Evidences for and against Einstein's Theories of Relativity

[JP Michael]

Continuing this discussion from here.

Some key resources and arguments identified for this topic include:

The G O Mueller project -- is a good existing site re the stupidity of STR & GTR.
http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index ... _O_Mueller
https://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/95yearsrelativity.pdf
Me myself i hav 36 pdf's of papers in my anti-relativity folder, & 22 htm's.
Plus i hav over 1000 pdf's of papers that are all anti-relativity in one way or another in other folders.

This info is really not hard to find.

STR:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... ments.html
https://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/nph120/Cosmol/specrel.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_ ... relativity

GTR:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1705/1705.04397.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_ ... relativity

Etc.

Some interesting paradoxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox

Both can actually be tested via lasers or electron particle beams.
Because laser-light has a certain wavelength,
we can measure the distance by counting the number of waves.
The light or electrons move with a speed close to C.
And as you can already see, these waves do not get any longer or shorter.
Rotation can be done via glass-fibre or magnetic field.

This means that the ladder_paradox does not encounter any change in length.
Nor does the Ehrenfest paradox encounter any change in circumference.
This means that Einstein's relativity can not apply in these cases.

Here is an index with a wealth of links many of which present some thought provoking critiques of Einstein's work.
https://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/#index

I notice however that he fails to point out that STR was dead at birth, because the MMX was not null, it showed an aetherwind, ie an aether, & if aether then we hav an absolute reference frame, & all of Einsteinology is false. And all modern MMXs are not null.

I enjoy reading small nit picking criticisms showing the flaws in all aspects of STR & GTR. But we need only prove that aether exists. Einstein himself said so. Einsteinology, a theory proven wrong before it was invented.

Reading further. Thomas Smid it appears doesn't believe in aether (or ether). However he quite correctly points out that relative velocities of more than c are possible. Most aetherists would i think say that almost 2c is possible (eg observers moving at almost c in opposite directions). Anyhow Smid appears to have some novel arguments against STR & GTR.

https://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/michelson-morley.htm Smid makes some interesting comments re the theory behind MMXs. But he himself makes a mistake. His criticism of the MMX theory refers merely to the calibration, ie kmps of the aetherwind per fringe drift. Correct calibration is not important. What is important is the measurement of a fringe drift that is nearly sinusoidal in a half turn (found), & which changes in a systematic way during a sidereal day (found), ie not per a solar day (per solar day would most likely be due to temp effects not aetherwind).

However the best MMX ever done was carried out by Demjanov in 1968-72, it used air & carbon disulphide, & was 1000 times as sensitive as MMXs done in air, & strangely enough it was periodic in a full turn (not a half turn). http://vixra.org/pdf/1007.0038v1.pdf

And then we have the coupled shutters X of Marinov, showing an aetherwind effect, the wind changing during a day, giving a graph similar to Demjanov (however Marinov & Demjanov were not aware of each other's work). https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612201.pdf
http://ether.wikiext.org/wiki/Stefan_Ma ... ent_(1983)
Cahill points out that Marinov's aetherwind is approx. 90 deg off the usual aetherwind found by MMXs. I can supply the reason for this. It is because Marinov measures two aetherwind effects. One is the speed of the aetherwind projected along the axis of his X. The other effect, unknown to Marinov, is a change in the lumens due to diffraction. Diffraction is affected mostly by the aetherwind perpendicular to the axis of his X, & i reckon that the sidewind diffraction effect is stronger than the tailwind/headwind effect. Anyhow the correct calibration for kmps of the aetherwind is a minor matter. The correct calibration of the direction of the aetherwind is more important. But in any case the coupled shutters X identifies an aetherwind, ie an aether, ie an absolute reference frame, ie a preferred frame, & STR is a dead duck, which means that GTR is a dead duck.

Professor Eric Dollard - "Theory of Anti-Relativity"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIuMICiFqmE

See Also: Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance by Eric P. Dollard

See Also: Steinmetz Analogy Between Magnetic and Dielectric - Lori Gardi

...

