The Error in Relativistic Physics

The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm.
The Science of Physics is based upon the making of measurements. What can be
measured is taken as being "true". This is an excellent philosophy, but
unfortunately the addition of the concepts of relativity into science has
allowed for an inexcusable level of intellectual sloppiness. Once Fitzgerald
had his "aha" revelation and asserted that the reason for the results of the
Michaelson-Morley Experiment was that "yardsticks" were shortening in the
direction of the relative velocity and Larmor added the proviso that if
"yardsticks" were shortening, then clocks must also be slowing, another degree
of freedom was added to the concept of measurement which must not be ignored.
(Yes, the understanding of the effects of velocity is attributed to Dr.
Einstein who showed, in his derivation of the Special theory of Relativity
(STR), that applying mathematics to known physical laws could derive these
effects. It must be remembered however, that the Lorentz Transformation-Aether
Theory (LCAT) of Fitzgerald, Larmor and Lorentz is actually a special case
solution of Special Relativity and since the two theories are cross-derivable
they are really different ways of expressing the same theory. As a result, the
existence of the Aether cannot be disproved without also disproving STR. LCAT
asserts that the Aether does exist but, because of the form of the Lorentz
Transformations, and the fact that it was believed that information cannot
propagate faster than the velocity of light, our velocity with respect to that
Aether cannot be measured. STR asserts that the effects predicted by
Fitzgerald, Larmor and Lorentz do occur but, since our absolute velocity
through space cannot, in principle, be measured, considerations of the Aether
are unnecessary for computations but are not invalid. Many physicists assert
that the Aether has been proven "not to exist". While it is true that it does
not exist in the mathematics of Special Relativity, only a fool would assert
that its non-existence has been proven. Whether the Aether exists or not can
only be determined by searching for other evidence that requires the existence
of the Aether in physical observations. Dr. Einstein himself warned, "remember
gentlemen, we have not proven that the Aether does not exist, we have only
proven that we do not need it (for calculations)", a conclusion which is
entirely consistent with LCAT.

If one accepts the existence of the Aether (LCAT), the mysterious nature
of velocity effects vanish when one applies the appropriate Lorentz
Transformations to observations made between three velocity reference frames
(http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/cf64.gif). The necessary analysis (8
pages of algebra) required to achieve an intuitive understanding of velocity
relativity phenomena is tedious, but it does yield correct results. (Any
physicist who claims expertise in Special Relativity and who has not performed
such an analysis has not done his homework and probably should look for another
line of work.) The mathematical approach taken by STR has the advantage of
being far simpler in that it allows the observer to consider his own reference
frame to have zero velocity with respect to space. This is fine for a
mathematical analysis, but it presents difficulties when one attempts to
understand the mechanisms by which Nature operates.

The writer is aware that the idea of mechanism has been abolished from
physical theory, leaving only mathematics and experiment; the reality is that
we live in a mechanism and it is our job to eventually understand its workings
as a mechanism. Unfortunately, instead of recognizing SRT is a convenient
mathematical abstraction, however, the concept of space-time was invented.
Under the space-time concept it was asserted that only one reality existed
because what we considered as space and time were aspects of a single composite
entity called "space-time" (requiring, as Dr. Einstein has been reported to
have said, an infinite number of Aethers.)

When one considers the inputs from quantum theorists, the idea of a single
entity of space-time encompassing all velocity reference frames becomes absurd.
One of the two interpretations of quantum physics is the "spooky" requirement
that quantum effects propagate though all of space at an in infinite velocity.
On the surface this would appear to violate the requirement of Special
Relativity that nothing can propagate faster than the velocity of light.
Actually, Special Relativity does not have that requirement, Special Relativity
asserts that energy, and information encoded in the form of energy, cannot
propagate faster than light because the Lorentz Transformation for Energy
(Force times Length) becomes infinite at that velocity. SRT does not make any
assertion about information that is encoded in a form that does not involve
energy. One should note that changing the direction of polarization of a photon
DOES NOT change its energy. As a result, the quantum coupling of the
polarization of "paired photons" does not involve the transfer of energy
between them and the velocity limitations of SRT do not apply to the transfer
of information by polarization coupling. There is, at present at least, no
theoretical reason why the "spooky" characteristic of quantum physics is not
reasonable and is not consistent with Special Relativity.

