Einstein and Relativiy in the Electric Universe

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Einstein and Relativiy in the Electric Universe

Unread postby saul » Tue May 24, 2016 2:18 pm

After watching Wallace Thornhill's excellent presentation today "The long road to understanding gravity" I have to make a few comments. I am happy to hear a courageous voice asking the right questions and pointing out problems with certain common explanations which appear to be nonsense. However I am at a loss to explain the attitude with regards to relativity and the work which often gets credited to Einstein.

First off, Einstein didn't "dispose of the aether". Quite the contrary! He was extremely clear when he said "In so much as empty space has properties, there is an aether". His work made great steps in understanding the aether. To ignore a body of work that describes certain properties of the aether (metric for light propogation, electromagnetic fields) and their relation to mass (general relativity) seems a poor way to go about getting a better understanding. Sure, he did say "the aether is superflous" to certain calculations, and this is correct - what has become known as gauge invariance. The relative motion of a laboratory with respect to the bulk constituents of the aether is not observable with standard means.

Secondly, the guy arguably did more than anyone to establish the electric universe. Relativity theory takes as axiom that distance and time are electromagnetically defined. The idea of distance is electromagnetic. Hard to get more fundamental than that.

Abandoning relativity theory would require a new definition of metric, extension and duration. While I'm curious how anyone intends to do this, it seems that it is hardly in the interest of explaining the electric universe to do so. Don't be mislead by pop science authors who misquote and misattribute Einstein.. instead study the theory, and you'll find the work of Lorentz, Voigt, Poincare and others as collected and described by Einstein to be your ally in this mission.
saul
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Einstein and Relativiy in the Electric Universe

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue May 24, 2016 5:32 pm

Which relativity?
Einstein has 2 different relativities.
1. Special relativity: the speed of lights is constant for all observers.
2. General relativity: gravity bends space/time, affecting light as well.

General relativity
The EU works with general relativity (2), but sees many alternative explanations:
Examples:
- High energy radiation is produced by electric circuits instead of Black holes.
- Dark plasma causes light to bend around the sun and not gravity.

Which means that gravity does not seem to bend space and time, but something else is going on.

Some theoretical problems:
- General relativity is in conflict with quantum physics (the most accurate theory ever).
- The measurements of the constant of gravity variate.
- The tensor equations are used in a wrong way, according to the inventor of tensors himself.

Due to these conflicts, many think that General relativity is wrong.

Special relativity

Abandoning relativity theory would require a new definition of metric, extension and duration


I assume that you mean special relativity here.
The EU does not abandon special relativity.

But I personally have some doubts on special relativity.

Relativity redefines the time and size of the objects depending on their (relative) speeds.
Instead of changing the measures depending on the observers, you can also change
the measures depending on the transactions (1) or the senders (2).
1- The transaction of light is dependent on the speed of the sender and receiver. This can mathematically
model any form of relativity, since relativity is a function of (sender,receiver). At the same time, we do not
need to change size/time of the objects. This is the simplest variant.
2- Light is constant relative to the sender of the light, at each moment. This is compatible with quantum physics,
and with the observations.

Sadly many scientists do not know that there are simpler alternatives to special relativity that can work just fine.

Aether

There are some members of the EU that like the idea of some kind of "Dynamic Aether".
It defines Aether as a substance that moves relative with gravity.
Which means that all current relativity experiments work as well.
Some scientists like Rupert Sheldrake state that in the laboratories they measure
slightly different versions of the speed of light. The reason why they now use the speed of light
to define the meter instead.
With dynamic aether, these variations might be caused by different gravity circumstances, due to the moon/sun.

Mainstream

Sadly both Einstein's relativities have become a dogma.
It is very hard to discus any alternatives inside the mainstream scientific community.
Even though quantum physics essentially shows us that Einstein is wrong on general relativity.
I personally think that the maths is to hard for them to understand its problems.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Einstein and Relativiy in the Electric Universe

Unread postby Roshi » Thu May 26, 2016 3:34 am

There is no space-time, that can "bend"...
If two events are seen in one order by one observer, and in a different order by another, this does not mean there is not an absolute order of events across the entire Universe.

Middle ages: news about events reached people with the speed of a horse, or slower. This did not mean that events were not absolutely ordered. The observer does not matter.