Also, in the book “Tesla: Man out of Time” by Margaret Cheney, Chapter 21: Radar, between pages 260-263, explains an interesting picture for the acceptance of the relativity idea - it begins with “In any event Edison had his hands full feuding with the Navy bureaucracy and cold smoldering the “perfessers” who had begun clamoring for a piece of that new taste treat, the federal research pie.”

The book presents in some four pages what it took E. Dollard 3hours to explain - how the “line between practical men (engineers) and theoreticians (physicist)” were drawn in a quest to get those funds. All that was needed was an event claiming to ‘substantiate’ the notions of the theoreticians, the “prefessers” as Edison liked to call them, and the throne of “practical men” (experimenters like Edison, Tesla, Pupin, A. Bell) was usurped. It has been mathematical "beauty", particle accelerators, big bang, black holes, string theory, many worlds, time travel, thought experiments, twins in space (or not) etc. - ever since with no end in sight.

Is Theoretical Physics Wasting Our Best Living Minds On Nonsense?

[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.

[crawler]

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).

[Zyxzevn]

Let me first make a case for Einstein's special relativity (SR). Also to make it easier to understand.
There is also general relativity (GR), which is an extension to SR to explain gravity.

Special relativity

Einstein's special relativity is based on the idea that clocks can be defined with the speed
of light and a certain distance. In a vacuum. This time of each clock can be measured by the
amount of bounces that light takes to go forth and back.



The simple part

This is what most people can agree with..
The clock of an object A, can be measured seeing how often light bounces inside it.
Let's assume there is also object B, with the same clock.
From object B, we can try to measure clock A, by looking how often it bounces around.

But for that we need to see the light that comes from object A.
And this takes some time.
So the clock that B sees is delayed by the distance from A.
If B moves to A, B sees clock A move quicker.
And if B moves away, B sees clock A move slower.

Going philosophical
Einstein also states: clock = time.
Where the time affects every possible physical process.

So instead time is equal everywhere, every object has its own time,
and sees every object with a different time too.


Complicating things

Einstein added the idea that light moves constant for each object,
even when it is moving.
It is a mathematical solution to the Maxwell equations.

So, to make that work, clocks need to move slower when objects were moving.
(=Time-dilation)
Link to example
This is very similar to the "simple part".

But because the clock can also be oriented into the movement direction,
the objects also need to be shorter.
(=Length-contraction)

It change in length makes it complicated, because now
the space coordinates change for each object and moving object.


Electric force between two moving objects

Let's assume that object A and B move very fast into the same direction.
Both objects are electrically charged the same (Q).

When the electric force from B arrives at A, it will come slightly from behind A.
This means that B will push A forward.
Object B will receive the same forward force from A.
Just as 2 airplanes can hear each other from behind, not sidewards.
And this means that both objects will move faster and faster.

This is certainly not what we observe.
But this will happen in almost every version of Aether, because Aether is not moving
with object A and B.
Magnetism does not seem to correct it.

With relativity, the objects seem to stand still, so the force comes sidewards.

Relativistic electromagnetism is an area that needs to be investigated a lot more.
Anyone has more info?

Experiment: Light with Changing speed

Light could also move with the same speed as the transmitter.
But that would mean that light transmitted by a binary star would
over long distances overtake the light that is transmitted by the same star.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter ... experiment
But light appears to go the same speed over long distances.

This can also be caused by interstellar plasma and such. Because space is not empty.
So this part needs to be investigated further.

Experiment: Filming the speed of light

Filming the Speed of Light at 10 Trillion FPS

Explained: Visualizing video at the speed of light — one trillion frames per second

In the TED lecture they explain that they have to correct the images for relativity.
I don't know what correction exactly.

Because we can exactly measure the speed of light with modern instruments, I think that we can do
some very interesting experiments.
What if we put such an instrument on a plane for example?
What is the experiment that can verify (or refute) your theory?

[crawler]

Let me first make a case for Einstein's special relativity (SR). Also to make it easier to understand.
There is also general relativity (GR), which is an extension to SR to explain gravity.

Special relativity
Einstein's special relativity is based on the idea that clocks can be defined with the speed
of light and a certain distance. In a vacuum. This time of each clock can be measured by the
amount of bounces that light takes to go forth and back.

The simple part

This is what most people can agree with..
The clock of an object A, can be measured seeing how often light bounces inside it.
Let's assume there is also object B, with the same clock.
From object B, we can try to measure clock A, by looking how often it bounces around.

But for that we need to see the light that comes from object A.
And this takes some time.
So the clock that B sees is delayed by the distance from A.
If B moves to A, B sees clock A move quicker.
And if B moves away, B sees clock A move slower.

Going philosophical
Einstein also states: clock = time.
Where the time affects every possible physical process.

So instead time is equal everywhere, every object has its own time,
and sees every object with a different time too.


Complicating things

Einstein added the idea that light moves constant for each object,
even when it is moving.
It is a mathematical solution to the Maxwell equations.

So, to make that work, clocks need to move slower when objects were moving.
(=Time-dilation)
Link to example
This is very similar to the "simple part".

But because the clock can also be oriented into the movement direction,
the objects also need to be shorter.
(=Length-contraction)

It change in length makes it complicated, because now
the space coordinates change for each object and moving object.

i think that the evidence for Einstein's time dilation will be affected by the following.
(1) There is no such thing as time, or, there is, there is the present moment, & that moment is universal.
(2) There is no such thing as time dilation, what we do have is ticking dilation (ie a change in the rate of ticking).
(3) The equation for gamma for TD, if accurate, applies only to atomic clocks (& i suppose light clocks).
(4) The equations for TD for non-atomic clocks (eg balance clocks) will depend on the design (eg tuning fork), & the main factor in all such equations will be the change in length (& width & depth) due to Lorentz length contraction.
(5) The velocities to be used to calculate the LC gamma are the speed of the aetherwind (actually in three directions, giving three gammas, xx, yy, & zz).
(6) If the clock has a velocity with the aetherwind then an increase in speed will give a faster ticking, a decrease in speed will give slower ticking (& if against the aetherwind then we will have the reverse).
(7) Whereas STR says that TD is not vectorial in the sense of (6).
(8) Einstein's GTR is probly correct re the nearness of mass affecting TD. Here i think that Einstein says that we need to insert Ve the escape velocity into the equation for gamma. That aint far from the truth. The correct method is to reduce c in the equation for gamma, so instead of using VV/cc we need to use VV/c'c'. And here V is the aetherwind, not Einstein's Vr.

So, (7) & (8) will show that STR is false.

[Zyxzevn]

(1) There is no such thing as time, or, there is, there is the present moment, & that moment is universal.
(2) There is no such thing as time dilation, what we do have is ticking dilation (ie a change in the rate of ticking).
(3) The equation for gamma for TD, if accurate, applies only to atomic clocks (& i suppose light clocks).

These points can be the same thing: there is no past, only the now.
So time is only the clock ticking.

But we see how things change over time, and this can be calculated with some maths that resemble SR.

(4) The equations for TD for non-atomic clocks (eg balance clocks) will depend on the design (eg tuning fork), & the main factor in all such equations will be the change in length (& width & depth) due to Lorentz length contraction.

The length contraction can happen in different ways.
With light speed it should be zero, but light-waves still have a wave-length.
At the same speed also time is standing still.
SR solves this by stating that light stands still, but that "the time" is moving.
Translated: "The clock of A as seen from B seems to be standing still."

I am curious if we can do any accurate measurement of length contraction with objects that
can move really fast.

(5) .. aetherwind ..
(6) .. aetherwind ..
(7) Whereas STR says that TD is not vectorial in the sense of (6).

I want to know where exactly SR goes wrong in experiment, instead of comparing it to an aether model.

For example, Steven Crowthers shows that the mathematical model is not working well,
because clock/time and space are not consistent. (Still have to go through it thoroughly.)

(8) Einstein's GTR ...

Einstein's General relativity (GTR) is a huge extension to special relativity (SR), describing gravity.
There is a likely lot wrong with it.

But because SR is directly in conflict with Aether and emission theories,
I think this is a good point to look at first.
The funny thing is that SR already conflicts with Quantum Mechanics (QM).
The Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) is an extension to correct this problem, by defining
an aether-like system in another dimension (like Quantum Foam).

So:
1) Is the speed of light constant under all conditions?

2) Does time dilation (TD) happen for clocks? At which rate?
Is every clock the same?
3) Does length contraction (LC) happen? At which rate?
Is every physical length the same?

4) Do these things change when moving?
5) Or under gravity?

With modern instruments this might be easier to determine than in the 1920s.

[crawler]

(1) There is no such thing as time, or, there is, there is the present moment, & that moment is universal.
(2) There is no such thing as time dilation, what we do have is ticking dilation (ie a change in the rate of ticking).
(3) The equation for gamma for TD, if accurate, applies only to atomic clocks (& i suppose light clocks).

These points can be the same thing: there is no past, only the now.
So time is only the clock ticking.

But we see how things change over time, and this can be calculated with some maths that resemble SR.

(4) The equations for TD for non-atomic clocks (eg balance clocks) will depend on the design (eg tuning fork), & the main factor in all such equations will be the change in length (& width & depth) due to Lorentz length contraction.

The length contraction can happen in different ways.
With light speed it should be zero, but light-waves still have a wave-length.
At the same speed also time is standing still.
SR solves this by stating that light stands still, but that "the time" is moving.
Translated: "The clock of A as seen from B seems to be standing still."

I am curious if we can do any accurate measurement of length contraction with objects that
can move really fast.

(5) .. aetherwind ..
(6) .. aetherwind ..
(7) Whereas STR says that TD is not vectorial in the sense of (6).

I want to know where exactly SR goes wrong in experiment, instead of comparing it to an aether model.

For example, Steven Crowthers shows that the mathematical model is not working well,
because clock/time and space are not consistent. (Still have to go through it thoroughly.)

(8) Einstein's GTR ...

Einstein's General relativity (GTR) is a huge extension to special relativity (SR), describing gravity.
There is a likely lot wrong with it.

But because SR is directly in conflict with Aether and emission theories,
I think this is a good point to look at first.
The funny thing is that SR already conflicts with Quantum Mechanics (QM).
The Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) is an extension to correct this problem, by defining
an aether-like system in another dimension (like Quantum Foam).

So:
1) Is the speed of light constant under all conditions?

2) Does time dilation (TD) happen for clocks? At which rate?
Is every clock the same?
3) Does length contraction (LC) happen? At which rate?
Is every physical length the same?

4) Do these things change when moving?
5) Or under gravity?

With modern instruments this might be easier to determine than in the 1920s.

Not forgetting that all of Einstein's 22 or so thort-Xs are all sunk by one little thort-X. The Twins Contradiction. It is not a paradox, it is a contradiction. A paradox doesn't sink anything, but a contradiction does. Look at all of the contortions resorted to by Einsteinologists. They even resort to invoking some kind of memory of acceleration history. Strewth.

I explained how ticking is affected in my thread re -- Do ordinary clocks suffer Lorentz ticking dilation.
Ihttp://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/view ... hilit=fork

The trouble with tests/experiments re LC & TD is that there are three lengths, true length (for observer-A), apparent length for observer-X, & apparent length for observer-Y. And there are three lengths in each case anyhow, ie xx yy & zz.

True length (true speed)(true ticking) is the length (& speed)(& ticking) seen (measured) by an observer sitting in the absolute reference frame, ie where the observer feels an aetherwind of 00 kmps. However this is unlikely, because on Earth the aetherwind is blowing approx. south to north at say 500 kmps.

Observers X & Y feel an aetherwind, & hencely their measuring rods & clocks are not true. Therefore observers X & Y see & measure the apparent length & shape of an object because their rods & eyes are length contracted by the same amount as the object -- and hencely the apparent length & shape of an object remains the same, no matter what its velocity (for an observer moving at the same velocity).

The speed of light is not constant. It has a maximum when not near mass (ie nowhere)(no such place exists). To be not near mass the photon firstly needs to be in vacuum (air has mass). However in our cosmos there is always a star etc not far away. Einstein said that the slowing of light near mass is linked to gravity, by virtue of the escape velocity. Not exactly. For example light near a star is slowed by the star's gravity (a single dose of slowing). But, what if the light is midway tween two such stars. According to Einstein there would be no slowing of the light (ie a zero dose of slowing). But i reckon that the light suffers a double dose of slowing. See????

Yes Stephen Crothers & Engelhardt explain the stupidity of STR.

[Zyxzevn]

Not forgetting that all of Einstein's 22 or so thort-Xs are all sunk by one little thort-X.

Don't know what "thort-X" is.

The Twins Contradiction. It is not a paradox, it is a contradiction.

Relativity defines time as Local, like a clock. It may be wrong.
But is not immediately a contradiction or paradox.
It is about time= clock. Where the clock variates.

The trouble with tests/experiments re LC & TD is that there are three lengths, true length (for observer-A), apparent length for observer-X, & apparent length for observer-Y. And there are three lengths in each case anyhow, ie xx yy & zz.

This is something I don't like with relativity either.
The length contraction comes from having a light-ticking-clock in the direction of the movement.
And for each object AND speed this length is different, just as the clock is different.

True length (true speed)(true ticking) is the length (& speed)(& ticking) seen (measured) by an observer sitting in the absolute reference frame, ie where the observer feels an aetherwind of 00 kmps. However this is unlikely, because on Earth the aetherwind is blowing approx. south to north at say 500 kmps.

Observers X & Y feel an aetherwind, & hencely their measuring rods & clocks are not true. Therefore observers X & Y see & measure the apparent length & shape of an object because their rods & eyes are length contracted by the same amount as the object -- and hencely the apparent length & shape of an object remains the same, no matter what its velocity (for an observer moving at the same velocity).

Using aether / aetherwind to disproof Einstein's relativity is a logical fallacy.
While it may be true, the basic idea behind relativity is that no type of aether exist.

Personally I like to investigate some emission theories.
But first we need to understand what is wrong exactly with Relativity.

The speed of light is not constant... According to Einstein there would be no slowing of the light (ie a zero dose of slowing)...

Finally some experiment.

It sounds like Ron Hatch's gravity theory.
That was not about special relativity, but gravity.

Because Special Relativity is against Aether theories and against Emission theories,
I like to focus on that first, if you still want to.

[crawler]

Not forgetting that all of Einstein's 22 or so thort-Xs are all sunk by one little thort-X.

Don't know what "thort-X" is.

The Twins Contradiction. It is not a paradox, it is a contradiction.

Relativity defines time as Local, like a clock. It may be wrong.
But is not immediately a contradiction or paradox.
It is about time= clock. Where the clock variates.

The trouble with tests/experiments re LC & TD is that there are three lengths, true length (for observer-A), apparent length for observer-X, & apparent length for observer-Y. And there are three lengths in each case anyhow, ie xx yy & zz.

This is something I don't like with relativity either.
The length contraction comes from having a light-ticking-clock in the direction of the movement.
And for each object AND speed this length is different, just as the clock is different.

True length (true speed)(true ticking) is the length (& speed)(& ticking) seen (measured) by an observer sitting in the absolute reference frame, ie where the observer feels an aetherwind of 00 kmps. However this is unlikely, because on Earth the aetherwind is blowing approx. south to north at say 500 kmps.

Observers X & Y feel an aetherwind, & hencely their measuring rods & clocks are not true. Therefore observers X & Y see & measure the apparent length & shape of an object because their rods & eyes are length contracted by the same amount as the object -- and hencely the apparent length & shape of an object remains the same, no matter what its velocity (for an observer moving at the same velocity).

Using aether / aetherwind to disproof Einstein's relativity is a logical fallacy.
While it may be true, the basic idea behind relativity is that no type of aether exist.

Personally I like to investigate some emission theories.
But first we need to understand what is wrong exactly with Relativity.

The speed of light is not constant... According to Einstein there would be no slowing of the light (ie a zero dose of slowing)...

Finally some experiment.

It sounds like Ron Hatch's gravity theory.
That was not about special relativity, but gravity.

Because Special Relativity is against Aether theories and against Emission theories,
I like to focus on that first, if you still want to.

I say thort-X, which means thought-X, ie a thought experiment. English used to be fully phonetic, & they pronounced every letter of every word, eg "thought" would be pronounced a bit like if clearing phlegm from throat & airways, but nowadays they pronounce it as "thort", but insist on spelling it the old way, & then blame me for their laziness, & stick their chests out & claim to be virtuous & true to the language.

I think that STR & GTR might be tested by measuring ticking at the surface of Earth & at altitude & deep underground. There have already been say 6 tests of ticking at altitude, using atomic clocks, & these have supported Einstein's GTR theory. I think that tests underground will support my double-dose idea, rather than Einstein's zero-dose idea, ie ticking will be found to be slower than predicted by GTR.

And as a part of the underground ticking tests we would need to do measurements of little g & big G. According to Cahill there is a borehole anomaly happening, g & G don't follow the rules in boreholes.

[crawler]

Hector A Munera -- From the classical ethers of Descartes and Newton to cosmons & sagions -- Apeiron, Volume 20, No2, December 2015. http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V2 ... 15-MUN.pdf

Page 40. Even the outcome of a well-controlled experiment involving cavity-stabilized oscillators performed by a prestigious group at Stanford University shows diurnal harmonic oscillation........
However, they did not consider the possibility that the observed harmonic variation was related to the motion of earth, arguing instead that "mechanical disturbances occasionally gave rise to a perceptible drift of the beat frequency amounting to a few MHz [millihertz] per day. We therefore fitted each record with" a harmonic function defined by their eq.(4)[91]. In their Table1, the Stanford group listed the parameters of their fitting function for thirteen instances ............ of the so called "occasional... perceptible drift"; the fitted curve – which represents the contribution of earth motion to the velocity of light – was subtracted, and the residual plotted as fig.2(b)[91]. Of course, the residual does not contain any harmonic effect on the frequency of electromagnetic radiation – as the effect was eliminated by the subtraction. The residual was then interpreted as a more precise limit for Lorentz invariance! Obviously, the residual should be zero after the baby had been thrown out with the bathwater! .......

Crawler's Comments: Here we see an instance of extreme accuracy coming to the aid of aetherists. Oscillators with vacuum will not measure any 1st or 2nd order aetherwind signals, but they can measure 3rd order signals. Now worries for the Stanford group, they simply replaced aetherwind with mechanical disturbances.

[Zyxzevn]

Page 40. Even the outcome of a well-controlled experiment involving cavity-stabilized oscillators performed by a prestigious group at Stanford University shows diurnal harmonic oscillation........

It looks like a variant of the well known Foucault Pendulum experiment.
And this can also be expected with Einstein's relativity.

[crawler]

40. Even the outcome of a well-controlled experiment involving cavity-stabilized oscillators performed by a prestigious group at Stanford University shows diurnal harmonic oscillation........

It looks like a variant of the well known Foucault Pendulum experiment.
And this can also be expected with Einstein's relativity.

Mightbe. But i reckon that had the Stanford group been able to explain that signal by invoking GTR then they would have crowed about it morning & night.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3CenN7d30Y

[neilwilkes]

Let me first make a case for Einstein's special relativity (SR). Also to make it easier to understand.
There is also general relativity (GR), which is an extension to SR to explain gravity.

Special relativity

Einstein's special relativity is based on the idea that clocks can be defined with the speed
of light and a certain distance. In a vacuum. This time of each clock can be measured by the
amount of bounces that light takes to go forth and back.

But there are problems with the whole Clock issue that seem to be generally either ignored, brushed over or forgotten altogether.
Let me quote from a relativity expert - Dr Frederick Alzofon:

THE LIGHT SIGNAL
One of the central concepts in the STR is the notion of the light signal used for distant clock synchronization. There are some assumptions made in the course of the clock synchronization procedure that must be altered in the light of present day, improved knowledge of the electromagnetic field.
It is advisable, in this connection, to review the assumptions that lie at the root of Einstein's distant clock synchronization, since these are not always made explicit.
The use of the imaginary "observer" who is the agent for establishing a space-time coordinate system sometimes disguises that one is concerned here, not with a formal mathematical process, but with a real radiation field with experimentally determined properties. At a minimum, this fact appears in the occurrence of the experimentally determined speed of light everywhere in the theory, even in the example used in Einstein's original paper on the Special Theory, in which the collision of two elastic spheres was invoked. That is, although the special theory was formulated to explain how material bodies interacted through the electromagnetic field there was no mention of the electromagnetic field as a means of interaction in the latter example.
This feature could either be explained as due to the observers use of the field for signalling, or to the fact that every material body interacts through the mediation of an electromagnetic field and in no other way. For example, in later developments of the STR which use the Minkowski metric, it is pointed out that two events which cannot be connected by a light signal cannot affect one another at all, clearly a statement about the interaction of any two bodies. The latter is a statement about physical systems interacting, not about observers. Another example we can cite is the derivation of the Lorentz force from the Coulomb static electric field expression by use of the Lorentz transformation: the intervention of passive observers cannot be imagined to affect the accuracy of this description.
It is remarkable that only one experimentally determined parameter, the speed of light, is enough to yield all of the above-varied results. But it is as a result of an experimentally determined property of the electromagnetic field, and not of a mathematical concept alone that all these advantages are available. If there are other properties of the real radiation field which have a bearing on the interaction of material bodies, surely these ought to be included in any considerations leading to a theory describing these interactions. These properties must figure in every such interaction to be of value.
There is, however, more too the special theory than distant clock synchronization.
In the special theory, it is assumed that a light signal preserves it's identity when observed by observers in relative uniform motion (i.e. moving with constant relative velocities). It is agreed that not all properties of the light signal remain invariant; for example, the frequencies (colours) composing the signal do change owing to the Doppler shift. But in terms of the idea of a light signal as a means of material body interaction there is a difficulty, for the interaction of two bodies may indeed depend on the frequency content of the mediating fields. Thus, as a physical entity, the light signal is, even in the context of the theory, not an invariant.
Returning again to the special theory, the fact that the light signal retains it's fundamental character to each observer (material system) as light, with a characteristic speed of propagation, is recognized by requirement that each observer sees the signal to be travelling wiith the same velocity, c, whatever their relative velocities. The consequent apparent contradictions in their interpretation of their measurements is resolved by the use of the Lorentz transformation: a dictionary which they can use to reconcile their differing sets of numbers used to describe the same physical event. More than this, the latter principle (of covariance) is extended to the assertion that the equations of motion for particles and radiation must have the same form in every observer's coordinate system.
Thus, by excluding all properties of matter and radiation except the speed of light alone, we can avoid the difficulty pointed out above in connection with the Doppler effect. But where additional properties of the real radiation field might have a dramatic effect on all interactions, these properties cannot be ignored.

[Cargo]

I can sum it up it just a few words. Relativity in the context of GR/STR is not based on Reality.
It may take a few more years, or decades, or generations but I seriously hope that some day the common knowledge can accept just how ridiculous and useless the Einstein Theorems are. It's really one of the ultimate con jobs of all recent history. Just saying.

plasma is "too complicated and awkward” for the tastes of mathematicians. It is “not at all suited for mathematically elegant theories” - Alfvén/Smith

[crawler]

I can sum it up it just a few words. Relativity in the context of GR/STR is not based on Reality.
It may take a few more years, or decades, or generations but I seriously hope that some day the common knowledge can accept just how ridiculous and useless the Einstein Theorems are. It's really one of the ultimate con jobs of all recent history. Just saying.

plasma is "too complicated and awkward” for the tastes of mathematicians. It is “not at all suited for mathematically elegant theories” - Alfvén/Smith

Yes STR & GTR are krapp, a math trick, a math quirk that seems to give good numbers. I, a non-scientist, can see that. Its difficult to accept that most scientists believe in spacetime, that's if it can be said that one can believe something that one doesn't understand (ie most scientists don't understand)(& the ones that do understand it don't understand it).

However light does slow near mass, so Einstein was correct here, but he used wrong reasons. The Shapiro Delay exists & is true. We must find how it happens (it aint due to spacetime). All of the other supposed proofs (ie redshift bending time-dilation perihelion etc) are false in one way or another.