Evidences for and against Einstein's Theories of Relativity

[EtherQuestions]

There are heaps of evidence from particle accelerator experiments that when something approaches the velocity of light its change in force interaction can no longer be accounted for by its increase in velocity. Even though this is compatible with Mass-Energy equivalence (Relativistic Mass or the newer more physically vague energy-momentum) and Weber's Mass-Charge ratio hypothesis, it invalidates Special Relativity and the postulate that there is no rest frame (Ether). Because if velocity is only observer dependent, then for an observer moving alongside the particles it has no velocity and is NOT approaching c, so this should not happen.
The resultant effect is different ontological effects in the surrounding environment for different observers. Almost all of the postulations of Special Relativity imply these observer based differences and different resultant interactions in some way or another, from observer based length contraction (and relativistic electrodynamics) to relativistic doppler shift. It is all impossible and a logical fallacy.

Even in a simulation (or many worlds) it is impossible, it implies an almost infinite number of observers have broken these physical rules in the past.

It can never work no matter what angle it is interpreted from. It just isn't grounded in reality as a physical theory. And it is a miracle it is still being taken seriously as a theory ... a certain quote about insanity comes to mind.

Well said. Miracles belong to dogma. STR is a math trick that gives goodish answers some of the time (due to the use of a triangle including the velocity of light). And GTR is krapp, being based on a silly thortX (the elevator thort-X doesn't work)(it results in a Newtonian bending of light passing the Sun)(it doesn't give the correct double Newtonian bending)(Marmet showed that)(i have shown that too, using a different calculation to Marmet).

However i reckon that we do have some kind of relativity happening re true & apparent length & ticking (but not re mass) related to speed.

NeoLorentzian Relativity makes a lot of sense re length contraction (ie nLLC)(or at least some kind of change in size or shape), but i don't have a lot of confidence in the Lorentz equation for gamma. And some kind of ticking dilation must exist, ie related to speed (& re TD i have even less confidence in that Lorentz equation for gamma).

One thing not usually realised by aetherists, Einsteinian Relativity uses the equation for gamma once (they use Vr the relative velocity tween observer-O & object-X). Or twice if u like, ie once for LC & once for TD.

But neoLorentzian Relativity uses gamma twice (they use Vo, the absolute aetherwind kmps for the observer)(& they use Vx, the absolute aetherwind kmps for object-X). Or 4 times if u like, ie twice for LC & twice for TD.

Accurate GPS measurements will tell us that STR & GTR are not very accurate (despite Einsteinian apologists' invoking of all kinds of Sagnac & Coriolis & gravity & observers near & far)(Einsteinians are stupid but cunning).

NeoLorentz R will be more accurate than STR & GTR (but wont be perfect).

Read up on Oleg Jefimenko's "Electromagnetic Retardation", he offers classical mathematical and physical alternative explanation to "Time Dilation" that makes sense. His gravitation and cogravitation theory and equations also accurately mathematically predict (the same) every single GR "prediction" (gravitational time dilation, frame dragging, and Mercury's perihelion) in a classical model involving fields that do not violate Newton's laws like General Relativity does.

[crawler]

Read up on Oleg Jefimenko's "Electromagnetic Retardation", he offers classical mathematical and physical alternative explanation to "Time Dilation" that makes sense. His gravitation and cogravitation theory and equations also accurately mathematically predict (the same) every single GR "prediction" (gravitational time dilation, frame dragging, and Mercury's perihelion) in a classical model involving fields that do not violate Newton's laws like General Relativity does.

I cant find anything much for free re Jefimenko. But he smells Einsteinian to me. I don't believe in frame dragging. His ideas re gravitational time dilation (ticking dilation) & bending of light might appeal to me.

[Zyxzevn]

The difficulty is that the Lorentz transformations, if accurate can be
seen as transformations that can be observed.

The Einstein philosophy is that these observed transformations mean that "time/space is does not exist".
And uses a mathematical trick where light always goes the speed of light from any perspective.