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/TimeDilation.htm

Zyxzevn wrote:1- The transaction of light is dependent on the speed of the sender and receiver. This can mathematically
model any form of relativity, since relativity is a function of (sender,receiver). At the same time, we do not
need to change size/time of the objects. This is the simplest variant.
2- Light is constant relative to the sender of the light, at each moment. This is compatible with quantum physics,
and with the observations.

Third option: the speed of light is independent from the speed of the emitter, but not from the speed of the observer:
http://www.neoclassicalrelativity.org/
Roshi
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

Re: Einstein and Relativiy in the Electric Universe

Unread postby saul » Thu May 26, 2016 10:22 am

Thanks for your reply Zyxzevn, I'm glad to see somebody here say EU does not abandon special relativity.

Zyxzevn wrote:
- Dark plasma causes light to bend around the sun and not gravity.
[..]
Which means that gravity does not seem to bend space and time, but something else is going on.


Both are needed. Gravitational lensing and the Pound-Rebka experiment are real things. Though you might argue that "bending space and time" is not great language, observations are consistent with matter affecting that property of space-time called the metric, which describes geodesic motion, a phenomenon referred to as gravity.

- General relativity is in conflict with quantum physics (the most accurate theory ever).


I disagree with this statement (the conflict part, not the accuracy part), though I know a lot of mileage is gotten from it in various grant proposals and pop-sci reports.

But I personally have some doubts on special relativity.

Relativity redefines the time and size of the objects depending on their (relative) speeds.
Instead of changing the measures depending on the observers, you can also change
the measures depending on the transactions (1) or the senders (2).
1- The transaction of light is dependent on the speed of the sender and receiver. This can mathematically
model any form of relativity, since relativity is a function of (sender,receiver). At the same time, we do not
need to change size/time of the objects. This is the simplest variant.
2- Light is constant relative to the sender of the light, at each moment. This is compatible with quantum physics,
and with the observations.


The "redefinition" you speak of is an unavoidable consequence of choosing electromagnetism as your metric. When you are moving through the electromagnetic medium, your meter stick appears different to somebody who is not thusly moving. Or if you are in a region in which the medium has different properties (such as closer or further way from a large mass), you also have differences.

You options 1 and 2 sound interesting, and could be worthwhile - but you will have to tell us what "1 meter" means in such a system.


Even though quantum physics essentially shows us that Einstein is wrong on general relativity.
I personally think that the maths is to hard for them to understand its problems.


[/quote]

I don't see how any quantized system is at odds with general relativity. Nor does general relativity require the existence of black holes (not that you implied that - just sayin' :D) .
saul
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Einstein and Relativiy in the Electric Universe

Unread postby saul » Thu May 26, 2016 10:31 am

Roshi wrote:There is no space-time, that can "bend"...
If two events are seen in one order by one observer, and in a different order by another, this does not mean there is not an absolute order of events across the entire Universe.



Absolute order of events? What could that mean? Like there is a king and what he says happened is the official order? I don't think so. Sure, you could pick some frame of reference and say "lets use this one and call it absolute"... but how to pick that frame? And what is the point? The assignment of coordinates to events, like time and position, is a human endeavor.. or at least an endeavor external to the events themselves (sorry to offend you nonhumans). And so, those labels are going to be relative - and they will depend on the physics of the measuring rods and clocks which we use to assign them.
saul
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Einstein and Relativiy in the Electric Universe

Unread postby Roshi » Thu May 26, 2016 1:10 pm

Everything in the Universe happens in one absolute order. Events do not happen before, and after other events at the same time, it does not matter if there is an observer or not.

Observer A sees 2 events in one order 1-2. Observer B sees 2-1. What's the truth I wonder? The observers do not matter. Even if they cannot figure out the real order, because they lack the tools to do so, the real order is there, and it's only one. They and their observing do not matter for this concept to work. It's not different than the middle ages - if the news reached different places at different speeds, it does not mean there was any question that the events happened in one single order, even if they could not always know that order.

Imagine how history books would look like if everything was relative: "Mr B got the news about Romans invading at 2 pm, 15 March 34AD (on his own reference frame). Mr A got the news 20 years later. And he also has a different reference frame! So - we have no idea what happened and when, and in what order, there could be multiple orders of events, and all are real!". No they are not real. There is one single order, even if we can't figure it out with the info we got, that has no consequence. History can place everything on one single timeline, with gaps or question marks, but there is no question that there is one single timeline or that - Napoleon could have invaded Egypt after Waterloo, because someone got the news in a different order.

