THINGS EINSTEIN WAS WRONG ABOUT

I had been often asked why I am not a student of Einstein's Relativity. It is not for a lack of interest, nor because I do not understand it, but because, though it is an extremely elegant theory of observation, it is inherently fundamentally flawed as an explanation of space and time.

TIME: "Time is NOT a variable." That is my one liner answer to Relativity. Once we make time other than a standard of measure, other than one that is invariable, a counting of change, then it ceases to be time, by definition, and becomes something else. We may wish to call it a fourth Cartesian dimension, or a variable measure of observational-time, but it is no longer TIME. We can add more observational dimension to the basic three of Cartesian geometry, but they will only allow us to observe from alternative perspectives what is really only three dimensional reality, which is further expressed in force, length, and time. We can use these from a moving perspective, accelerating, or standing still in relation to... what? Ourselves? The universe is wide open and in constant motion, so there is no one reference that is more valid than another, unless we wish to define it as such. My kitchen clock may experience variable time, if broken, atomic clocks traveling through gravity fields or otherwise accelerating will experience "variable time", as they redshift or blueshift, but these are not the same as "time" itself being variable. They are merely effects of their conditions. TIME is always time, and it cannot vary, so any speculations on what happens when time dilates are only valid from the point of view of the observer, not from the observed object itself. Therefore, what may "appear" as a person aging or not, lengthening or shortening, expanding in mass at near light speed, or being stretched into a blackhole, are "appearances", to the outside observer only; none of these are "experienced" by the object or person being observed. In fact, the person aboard the space ship being observed would experience no change, and time would be the same regardless. In terms of the universal reality, none of these observational distortions take place, which renders them useless as a description of reality. To make time a variable is an axiomatic error.

GRAVITY LENSING: It works, but it is misunderstood. Einstein's idea of light bending around large gravity objects is wrong, for if this was so, in the manner of a glass lens, then the objects observed would appear upside down. In fact, they appear dual instead. This is caused by light approaching a large gravity field of a galaxy or star where the gravity is weaker than that of deep space. Therefore, it blueshifts into that weaker gravity, refracts outwards, not inwards, around the galaxy or star, and then redshifts back into its normal wavelength as it exits the light gravity and reenters the strong gravity of deep space, so that it refracts back and continues on its journey. The result is not one inverted image, but rather two images, or a halo of images around the large body, which upon reaching us is what we see. Einstein got lensing in principle right, but he got it wrong as to cause, since his thinking got it backwards.

GRAVITY: Gravity is NOT a space-time continuum well. This is an absurd notion derived from a mathematical description of space and time as one continuum in which time is a variable. There is no time variable, and space and time are not connected in a continuum except as an observational model. Gravity is a condition of the universe, one that is extremely strong out in deep space far from any electromagnetic energy source, and very weak in the vicinity of hot stars and galaxies. The mathematical descriptions of this gravity do not need Einstein's equations to be described, since they are merely algebraic in nature, where time is a constant.

LIGHT CONSTANT: Light is always MEASURED as a constant, though we know it red or blue shifts passing through different gravitational fields. In passing through any other medium than empty (sic) space, it will register some diffraction, but remain a constant nevertheless. However, the electromagnetic waves that are light will always register the same way once they are encountered by any measuring instrument, since this is how the instrument will read it. This does not mean that an observer traveling through space at different velocities will not experience a relative velocity to light other than the constant, it merely means that when the instruments aboard measure light, they will register it as a constant. In effect, light does travel as a constant in space, and there is a "relative velocity" to light for any observer, but our instruments will not register this other than showing wavelength red or blue shift. By forcing light to be a mathematical constant, Einstein had to let another variable creep in, time, and in this way he got it wrong, where it is more cabalistic than real.

BLACKHOLES: Einstein's theory theorized blackholes. This is right, but the theory does not define what they are. Mathematically derived, blackholes are an extreme extrapolation of space-time taken to a singularity. However, this does not explain them, since they then exist only as a theoretical possibility. The confusion around this then led astrophysicists to think that blackholes are extremely large massive stars collapsed. It has nothing to do with this. Blackholes do exist, but they are a function of electromagnetic energy, whereby when it is canceled completely, the strong force of gravity is reasserted. So Einstein got it right to predict such a phenomenon, but he got it wrong as to why this exists, since his modeling was based on the unrealistic mathematics of space-time. Blackholes are a natural function of canceled energy, or space gravity in its most extreme, nucleus-like strong force. Anyone unfortunate enough to come close to a blackhole will not be stretched into it, as now imagined, but rather sent into a immense spin around it, perhaps at near light speed.

E = mc^2: He almost got this one right, except he forgot to include the gravitational constant. Because gravity is so weak in our solar region, he chose to ignore it, which was his mistake. By ignoring gravity, he failed to see how it was a dominant and opposed force in relation to electromagnetic energy. This error has caused us untold misguided conceptions of physics, which has left us confused for nearly a hundred years. If he had not gotten this one wrong, we would now already be on our way to discovering a whole new energy source, one based on the strong force of gravity, and which would have taken us into space at velocities still unimagined.

QM/QED: The fields of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Electro-Dynamics had been very well studied and observed. In fact, they yield predictable results and though strange at times, with probabilistic and chaotic results, they nevertheless do yield some understanding of what happens inside the atom. But their usefulness ends there. What happens inside the atom, when the proton is bombarded with another proton, is a disruption of the forces that hold the atom together. This smashing up will yield a variety of extremely short lived forces, but they are not indicative of how the atom is formed. Rather, they are indicative of how the atom is smashed. If we keep smashing atoms, we will no doubt discover more variations of these forces, give them new names, find new colors and flavors and spins, but they will not enlighten us as to how is made the universe. Planck's quantum theory has yielded some early results of how the universe's energy is packaged, has a harmonic structure to it, and obeys certain laws. But smashing more atoms with more energy will not give us any more insights than to know how atoms behave when they are smashed. To date, Einstein's theories of relativity and quantum theories have not merged into one, as they are incompatible.

BIG BANG: There was no Big Bang, no Creationism of the universe, nothing analogous to Genesis in the Old Testament. We had come to an erroneous conclusion that the universe is expanding because distant cosmic light is redshifted. If the universe is stronger in gravity over its great distances than what we experience on Earth, the light has to redshift naturally as it passes through these strong gravity fields. The universe is not expanding, except as a mathematically derived theory, or as a misunderstood observational theory. In fact, all motion in the universe is in relation to itself and the forces contained. If this was not so, then no galaxies would ever collide, which they do. I am not clear whether or not Einstein believed in a Big Bang, though I suspect he did not like it, and rightly so. Where did the universe come from? Check back in a hundred million years, and I suspect we will still be asking that question.

THE GRAND UNIFICATION THEORY: Einstein worked on this until the end of his life. Some feel he may have been very close to understanding it, but there is no reason to believe this was so. In fact, because his basic theories, valid as observational theories only, were ill equipped to understand how works the universe, he may have been taking himself further and further from such an understanding. In fact, there are only two opposing forces in the universe, light and gravity, and they are unable to be unified if they are opposed, by definition.

COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND: Yeah, as the term describes. It's the answer to Olber's paradox, except that our eyes cannot see such low frequency, and it doesn't prove Big Bang either.

MERCURY'S PERIHELION PRECESSION: There may be an easier way to understand why Mercury precesses at its perihelion position around the Sun. GR is one explanation, per Einstein, but not the best. It is easier to think of the momentum of Mercury being a constant, and its velocity proportional to its inertia. The gravitational constant per mass closer to the Sun is less than further from it, so that inertia is less there, which means if momentum is constant, velocity must increase. This is a very small effect within the orbit of one planet, since the elliptical difference between closest and furthest from the star is small, but this effect will be much greater for comets, where their elliptical orbits are very great. This had not been observed for comets to date because our field of observation is very small, close to Earth, and we only extrapolate what happens to them in the region of the Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud, which are too distant to observe effectively. Therefore, Einstein did not get this one wrong, only that there is a better way to understand this perihelion precession phenomenon with a variable gravity.

* * *

In conclusion, would I study Einstein's theories of relativity further? Yes, of course I would, but only as an exercise in a curiosity, in a theory that is totally coherent, makes a great deal of sense in terms of itself, and is eminently elegant. Does this theory answer the riddles of the universe? No, not anymore more than understanding a good chess game, though some of it is useful, but not much.

Ivan

coun·ter·in·tu·i·tive

adj. Contrary to what intuition or common sense would indicate.
_______________________________________________________________

What is 'counterintutive'? Magic, miracles, humor, deceit, false witness, blind faith?

How can a theory of the universe be based on 'counterintutive' postulates, or conclusions?
The whole notion of it is 'counterintuitive'. Can this be accepted as 'real'? Really, maybe we must be counterintutive of our counterintuivity, so they be relative and cancel out.

Let's get back to reality and leave magical stories to little children--------- and physicists.

Cross-posted from How Does Light Speed Travel Effect the Passengers , by Coppernicus2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATIVITY PARADOXES REVISITED

Thanks again Shambolic for the referenced pages on Relativity, for they were most enjoyable to read. The first, Special Relativity, reads as a quick historic overview. The third, View From the Kennel, is a great sketch of how relativity works as presented by Einstein, a good overview which puts in a nutshell years of readings, though in it I found some curiosities which I will address below. Einstein's 1905 paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, is a fascinating read, and will go over it with greater depth. Though, already in looking at his first pages, I can see how careful he is with terms like "stationary" and "observer". These are critical in interpreting what started as an "observational" theory of relative motion, such as studied by Galileo and Newton, into what had become a theory of relativity per se, as presented by Einstein, Lorentz, and others. The paradoxes that most people respond to, even if only intuitively without the conceptual facility to expose them, nevertheless are there, but for most people they remain well hidden.