This latter is what most people seem to disagree with, because it breaks with our common observations,
and because it introduces all kinds of weird problems.
Like If space/time is relative, how can even you measure anything, e.g. speed?

In maths they describe it with special transformation matrices (and Tensors).

But a simpler solution would be to use a different dimension from where you construct
the physical reality. But that does not seem to exist.

Now let's look at

General relativity = Einstein's gravity

The basic idea is that there is no difference between an acceleration and gravity.
And because the force= mass*acceleration, there is indeed no noticeable difference.

Einstein also extended this concept to light.
And uses the concept of special relativity to make a mathematical system
with changing space/time.

But here we have several problems:
1) A charged object creates a magnetic field when accelerating.
So we can not extend this concept to light.
The same observation was mentioned by Ron Hatch.
Relativity in the Light of GPS
He claims that the frequency did not change during the passing through gravity.
Instead, the frequencies of the senders were different.

2) The mathematics is used in a wrong way.
According to Steven Crothers and the inventor of Tensors.

3) There is still no clear point from where we can measure,
because all space/time seems relative.
This means that astronomers only use over simplified derivations
of General Relativity, not the actual formulas.

4) Gravity probe B shows a null-result.
Instead of seeing it as a failure and repeating the experiment,
they corrected it to give a perfect score.
This clearly shows how data is manipulated to fit the theory.
And just this fact of manipulation shows that we should not trust many astronomy experiments.

Big bang / inflation

The mathematics of Einstein's general relativity allowed
some extensions.
Like a continuous expansion.
Einstein mistakenly added that to his formula's to compensate for a loss in energy.
Soon he removed it, still looking for an energy balance.

But when Hubble found redshifts, other astronomers used his findings
to claim that this meant that space had to expand in the way
Einstein's mistaken formula described.
And now we have a Lambda factor that describes inflation theory.

With the cosmic background radiation, we can see how Robitaille debunks it completely.
The data from the Planck satellite is used in such a un-scientific way that I can not even
believe that this has ever been accepted.
It also shows how bad the level of science is in the astronomy community:
F-- = FAR BELOW ZERO.

I think that the null-hypothesis is the best one:
there is no inflation, and this redshift is somehow
caused by some other factor. Like plasma, as we can observe in a laboratory.

All other evidence seem to fit this null-hypothesis.

[JP Michael]

Anthony Peratt has a section of Redshift and CBR in his textbook. I'll go reread those portions and report back rather than trying to rely on a potentially faulty memory bank, but they were decent explanations from a plasma perspective.

[dren]

Arp suggests it is age related intrinsic redshift.

[EtherQuestions]

Every few days (or every week) I'm going to post a NEW reason why Special/General Relativity are entirely impossible. Just to make it CLEAR for many of those still on the fence.


When I reach a hundred reasons, I might stop ...


I already posted this first one many times in the other threads, but just for those who haven't read it yet:

The Doppler Effect invalidates light invariance

Special Relativity is absolutely impossible when one considers the Doppler Effect. For an approaching observer (to explain what happens when light is reflected/absorbed at shorter wavelengths) relativity must increase the frequency of the waves (photons) for that observer (this is what happens in a normal non-relativistic wave as the approaching waves are actually approaching the receiver faster in the receivers reference frame).

But in the impossible theory of relativity light must remain c for all observers, regardless of whether the observer moves towards or away from the source. So in Special Relativity for an approaching receiver the frequency increases, but the light must also slow down to remain c! Both of these things can never happen. It doesn't matter if you define the constant light velocity c by the phase or group velocity of the light waves.

If one assumes a constant phase velocity c, the photons (wave peaks themselves) must slow down to remain c for the observer, reducing the real distance between them and increasing the actual frequency. This means the frequency overtakes the rate of emission, the number of photons (or waves) emitted will only increase in difference for the observer over time. Which is impossible.

