Inexactness principle in the observations.
Of ferman: Fernando Mancebo Rodriguez--- Personal page. ----Spanish pages

You can see many of my works, in the following pages:

Email: ferman25@hotmail.com
Email: ferman30@yahoo.es

Inexactness Principle in the observations.
Variables of observation i. 0 + f(i) = R
"Any observation takes implicit some level of inexactness and distortion regarding to the physical event that is observed".

To obtain the observation of a physical event we need to use of gauge devices besides of some several physical means of transmission of the obtained data.
As gauge devices we can cite the meter, liter, thermometer, telescope, and many other devices of different type and characteristics.
As physical means we can cite the sound, light, heat, etc.
Now well, as general norm we would establish the Inexactness Principle that say us:

"Any measure device and physical means of information are imperfect and produce errors and deviation of exactitude in the observations, having these observations lack of exactitude and some distortion regarding physical reality and development of the physical events that we are observing".

This principle could be showed by mean of the following formula:
0 + f(i) = R
Where 0 is the obtained observation; f(i) are the produced deviations in the measure and captation of data, and R is the real and physical development of the event that we are observing.

This way we should always consider that any observation is a distortion of the reality, where the functions f(i) try to measure this produced distortion.

In this case, R is the true physical event produced inside its reference frame; 0 is de resultant observation that we have obtained through our means of observation.
And f(i) are the functions that try to measure the deviations (set of inexactness) that we have suffered when measuring the physical event.

Logically, these error functions can be more or less of adjusting, and many time we never get obtain a fine adjusting, but our mission is to get the more closely possible to that ideal measurement.
In any case the most important thing is to take conscience that the observation always differs some from the real physical event, although this difference is infinitesimal.

Let me put several examples of how can be the observation using means as the sound and light.

With sound:
If we are seeing and hearing (from 340 meters) to a worker that hits rhythmically a plate (R), if we want to know exactly when the hits are producing, then we must to apply the speed of sound (340 m/s) f(i)n to know the difference between the hits and our reception of the same ones.

* But mainly we must to take in mind that the worker's pitter-patter is the reality of the event, while what we hear is an inexact observation, in this case because we hear the sound a second later from the pitter-patter.

Nevertheless if the worker was not stay in stop, but on a train of high speed that comes quickly toward us, (or going away from us) then the observations will be more inexact still.
This case, the pitter-patter cadence will be quicker (or slower) as for the train goes approaching to us, or goes driven off from us, while for our vision the pitter-patter will have similar cadence.

* But we must to take in mind that the worker's pitter-patter is the reality of the event, while what we hear is an inexact observation, in these cases with different sound cadence.

By mean of light:
Let's see now observations by mean of the light, with its high speed.
If we observe the same anterior worker that situated inside a rocket goes approaching to us to a speed near to the speed of light (and going to hitting the plate with a pitter-patter cadence of 1 hit/minute), in this case we should see the worker hitting the plate with near infinites pitter-patter by minute, because we receive all the hits al the same time, jointly with the rocket that also travels to the speed of light.
Contrarily, if the rocket is driving away from us, then we see as the worker hits the plate very slowly, perhaps a hit by millennium.
In the first case we could believe that the time inside the rocket passes incredibly slowly, and in the second we could believe that time passes incredibly fast.
But not, it is alone an inexactitude in the observation due to the means of observation, this time the light.

But now look at the figure and physical changes observed in the worker.
If the rocket come approaching to us to speed near to of light, we can see that the worker change quickly its figure and goes ageing rapidly and dying later, while we take a cup of vine.
Of course, this occurs because we receive the information about the life of the worker practically jointly to his cadaver.
Contrarily, if the rocket goes drive of from us and to the observation of the worker, we are the ones that aging and die while he gives a pair of hits.

The rocket firstly goes driving away from us, and later on it changes its travel sense, then in our final observation we must to add the both parameter of observation (speed of time, of speed of development) and then we can prove that to the return the worker has the state that would have of not having made the journey.

This way and as conclusion, it is newly proven that the observations are inexact, but contrarily time (or development of the physical event) don't decrease neither increase, alone its development is observed with retard, delay, advanced, accelerated, etc., say, with distortion.

And it is here where the Relativity fails.
Relativity deduces and considers the distortion of the observations as the real things that occur in the development of the physical events.
For example, if we in stop observe the time development inside a rocket near to the speed of light, then our distortion of the observations is given as the real development inside the rocket.
But really this is an incorrect deduction.
In true, we have a deformed observation, and the development of time inside the rocket has the same development cadence than the development of time in our position.

(**) Here I must to point some about the characteristics of clocks.
Clocks are not the true time, but a more or less imperfect machine that tries of measuring time, but not is time.
Clocks are imperfect because their measurements are produced by balance of forces, tensions, atomic oscillations, etc.
For this reason, the machineries of clocks are influenced by many of the surrounding conditions as can be gravity, temperature, acceleration, etc.
This way the time that marks a sand clock is totally influence by the field of gravity where the clock is situated, in such a way that without gravity the clock doesn't mark time.
The same, the oscillation (particles emission, etc.) of an atomic clock must to be influenced but the gravity fields where they are situated.
To confuse clocks (any type of clock) with time is unacceptable in physics.

"Clocks aren't time, but alone inexact and influenced machines that try to measure time"

So, inclusive clocks follow the principle of inexactness that we are treating here.

Then we can conclude that the Uncertainty doesn't affect to the development of the physical events, but their observations are always inexact and in many case with a lot of distortion.
We can observe as time goes accelerated or more slowly; that a particle or electron can be in two, three, four of more time at the same time; that objects shrink of enlarge with motion, etc., but these are only distortions of the observations, the properties of the object last inalterable and follow its physical laws in their reference frames.