Referring to the Kennel:

#3: Space Train. http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/SR3.html
Pay special attention on pg. 3, where the light emanating from B is moving in the direction of v, or towards the event. The light signal hits B sooner than A. This is tricky, because it means that frame B, while moving in the direction of c is of necessity violating v = c. Look at the illustration, where the signal is expanding on the right side of the illustration, and you'll see what I mean. If light is always c, then the growing circle of the signal should be moving with frame B, but it is not, and rather is kept stationary with reference to frame A. If find this important because it means that the signal referenced from frame A is one thing, while the signal referenced from frame B is another thing. This will become more important in relation to what follows below, so keep it in mind: Reference frame A is okay, reference frame B is suspect in relation to c.

#2: Einstein's Postulates.
http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/SR2.html
On pg. 1, we get the two postulates, but two paragraphs later (where it says Einstein decided to eliminate the undetectable preferred inertial frame), either moving frames, as long as they are not accelerating, are considered "at rest". However, other than within the context mentioned, in real life, this "at rest" is something of a fiction, since nothing is ever at rest. The exception, realistically but working it backwards, would be where something is at velocity c, then it would be a constant which could be called "at rest" as long as it is not accelerating, but this then undoes relativity, since it would create a frame against which other frames could not be measured. How do you accelerate from v = c? Not useful. It then goes on to say: "Einstein's approach was to assume the truth of the two postulates and then find what else had to be changed to make things consistent." Here, keep in mind what I said about the how the reference frame B was not consistent with light at c, as per the Space Train above.

So far, this is all okay as "observational" theory, of how things relate in motion in relation to their frames, which is where Galileo and Newton left it, but Einstein took it to the next level. Because he was forced to keep his two postulates intact, he had to create a "third postulate", unspoken in the first two, which was the "relative property of simultaneity" (see definition in #3: Space Trains). But this was Einstein's undoing, his sleight of hand, a card trick, which made Relativity look all right. I am referring especially to the Twin Paradox.

#8: The Twin Paradox. http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/SR8.html
As an observational theory, the Twin Paradox makes a lot of sense. Larry will be younger than Moe or Shemp upon arrival when viewed from the initial frame, as the paper shows. However, it takes the "simultaneity" principle to make what is "observable" of Larry's space ship into what was "really" Larry's frame's time elapsed. This takes an observation from one frame and transfers it into the observation of another frame, now making the other frame as if it had slowed in time. Remember above, in the Space Train, how the light constant of c was being violated by B? Here is how it was resolved, by slowing down time in B, so that while not violating c, time was now different. So here is the subtle distinction: the time aboard Larry's ship from his own point of view was not slowing for Larry, but it was slowing for Moe and Shemp, but because of the "simultaneity", it was as if it were also slowing for Larry. Pin this one down, because there is a basic error here, one of "transference", to make Einstein's theory of relativity work. Otherwise, it goes back to being what Galileo and Newton understood, only an "observational" phenomenon, not a real phenomenon for the observed. To transfer from an observational theory to one of relativity, you have to make the "leap" that what is being observed from one frame is actually happening in another. Most critical thinkers here will say NOT. Others simply accept this (on faith).

This error, this fallacy in thinking that transfers the observation of time in one frame into the reality of another, also applies to measurements of length and mass. Both fall prey to the same sleight of hand to make it work. So Einstein really had three postulates, but he listed only two. Why was that? I wonder.... But there is more.

#10: Addition of Velocities and Increasing Mass. http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/SR10.html
I checked the math and indeed the speed of the lightphotons from the headlight w will be equal to light speed c, as it should regardless of the v of the frame referenced. However, this is no more than a mathematical trick where the equation: w = u+v/1+(uv/c^2) has to be equal to c, if the light velocity is v = c by definition. If w is less than c, then the result will likewise be less than c, as illustrated on pg. 4. However, it can never be more than c, by definition of postulate two. So what happens to mass as we approach c? Because it is a property of a body to resist acceleration, per Newton's second law, from a "stationary" frame, it takes more force to move mass as the "observed" frame approaches lightspeed. Note, this would not happen if we were not dealing with Einstein's unspoken third postulate of "simultaneity", where the stationary frame's observable mass is being "transferred" to the observed frame's mass. If no "transference" were taking place, the force applied to the moving frame, from that moving frame's reference, would not have to deal with greater mass, because the mass would not be increasing within that frame. To make this point understood, the author of this paper then says: "Of course in the frame of the rocket there is no mass increase." Dig it, that's the nut of it all, "no mass increase"! So suddenly, the transference is dropped. Why go through relativity, with time dilation, mass increase, length changes, when in the end it gets dropped inside the frame that is being observed? No change. How clever, it's like a shell game. Guess where the pea is? Is it in frame two, as it became transferred from frame one, or is it really in frame one through the unspoken third postulate of Albert Einstein, but made into frame two?

Finally: "Einstein, in a leap of deep intuition, changed the formulas for momentum and energy so that they would be conserved in relativistic interactions. The new result was that the (sic) in the new formula for energy the energy of an object was not zero when its velocity was zero." Exactly, when is velocity ever "zero"? Of course, E = mc^2 (though I have my doubts about m), since velocity is never zero in any reference frame (except itself). It takes no deep genius to figure this out, except where one has to hide postulates to make it work. If you believe in all this, there is nothing "counterintuitive" about any of it, for it all follows logically, beautifully; but if you understand what was done to get there, it becomes as silly and unbelievable as the conclusions that come from it. I could readily see why the Nobel Prize Committee had trouble with this one. Can you? Anybody... anybody?

Now, I can't wait to get into Einstein's paper, wowee! This is great fun! Funky!

Ps: Fortunately, I do not have to make a living in physics, so can criticize freely, something the pros can't do, or it's their job... As my friend said: "Physics is sometimes like that." The real test for GR and SR is to take a ship and accelerate it to near lightspeed, then see what the onboard biological clocks did, such as dividing cells, and see what a mechanical clock registered (not atomic, since it is subject to lightshift), and then read the results. I think the three stooges will die of old age together, at the same rate, no matter where they are flying around in the universe... good luck to the aliens who find them.

RELATIVITY VS BIAS DRIVE

For anyone interested in understanding Einstein's relativity, see "The Dummies Guide to Special Relativity", compliments of the Space-Talk forums, it's easy to understand and very good: http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/

The original paper by Einstein, 1905, can be found at: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
It's a PDF file, but very difficult to follow since it introduces symbols not defined within the paper, so have to be known in advance.

If anyone is interested in research being done by NASA on alternative space-drives, here is a 1997 paper by Marc G. Millis, which shows some alternative ideas:
http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/TM-107289.htm
The Bias Drive is the closest to describe a possible method using the Axiomatic Equation's formulation.

Ivan

par·a·dox

n. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.

One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects: “The silence of midnight, to speak truly, though apparently a paradox, rung in my ears” (Mary Shelley).

An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.

A statement contrary to received opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin paradoxum, from Greek paradoxon, from neuter sing. of paradoxos, conflicting with expectation : para-, beyond; see para-1 + doxa, opinion (from dokein, to think. See dek- in Indo-European Roots).]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can safely say a paradox can be argued ad infinitum without resolution, can this be the reason why Relativity is so intriguing, because it is inherently a counterintuitive-paradox, so it can be argued indefinitely? Paradox is an inherent part of religious debate too.

LIGHTSHIFT VS RELATIVITY

Thanks for the definition updates, Anon, interesting observations.

Regarding Einstein's paper, 1905, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", there is a statement on pg. 8:

"The wave under consideration is therefore no less a physical wave with velocity propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible."

EXPANDING UNIVERSE FALLACY

Not everyone is taken in by the Einstein's Relativity 'spin doctors', as this paper shows:

'"Expanding Universe" -the greatest mathematical deception in 20-th century physics' http://www.word1.co.il/physics/bigbang.html, by Menahem Simhony, Retired associate professor, Physics, writes:

"When the 'penetration depth' of our telescopes into the universe exceeded a giga-parsec (1000 Mpc), the falsified Hubble-Humanson law meant that runaway velocities of galaxies approach there the velocity of light! By Einstein's 1905 dependence of mass on velocity this means that the mass of each star, planet, every stone in each of those runaway galaxies should become infinite."

Obviously something is wrong here. These sets of papers could have only been written by a retired physicist, or the dissenting voice would never be heard anywhere, for such are the politics of Science, and it would cost him potential funding... or his job.

Editors

DEPENDENCE OF MASS ON VELOCITY?

See: "THE ALLEGED "DEPENDENCE OF MASS ON VELOCITY", ANOTHER MISINTERPRETATION OF MATHEMATICAL RESULTS THAT RUINED OUR PROSPECTS TO UNDERSTAND PHYSICS " --by Menahem Simhony, Retired Assoc. Professor, Hebrew University, Jerusalem:
http://www.word1.co.il/physics/dependence6.html

I like this paper by Simhony, where it questions the same paragraph on which I had question marks (with the word "caution" in the margin) on my original copy of Dr. Einstein's 1905 paper: "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", page 21:

"We remark that these results as to the mass are also valid for ponderable material points, because a ponderable material point can be made into an electron (in our sense of the word) by the addition of an elecric charge, no matter how small."

Prof. Simhony writes regarding this statement above:

"This naive generalization is physically improper, for it does not consider the tremendous differences between bodies of atomic matter and the electrons, which are particles of nuclear matter, especially the quadrillion times higher density of matter in nuclear particles, and the density of electric charge in an electron that is quadrillions of a quadrillion times higher than in a strongly charged extended body of atomic matter."

Dr. Einstein did not mind mixing 'media' when it came to physics, when it suited.

