Customer Reviews

Relational Mechanics

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book has two parts, the first concerning Classical Mechanics and Mach's ideas. The second criticizes relativity and introduces an alternative theory ("relational mechanics") of the author. To the first one I rate 5 stars, to the second I rate zero stars so actually the 3 stars above represents 2.5.
The first part of this book is a time machine: You can breath the construction of Mechanics since Newton until Mach. It sends you to exactly 100 years ago, 1904, before Einstein's special relativity, so you can understantd (with the eyes of the epoch) what problems Classical Mechanics was presenting to the physicists of the time. It is a really beautiful exposition of the ideas and critics to Classical Mechanics at that moment, broadly grouped under Mach's name. Although Mach had good points about what was wrong with classical mechanics, he proposed no theory to substitute the Newtonian one. He gave just general ideas. One can say that the theory proposed by the author in the second part of the book is a candidate which "implements" (at least in the particular interpretation of Mach's ideas adopted by the author) a theory that Mr. Mach would find better.
But if Mach had time to live until nowadays he would be the first to discard this proposed theory, just because it can not explain the most simple data we have (e.g, clock's delay in gravitational fields, muons life-time in atmosphere, redshift, etc, etc). So now I explain the zero star I gave to the second part: it's not because I like or dislike his theory, but because the author's presentation in this part of the book is not honest. He tries to criticize Special and General relativity, but the arguments just show how much he does not understand of the theory. To find the error in his arguments can be a good "seven errors game" to a physics student, e.g., the author misunderstanding of standard relativity topics (like the "twin paradox" for example). The author adopts a particular interpretation of Mach ideas, and when he verifies that his particular interpretation is not implemented in General Relativity, his conclusion is that Einstein theory is wrong. In another words, the position presented in the book is that "If the theory does not fulfill my philosophical prejudices, it's wrong.".
It is not a question of to be "open minded" or "follower". It is just a question of comparison of theory and experiments. In this regard, relational mechanics is wrong: It does not explain nature as we see it by the experiments. It's simple. No big deal here about conspirations, followers or discriminated geniuses.
In the end of the day, this is a instigating book. It makes you think, even when it is wrong.

This is crackpot material.

Assis's theory, which assumes that time is absolute, violates a vast number of high-precision tests of special relativity.

It is also inconsistent with cosmological expansion, and therefore requires the "tired light" hypothesis to hold. But tired light has been conclusively disproved in a number of different ways; for one example, see Blondin et al., "Time Dilation in Type Ia Supernova Spectra at High Redshift," ApJ 682 (2008) 724.

This masterpiece summarizes Dr. Andre Assis' studies of the basis of two main Mechanics theories in Physics from the last millennium: Classical Mechanics, founded by Sir Isaac Newton, and Relativity Mecahnics (both, Special and General), founded by Albert Einstein.

All the criticisms presented by Ernst Mach to the Newton's theory, which Einstein tried to overcome in his theories but failed to do so, are revised and explained in details.

Beyond a clear historical perspective of the problems faced by these two main theories, Dr. Assis presents his own theory of Mechanics (Relational), one that suceeds in implementing the Mach's Principle.

After reading this book, with an open-minded attitude, it will be difficult to support the Mecahnics theories currently accepted by the establishment!

This book offers a thorough treatment of Newton's Laws and the gravitational paradox. It also discusses Ernst Mach's formulation of mechanics. The author goes on to develop a true relational mechanics. An excellent book!

I sought out this book immediately on reading the following abstract of a paper entitled The Principle of Physical Proportions

ABSTRACT. We propose the principle of physical proportions, according
to which all laws of physics can depend only on the ratio of
known quantities of the same type. An alternative formulation is that
no dimensional constants should appear in the laws of physics; or that
all "constants" of physics (like the universal constant of gravitation,
light velocity in vacuum, Planck's constant, Boltzmann's constant etc.)
must depend on cosmological or microscopic properties of the universe.
With this generalization of Mach's principle we advocate doing away
with all absolute quantities in physics. We present examples of laws
satisfying this principle and of others which do not. These last examples
suggest that the connected theories leading to these laws must be
incomplete. We present applications of this principle in some fundamental
equations of physics.

Goodness, he's seen it too I thought. No mealy mouthed beating about the bush. He takes no prisoners but declares royal abundance. Moreover, this is no crackpot or crank as you might imagine but someone who has a large corpus of perfectly conventional publications, as you will discover if, like me, you bother to do an elementary google search.

Mind you - this is not a book for students - unless they are unafraid of losing their faith.

But for anyone who appreciates only too well the cracks and fissures the have been steadily growing wider in the fabric of physics, for anyone who has done hands on research and had the ineffable experience of digging up jewels that the "dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear" [like the power laws for water vapour for example], for them, this book is a treasure beyond rubies.