In the final analysis, the data never show the value 1.75 of Einstein, however, the scientific results are usually expressed in the form of 1.77± 0.40" , or similar, because of the authority  of Einstein and relativity.

Other checks.

Eclipse 1929 (Sumatra)

Measuremen  1: 1.62”- 1.87”
Measuremen  2: 2.12”-2.37”
Measuremen 3: 1.80”- 2.20”
Measuremen 4: 1.85”-2.05”

Eclipse de 1936 (Rusia y Japón)

Measuremen 1: 1.62”- 1.87”
Measuremen 2: 2.12”-2.37”
Measuremen 3: 1.80”- 2.20”

Conclusion;

According to this we can say, that when in a new theory of nature, if taken borrowed the formulas math, or are equal to phenomena already known, it will end up being a double explanation of the same physical phenomenon.

Although many criticisms were made to the data obtained by the expedition which confirmed the theory of relativity, with the outcome predicted by Albert Einstein, nobody doubted that the light will crumple, because by that time 1919 was not known the effect of the water crystals at the top of the atmosphere, And critics ended up giving in to the theory of relativity, but in recent years the nature played an important role, by showing how the effect of light-bending, described by the gravity, it can be seen in the atmosphere in an identical manner. Some will say why the Hubble telescope that is in space, has also seen the same effect by the gravity,without having the atmosphere in the half?. i would like to remind you that the theory of relativity and all of its concepts, were accepted as a fact true, due to the data obtained from the curvature of the light observed during the solar eclipse of 1919 these data were taken in surface of the earth, taking the atmosphere in the half producing the same effect by water crystals,

bibliography;

1.         http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto

2.         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gerber

3.         http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_einsteinsp.htm

4.         http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html

5.         http://creacinseisdas.blogspot.com/2010/05/el-eclipse-de-1919-prueba-la.html