Ivan

Cross-post by Coppernicus2 on Space-Talk--Speed of Light

quote:

"Having to do with speed, if a car is going a certain speed relative to the road, the car can not be moving the same speed relative to any object moving relative to the road.
For greater proof, think of the other side of the geometry example: if line segment “A” is parallel to line segment “B,” then everything parallel to one is parallel to the other. So, if light is going the speed light relative to one object, and it’s going the same exact speed relative to another object, those objects must be moving the same speed in the same direction, thus not moving relative to each other. However, we must realize that things all around the world are moving. If light is moving at one speed relative to all of us, then it must be said that everything moves that same equal speed relative to light. If all objects are moving at the same speed relative to light, those objects can't be moving relative to each other."

--Dec. 26th, by Babooshka4761
So "how did Einstein explain light being the same speed relative to two objects of different speeds?" --that is the basic conundrum.

Here is a flaw in logic, which cannot be solved with a Michelson-Morley experiment disproving a universal ether.

The answer to this conumdrum, that lightspeed is always a constant regardless of the frames from which it is measured, lies in a definition for 'lightspeed'. We make the naive assumption that the light being measured from a 'stationary' frame is the same as that measured from a 'moving' frame. It is not the same light. They may both be called 'light', but once you alter the frame from which it is being measured, it is only the same in name only, not in fact. This has led to a very large disparity between what the universe actually does and what we observe it to do. By assuming we are measuring the same thing, always at a constant velocity, we are trying to fit reality into our theory. Well, that's now how things are, since our theory are of our own creation, while the universe exists on its own terms.

In effect, I can see why Babooshka is bothered by this, not only because it is 'counterintuitive', but because what we observe is not the same as what is actually happening. True, light is a constant velocity regardless of the velocity from which it is being measured, but it is not the same light being measured at the same time. We cannot assume 'equivalence and simultaneity' from different moving frames. This is a fundamental flaw in Einstein's Relativity thinking, which then becomes an argument of philosophy, rather than science. The philosophical argument boils down to: is 'simultaneity and equivalence' in Relativity valid or not? If it is valid, then why does NASA totally ignore Relativity in its space physics and defaults to Newtonian physics instead?

The only real measure of light velocity in relation to a frame's velocity, or acceleration, is whether it is blue or red shifting. The rest is Cartesian math-magic, using an extra coordinate of 'time'. Time dilation is a physics myth to create something called 'space-time', which is another pseudonym for 'ether', which comically is a recreation of a disproved theory. Does the ether exist? Probably not a very relevant question, it does not matter. What matters is how light interacts with the space vacuum, and all that has materialized in it. Does it redshift over great cosmic distances, and if so, why? We think it is because the univese is expanding, though at my last meeting with my physicist friends working for NASA I discovered that there are some serious flaws in this theory. For example, the very distant galaxies observed do not fit theory, since they are already fully formed and not proto-galaxies as expected.

It is right for Babooshka and others to question the validity of Einstein's Relativity, but this becomes a debate of philosophy rather than science.
______________

EINSTEIN DISPROVED HIS OWN THEORY OF RELATIVITY

We are going into space, but we will not get there with Einstein's Theory of Relativity. In its final analysis Relativity will prove to be a useful tool of observation of mass and energy in motion, but not a basis for the new physics that will get us there. In fact, Einstein disproved his own theory with his physics that proved the Photoelectric Effect, for which he received a Nobel Prize.

By calling on 'simultaneity and equivalence' in his Special Relativity, Einstein assumed that light measured in both 'stationary' frames and moving frames is the same light. Light has a constant velocity in relation to any observer regardless of his velocity, which has been measured and proven, and is known as the light constant. However, this same light will either blue shift or red shift in frequency depending upon the observer's relative motion to this light constant. Therefore, in making the naive assumption that the light observed from different moving frames is the same, this assumption ignores the fact that the lightshift frequency is an important component of the observation. The fact that this light is not the same is proven in Einstein's photoelectric effect, which shows how light redshifted below a certain frequency will not excite electrons off a metallic plate, at what is called the 'cut off frequency', and which is well documented and proven. For this the Nobel committee gave him a prize in physics. But this committee could not give him a prize for Relativity not only because it was not successfully measured and proven at the time, but because if they did, they also would have contradicted their decision to award the prize for his photoelectric effect. In effect, they were in a bind, since Einstein showed on one hand that all wavelengths of light are not the same in his photoelectric effect, but at the same time said in Special Relativity that it is the same as seen from different reference frames. We cannot assume the committee did not know what it was doing, and rather must conclude that both they and Einstein were aware of this contradiction, but out of respect for Einstein did not wish to talk about it. If this contradiction was painful for Einstein to deal with, he too did not talk about it. Regrettably, he is no longer alive to deal with this issue, because it would be most interesting to know what he would have answered to this.

The issue he would have had to deal with is that once light is measured from a different reference frame, it is no longer the same, since it is shifted either to the red or blue frequency. So this preserves the lightspeed constant, but calls into question that E = hf, which is the basis for quantum theory, is equally valid for relativity, for at the cut off frequency something changes. And it is this change that puts into doubt the validity of using Relativity to explain the physics of our universe. If the photoelectric effect proves that light is not the same at all wavelengths, then how can we accept that light shifted to a different frequency is the same? It is not the same, and because of this, the whole structure of astrophysics built on a foundation of Einstein's Relativity starts to crack apart. In effect, Einstein sounded the death knell of his own pet theory on relativity with the theory that earned him his Nobel Prize in physics. As to why students of relativity, perhaps unwittingly, overlook this fact, we can only guess. The fact that there is ample observational 'proof' that relativity is correct may be only a function of finding evidence for what it is we want to see.

So how much should we invest into a theory that is faulty from the start? Well, as a reasonable man, I would invest very little, since it is speculative and fraught with very high risk. Only the bold should venture into such a speculative theory, one abandoned by both Galileo and Newton, but taken up by Dr. Albert Einstein and his successors. To all who wish to concentrate their efforts on studying such a theory of relativity, I wish them all good luck. My suspicion, as a prudent and reasonable man, is that we will have to rewrite our understandings of gravity, and how gravity is interactive with light energy, to reach the next generation of power to take us into space. If I were a physicist, I would put my concentration into that. But I am a philosopher, and not a physicist, so please take my comments with that in mind, since I would never censor anyone from studying an accepted theory, even if it is fundamentally flawed.

Ivan

RELATIVISTIC TIME, OR RELATIVISTIC GRAVITY?

Cross posted from Space-Talk: http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?postid=23542#post23542

---

Quote:

Originally posted by tmorten http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/lectures/doppler/doppler.html

"Thanks for the great reference on The Relativistic Doppler Effect. The diagrams and equations are so easy to understand, what a delight! The either blue or red lightshift in classical Doppler shift are exactly the same, in either positive or negative direction, so they offset if moving tangentially (across the light of sight of observer). This is later adjusted for the 'relativistic Doppler effect' in the diagram showing the centrifuge experiment, 1962 "Measurement of the Transverse Doppler Effect..", where the light is sent from a central source towards the perimeter of the centrifuge, at 9.3 cm distance, and spun at up to 35,000 rpm (or 583.3 rps). A quick calculation yields that the velocity of the receptor on the perimeter, if set at 583 rps, is traveling at approx. v = 170 m/s, which then can be applied in the relativistic equation provided in the paper. The paper then goes on to say that the measured result bears out the relativistic equation.

The centrifuge experiment, however, is not shielded from operating in Earth's gravitational field, so the relativistic result may be tainted by this fact, that light traveling at the increased velocity, i.e., 170 m/s, as measured on the perimeter of the centrifuge, is also traveling at that velocity within the gravitational field. Would this not duplicate the expected Doppler shift of light through a gravity field? It would seem that the (1962) experiment is in essence doing just that. So yes, the results will show a Doppler shift as per Einstein, but no, it is not clear as to why this lateral light shift is taking place: Is the Doppler effect due to gravity or relativity?

Also, I found curious the title of the paper in the Journal of the Optical Society of America: "An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock," (1938). Hmm... searching for Doppler light shift in a moving atomic clock? Therefore, can it be assumed that if light shifts, so will the oscillations in Cesium-133 in like manner? This necessitates the question: Does a Doppler lightshift of atomic oscillations in an atomic clock mean "time" is slowing, or is it merely a Doppler shift of atoms slowing, and nothing more?

If yes, there is a Doppler shift relativistically observed, where time slows; but if no, there is no definitive proof time slows down.. In like manner, nor does it mean that the Doppler shift of distant cosmic light is anything more than it traveling through gravitational fields, not the very weak field we know of here on Earth, but a very strong field (dark matter like) we still do not know about -- far out there. If it is the latter, then what does it mean for the thesis space is expanding, or the origin of this expansion in a Big Bang?"

---

OCKHAM'S RAZOR

Cross-post from BadAstronomy/Against the Mainstream/Lunatik: http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=11435&start=25&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=718b5affb33cd66a6ccd1cb8c90eb309

Quote:
"Was Einstein right (about gravity), as the mainstream believes, or are there still new, and old, ideas that still needs exploring?"

RE post at "Einstein's Relativity Error": http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=246490#246490
Lunatik: Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:20 am 

Thanks Sean for the thorough illustration showing how the theory of coordinate transformation works. I am not totally clear on it, so will use another illustration to see if it can make sense to me, using your example above and mine below.