Look at mainstream cosmology. Don't they use a single timeline for the Universe, since their Big Bang? Could star 1 form before and after star 2? "Depends from where you look". No it does not, where you look from does not change the order, just the order of your info, and there is a order of time, and only one not 2, or an infinity.
Roshi
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

Re: Einstein and Relativiy in the Electric Universe

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu May 26, 2016 2:46 pm

General relativity

saul wrote:Gravitational lensing and the Pound-Rebka experiment are real things.


Gravitational lensing is not a real thing.
1) Gravitational lensing does not appear where we expect them, so it has been falsified.
http://www.extinctionshift.com/ has some chapters on it. While I do not agree with his formulas,
he clearly presents such observations. I see similar observations from other scientists.
2) All presented examples of gravitational lensing can be explained with something else.
The Einstein crosses are usually just similar stars.
The Einstein circles are likely plasma remains of super novas. (Which usually forms rings).

The Pound-Rebka shows a difference in energy of emitted/received photons, related to gravity.
This seems logical from an energy viewpoint.
The lecture Relativity in the light of the GPS goes into deep detail how this can be explained with a different model, and how observations match this new model.
He explains that the frequency does not change during transmission, but that the emission/reception is different. Which works just like quantum physics.

My own idea is different. I think that we might look at a gravity variant of the Aharonov–Bohm effect.

But the area is interesting indeed.
What exactly has been observed, and what exactly is actually a myth.

Special relativity

You options 1 and 2 sound interesting, and could be worthwhile - but you will have to tell us what "1 meter" means in such a system.

1 meter is one meter.

For 1.
Except that the medium of measurement (light) changes the way we observe the world around us.
For 2.
The light is still connected to the sender (in some quantum mechanical way). So the energy transfer (and
relative position) is very similar to what we see with the special-relativity model.

The difference is that both 1 and 2 are truly energy conserving.
Special relativity leaks energy, due to its problem that forces move with light-speed.
While special relativity tries to correct this problem by changing the observer, the energy is
not fully conserved. For example you can create a long line of electrons circling around
nuclei. Everything can have a constant distance.
Let me use the rolling eyes as the animation.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
But because the transfer of energy is slow, we can do a half a roll, before the electron receives
the force. This would give us a smaller distance and a stronger force than original.
The electrons are experiencing resistance, and losing energy.
While it officially does not work for rotating objects, the distance
that the electron experiences could be corrected with some kind of observer based relativity.
This correction of special relativity is always V² and thus does not depend on the direction of the electron.
And if we look more in the example, the electron can also experience a push from another electron,
depending on the distance and timing.
In real world observations we see the laser effect, where electrons are synchronized and can produce
a single pulse of light.

This correction of observer-based relativity, is different from the correction that is actually needed.

Another energy leak is the particle model of forces. This is certainly clearer.
If forces are transmitted by particles, the forces can only be transmitted in random
fashion. That means that a miss or a hit, can create or destroy the orbit of an electron.
But we actually see that the orbit is very stable, and that an atom does not lose photons.
Nor does it lose energy.

I don't see how any quantized system is at odds with general relativity.


Haha..
I can see how you missed the point.
Quantum superposition is impossible in a general relativity world.
It means that 2 different positions are in connection with each other in some way.
This is impossible in general relativity because it requires that information can only
be in one position at one time.

To "solve" this problem, some scientists proposed that each superposition would create 2 worlds instead.
:lol:

A less schizophrenic solution would be to see that general relativity is false somehow.
And if we look deeper into it, we can actually see where it goes false.
It already starts with the maths and all assumptions that are put in it.
And I think this is good news.
It means that we can do real physics and start to find a proper model for the observation that
we encounter, instead of believing that the scientists before us were saints and not
capable of making mistakes.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Einstein and Relativiy in the Electric Universe

Unread postby D_Archer » Fri May 27, 2016 7:45 am

Well said Zyxzevn.

More on pound-rebka > http://milesmathis.com/pound.html , by Miles Mathis.

---

I do think EU can work with Special relativity but not General Relativity (at all).

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Einstein and Relativiy in the Electric Universe

Unread postby saul » Wed Jun 01, 2016 5:44 am

Roshi wrote:
Everything in the Universe happens in one absolute order. Events do not happen before, and after other events at the same time, it does not matter if there is an observer or not.

