That's me, and I am going to take advantage of this space to
put some personal data with the intention to satisfy to a recurrent question of
those who mail commentaries to me asking form my studies and my daily activity.Necessary Explanations
(Last modification: March 17th, 2001)
Perhaps these explanations are not so necessary, but after having received more than 40.000 virtual visits (In the Spanish version), I believe that there are some commentaries that can be useful to understand the philosophy and scope of this site.
This particular page has been specially written for people believing that they "understood" relativity for the first time, after reading my developments. Perhaps for other readers, some of the following commentaries may be unnecessary.
That's me, and I am going to take advantage of this space to
put some personal data with the intention to satisfy to a recurrent question of
those who mail commentaries to me asking form my studies and my daily activity.
And if the question now is: Why I dedicate myself to write on Relativity.
The answer is simple, but it requires some little history:
Finishing my degree studies (during the years 1977/78) I believed to understand the quantum physics (later I discovered that it was no true) and I felt in fault with the other great theory of the 20th century (my century). At this time I have only seen the rudiments of Relativity attending to elementary courses on physics. Then, I decided to begin by the beginning, starting with of writings of Einstein.
Surprisingly (for me), I found a lot of inconsistencies in his developments In fact, I did not manage to go further than the third page of the 1905 publication. I did not feel satisfied with the postulate of the constancy of " c " in the terms that was postulated by Einstein. I never considered myself unable to understand what others describe as very simple. I felt like wounded in my pride. I had a sensation as if somebody was framing me.
Consequently I began to look for later texts, and they did not clarify the subject. Instead, most text made more confused my own ideas because reputed authors accept like "obvious" what was unacceptable for me.
After this, I looked for texts previous to relativity, trying to catch the mental image of the scientists of 19th century. During these readings I verified for the first time what does it mean erroneous models (Capable of blind brilliant minds). But I discovered also the quality of the experimental information and the generalized conscience about something going wrong at that time. (Well, later I discovered that that is a constant in science and is the real motor of the discoveries).
So that I returned to the Einstein original paper and I tried to understand it trying to obviate pre-concepts. What I discovered in this stage (and I corroborated often later) is the genius of Einstein to detect and to analyze only what is important. I think that there have been no many people with similar capacity.
But I continued (and I still continue) resisting to accept that the speed of a same ray of light is exactly the same for me and for other observer who moves at 0,5 c (or another value) in any direction with respect to me. This is like accepting that there is a point in the three dimensional universe that is at the same distance from all the other points of the universe. It can "seem" that way, but "to be" real is something very different .
Along the time I discovered that I am not alone with my "complains". We are a battalion. And each one believes to have "THE solution ". Perhaps a point that differentiates me from many others is that I accept with fullness the validity of the formulas of relativity and I believe also in the validity of the experimental demonstrations. He would be foolish (from my point of view) to deny the evidences that I have mentioned in other pages of this site.
Therefore I had left to myself only one way: Develop a new model capable of leading to the relativistic formulas but without paradoxes. Difficult, but entertained task. The model is in http://www.geocities.com/macpetrol/. And in the way I developed a classical "explanation" for the relativistic consequences that is shown in the initial pages of this site.
For my surprise many readers have considered that I am a defender of the Special relativity Theory. Perhaps, it can be affirmed so, using a very ample definition, but as I fully explained (and many readers will have warned independently), I only agree with the formulas of the Special Relativity but not with the interpretation that is usually made about them. In fact the efforts I have made on this subject aims to obtain an understandable Relativity (in the conventional sense of this word). The reason is simple: When one accepts the habitual development of the SRT, simultaneously accepts postulates that go against the logic leading to very annoying paradoxes for those who look for understandable explanations. Of course, the true relativity defenders deny the existence of paradoxes in this theory. From my own point of view they are doing just like those who denied that the King was Naked in the classic fairytale. But this is only my point of view
Until where I can understand, there are two types of damages derived from the habitual interpretation:
Therefore, in a very ample sense, I dedicate myself to write on relativity:
and...
And I am totally aware that probably I am not right.