I'll use the example of kids playing Gorilla tag (what we played as kids on the streets of New York long ago), where kid A runs up and tags kid A1, who's now 'you're it!' Kid A1 must now run over to kid B1, at v=0.6c (New York kids are fast, man!), to tag him. Because kid B1 is 3*c minutes away, it takes kid A1 5 minutes to get there. He tags B1, who now becomes B2, who's now 'you're it!'. Kid B2 now runs back to kid A, who gets tagged, so he now becomes A1 again. B2 tagging A1 happens in more than 5 minutes, so their distance now seems further apart, both in space and time, 3.75 minutes in space, and 6.25 minutes in time. Kid K is the referee, so from his point of view he can see both A1 and B2 kids, so he knows what's going on for both of them.

Now step over to kid K and see what he saw. "Well, duhh (he's a real New Yorker), duh kid A1 ran to duh kid B1/B2 in 5 minutes, who ran back to kid A1 in 5 minutes... I think?"

But that's not how A1 saw it, since for him (standing at B1) the return trip from B2 to A1 was further and longer, since he saw the distance now as 3.75*c minutes, and time as 6.25 minutes. But for kid B2, who is running at 0.6c, the trip was exactly 5 minutes, over a distance of 3*c minutes. Kid B2 is now at kid A1, "tag!", and his distance is zero. Kid K saw what both A1 and B2 saw in their own reference frames, and not from the perspective of either. So for him, or so he thought, nothing had changed for either one. Because Kid K was kinda slow, he couldn't make the 'transference' he needed to assign A1's perspective over to B2's perspective, to jump over to K'. For him, it all happened in a 'New York minute', fast, but not faster or slower.

Einstein was no doubt brilliant, so for him to make the 'transference' from A1's reference frame over to B2's was easy. However, this is where we get tripped up, because as a prudent and reasonable man (I moved to sunny California!), I can see no justification for doing this jump from one observational reference frame to the other, carrying over the result from the original, without questioning it. And yet, every Relativist out there has to make that 'transference jump' in his or her mind, either consciously or not, to make it work, otherwise it doesn't work. This is the 'voodoo' magic that has to be accepted, to me counterintuitively on 'faith', to make Einstein's Relativity work, otherwise it becomes nonsense. The fact that several generations have accepted this puzzles me much more than the puzzle of Relativity itself.

So in my original above, when I spoke of 'transference', this is what I was referring to. Anyone who cannot, or refuses to, make that jump is left out of Relativity, which I dare say is a lot of people who don't accept it, even if they don't understand why they don't accept it. I think Relativity is a brilliant 'observational' technique for understanding what appears to be happening at another reference frame moving in relation to us, and for that it is perfect. But to then take that observational technique and transfer it onto the observed, as if it were happening for the observed's moving frame from his own perspective, is a counterintuitive and unjustifiable jump, one no reasonable or critically thinking individual dare make, except to accept it on faith. Still, it obviously has not stopped others from doing so for nearly a century.

Gorilla tag, anyone?

Simian Relativity logic would confirm transference. Here it is from a chimp's point of view:

Chimp A loves to prod his stick into an anthill to lick the ants off that cling to it. Chimp B who is watching and drooling, hoping to get some, thinks this is wonderful and explains to chimp A the reason the ants cling to the stick, it is because they taste so good. Chimp A says no, they taste good to us because we like them, but the ants cling to the stick because the stick tastes good to them. Chimp B scratches his head, and other parts, and proclaims triumphantly that this is obviously right, that the ants like the way the stick tastes same as we like the way the ants taste!

It's all relative. Obviously the simian logic is flawed, since it is transferring their tasting good to the ants, so the ants have the same taste for the stick.

In Relativity, this transference is what makes it work, that what is observed by the inertial frame is as if it were what is actually happening to the observed. Both are wrong.

J

DR. ALBERT EINSTEIN'S COUNTERINTUITIVE LEGACY

There is an interesting paradox for those who understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity and for those who do not. Some students will see it and immediately become fascinated with this theory, while others will see it and immediately get turned off. Why is that?

Perhaps asking the question in a different way may yield greater clarity: Why is it some students have an immediate intuitive rejection of Relativity and abandon it, while others fall under its spell and begin the arduous journey of trying to understand how it works?

I think the operative word here is 'how' it works. An intuitive mind will immediately respond to an inherent paradox in Relativity, that for it to work, the observation from a frame 'at rest' must be transposed, or transferred, over to the frame in motion, the one being observed. This intuitively grates on some minds like chalk on the blackboard, since it demands a leap of logic to get there. At first blush, it would not appear to be so, since what is to be observed is what it should be, namely the observed. However, Relativity takes an extra step, one missed by many it seems, that the observation is not merely an apparent 'observation', but it becomes an 'actuality' of how it is for the observed; in effect, what is being observed becomes real. At this point, great minds such as Galileo and Newton abandoned the search in relativity, since they immediately saw it as being merely a relative observation from the observer's point of view, but not what is happening to the observed. Einstein, however, fell under its spell. One criticism here often heard is how can the observation of an observed be anything other than what that is? This is a good question, because it is on this question's answer that lies the pivot of where one student will accept Relativity, and study how it works, while another will reject it. The classical response by those who accepted it to those who rejected or abandoned Relativity is that they refuse to truly understand it. Valid point, but if one sees that the observation is being 'transferred' illogically to the observed's state of being, then one almost a priori cannot take it seriously. The 'how' then becomes meaningless, and Relativity nonsense.

So it takes a leap of logic to surmount this 'transference' issue, one readily taken by some, while turned away by others as 'counterintuitive'. The standard reply from Relativists is that Relativity is a totally logical and beautiful, even elegant, theory that can be understood by serious students, while its results may appear counterintuitive. This is not due to intellectual dishonesty, however, and should never to construed as such. The students of Relativity truly believe that the universe works this way, that because of how these frames work in relation to one another, the universe is actually structured as such. Therefore, the observational 'transference' for them is no such thing but only 'proves', in a rather circular way, the observations. And as in any leap of faith, they will then eagerly seek to help others convert to their vision. These same students will then embark on a life long effort to understand something that is in essence counterintuitive from the beginning, explore all of its ramifications, discover 'proofs' as to why it works in the universe, such as 'slowing' atomic clocks in motion, and perpetually poo-poo those who do not follow in their footsteps. This to me is an incredible paradox, because in the end, developing an extremely complex theory to explain the simplest things in reality makes no sense, given Ockham's Razor, and especially given that its basic premise accepted, that of the transference of observation onto the observed, is wrong. That so much of Relativity had been used to explain astrophysical phenomena in the universe makes it particularly sinister, for then it takes on the semblance of legitimacy, though the results are often twisted and warped beyond reason. In essence, Relativity and its results are counterintuitive almost by definition, and thus must in the end be accepted on faith.

This is the legacy Einstein and his Relativity followers had left us for the past century. This legacy left us an army of Relativists who are quick to vigorously criticize any dissenters by countering that they are simply 'not trying hard enough' to understand it. But understand what? The incredibly arcane mathematical arts of a theory flawed from the start? So the criticism is unjust. Worse, because this army has taken over the mainstream of physics and astrophysics, they represent a united front against any critics who cry 'foul'. There is almost no way to challenge them, by intelligent and knowledgeable scientists, without being damned into obscurity by the mainstream. Also, because most who had rejected Relativity as counterintuitive from the start, and refuse to delve into it, are typically not as well armed with defenses to argue their case, they represent a minor threat to the establishment. They are shouted down by those who had spent sometimes a lifetime to make sense of it, to become extremely proficient in its mathematical arts. Thus, in their own confusion over what is real and what is 'relative', they seek with great effort to confuse their opponents as well. Again, this is a most sinister condition for science to be in, and one which unfortunately has retarded scientific progress in astronomy and physics for nearly a century. The fact that technologically we are so successful is not due to Relativity, but due to the scientific persistence of using non-relativistic classical theories in physics and electro-magnetics that yielded real results. We have fast travel, a space program, and near instant communications because of these technological advances. Relativity had nothing to do with it, except to confuse our basic understandings of how works the universe. This confusion is nowhere better exemplified than in the modern theories of an expanding universe that started with a Big Bang, or in trying to unite Quantum Theory with General Relativity, such as multi-dimensional Strings. It is a mess, Relativity is wrong, an error of judgement and thinking, and thus in all likelihood, so are the Big Bang and String theories.

What will overcome this error, this army of Relativists who will do all they can to repulse criticism of their arts? We need to discover a better scientific understanding of 'how' works gravity, not merely its mathematics, but what it actually is; and with that understanding develop a whole new source of usable energy. We do not need a leap of logic, we need real science. Then the army of Relativists will stop producing young college graduates whose minds, in ernestly paying homage to their Founder through arduous counterintuitive studies, are closed to alternative ideas. When we get there, their vocal criticisms will very likely be stunned into silence.

Ivan

For Relativity Tutorial: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

for anyone who had not stunned into a Relativity silence. :)

G = 8 pi T (see pg. 6 of Wikipedia article) Einstein's other less famous equation.

This is the less famous Einstein (vs. E = mc^2) on gravity. However, the numbers don't seem to work out.

If Newton's G = 6.67e-11 Nm^2, then checking the SI base units, it shows Testa's T is the Magnetic flux as Wb/m^2, or T is kg/s^2 A. Checking further, A, Amperes, is described as 2e^-7 Newtons per meter, or m.kg.s^-2/m. If so, then a Tesla is T = kg.s^-2. (2e-7)kg^-1.s^2, where they all cancel, except for 2e-7.

This works out to be:

T = 2e-7 (SI units?), which is if using Einstein's G = 8 pi T, works out to be:

G = (8) (3.14..) (2e-7) = 50e^-7 = 5e^-6 (not nearly 6.67e-11 Nm^2).

I am not sure how Einstein worked out these values, but it seems that we are about 100,000 times greater than G. Would it not be better to express this as:

G = 10e-5 pi T = 6.28e-11, which is closer?