If one assumes a constant group velocity c, the photons (wave peaks themselves) remain unchanged from their original real velocity and must overtake the velocity of light c for the observer, but they are confined inside a "wave packet" that remains c for the observer (group velocity).
As the waves (photons) are traveling faster than the wave packet itself they must diminish in amplitude before leaving the wave packet.
Of course not to lose photons they must "reappear" at the beginning of the wave packet with no physical cause. This causes an amplitude disparity for the observer (which is impossible and contradicts superposition experiments), but not a frequency disparity if one assumes a "detached" emitted wave packet. What really busts up light invariance/Special Relativity and creates an undeniable logical fallacy is when one considers a continuous wave packet that is still being emitted with varying wavelengths, where do the diminished photons/light waves reappear now? They can't.
If they do you have a phase, frequency, and amplitude disparity all at the same time that grows over time.


Light invariance is impossible. It cannot physically or logically explain the Doppler Effect.

[Michael Mozina]

Here are a couple of recent observations that tend to support GR theory.

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... e-and-time
https://www.space.com/42641-einstein-gr ... robes.html

[Zyxzevn]

Here are a couple of recent observations that tend to support GR theory.

Thanks for giving some actual observations to discuss.

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... e-and-time

A star drags "space/time" around itself.
This seems more like a large cloud of plasma.

The same can be said about the sun, where the first "proof" for GR was found.
1. Positions of stars can be moved by plasma (like a normal lens)
(just with a more realistic plasma pressure)
2. Mercury may interact with electric currents which forces give it a slightly different orbit.
This needs to be worked out better, though.

https://www.space.com/42641-einstein-gr ... robes.html

About proof of time-dilation due to different gravity (potential energy).
To me this seems valid, and has been repeated in many different ways.
The GPS is one of those examples.
Even Ron Hatch sees this, but just has a different explanation for it.

My personal idea is that gravitational time-dilation is valid,
but the bending of space is not.
And this can be confirmed by the fact that charged matter does not
interact with gravity. But it interacts with acceleration.

In acceleration a charged object creates a magnetic field that also
adds to its inertia. With disappears without the charge.
With Einstein this should happen in gravity too, if gravity was exactly
the same as acceleration.

So Einstein made a essential mistake there.

[crawler]

Here are a couple of recent observations that tend to support GR theory.

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... e-and-time
https://www.space.com/42641-einstein-gr ... robes.html

GPS is one of Einsteinology's lies re GTR. However there is one truth in GTR, & that is that light slows near mass, in which case such slowing will affect the ticking of clocks, especially atomic clocks. There is a chance that that there article is good science. Its hard to tell.

[Zyxzevn]

There is a chance that that there article is good science.

What is "good science"?

For most people it means something that confirms their beliefs.

Let me give some possible ideas:

0. Good science is about what is workable in practice.
Not about the true invisible nature of things that we can not observe.
While ghosts and other dimensions may exist, the concept is not workable.
Concepts like unicorns and magnetic reconnection are purely fantasy, and have
no reflection with any kind of reality at all.

1. Good science is something that can be verified and repeated.
The far-away events are hard to verify. Like in the first article.
Bad science tends to give the most spectacular results on unknown and
invisible things. Like there may be dark matter black holes.

2. Good scientific theories can be falsified.
There are limits to what something can do in your theory.
Can I break the speed of light? Can I do other weird things?
Does a charged object in gravity experience an acceleration?
This can be ok, for a theory to only work within a limited range.
Like: gravity gives an acceleration of 9.81.

3. Good scientific models can predict some value.
If I input X, I should get some value around f(X).
This does not work with many astronomy models, because we do not know the input.
It works very well in the laboratory though.
That is how we learned about the forces of electromagnetism.

4. Good scientific theories can fit in with other working theories.
Can electric forces work together with magnetic forces and light?
Do these forces work the same as other forces like gravity?
Or how does quantum mechanics break with your theory?

5. Good science means that the scientists have looked at more
possible and valid alternatives.
What if a neutron star is an electrical star instead?

6. Good science does not make a mess of mathematics in the models.
Like what is the difference between a wave and a particle?

Any more?

[nick c]

GPS is one of Einsteinology's lies re GTR.