Observer A sees 2 events in one order 1-2. Observer B sees 2-1. What's the truth I wonder? The observers do not matter. Even if they cannot figure out the real order, because they lack the tools to do so, the real order is there, and it's only one.



This is absolute nonsense :) Your claim that an absolute order of events exists rings hollow for one reason: you have not provided any way to determine which ordering this is. Perhaps you'd like this absolute order of all events to be discretionary, so that I should bring you a list and you reserve the right to agree or disagree with whether the ordering I have presented is allowable in the court of the absolutist?

Imagine how history books would look like if everything was relative: "Mr B got the news about Romans invading at 2 pm, 15 March 34AD (on his own reference frame). Mr A got the news 20 years later. And he also has a different reference frame! So - we have no idea what happened and when, and in what order, there could be multiple orders of events, and all are real!". No they are not real. There is one single order, even if we can't figure it out with the info we got, that has no consequence. History can place everything on one single timeline, with gaps or question marks, but there is no question that there is one single timeline or that - Napoleon could have invaded Egypt after Waterloo, because someone got the news in a different order.


Ignoring the fact that history is very much his story, you will find that the issue of simultaneity is not about "when you got the news". It is about when you got the news minus the amount of travel time from the event to you. If events are co-located I will agree with you that there is an absolute temporal ordering. However if the events are separated in space, like e.g. two supernova explosions in different galaxies, what could it mean for these events to be simultaneous?
saul
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Einstein and Relativiy in the Electric Universe

Unread postby saul » Wed Jun 01, 2016 7:48 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
Gravitational lensing is not a real thing. [..]

The Pound-Rebka shows a difference in energy of emitted/received photons, related to gravity.
This seems logical from an energy viewpoint.



The trouble is: you can't have an index of refraction differing from unity in some material and then say that lenses are not a real thing. Pound-Rebka, along with the Shapiro delay (mentioned in the talk you linked, thanks for that), and yes as well as gravitational microlensing, arcs, the Eddington observation (and more modern versions), are evidence that gravitation affects propagating light. Predicting where observable gravitational lensing will take place requires a very detailed knowledge of all the mass involved and the distances involved, something we don't have in astronomy. Are plasma effects often important and dominating? I would say yes, but lets remember that while the presence of an overwhelming force may mean we can neglect other forces - it doesn't mean they don't exist.


Quantum superposition is impossible in a general relativity world. wh
It means that 2 different positions are in connection with each other in some waThis is impossible in general relativity because it requires that information can only
be in one position at one time.



This sounds like total nonsense. There are various examples of theory of quantized systems in strongly relativistic scenarios (e.g. Hawking radiation, Unruh effect) but these are extreme and not necessarily needed theories (unless of course nature really does allow herself pushed to such extreme conditions). At any rate, I can copy information and reread it freely at different locations. I can also set up scenarios in which my knowledge is linked to various observables which can be measured at different places, which shouldn't be in any way surprising in a system of any size.

If you wish to be skeptical and attack some relativistic foundations, I salute you and will read carefully. However if the weapon you use in the attack is a broken popular misinterpretation of quantum mechanics, don't expect to get very far into new territory.
saul
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Einstein and Relativiy in the Electric Universe

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:54 am

In this video the speaker lists a list of problems with the evidence on general relativity.
Einstein Was Wrong - Falsifying Observational Evidence Presented 1 of 4

saul wrote:... it doesn't mean they don't exist.

The evidence shown does not clearly show that it is gravity.
All controlled experiments show that there is no bending of light due to gravity.

I think that the experiments on gravity show that there is some kind of effect,
but it is not like Einstein predicted.
There does seem to be some kind of time-shifting. The origin of that is unknown,
and needs further research. The effect that I stated could be a part of it.

There are various examples of theory of quantized systems in strongly relativistic scenarios

In these cases the scientists do not understand what is really going on.
Energy escaping from black holes is in general relativity impossible.
Yet we see energy beams coming from things that they say are black holes.
So to save their face, they introduce particles quantum-jumping through these impossible barriers.
These quantum events can not even really happen, because the particles need to break through time/space
instead of normal energy barriers. A barrier that is infinite in black holes.
Yet, they invent a new kind of quantum laws where this is improbably event is possible.

But it is much simpler to assume that the idea was wrong to start with.