I am stumped... unless Dr. Einstein had a Tesla value of T = 1.33e-5 in mind, then the numeric values work out, except for the Si units. A Tesla is also described as:

1 T = 1 V.s.m^-2 = 1 kg.s^-2.A^-1 = 1 N.A^-1.m^-1 = 1 Wb.m^-2.

I believe, if I remember correctly, that Earth's magnetic field is approximately 10 T, so this gravitational value is very small indeed, smaller than a refrigerator magnet, which holds up my reminder to not to gain too much weight.


Ivan

Ps: I should add that G = 8 pi T may have an inherent flaw in it, if the Axiomatic is right, because gravity has an intrinsic inverse proportionality to electromagnetic energy, per the equation. If so, Einstein's gravity equation fails.

EINSTEIN'S ENERGY UNIVERSE?

Einstein almost got it right in E = mc^2, except he left out gravity, but the real Energy equation is E = mc^3.

I know this sounds strange, but stay tuned, and I will show why it is so. I will post my findings on Does Zero Point Energy cause Spin? when worked out. Watch for it, stay tuned...

Ivan

Becuase E=Mc^2
M is in ^3 measurment (3D Veiw) and c^2 is in a (2D veiw)
So I would look forward to see you other Measurement to make the Total 3D by 3D as a complete forumula.

Just my thought about the old E=Mc^2.

you might find this instresting

-quote"For instance, who on Earth knows how Einstein's famous equation E = mc2 come from? If we ask any non-scientific reader, no one would ever know. We wouldn't even care if Einstein wrote E = mc3 instead, as long as our scientists agreed with it. Yes, as long as our scientists agreed with it."

http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/6039/jd1.html

Ivan, Michael,

Try the following link ... one of the best I have ever read ... and the formulations verify...!

Relativity Debunked

J____

Hi J___,

So what Steve Waterman is saying basically is that the whole relativistic idea is flawed from the start? I always found it fascinating as an 'observational' technique for things in motion, but never bought into the rest of it, since what we observe is NOT what is happening there for the observed. Though I tried to argue this on a number of forums, I realized pretty quick that you can't argue with true believers, in any religion. That includes Einstein's Relativity believers as well.

Thanks! Ivan

Ivan,

Not only was Einstein wrong, the followers of Einstein/Minkowski/Lemaitre Standard Model have dispensed with the ether openly used and postulated in Relativity. Proven by the Einstein Lecture given at the University of Leiden, October 27, 1920. It was that lecture where although Einstein acknowledged and avowed that the ether existed, but he went on to the distortion of facts and imposed that Space-Time continuum as having the physical properties of the ether, but denied the ether could implement or have motion…! In other words, Relativity breaks down and fails because his concept of light would not propagate through a … solid … and could only move through … empty space, or what we consider a vacuum…! Where the contradiction occurs in Relativity was by openly declaring the speed c by using the flawed Maxwell equations, but neglecting to fully utilize the ether as was incorporated by Maxwell, for when the ether was acknowledged as having physical properties … Relativity failed. Extract from the lecture follows….

“The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events. What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the 20- former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation. As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future We are not yet clear. We know that it determines the metrical relations in the space-time continuum, e.g. the configurative possibilities of solid bodies as well as the gravitational fields; but we do not know whether it has an essential share in the structure of the electrical elementary particles constituting matter. Nor do we know whether it is only in the proximity of ponderable masses that its structure differs essentially from that of the Lorentzian ether; whether the geometry of spaces of cosmic extent is approximately Euclidean. But we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations, with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. 21- In this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and of finite magnitude, its magnitude being determined by the value of that mean density. If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From the present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new formal motif, as though 22- nature might just as well have endowed the gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example, with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetic type. Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or -- as they might also be called -- space and matter. Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of 23- physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. An exceedingly ingenious attempt in this direction has been made by the mathematician H. Weyl; but I do not believe that his theory will hold its ground in relation to reality. Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass. Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic 24- of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. implementation.”

Link to full Lecture

J____

Ivan and J___,

I would like to know your thoughts on the email I send you, That maybe the way we do math is not complete as a whole. As we look at forces, we know that every force has an equal and opposite amount. If we all continue to measure up evrything in sections with one direct equation with one answer, that is as far as you get.

I thought you might be able to express my thought of that email in better terms.
Sure we can measure how much energy is in one measurement, but what about enclueding the other half of the Energy effecint force of the equation, to complete it?

Or am I not making sense?

Hi Michael, have not forgotten you and have your calculations on my 'to do' list for tomorrow morning. My calculations, working on it at this moment, integrate planetary kinetic energy as expressed in orbital velocity with the solar irradiance times distance from the Sun, so working out planetary total orbital Energy, which for Earth is ~9e16 J/s/m. Planets closer into the Sun have higher values, and those further away have lower values. Should have them all done tonight, if my eyes can stay open. I think I'll have another glass of wine and post in on the "Does Gravity Zero Point Energy Explain Spin?" around midnight, or thereafter.

Will check on yours tomorrow.

Ivan

same here, I am looking at that number 159.~~~~

where as if [((1/Orbital time in secs)* distance to M1 in meters/s )/ orbital velocity in meters/s)]= 159.~~~~ for any m1 to m2 comparision

Michael

or even another way is all values in secs and in meters. this is for any M1 m2 comparision.
0.006282765
0.00628~~~~ = (1/r)*v*orbital secs

I am trying to find what that number is?
Or where I came up with it.

some sleep and more on it the next day!

Ivan, J_____
Well Gets this !!!!!!!!

c*G=0.019996157
then times my 159.~~~~ for any M1 m2 Comparison
and you get a number
3.184216733
Hmmmmm strange it looks like PI?
I will have to refine my data,
I think it will = PI
it is just that the data from NASA and jpl has round off numbers which throw off my Propergation of distance and velocity!!!

I think I have something or nothing!

Michael

Ivan, Michael,

Ivan - Where E screwed up comes in the final sentence ... The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

A static entity in the universe...?

The upper limit of a photon’s rest mass is 0.0000000000000006 electron volts, which is so near zero … computations become fantasy; however, the mass of a photon is equal to 0.00000000000000000000039 times the mass of an electron (the lightest particle).

Question is: How can a star’s gravitational field bend the path of a (massless) photon?

According to Relativity, the mass of the photon is not attracted to the star’s mass; instead, the star’s mass (gravity) distorts < moves > space (curves space), which is a direct contradiction to the lecture given at Leiden in 1920 where E stated, “The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”

If motion cannot be applied to Einstein/Minkowski/Lemaitre Space-Time … how is it possible for space-time to bend … or … curve?

The best I can do to represent curved space-time caused by a star visually … o) …

General relativity uses a geometry that is almost impossible for us to comprehend and/or visualize for we live in 3D Realty. The Einstein/Minkowski geometry describes not only curved space, but also curved time? It is a geometry of curved four-dimensional space-time according to Einstein and Relativity … and gravity is nothing but the bumps, depressions, or warping of geometrical space-time. 3D = length, width, height, but now Einstein/Minkowski added space & time and combined the two, which equates to a 4D reality…?

If we believe Einstein, curved space-time is incapable of motion; however, density, and other variables dictate nothing is perfect … therefore, a star rotating on an axis would in fact cause gravitational pulses since the mass of a star cannot be distributed perfectly so the irregularities of density dictates such curved space-time would also vary (move in and out to and from the star) according to the bulges and irregularities of the star’s mass, and density.

Michael, I have long fought the numbers. Undoubtedly if we are dealing with 3D objects there must be at least three computations to achieve accuracy, but I am not so sure that we don’t actually need four … one for each dimensional aspect, plus one for combining and compiling the results.

Brain is about dead…!

J____

J___,

Well put I have see it the same way and could have not explianed it any better. I and anyone who has have a reasoned head on their shoulders would see right throught that Time and curving of space. I for one CHOKED on the concept of where they say speed of light is a constant velocity, but the space has been streched, and that it looks as if Time can be ajustable. Many of many times I could not swallow it, it was not that I couldn't follow what they were saying, but not many people could see they were tripping on their own theory!

Thanks J___ for putting it in simple good terms.

***

Ivan,
By taking to different functions to find the mass of M1 by m2. Note with freq. of orbit and its distance, as well as distance and velocity in which I believed I cancled them out to a balance in the equation.
Well it is ethier the error of missing amount of data which is rounded off, that shows up as 159.~~~~. and if this is the case when they compare mass in these ways, has this distorted the value of mass as they see it. I do not think so right now.
I have my mathimatian friend which I have used in the past. He was aslo the one who discover where I was getting that balance point in my Radius*Density equation to surface a. Where I was making the stand to to use Mass alone, but "Density Displacement of a measured area" in any equation.
I will have to let him pick this apart, and its units. he cares nothing about the univers, but only the Math he has a flare for.
I will have to step out today with the family, but am curious to see what unfolds today.
either it be an error, a constant, (or somehow pi, freq, secs, veleocity, and distances) that comes up with 159.~~~~ but stanger is that it might show something in G and c? My mind is spinning to fast in the details, I will take a break with the kids.

-Michael

When I get back I hope to finish my Spin stuff before getting ready to go on the road next week.

I think I know now.
Ok just messing around here with spin
(1/Radius of mass in meters)*surface spin in meters* speed in Meters = 6.28 FOR ANY m2 body

These numbers must do somthing with the
4*pi^2/G from T^2 and R^3 for k but am still looking into it

Ok I found it Same equation on a mass

I used this on a mass and it is 6.28/2=Pi
this would be for solid bodies
But space comes up with 159.~~~ between the two bodies. I just want to put that number to rest shortly. It is just wierd that 159. / 6.28 is like inverse sqaure law as 25% of the density displacement radius or MASS

Which bring back that question of G with mass verse G in space? more soon

******** correction to above
(1/Radius of BODY in meters)*surface spin in SECONDS* speed in Meters/s = 6.28 FOR ANY m2 body

Well comparing the [any orbits]159.~~~ / [any spin].15923567 =999.89~~
or say 1000 but the ending units is in ^3 so
10^3 = 1000 But what it is I am looking into it?
I know it looks like I am trying to dig up something the wrong way but I will explaine later.

Real quick I am running out the door

=SQRT(3.14^2+3.14^2+3.14^2)^3
thats what 159.~~~~
comes from

I will be back later to finish my point on this if I have one

Thanks Ivan,

I went back to walk it throught and found out I was dividing it in km/sec and not meters per sec
Thats wht I had 159
and not .159
that is= (1/2*pi)

I will still have more to say later

ON A UNIFIED EINSTEIN?

Here is a SciAm.com article on how five decades ago Einstein tried to unify all the forces of physics: http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000B7A16-94D0-111A-BAF583414B7F4945

However, it didn't work. What came instead was an enamoured vision of a mathematical universe where Quantum physics works but gravity does not. He could not see gravity could be an opposing force to electromagnetic energy, inversely proportional, leaving gravity a variable-constant G. By force-fitting a universal gravity constant into his mathematical description of how these forces interact, Einstein missed the obvious. Einstein's theories may be unified with symmetry and metrics, but not how reality is itself, for the universe is an interactive construct of gravity and electromagnetic energy.

Now the next generation of physicists can discover the real physics.

Ivan

Cracking the constant G - By Michael Stransky

Ivan you might find this intresting, I work out they Ideas eistein was playing around with at that time, tried to see in his mind what obsticals he was against, looked for the proportional balance of Electricity and Gravity waves and guess what I now believe. like in the manner you have a force with 75% of the mass to the left and the other 25% of the value force to the right. Well total force would be 100% of it at the angle, or in their eyes 90' from the right hand rule.

G is a proportional fudge factor as I have replayed in my own head as shown!

Eistines theory of Light speed and mass and 90', 180' may have been a mix up of the fundementals and where he got his numbers from, he loved angles, pi and cycles, and he tried to use Light as his measuring stick as show below! and how everyone was looking for potentions of all the Whole angle. Like as in 50% of the velocity angle or 100% of velocity angles and charges.
And I have never ever seen anywhere on the web which explians how G was concieved, but JUST IS by many. and all they say is "Its been measured"
so therefore it works!
Sorry but I have some bad news, it all depends which ruler of measurement you are useing!


------------------------
1/100%= = 0.01
c/180'= = 1665513.656
(c/180')*0.01*90'= = 1498962.29
1/1498962.29= = 6.67128E-07

100/1= = 100
(c/180')*100%= = 166551365.6
(c/180')*100%*90'= = 14989622900
1/149622600= = 6.67128E-11
------------------------

And that is why if you look at any planets such as
(Radius*2*density)/its surface accl=
that same fudge factor known as 3/G/2/pi=
which is =7157017747
close to my 7155614684
it all depends on which G to look at
6.67128E-11
or
6.67259E-11

and when it comes down to my 7.15e17 number which is work out with orbiting bodies that force is seen # * 1e8 bigger than the force on a solid 100% of the body

Like so
7155614684 *1e8= 7.15561E+17
7157017747 *1e8= 7.15702E+17
if 1e8 is the 100,000,000/100%=1000000.
now 1000000. sqrt= 1000
thats how I have my 1000^2 for units

Now if someone would like to know understand the whole meaning behind G.

Cracking the constant G - By Michael Stransky part II


As much as 360' / 4 = 90' each
to formulate 4*pi in some todays formulas, this means that G is a fudge factor and eistien used c as a measuring stick and it freq. and waves leangths, Like C/wave lenght and stuff like that!

this also holds true with my minds eye how 90' works in waves and formulas like
R^2*a
R^2 is 90' from a

and V^2*r which
V^2 is 90' from r

you must read my post befor this one to under stand how today we are cuaght up using 2 rad per one cycle becuase that how the math worked out and why!
and why the forces are 90' actually from each other and all he did was convert 360' into 3.14 as a proportion which in turn was actually 180 or 2 rads per cycle, or half the waves lenght in many formulas. My sheets are making more sense now, and I am making great progress.

so this is why many people are stuck on looking at it in the view point of pi, or c/2,
Well I hope I answered the mysterious constant of G.

Cracking the constant G - By Michael Stransky part III

instead of useing 360' in the equation, and use it like we are taught to then do this

299,792,458/2=
149896229
then
149896229*100%(the whole force in question)=
14989622900.
then
14989622900.*4=
59958491600
now that 1/59958491600=1.66782E-11
and consider the G used from 360' instead of pi
so take Eistiens G and divide it into
1.66782E-11/6.67259E-11=
0.24995099
Hummm wow 25% that would not happen to be the square law of Gravity, or orbit laws? LOL
I think thats is it!

Michael

Cracking the constant G - By Michael Stransky part IV.

this will explaine it better the diffrence between Pi and 360' and the speed of light.

pi version:
299792458/2=149896229
then
1/149896229=6.67128E-09

360' version
299792458/180=1665513.656
then
1/1665513.656=6.00415E-07

so
6.67128E-09/6.00415E-07=0.011111111
then
1/0.011111111=90

even if you put the known G into the equation to both, which still doesnoy even matter

6.67128E-09/6.67259E-11=99.98039598
6.00415E-07/6.67259E-11=8998.235638

And again 8998.235638/99.98039598=90

or in other terms 90' is 25% of the whole.

you see if you want to measure 100% of a force, like F=M1*m2*G/r^2 and said this equals 100% of the value, well thats why G was *100 or 100%

this is where educated man may have tripped up by using 1 and -1 "something from nothing"

Thats is because "nothing was added to something"

and now may this be the results of mathimatical horzion of quatum math which looks for something from nothing at all.

Have we been chasing our own tail? trying to find that something which never exisited from nothing but like 100% of the total values not shared with m2.

we see a boulder and a pebble the M1 an m2 have nothing to due with the answer. v^2*r of m2 is 100% of the same number as R^2*a is to M1.
So
R^2*a [of M1]= is equal to 100% of = v^2*r [of m2]

I think this is the last example for now.

Michael

I needed to correct myself, a friend (my math guy) brought to my attention that my linking of "G and EINSTEIN" as it is with History timeline Terms was not correct! But I still am sure about the Math I did above

Ok I felt I should put this here.

Since most wonder what G Mass and c is and you might like to look at
it as E=Mc^2

Take any know body to this formula and you will get its Mass

(4*pi^5) * sqrt(v^2*r)= a number (#)
now take that number and * by 1e10 which will equal the M1's Mass.

I just found it odd, that if you take the
Sqrt(Mass)/its own sqrt(GM)= ~122427.3555
or roughly 122.e3 that number/(4*pi^5)=
100 +/- of .01

same if 122.e3/c=2448.737514
which roughly~2448.737514/(4*pi^5)=2

Which if I take c and G out of the equation I can get to Mass with the
same answer!
----------------------------------
(4*pi^5) * sqrt(v^2*r)= a number (#)
now take that number and * by a factor of 1e10 which will equal the
M1's Mass exactly.
-------------------------------
I will see what I come up whith it in terms of E=Mc^2 in other forms.
and try to rewrite it from the other direction.

ok I think I may have found C^3

(Sqrt(mass)/Sqrt(GM) )^5=#

That #/c^3=1

is that about right Ivan?!?!

( sqrt(M1 Mass)/sqrt(m2's v^2*r) )^5/c^3=~1

an answer of 1 +/-.02

Last post today,

Sqrt(M0/Sqrt(GM)
---------------- = 180.000000e13
Sqrt(G)*C^3

all bodies
180.e13 +/-.01e13

ok earth and moon

earth mass sqrt= 5.9736E+24
moons v^2*r=4.02286E+14

now sqrt(5.9736E+24)
/sqrt(4.02286E+14)=121857.0741

roughly the same number of 122.e3 for any M1m2
since that is in a why cancelling out G
from M/GM= but just squared.


ok ~12.2e4 take that(12.2e4)^5=2.75038E+25
I just say 2.75E+25/c^3=

Final answer without rounding off any numbers, note like charon I have bad data from the web.

Also that veriation of all that getting to near 1, may just be the results of the rounded of "r" data given by jpl or the web.