Yes. It has been shown that the relativity "correction" is well within the margin of error of GPS:
https://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm


GPS readings are affected by plasma:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... ma-plumes/

Variations inherent to the technique are much greater than any relativity "correction."



Don Scott on GPS and relativity:
http://electric-cosmos.org/RebutTB.pdf

THE (NON)USEFUL PRODUCTS OF ASTROPHYSICS
Also on his page 4, TB claims that the Global Positioning System requires general relativity for precise computation of
transmission delay times of the GPS signals in the gravitational field of Earth. This, he claims, is a
useful contribution of astrophysics. However, as with so many of the pronouncements of the
astrophysics power structure, there is an alternative explanation. H.F. Fliegel and R. S. DiEsposti
of the GPS Joint Program Office of the Aerospace Corporation conclude1
“Except for the leading
γ [gamma] factor [in their final equation], it is the same formula derived in classical physics for the
signal travel time from the GPS satellite to the ground station. As we have shown, introducing the
γ factor makes a change of only 2 or 3 millimeters to the classical result. In short there are no
‘missing relativity terms.’ They cancel out.” General Relativity Theory is not needed.

also:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/0 ... s-eu-2013/

[crawler]

There is a chance that that there article is good science.

What is "good science"? For most people it means something that confirms their beliefs. Let me give some possible ideas:

0. Good science is about what is workable in practice. Not about the true invisible nature of things that we can not observe.
While ghosts and other dimensions may exist, the concept is not workable. Concepts like unicorns and magnetic reconnection are purely fantasy, and have no reflection with any kind of reality at all.

1. Good science is something that can be verified and repeated. The far-away events are hard to verify. Like in the first article. Bad science tends to give the most spectacular results on unknown and invisible things. Like there may be dark matter black holes.

2. Good scientific theories can be falsified. There are limits to what something can do in your theory. Can I break the speed of light? Can I do other weird things? Does a charged object in gravity experience an acceleration? This can be ok, for a theory to only work within a limited range.
Like: gravity gives an acceleration of 9.81.

3. Good scientific models can predict some value. If I input X, I should get some value around f(X). This does not work with many astronomy models, because we do not know the input. It works very well in the laboratory though. That is how we learned about the forces of electromagnetism.

4. Good scientific theories can fit in with other working theories. Can electric forces work together with magnetic forces and light? Do these forces work the same as other forces like gravity? Or how does quantum mechanics break with your theory?

5. Good science means that the scientists have looked at more possible and valid alternatives. What if a neutron star is an electrical star instead?

6. Good science does not make a mess of mathematics in the models. Like what is the difference between a wave and a particle? Any more?

Good science does not have any contradictions (eg the twins contradiction).

[Zyxzevn]

Also on his page 4, TB claims that the Global Positioning System requires general relativity for precise computation of
transmission delay times of the GPS signals in the gravitational field of Earth. This, he claims, is a
useful contribution of astrophysics. However, as with so many of the pronouncements of the
astrophysics power structure, there is an alternative explanation. H.F. Fliegel and R. S. DiEsposti
of the GPS Joint Program Office of the Aerospace Corporation conclude1
“Except for the leading
γ [gamma] factor [in their final equation], it is the same formula derived in classical physics for the
signal travel time from the GPS satellite to the ground station. As we have shown, introducing the
γ factor makes a change of only 2 or 3 millimeters to the classical result. In short there are no
‘missing relativity terms.’ They cancel out.” General Relativity Theory is not needed.

The GPS that you have in your phone does not use an internal atomic clock.
Instead it uses the clocks from the satellites, and calculates some average.
That is how the phone and the satellite get in sync.
In this case there is no change in distance, because the phone has no clock.

According to General Relativity
With an accurate on the ground atomic clock, the clock runs at a different speed than the clock in the sky.
This depends on the speed of the orbit and the height of the orbit.
This means that with an atomic clock, the distance runs away from the original position.
That is because one clock runs slightly faster than the other.
This does not happen with a clock that is in sync with the satellites, like in many modern GPS systems.

The plasma effect also can delay the transmission of the signal, but should not give a change
in the speed of the clock. I am just amazed how much the signal is slowed down by the plasma.
And this is what we also see in plasma-redshift in the known laboratory-experiment.

Good science does not have any contradictions (eg the twins contradiction).

If we use light-clocks instead of twins. Then we have no problem?

[EtherQuestions]

PART 2 Of why Special/General Relativity are entirely IMPOSSIBLE. (98 parts to go)


The relativistic derivation of the original Lorentz Transformation is mathematically impossible

All mathematical notions built ontop of relativistic Lorentzian transformations are invalid as their foundations are made of quicksand. This is because light invariance is actually incompatible with the original Lorentzian mathematical transformations, the method used by Einstein to derive the formal Lorentz Transformation which uses light invariance instead, ignores basic mathematical constraints. It sums together simultaneous equations that are incompatible to begin with.

This fact outlined below cannot be ignored, as the edifices of the beautiful mathematical constructs in Special/General Relativity are ALL built ontop of this flawed Lorentzian groundwork.

Using an example from a book wrote by Einstein himself "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" ("a fun story of how to discard the empirical method and descend into psychosis" http://www.bartleby.com/173/a1.html).


If we just consider the x axis in the relativistic derivation of the Lorentz Transformation Einstein considers equations for the motion of a photon in an unprimed and primed' reference frame. We subtract the (invariant) light distance (ct) in both of these frames to get 0:

(1) x-ct=0
(2) x'-ct'=0

(x and x' must be positive)

... and also for a photon traveling along the NEGATIVE x axis.

(1a) x+ct=0
(2a) x'+ct'=0

(x and x' must be negative)

Simplified variables for later algebraic consideration ...

To make things clearer later:

We will now write -ct and -ct' in (1,2) as x2 and x2' instead.

x + x2 = 0
x'+ x2'= 0

We will now write +ct and +ct' in (1a 2a) as x1 and x1'.

x + x1 = 0
x + x1'= 0

Just remember x2 = -x1 and x2' = -x1'. This algebraic fact cannot be denied, the distance traveled by the photon over a given time must be equivalent this way in a frame of reference where light is invariant. The proof and constraint for this have been given already by Einstein above, and will be misused later on.

Keep that in mind, the positive distance (ct) is equivalent to the negative of the other negative x axis ct variable, as defined in the equations above.

The Lorentz Transformation

From the equation pairs (1,2) and (1a,2a) shown above he derives ...

(3) x'-ct'= λ.(x-ct)
(4) x'+ct'= μ.(x+ct)

Now the next part which he uses to arrive at the original Lorentz Transformation is impossible, he adds and subtracts equations (3) and (4).

Remember that in equations 1 and 2, x and x' must be GREATER than 0. (x-ct=0) (1)
And also that in equations 1a and 2a the x and x' values must be SMALLER than 0. (x+ct=0) (1a)

This makes equations 1,2 and 1a,2a algebraically inconsistent to use simultaneously unless they do not exceed or go below that 0 value that the first equations first defined as a clear rule. To make this fact crystal clear:

x2, x2':
(1) x-ct=0 therefore x= ct
(2) x'-ct'=0 therefore x'= ct'

x1, x1':
(1a) x+ct=0 therefore x=-ct
(2a) x'+ct'=0 therefore x'=-ct'

These contradicting x values are established at the beginning, it's mumbo jumbo ambiguous mathematics to use them together, and as you are about to witness ends in catastrophic untold disaster for the entire model of Special Relativity.

They CANNOT be used together simultaneously as they are constrained opposites. So equations 3 and 4 which are derived from them respectively also must be restricted to not exceed these same 0 limits. But by adding and subtracting 3 and 4 Einstein gets the Lorentz's original formal Lorentz transformation:


(5a) x' = ax -bct
(5b) ct' = act -bx

Where "a" and "b" are ...

(6) a= (λ+μ)/2
(7) b= (λ-μ)/2

It assumes that (3) and (4) can have BOTH negative and positive x, x' values. Which is not true. (3) they MUST be positive and (4) they MUST be negative, they are constricted to their negative or positive x axis by their ORIGINAL definition and corresponding distance of x and x'.
If we return to the fact x2 = -x1 and x2' = -x1'. Then we see what Einstein has done is assume x1 = x2 and x1' = x2' by subtracting and adding the incompatible equations (3) and (4). If you can't see this snowball of variable errors rolling downhill yet ... I'm just going to reiterate that this ambiguity ends up as a FURTHER contradiction.

As the Lorentz Transformation is ...

(5a) x' = ax -bct
(5b) ct' = act -bx

Therefore for both interpretations of x and x' (as -ct,-ct' is x2,x2' and +ct,+ct' is x1,x1')...

(12) x1' = ax1 -bct
(13) x2' = ax2 -bct

If we now insert x2 = -x1 and x2' = x1'. We have:

(14) -x1' = -ax1 -bct
(15) x1' = ax1 +bct


and by comparison with (12) we can thus conclude

(16) b=0

(unless t=0 (and hence x1=x1'=x2=x2'=0)).

With Einstein's interpretation of the constants, this means that the Lorentz transformation only applies to all values of x and t if the relative velocity of the reference frames is zero, which obviously would be a pointless result.



This cannot be brushed off and this is "no big deal", all subsequent relativistic theories DEPEND on the Lorentzian transformation. The relativistic derivation of the original Lorentz Transformation is fundamental to the assumption that invariant light is even compatible with Lorentzian mathematics. Which relativity never can and never will be. The original Lorentz model of an Ether, as flawed as it might have been didn't use make believe impossible mathematics like Special Relativity does. The Lorentz Transformation simply cannot be used with Special Relativity.

Light invariance IS IMPOSSIBLE, it cannot be cross applied in examples that use Gallilean Transformations. And it cannot be used to derive Lorentz's equations either.

Stay tuned for more. If any relativists are reading, we might be making a breakthrough ...

[crawler]

PART 2 Of why Special/General Relativity are entirely IMPOSSIBLE. (98 parts to go)

The relativistic derivation of the original Lorentz Transformation is mathematically impossible

All mathematical notions built ontop of relativistic Lorentzian transformations are invalid as their foundations are made of quicksand. This is because light invariance is actually incompatible with the original Lorentzian mathematical transformations, the method used by Einstein to derive the formal Lorentz Transformation which uses light invariance instead, ignores basic mathematical constraints. It sums together simultaneous equations that are incompatible to begin with.

This fact outlined below cannot be ignored, as the edifices of the beautiful mathematical constructs in Special/General Relativity are ALL built ontop of this flawed Lorentzian groundwork.

Using an example from a book wrote by Einstein himself "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" ("a fun story of how to discard the empirical method and descend into psychosis" http://www.bartleby.com/173/a1.html).............

...................With Einstein's interpretation of the constants, this means that the Lorentz transformation only applies to all values of x and t if the relative velocity of the reference frames is zero, which obviously would be a pointless result.

This cannot be brushed off and this is "no big deal", all subsequent relativistic theories DEPEND on the Lorentzian transformation. The relativistic derivation of the original Lorentz Transformation is fundamental to the assumption that invariant light is even compatible with Lorentzian mathematics. Which relativity never can and never will be. The original Lorentz model of an Ether, as flawed as it might have been didn't use make believe impossible mathematics like Special Relativity does. The Lorentz Transformation simply cannot be used with Special Relativity.

Light invariance IS IMPOSSIBLE, it cannot be cross applied in examples that use Gallilean Transformations. And it cannot be used to derive Lorentz's equations either.

Stay tuned for more. If any relativists are reading, we might be making a breakthrough ...

I don't understand the Lorentz transform.
But i read that Einstein's version of the transform is based on lightspeed invariance, which makes some arguments (proofs) circular.

And the Einsteinian numbers equal the Lorentzian numbers when the primary observer is in the absolute reference frame, ie when the aetherwind iz zero kmps, ie never because the aetherwind blows past Earth at 500 kmps.