At present, experiments in quantum physics have shown that information
encoded in such a manner can propagate at a velocity of at least 4 times that
of light and perhaps at an infinite velocity. This capability can readily be
used to establish our absolute velocity through space to an accuracy of better
than 400 miles per second and, in so doing, establish both that the Aether
theory must represents reality. There is, however, another interpretation of
the effect provided by Quantum Physics. This theory asserts that every decision
point (e.g.- particle) in our Universe generates a new, coexisting, Universe as
complex as our own at every instant of time. Each of these coexisting Universes
contains an amount of energy equal to the energy of our own Universe and its
component particles occupies the same volume of space as they do in our
Universe. When one considers the interactions involved (i.e.- the factorial
number of particles in the Universe and the number of instants of time which
have elapsed since the Universe has formed), the number is so vast as to defy
the imagination. In addition, it defies the precepts that energy cannot be
created or destroyed and that two entities cannot occupy the same space at the
same time. The writer asserts that the concept can be rejected as a
mathematical pipedream of the type that Dr. Leary would approve.

The intellectual sloppiness that has transpired is the failure of the
scientific community to recognize that LCAT and STR have shown that, in making
a measurement in and or between two different reference frames, (elevation or
velocity) one must also include the effect, if any, of the change in the
reference frame (velocity or elevation) on the "size" of the units of
measurement employed. The measurements must, of necessity, be made "locally"
and then, using the appropriate relativistic transformations; the results of
observation must be corrected to determine what is actually occurring between
the reference frames. Without making such an accounting, it is not possible to
be sure what actually did occur as a result of the change in reference frame.
NATURE DOES NOT CARE WHAT WE MEASURE, IT CARES ABOUT WHAT IS ACTUALLY OCCURRING
IN "ABSOLUTE TERMS". Our failure to recognize this is what leads to the
mysterious nature of Relativity.

An example is in order. Suppose one was to observe that the price of
gasoline was $1.25/gallon at one end of a bridge and was also $1.25/gallon at
the other end of the bridge. It would seem to be a safe assertion that the
price of gasoline was unchanged when the bridge was crossed. In the language of
the physicist, the price of gasoline would be termed as "constant" between the
two locations. This does not necessarily mean that the price of gasoline did
not change. If we add a new item of information, that the bridge crossed the
Detroit River from Windsor, Ontario to Detroit, Michigan, the conclusion
changes. In Canada, gasoline is measured in terms of the Imperial Gallon, while
in the US the US gallon is used. In addition, in Canada the Canadian Dollar is
used as a medium of exchange, while in the US the US Dollar is used. At both
locations we measure value in terms of local Dollars and fluid content in terms
of local gallons. However, neither the dollars nor the gallon are the same at
the two locations. In order to determine the relative price of gasoline at the
two locations, one must determine the relationship between the units of
measurement for money (exchange rate) and units of measurement for fluid volume
between the locations. Until such a determination is made, one can draw no
legitimate conclusion as to the effect of crossing the bridge on the price of
gasoline.

In the case described, the price of gasoline is a "constant" in the same
sense that a physicist would describe the velocity of light as a "constant".
More precisely, the price of gasoline should be termed as "invariant" (it
measures as having the same value) between the locations. Whether it would be
also be “constant� (unchanged) would depend upon the exchange rate between
the currencies. The "invariant" price of gasoline would be "constant" only of
the Canadian Dollar was worth $1.25 US. Dollars. This is what Relativity is all
about!

What Fitzgerald recognized was that for the effects shown by the
Michaelson-Morley Experiment to occur, the unit of measurement for length would
have to differ in the direction of relative velocity and Larmor recognized that
this required a reciprocal change in the units of measurement of time. In a
(Force-Length-Time) system of units, this required that the effect of velocity
on the units of measurement be:

Force = 1
Length = 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5
Time = (1-V^2/C^2)^0.5

(The effects of a change in velocity on all other units of measurement can be
derived using the rules of "Dimensional Analysis" as derived in the 19th
Century to facilitate the study of Fluid Dynamics. This discipline allows any
three entities to be used as the basis of a system of units. Force has been
substituted for mass since force is directly observable while mass is not and
the removal of mass as a basic unit makes the related material simpler.)

By incorporating these transformations with the assumption that
information cannot be transmitted faster than the velocity of light (actually,
Quantum Physics has shown that it can be as long as the information is not
encoded in the form of energy) it is found that any attempt to measure our
absolute velocity through space is doomed to failure because it is not possible
to establish whether two physically separated clocks are synchronized to an
accuracy better than the time of travel of light between those locations. When
the effects of these transformations are factored into the results of
observation and the mathematics involved, the relativistic effects of velocity
are found to be classically Newtonian. The mysterious nature of STR vanishes.

STR works because the triads of Lorentz transformations contain minus
signs and are multiplicatively commutative. The minus signs insure that the
transformations for length and time become infinite or zero respectively when
the relative velocity becomes equal to the velocity of light. The property of
multiplicative commutivity insures that, when the effect between reference
frames #1 and #2 is multiplied by the effect between reference frames #2 and
#3, the results are the same as the effect directly between reference frame #1
and #3. The basic relativistic triad must be multiplicatively commutative,
contain minus signs where appropriate, and have the property that the
dimensional content of Planck's Constant (F*L*T) must be unity if the theory is
to match the results of observations.

When we get to the gravitational field, an examination of the
gravitational transformations it provides reveals that something is amiss. The
gravitational transformations provided by General Relativity are in the form:-

Force = 1
Length = 1
Time = 1/(1+$)
Space = 1/(1+$)

(The transformation for space is provided to account for the alleged curvature
of space in the gravitational field.). It will be noted that the required minus
sign does not exist and the transformation for Length is unity instead of the
reciprocal of the transformation for time. As a result, General Relativity is
incompatible with both the Principles of Equivalence and of Relativity! This is
odd since these principles were used as the basis of General Relativity's
derivation. BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD!

The use of a few simple "thought experiments" of the type pioneered by Dr.
Einstein, allows the correct gravitational transformations to be derived. This
can be accomplished by two independent methods that yield identical results.
The corrected gravitational tranformations become:

Force = 1
Length = 1/(1-$)
Time = (1-$)

As will be noted, the required minus sign is present, the transformations for
length and time are reciprocal and space is no longer required to be curved.

When the corrected transformations are applied to the gravitational field,
the source of gravitational energy is immediately revealed and it is possible
to predict a path of contraction of a massive object as it attempts to collapse
into a hypothetical "black hole". As observed externally, the object collapses
asymptotically to its "horizon radius". As observed internally (if that were
possible), the object appears to collapse to four times its "horizon radius"
and then to expand to an infinite radius. Late in the process, the object would
appear to be a Universe similar to our own which had its origin in an
inflationary "big bang" and is now expanding at an ever-increasing rate. The
text that predicts this result, "Gravity", was copyrighted in 1987. It may be
found at Website http://www/members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/gravity.htm .

The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm .
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

Please back up any response with an E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored
on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have
read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

For a response send E-Mail to

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE, COMPETENT, AND RELAVENT REBUTTALS OF
ANY OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.

Muirta08 wrote:

The Error in Relativistic Physics
[snip 240 lines of garbage]

Psychotic ineducable boring retic (Ernest Wittke),
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...uthor%3Awittke

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html
http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html

The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]

Hey, stooopid Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of the 24
GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or three
rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic corrections
being applied.

http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system

NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)

http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm
http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/Paper6.pdf
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/LPHrel.html
Longitudinal and transverse mass

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.

Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ass - even
when you ****.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Muirta08 wrote:

The Error in Relativistic Physics


Observational and Experimental Evidence Bearing on General Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html

General Relativity Tutorial
John Baez
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html

Relativity on the World Wide Web
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/relativity.html

General Relativity and Cosmology FAQs
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/

Developments in General Relativity: Black Hole Singularity and Beyond
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304052

Improved Test of General Relativity with Radio Doppler Data from the Cassini Spacecraft
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010

What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

Physics is an experimental science, and as such the experimental basis for
any physical theory is extremely important. The relationship between
theory and experiments in modern science is a multi-edged sword:

1.It is required that the theory not be refuted by any experiment within
the theory's domain of applicability.
2.It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which cover a significant fraction of the theory's
domain of applicability.
3.It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which examine a significant fraction of the theory's
predictions.

Special Relativity (SR) meets all of these requirements and expectations.
There are literally hundreds of experiments which have tested SR, with
an enormous range and diversity, and the agreement between theory and
experiment is excellent. There is a lot of redundancy in these experimental
tests. There are also a lot of indirect tests of SR which are not included
here. This list of experiments is by no means complete!

Other than their sheer numbers, the most striking thing about these
experimental tests of SR is their remarkable breadth and diversity. An
important aspect of SR is its universality - it applies to all known physical
phenomena and not just to the electromagnetic phenomena it was
originally invented to explain. In these experiments you will find tests
using electromagnetic and nuclear measurements (including both strong
and weak interactions); gravitational tests are the province of General
Relativity, and are not considered here, see Experimental Tests of GR.

There are several useful surveys of the experimental basis of SR:

Y.Z.Zhang, Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundations,
World Scientific (1997).
G.Holton, "Resource Letter SRT-1 on Special Relativity Theory",
Am. J. Phys., 30 (1962), p462.
D.I.Blotkhintsev, "Basis for Special Relativity Theory Provided by
Experiments in High Energy Physics", Sov. Phys. Uspekhi, 9 (1966),
p405.
Newman et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 no. 21 (1978), p1355.

Zhang's book is especially comprehensive.

Textbooks which have good summaries of the experimental basis of
relativity a

M.Born, Einstein's theory of Relativity.
Bergmann, Introduction to the Theory of Relativity.
Moller, The Theory of Relativity.
M. von Laue, Die relativitätstheorie (in German).


Crank Information
http://www.crank.net/einstein.html
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...author%3Aretic
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...thor%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...hor%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...or%3Areticher1
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22To...Awww.crank.net

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
Muirta08 wrote:

The Error in Relativistic Physics


Observational and Experimental Evidence Bearing on General Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html

General Relativity Tutorial
John Baez
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html

Relativity on the World Wide Web
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/relativity.html

General Relativity and Cosmology FAQs
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/

Developments in General Relativity: Black Hole Singularity and Beyond
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304052

Improved Test of General Relativity with Radio Doppler Data from the
Cassini Spacecraft
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010

What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

Physics is an experimental science, and as such the experimental basis for
any physical theory is extremely important. The relationship between
theory and experiments in modern science is a multi-edged sword:

1.It is required that the theory not be refuted by any experiment within
the theory's domain of applicability.
2.It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which cover a significant fraction of the theory's
domain of applicability.
3.It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which examine a significant fraction of the theory's
predictions.

Special Relativity (SR) meets all of these requirements and expectations.
There are literally hundreds of experiments which have tested SR, with
an enormous range and diversity, and the agreement between theory and
experiment is excellent. There is a lot of redundancy in these
experimental
tests. There are also a lot of indirect tests of SR which are not included
here. This list of experiments is by no means complete!

Other than their sheer numbers, the most striking thing about these
experimental tests of SR is their remarkable breadth and diversity. An
important aspect of SR is its universality - it applies to all known
physical
phenomena and not just to the electromagnetic phenomena it was
originally invented to explain. In these experiments you will find tests
using electromagnetic and nuclear measurements (including both strong
and weak interactions); gravitational tests are the province of General
Relativity, and are not considered here, see Experimental Tests of GR.

There are several useful surveys of the experimental basis of SR:

Y.Z.Zhang, Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundations,
World Scientific (1997).
G.Holton, "Resource Letter SRT-1 on Special Relativity Theory",
Am. J. Phys., 30 (1962), p462.
D.I.Blotkhintsev, "Basis for Special Relativity Theory Provided by
Experiments in High Energy Physics", Sov. Phys. Uspekhi, 9 (1966),
p405.
Newman et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 no. 21 (1978), p1355.

Zhang's book is especially comprehensive.

Textbooks which have good summaries of the experimental basis of
relativity a

M.Born, Einstein's theory of Relativity.
Bergmann, Introduction to the Theory of Relativity.
Moller, The Theory of Relativity.
M. von Laue, Die relativitätstheorie (in German).


Crank Information
http://www.crank.net/einstein.html
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...author%3Aretic
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...thor%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...hor%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...or%3Areticher1
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22To...Awww.crank.net

Does anyone get the idea that the people
who quote physics chapter and verse,
and personally attack physics heretics,
rather than address the issues raised,
have the same mindset as the people who quote:
"John 3/16"?

It seems to me that many people need a religion
in order to cope with life, and to feel adequate..

--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us

In sci.physics, Tom Potter

wrote
on Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:53:59 +0800
:


[snip]

Does anyone get the idea that the people
who quote physics chapter and verse,
and personally attack physics heretics,
rather than address the issues raised,
have the same mindset as the people who quote:
"John 3/16"?

Did you want to derive it from the ground up instead, or what?


It seems to me that many people need a religion
in order to cope with life, and to feel adequate..

Many do. I'm not sure if Mr. Wormley is one of them, though. :-)

[.sigsnip]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

The Ghost In The Machine wrote in message ...
In sci.physics, Tom Potter

wrote
on Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:53:59 +0800
:


[snip]

Does anyone get the idea that the people
who quote physics chapter and verse,
and personally attack physics heretics,
rather than address the issues raised,
have the same mindset as the people who quote:
"John 3/16"?

Did you want to derive it from the ground up instead, or what?


It seems to me that many people need a religion
in order to cope with life, and to feel adequate..

Many do. I'm not sure if Mr. Wormley is one of them, though. :-)

Work on your reading comprehension,
read a good sample of his posts,
and you'll be sure.

As can be seen by his posts,
he is conditioned to parrot conventional
physics wisdom, and to attack the heretics,
who dare suggest that it may not be the ultimate truth.

He reacts with dogma, insults and
references that are useless or demean the heretic,
rather than address posts with factual data.

He fantacises himself as some kind of
"Horatio at the gate"
defending physics from heretics.

That would be okay, if he used facts,
rather than insults, useless URLs,
and references to "John 3/16".
(Dogma rather than facts.)


--
Tom Potter