1.018563441 SOL
1.02 Mercury
1.020775489 Venus
1.021473217 Earth
0.997221472 moon
1.02079077 Mars
1.02133253 Phobos
1.024202209 Deimos
1.019941146 Ceres
1.011721196 Pallas
1.022522305 Juno
1.022794945 Vesta
1.015213381 Jupiter
1.358077133 Halo Start
1.358077133 Halo end
1.358077133 Main Start
1.358077133 Main end
1.358077133 Gossamer Start inner
1.358077133 Gossamer end outer
1.358077133 Gossamer Start inner
1.358077133 Gossamer end outer
1.004153277 Metis
1.004486991 Adrastea
1.012836954 Amalthea
1.016534399 Thebe
1.024344676 Io
1.024053578 Europa
1.022607207 Ganymede
1.022557108 Callisto
1.017085705 leda
1.02122133 himalia
1.022768915 lysithea
1.018231201 elara
0.987684369 Ananke
1.043145879 Carme
0.01794705 Pasiphae
0.01735948 Sinope
0.985243514 Saturn
1.009865279 Pan
1.012476694 Atlas
1.012717033 Prometheus
1.012303399 pandora
1.01172824 epimethues
1.011408767 Janus
1.017078005 Mimas (SI)
1.019543176 Enceladus (SII)
1.020773029 Calypso
1.020773029 telesto
1.020778436 Tethys (SIII)
1.021763753 Dione (SIV)
1.021735754 Helene
1.022638495 Rhea (SV)
1.022485671 Titan (SVI)
1.021380025 Hyperion (SVII)
1.021377401 Iapetus (SVIII)
1.02385774 Phoebe
1.011134435 Uranius
1.050024305 Miranda (V)
1.019168171 Ariel (I)
1.013714428 Umbriel (II)
1.084144445 Titania (III)
1.021733371 Oberon (IV)
1.024098085 Neptune
1.019433704 Nereid (NII)
1.0223297 Triton (NI)
1.059100268 Pluto
21838985.36 charon

** Also if you take ~12.2e4 = 4*pi^5
** and also if (4*pi^5) * sqrt(of any V62*r)= '#'
that number '#' * 1e+10 gives you the Mass of M1 as well, I still dont see why these numbers came up but I am still looking into it.

real quick if G was = to
6.726902864E-11
then the numbers would cancle each other

I think I found your error
3.4441E+12. should be 2.4441E+12.
-----------------
sqrt(5.9736E+24)earth mass = 2.4441E+12
that why it came out higher then the about number of 121,857.0741

Ahh... I'd better get new glasses!

Thanks, Ivan

IN THE END...RED-GRAVITY?

Not to worry, since this will not happen for billions of years, but here is what happens to our mother Earth when the Sun will turn into a red giant: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/red_giants_040916.html

So what would such an event, where the Earth is swallowed up by the now red-giant Sun, do to the planet's orbit, for example? -- though we can be fairly sure what it would do to 'global warming'. Would it throw the planet's orbit into chaos? There is that possibility if the theorized new physics works out: the suddenly hotter Sun lightens gravity orbital Energy for Earth, so its constant G is lightened, and the planet spirals further away from the Sun, though not enough to keep it from cooking. Conversely, if the Sun cools suddenly, per this new theory, the planet spirals inwards, where it will surely fry. So there is no peace for the wicked, and all will burn in the end, though we may first go through a wild ride, like on the first circle into Dante's inferno... Sun glasses and hot dogs anyone? What would that do to lunar calendar, since our solar calendar would make no sense, except to the Mayans. Or, Einstein was right after all, and it is all Relative!

Ivan

Ivan in supplement of that email I sent you, you can add this to the equations

Any GM/(Volumne)^.667=a*2*pi
like so
Sols GM is 1.97706E+30
divided by its volumne^.667 which is 1.41227E+27
comes out to be
1.03E+02
that divided by 274 = 2.65E+00
and we all know that is 2*pi
------
well I hope that might help understand what I see in my minds eye with
^1.5 and ^.667 meaning(x*(1/x)=1
in terms of c and G

but I will still look into a better explinations of it all, now that Volumne and is something to do with G.

Well we will see

I have to correct myself on that last post

RELATIVITY'S POSTULATE: THERE IS NO PREFERRED REFERENCE FRAME. Is this an error?

This Dr. Albert Einstein's first postulate in his theory of Relativity: "There is no preferred inertial frame." -- see Einstein's Postulates for an easy explanation.

By eliminating a 'preferred inertial frame' Dr. Einstein carried this over from Galileo's notion. However, that was where it needed to stop. What then happened was a serious flaw of logic: that this 'no preferred inertial frame', or a preferred frame of reference was the same universally for every observer, which had disastrous consequences. It now allowed for relativistic observations to be assumed to be equally true from any reference point, and not only from the reference point of the observer. Therein lies the problem with Einstein's Relativity, because it leads to an error.

There is something very enticing about this 'no preferred reference frame' in relativity, because it leads to the illusion that what is observed from one reference frame is equally valid from another. However, this is not true. What is observed from a reference frame, such as time slowing, or light redshifting while the observed is accelerating away, for example, is not true for the reference frame where the observed is. Conversely, if the observed is now accelerating back towards the initial reference frame, time would speed up, same as the observable light would blueshift. But this is not the same as that happening for the reference frame in which the observed is. Though relativity's claims are correct for the observer, whether or not time actually slows down is really only from the point of view of the observer, but never from the observed's (though 'time slowing' is something of a red herring here). What is primary is whether or not the observation from the observer's point of view can be said to be without preference as an inertial frame for the observed's: Yes or no? This is the issue. We cannot have it both ways. Either the observer really is a preferred reference frame, so that what is being observed is what is valid for that preference frame; or the observed's is the preferred reference frame, so that what is being observed from the observer's reference frame is not valid, since none of the observations apply to that frame. So if 'yes', then what we observe from our initial reference frame must be transferred over to the observed, which becomes nonsense. If 'no', then there is a 'preferred inertial reference frame': The preferred reference frame is that of the observer. For this reason, the logic of Einstein's relativity, both SR and GR, fails at the very beginning because of this serious logical flaw. This is the error. Further, because light redshifts for the observer when the observed is accelerating away, and then blueshifts when accelerating on the return, the two events self negate. They cancel out, so neither twin ages faster or slower in the famous Twins Paradox once they are returned to the reference frame of the observer. In fact, if one twin accelerates away and then coasts at a constant velocity, the two twins never see each other again; to see each other, one has to accelerate to either catch up or the other accelerates to return, in both cases, the observed effects self negate.

The second postulate, that light travels at the same velocity in space regardless of the velocity of the observer may be correct, but this has nothing to do with relativity, but instead is a function of how light registers on our instruments when its velocity is read. Period. In fact, light will either blueshift or redshift for the observer, though its velocity will register as constant. But this shift in frequency does not allow it to be called 'the same light' for the observer, since once it is shifted, it is no longer the same in frequency. We know this is true because of how works the photoelectric effect, for which the Nobel Prize Committee gave Einstein a prize.

Dr. Einstein wrestled with this first postulate even as late as 1923, 18 years later, when he delivered a lecture at Gothenburg titled "Fundamental ideas and problems of the theory of relativity". In it, he says: "The whole development of the theory turns on the question of whether there are physically preferred sates of motion in Nature." And indeed, this is the big question, is there a preferred reference frame in Nature? The answer, of course, is that there is a preferred frame from which this motion is measured, as per the above: this preferred state of motion is that of the observers's. In his next sentence of the lecture he then adds: "Also, concepts and distinctions are only admissible to the extent that observable facts can be assigned to them without ambiguity." Well? I would say the answer is no, since there is not only ambiguity to assigning these observable facts, but in fact they are totally misplaced. Since they yield no effect on the observed, Dr. Einstein's theory of relativity is a 'theory of observation' only. By stating as a postulate that there is no preferred reference frame in the universe, he build his theory upon a subtle but damaging error, which became a subtle point of semantics. Relativity has nothing to do with how works our universe.

Dr. Einstein's third postulate: "The postulate of equivalence of inertial frames for the formulation of the laws of Nature is assumed to be valid for the whole of physics." This is an extension of the first postulate. So, no, it is not valid for the whole of physics.

This does not negate Dr. Einstein's immense achievements, including his work on General Relativity which shows that inertial and gravitational effects are related. Great credit is due to a great man. It is regrettable that his prime monumental work, Special Relativity, on which so much of modern physics rests, is flawed from its first postulate. Relativity is only an observational science.

What about Quantum Physics? It is essentially correct as an 'observational science', though our present instruments are unable to tell us with certainty where will be the electron.

A caveat to all physics students: Relativity is founded on the fundamental error of the first postulate. Caveat lector.


Ivan Alexander

Humancafe.com

From BAD Astronomy: Problems with General Relativity

Some interesting ideas, pointing to a shift in acceptance of what had been nearly 'sacred' for nearly a century of modern physics. Is General Realtivity to go the way of Ptolemeic epicycles?

'Lunatik'

Are All inertial reference frames equal? ...or MERD?

Both Special and General Relativity are postulated on: "All inertial reference frames are equal." However, upon closer inspection, with no disrespect to Einstein's tremendous achievements, we may discover that some reference frames are more equal than others. For example, a reference frame radiating EM energy may be more equal than one that does not; or whether the reference frame for the observed's is the same as for the observer's, since the observer's frame cannot be transposed onto the observed's. If so, then a modified version of both GR and SR would need to be put forward, to better reflect the "modified Einstein's Relativity". In the spirit of M.O.N.D., this tweaked version might be acronymed M.E.R.D. (Or perhaps M.E.N.D., as in "Modified Eisntein-Newton Dynamics", with less offense to the French K). Hopefully, this second version of Relativity's first postulate may be more verifiable than the first, which was taken purely on the faith of an oft repeated mantra: "There are no preferred reference frames."

Ivan

GREAT EINSTEIN'S GHOST?

Here are a couple of articles for PhysicalReview:
Lorentz Violations? Not Yet

Is Special Relativity Wrong?

No violations in Einstein's Relativity, yet, but some questions are being asked, with 'extensions' to fill in the gaps. Of course, if the 'first postulate', no preferred reference frames, is wrong, then the whole thing becomes a mathematical exercise only. As posted above, my sense on the matter is that the 'first' is wrong, and that some reference frames are preferred, i.e., the Sun, with radiant energy output, is preferred to non-radiating bodies.

Ivan

Germany honours Einstein's genius

Genius of science or merely of an extraordinary math-physics? If gravity is NOT a universal constant, what does it mean for General Relativity? If Einstein's 'first postulate' is wrong, what does it mean for Special Relativity? If cosmic light redshift is not Doppler, what happens to Big Bang Theory? If the atom is a unit of interaction between high gravity and electromagnetic energy, what happens to E=mc^2?

Come back in a hundred years...

Einstein's Equation of Life and Death --the Unfinished Symphony.

"By completing this theory of everything Einstein hoped he would rid physics of the unpredictability at the heart of quantum mechanics and show that the world was predictable – described by beautiful, elegant mathematics. Just the way he believed God would make the universe. He would show that the way the quantum mechanics community interpreted the world was just plain wrong. It was a project that he would work on for the next 30 years, until the final day of his life."

Maybe Einstein would have cracked the theory of everything had he lived long enough. He believed the universe is a truly elegant and understandable phenomenon, our understanding of it should not be beyond human ability. The search should not be abandoned, though perhaps a different path may need to be pursued. His achievements in his lifetime were immense, and if any of it was wrong, let history judge this great man's many achievements.

angela

EINSTEIN'S GR GLASSES.

Cross posted from BAD Astronomy, my 300th post/Lunatik:

---

Quote:

TravisM: Until GR. Now, those tolerances are even tighter...

---

MERCURY'S PRECESSION

There's probably no real mystery to why Mercury precesses in relation to the Sun, nor why the Moon precesses in relation to Earth. I believe this can be easily calculated as a transfer of inertia from one large spinning body at close proximity to its smaller satellite. They both spin and rotate in same direction. Taking the Sun's moment of inertia (0.059 I/MR^2) and calculating the inverse 1/r^2 magnitude of this inertia at Mercury's orbital velocity at perihelion (46.0E+6 km), I suspect we will find precession. The same could apply for our Moon. But I'm no math whiz, so will leave it here for another time. The fact that Einstein was able to use General Relativity to show this relationship only proves that he's a math whiz, and found a very complicated way to express mathematically something that may in fact be very simple.

Ivan

GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT

In Wikipedia it describes Gravitational Redshift as follows:

---

Quote:

In the general theory of relativity by Albert Einstein, the gravitational redshift or Einstein shift is the effect that clocks in a gravitational field tick slower when observed by distant observers. More specifically the term refers to the shift of wavelength of a photon to longer wavelength (the red side in an optical spectrum) when observed from a point in a lower gravitational field.

---

EINSTEIN'S RULER:

Unbeknownst to himself, Einstein just gave a bonus to the 'Flat Earthers' crowd: the Earth is really flat if you measure it with a 'bent' ruler!

Is it not the same with Relativity as it applies to cosmology? By varying length and time in relativistic interpretations of cosmic data, we had invariably 'geo-centralized' all heavenly observations! We think that what happens on Earth is universal, which very likely is not the case. In fact, relativistic observations are useful only for relativistic velocities as these are observed using light at the 'universal' constant of v = c only. That is the only time this 'observational' science applies. The rest is error. By bending the rulers, we can achieve any conclusion we wish, and by calling these bent rulers universal, we get absurd results.

Ivan

SPECIAL RELATIVITY's "DOMAIN OF APPLICABILITY"

This "domain of applicability" for testing Einstein's Special Relativity, which is the basis of much of modern physics, may be his real Achille's heel. It may be on this one point, in addition to questionable first postulate, that ultimately Special Relativity will fall. (Below is quote from referenced.)

Taken from "What is the experimental basis for Special Relativity?"

---

Quote:

"Note also that few if any standard references or textbooks even mention the possibility that some experiments might be inconsistent with SR, and there are also aspects of publication bias in the literature. That being said, as of this writing there are no reproducible and generally-accepted experiments that are inconsistent with SR, within its domain of applicability."

---

---

Quote:

"The domain of applicability of a physical theory is the set of physical situations in which the theory is valid. For SR this is basically measurements of distance, time, momentum, energy, etc. in inertial frames (coordinates); calculus can be used to apply SR in accelerated systems, as can the more advanced mathematics of differential geometry."

---

MERCURY'S TWO BODY SYSTEM

From Eric Wiesstein's World of Physics, in his Relativistic Two-Body Problem he shows how the math was derived, which is the math used by Einstein for Mercury's precession. In reading this short paper, one comes across adjustments to the equation with "imperceptible constant" to be ignored, or "negligible" and "ignoring terms" to arrive at the orbital period T and angular precession. For Mercury this works out to be approximately 43 arcseconds per century. One wonders, after all the necessary "adjustments" if this is not a case of the math adjusted for observation, without causal effect noted, in order to fit the observed.

In fact, though this relativistic exercise may come up with the right answer, it may be due to this special effort to make it fit, and not necessarily the explanation for why Mercury's orbit precesses. What is missing is "cause and effect", which I suspect has to do with transfer of angular momentum from the Sun's equatorial spin at Mercury's perihelion position, where its inertial mass is substantially weakened (per Axiomatic Equation) to the point where it is "dragged" along its orbit there.

Ivan

(see March 12, 2005, post above on Mercury's precession)

RELATIVISTIC HUMOR.

(This is a cross-post from the Examined Life Philosophy Journal's forum, on the thread: "The Examined Life Discussion Forums: Philosophy Discussion: Heaven-Earth;Spirit-Flesh;Form-Matter;Mind-Body;Philosophy-Science:The Bifurcation of Nature," posted today.)

Pardon my sense of humor, but in this:

---

Quote:

Relativity has been made to jump through hoops for 100 years now.

---

..I saw it as human Understanding of Reality had been made "to jump through hoops" for 100 years now. J

We are not necessarily advanced further in our understanding of the universe because of it, and rather may have been held back, IMHO.

* * *
RE Pepper's:

---

Quote:

The idea of multiple reference frames is just another way of saying the same thing about time dilation. I don't accept the multiplicity of reference frames as representing multiple realities -- all they represent is multiple perspectives of local areas of the one reality.

---

This is exactly how I see it too, that Relativity is merely an observational science, and not how the universe works. There is only one reality we know of, and if other realities exist, they are invisible to us; we cannot transfer our observation onto another reality as if it were happening there, since nothing happens there that is different from our reality here. I think the fault lies in Einstein's first postulate, that there are no preferential reference frames. This postulate was interpreted as being that all reference frames act in equal fashion, but this may be an error of logic. This error was further carried over into the math, so that it "appears" as if what is observed at relativistic velocities, because of the constraint of lightspeed, actually happens in other frames equally. It does not; it is merely what is "observed".

Here is the link to Einstein's original 1905 paper on Special Relativity: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

You'll notice on page 2 where he talks about Simultaneity, where it says:

---

Quote:

If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates.
If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by 'time.' We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events.

---

Einstein goes on to explain how "time" which we know of as the hands on a watch must be substituted with the concept of a fourth coordinate of space-time, to make the event "simultaneous" in all reference frames. But this is another error of logic, nothing more than another "mind experiment", to juggle the Cartesian co-ordinates to fit the theory. In fact what happens is that the observation of a moving frame from a rest frame is either redshifted or blueshifted. So the remaining at rest observer sees the moving frame at the same time the event is happening, no change there, but the observation reveals motion through the light constant's wavelength shifting. That is what really happens in "simultaneity" of time between reference frames, that we are constrained by the fact that light can only travel at v=c for all observers simultaneously (the second postulate of Relativity), but this is NOT the same light for all observers because it will be either red or blue shifted for each one.

Remember Einstein got his Nobel Prize in physics for his Photoelectric Effect, which shows how there is a "cut-off" frequency, or wavelength, for how light affects electrons on a sodium metal plate. That in itself proves that light is not the same for all wavelengths, since at this cut-off wavelength, photons no longer knock electrons off the plate (400-700 nanometers range), thus not all light is equal. And that is why the first postulate does not really work, since the simultaneity principle says that all light is equal for the same time in all frames; so that time itself (as a coordinate of space-time) has to be adjusted. But if the light is red and blue shifted, it is no longer the same light, for the same time. I realize this is complex, but hidden inside this complexity is Einstein's error, that all reference frames are equal. The first postulate is wrong.

The fact that this error in thinking seems to have eluded science for 100 years is a great puzzle to me, truly I must admit I am floored by it. I suspect it is the seductivity of Relativity that had us captivated, since it is a truly mind bending complexity, and one which opens the way for spectacular claims on reality. But are they justifiable or just wishful thinking? I rule it is the latter, and that as a consequence we ended up with a Paul Davies, Brian Green type universe, where time is a variable, Strings and Branes are alternate interacting realities, and the universe is rather small, only 13.7 billion light years across, born out of a mythical Big Bang. That is the sad state of astrophysics today, and for the past 100 years we had been chasing relativistic shadows, and held back in progress of understanding because of it. Alas, Einstein's seductive idea, and its Lorenzian predecessor, led us astray. Now that Hubble can see 13 billion light years into space, which should be close to where the Big Bang originated, we find fully formed galaxies already in place, which are not supposed to be there. So the Hubble Constant is now called in question, ditto for the "age" of the universe, and in fact other things are beginning to tell us that the Big Bang is wrong. If cosmic light redshift is a gravitational effect instead (as I have reason to suspect), meaning gravity is very strong in the vast reaches of intergalactic space, then the whole idea behind Einstein's Relativity will have to be reconsidered. It will likely be remembered in history as a quaint detour in physics, merely an observational phenomenon treated mathematically in the Cartesian co-ordinate methodology, but not a real interpretation of what reality is all about. And that, to me at least, is a rather ironic twist of humor.

Relativity, make it yours!


You gotta believe.

The Space Jalopy Conundrum.

Would you buy a relativistic used spaceship which traveled at near lightspeed all over the universe? Its odometer reads trillions of miles, star traveled. Traveling relativistic space-time, as per the Twins Paradox, this old jalopy is only a fraction of its age! The odometer and onboard clocks guaranteed not tampered with.

The advertising for it may claim "high mileage - like new". Which would you believe, the mileage gauge, or the time gauge? There is the conundrum.

If Einstein was right, then "high mileage - like new" is not false advertising, is it?

J