So let's start at the beginning:
On the largest scale scientists invented general relativity to explain things that they could not do before,
like the orbit of mercury.
General relativity did away with the whole concept of time and space, and replaced
it with a Hilbert space described by Tensor equations. This theory assumes that time is only relative,
and that no same time-event can take place at two places at the same time.
If that would not be the case, the Tensor equation system breaks.

Later we invented quantum physics, and found out that information (and particles) could be
at two places at the same time. To explain this, Einstein invented worm-holes.
And other scientists invented multiverses.
These inventions of imaginary solutions go on and on. And none have been proven.
Looking at research in quantum mechanics, it seems even that the multi-position problem
is even bigger and more common than everyone thought.

I do like the idea of bending space/time. I really like to work with more dimensions.
Alternatively I can bring up a model where particles suck space/time, causing all kinds of forces.
The idea is beautiful, mathematically.
And it works fine in combination with electromagnetism.
The electric universe and general relativity can work together perfectly.

And yet the answer is very simple: general relativity is a big mistake.

And as the video points out above, there are certain experiments that falsify general relativity.
And dropping general relativity solves all of our problems with quantum physics and general relativity.
Measurements of the constant of gravity gives different values, even when they have very
accurate experiments. So something is clearly wrong.

But somehow no scientists dare to question general relativity, and things
become more mythical each year.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Einstein and Relativiy in the Electric Universe

Unread postby Roshi » Thu Jun 02, 2016 3:26 am

saul wrote: However if the events are separated in space, like e.g. two supernova explosions in different galaxies, what could it mean for these events to be simultaneous?


There is an order of events, across the entire Universe. Why is there a timeline for the BigBang if nobody knows what was the order of the events?
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/ ... llenge.htm
Roshi
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

Re: Einstein and Relativiy in the Electric Universe

Unread postby saul » Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:23 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
So let's start at the beginning:
On the largest scale scientists invented general relativity to explain things that they could not do before,
like the orbit of mercury.
General relativity did away with the whole concept of time and space, and replaced
it with a Hilbert space described by Tensor equations. This theory assumes that time is only relative,
and that no same time-event can take place at two places at the same time.
If that would not be the case, the Tensor equation system breaks.



Not really. Events can take place at the same time in anyone's reference frame, it's just that other observers might not agree that they were simultaneous.


Later we invented quantum physics, and found out that information (and particles) could be
at two places at the same time. To explain this, Einstein invented worm-holes.



Nonsense. Turn off the TV brother :) Einstein didn't invent worm holes and such fancy has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. A hurricane can be in Mississippi and in Louisiana simultaneously. This is hardly a surprise, and it shouldn't be a surprise that an electron can pull off a similar stunt on a much smaller scale.


Looking at research in quantum mechanics, it seems even that the multi-position problem
is even bigger and more common than everyone thought.



This is not research - this is nonsense spewed by people who don't understand quantum mechanics. Here's a hint: quantum just means discrete. There is no "multi-position problem", nor any non-locality.


And as the video points out above, there are certain experiments that falsify general relativity.
And dropping general relativity solves all of our problems with quantum physics and general relativity.
Measurements of the constant of gravity gives different values, even when they have very
accurate experiments. So something is clearly wrong.



I didn't see any of the claims in that video doing much to question GR. Granted I haven't looked into gravity probe B very much but it seemed the speaker hadn't really done so either.

GR doesn't mandate worm holes or even black holes or detectable gravitational radiation from specific systems. It works well to explain how apples fall to the ground. The nature of what really happens in late stages of stellar evolution, and sensitivity of detectors, are whole other conversations.
saul
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Einstein and Relativiy in the Electric Universe

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:06 pm

Saul.
It seems that you have a different idea of quantum mechanics and general relativity than I do.
So let me refer to google instead:
https://www.google.nl/search?q=conflict ... relativity
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Einstein and Relativiy in the Electric Universe

Unread postby saul » Wed Jun 08, 2016 10:22 am

Zyxzevn wrote:Saul.
It seems that you have a different idea of quantum mechanics and general relativity than I do.
So let me refer to google instead:
https://www.google.nl/search?q=conflict ... relativity



Well this would explain the difficulty :) To make progress we will need to try to understand things ourselves rather than parrot what advertisers and aggrandizers plaster on their clickbait headlies.

If you want me to point out the obvious errors in any of the top 50 results of your search, name one specifically and we can discuss the issues. Note that googling for "flat earth" also has a lot of hits.
saul
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Next

Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron