Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?

"The Einstein Hoax", and its related texts, were written because
post-Einstein physics has been degraded from a science which relies on the
proper use of the "Rules of Evidence" and the "Rules of Logic" into a religion
which is based upon the acceptance by the scientific community of items of
"Faith" as revealed by anointed "Experts" but which have not been proven or may
not even be provable. Once established, these "Experts" have then insured the
survival of that "Faith" by controlling what material that gets to be published
in scientific journals.

The difference between a "science" and a "religion" is that a science
follows the "Rules of Law and of Logic" and accepts as true only that knowledge
which is verifiable unambiguously by observation or logical deduction while a
religion requires that its adherents accept one or more of its basic tenets on
"Faith" since it/they cannot be proven, (even in principle). Unlike many, if
not most, physicists, the writer is not foolish enough to accept the unproved
or unprovable as "True" and consequently is not willing to accept the unproved
portions of modern physics on "Faith" as is currently the custom.

In order to accept a proposition as true, one must be able, at least, to
recognize the existence of a path by which those assertions may be verified
unambiguously. Even if one is not able to rigorously follow all of the
arguments, recognizing that of such a path exists means that he need only
accept that the knowledgeable workers in the field are acting in "good faith".
Modern physics, at least that part which is based upon Dr. Einstein's work, is
better characterized as a "Religion" rather than a "Science" since some of its
assertions are at best unproven or reveal have no apparent path where proof can
be developed and, at the worst, are demonstrably false.

In a recent airing of "Nova", an experiment was described in which a
physicist transported an atomic clock around the world on jet airliner and
compared the time recorded by that clock with the time recorded by an identical
clock which remained at the starting point. Since the elapsed time shown on the
transported clock was less than that shown on the stationary clock, the
physicist concluded that the velocity of the aircraft caused time to progress
more slowly. He did not accept the possibility that the velocity of the trip
might have affected the calibration of the moving clock. He stated "that as far
as he was concerned, time was what clocks measure". One should note that in the
mundane field of Land Surveying, a surveyor regularly compensates his readings
for the effects of ambient temperature on his steel tape. Not only must he
measure distance, he must correct his measurement for the effect of the ambient
temperature on his units of measurement for length (thermal expansion of his
steel tape measure). If he failed to do this on a regular basis, he would
probably find himself on the unemployment line. Similarly, taking into account
the possible effects of velocity on the calibration of the moving clock is a
necessary part of the observation that the physicist performed, but he failed
to take this step. Unfortunately, we do not seem to impose the same standard of
rigor on theoretical physicists as we do on Land Surveyors.

It is an unfortunate truth that the training received by advanced
physicists teaches them to think "within the box" (as represented by
mathematics) and, unless they are extremely resistant, acts to destroy their
innate ability to think "outside the box" (which one might characterize as
intelligence) where the new information lies and where contradictions
indicating errors are found. It is easy to believe that higher education
provides the tools needed for the generation of new knowledge but destroys the
ability of the mind to use those tools. The result is a population of
scientific leadership who’s AQ (arrogance quotient) effectively exceeds their
IQ.

The physicist's conclusion was based upon "Faith" rather than proof and,
as such, is actually a religious pronouncement and as such is not worthy of a
legitimate scientist. The experiment showed the exact opposite of the
physicist's conclusion. The moving clock started and finished the experiment at
the same location and velocity reference frame as the stationary clock. This
means, that regardless of what may of happened during the trip, the duration of
the experiment was the same for both clocks since that duration was measured at
the location and velocity reference frame of the stationary clock. As a result,
any difference in the readings of the clocks can only have resulted from a
variation in the velocity-induced calibration of the moving clock. (A similar
experiment can be performed in a gravitational field to any desired accuracy by
comparing clocks at two different elevations for a sufficient period of time.)
For "Time", at least, any difference in observations between reference frames
must result from a change in size of the units of measurement of the clocks
(calibration) rather than from a difference in its rate of passage of time.
(This change in calibration is defined by Larmor's Lorentz Transformation for
velocity and (incorrectly) by Dr. Einstein's Time dilation for the
Gravitational Field.)

In the 19th Century, it was concluded that all of space must be filled
with a medium, called the Aether. The existence of this medium provided an
explanation of how electromagnetic waves propagated though apparently empty
space and how forces (e.g.:- electric, magnetic, gravitational) acted at a
distance. (Maxwell's Equations are readily understood at the intuitive level in
terms of the Aether.) The fact that light was known to be a transverse wave
that could only propagate through a solid led to the conclusion that the Aether
was a solid. The next step was an attempt to measure our velocity with respect
to that solid, and, to everyone's chagrin, such experiments, such as the
Michaelson-Morley Experiment, led to the impossible conclusion that our
velocity through the Aether was always zero even though the velocity of the
Earth varied by 36 miles per second over the coarse of a year.

One of the truly great minds in recent history, Fitzgerald, provided the
answer to that dilemma by recognizing that matter contracted in length in the
direction of velocity in accordance with the Lorentz Contraction for Length.
Larmor recognized that a reciprocal effect for time was also required and the
Lorentz Contraction for Time resulted. In a Force- Length-Time system of units,
these are all that is necessary to completely describe the effects associated
with velocity since, by their application to accepted (and locally testable)
physical laws, the transformations for all other physical parameters, including
electromagnetic, can be determined. The result of the work of Fitzgerald and
Larmor was the Lorentz Transformation-Aether Theory (LTAT) in 1903. In 1905,
Dr. Einstein showed in Special Relativity (SRT) that these conclusions could be
derived simply from mathematical considerations and, since as LTAT had
demonstrated, absolute velocity could not be measured (then), the existence of
the Aether could be ignored. (Dr. Einstein stated "we should remember that we
have not disproved the existence of the Aether, we have merely proven that we
do not need it [for calculations]). LTAT is a special case solution of SRT in
which one (the Aether) of STR’s infinite number of allowable velocity
reference frames between +/-C and cannot be proven not to be the correct one
without disproving the validity of SRT. SRT showed that, computationally at
least, it is permissible to assume that the observer's reference frame is at
rest and all other velocity reference frames were in motion, it did not show
that the Aether was not a prime ingredient of reality. (Dr. Einstein is also
reported to have believed in the Aether since he maintained a belief in
"absolute time" for 25 years after publishing SRT.)

Whether our reality is represented by the Aether as asserted by LTAT or by
"empty space" as represented by STR is not a mere academic exercise, it
determines how we view the remainder of the physical sciences. Fortunately, a
few simple reasonableness checks show that LCAT must be the correct
interpretation of reality.

A:- THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IS INDEPENDENT OF VELOCITY OF ITS SOURCE. Such a
result obviously occurs if LCAT represents reality. Light has been determined
to be a vibrational phenomena and the velocity of propagation of a vibration in
a medium is determined by the medium (the Aether) and not by the velocity of
the source. If, on the other hand as adherents of STR assert, light consists of
particles (photons) traveling ballistically through "empty space" the only
explanation for that independence would seem to be that some form of "magic"
was at work. "Magic" does not belong in science. Rational explanations are
required.

B:- EXPERIMENTS BY QUANTUM PHYSICISTS HAVE SHOWN THAT OUR VELOCITY WITH RESPECT
TO SPACE CAN BE MEASURED, JUST AS MICHELSON AND MORLEY ATTEMPTED. THE "COBE"
OBSERVATION OF THE "BIG BANG" SOURCE OF THE UNIVERSE REINFORCES THIS VIEW.

C:- ACTION AT A DISTANCE:- The Aether was originally conceived as a medium that
would allow forces to act at a distance. When the post Einstein science took
hold, it was necessary to find a new mechanism to explain forces (electric,
magnetic, gravitational, etc.) that acted at a distance. To meet this
requirement, the idea of the virtual particle (one which used quantum
uncertainties to allow it to spring into being for extremely short times) was
substituted for the Aether. Such an idea has several difficulties that obligate
science to either explain or find another concept.

C.1:- If forces acting at a distance were produced by the exchange of virtual
particles (e.g.- virtual photons exchanged by the atoms in a hydrogen atom),
how do these virtual particles produce attractive forces? The forces they
should be able to produce should only be repulsive, similarly to the production
of a repulsive force between two athletes throwing a medicine ball to each
other. They should not be able to produce the attractive forces needed to hold
atoms and molecules and planets in their proper positions. (To date there seems
to have been no attempt to answer this question.) While the mathematics
describing the effects of virtual particles allows for the production of an
attractive force, the mathematical solution does not consider the momentum
exchange required to allow the process to work for attractive forces. To
achieve that exchange requires a "substrate" (e.g.- the Aether). A boomerang
would not return to the thrower on the Moon because there is no such substrate
(i.e.- air).

C.2:- If virtual photons are responsible for electric or magnetic forces, then,
for large spacing, these photons should be of low enough frequency to be
detectable by a radio receiver. A rigorous experiment is possible, but the fact
that electromagnetic communication is possible in the presence of the alleged
"virtual photon" flux generated by the large electric and magnetic fields
present on Earth would seem to be an indication that Nature does not use them
to achieve "action at a distance".

C.3:- Without the Aether as a reference, how does light "know" how fast to
travel? The alternative to the Aether again would seem to be a reliance on some
form of “magic�.

D:- Besides occupying a volume, space has at least two observable properties.
It possesses a dielectric constant and permeability. If space is filled with
the Aether, this presents no problem, but if space were "empty" as SRT
requires, it would seem that "nothingness" has observable properties. (How's
that again?)

General Relativity (GRT) has allegedly replaced Newtonian Gravitational
Theory (NGT), but neither theory is a theory of gravity. NGT describes an
attractive force produced by matter that allows a first order determination of
orbits. GRT provides a refinement of gravitational theory by asserting that the
presence of mass causes space to curve to produce the orbital motion of
objects, refraction of those orbits and of light, and the observed time
dilation. Since, as you read this, the effects of orbital motion on the force
holding you to your chair are negligible, the source of the force that holds
you to your chair is remains unexplained. (One physicist who had asserted that
GRT had eliminated gravity as a force became strangely silent when it was
suggested that he step through an adjacent second story window so that we could
discuss the subject across the windowsill.) A competent theory of gravitation
MUST be able to pinpoint the source of the force and energy of gravitation
because that is its most observable effect.

When Dr. Einstein attempted to derive GRT using Tensor Calculus, he was
stymied for about 18 months and was unsuccessful until he incorporated the
Riemannean idea of curved space and asserted that gravity was caused by that
curvature. This allowed him to predict additional second order gravitational
effects that caused GRT to be accepted because the gravitational fields of the
Solar System were about a million times too weak to reveal its deficiencies.
Since Dr. Einstein was reported to be uneasy about the extension of GRT to
strong fields, it is uncertain whether, in proposing the theory, he was acting
in good faith and merely failed to understand the significance of the
relativistic phenomena or was actually faking his conclusions with a confidence
that the errors could never be proven.

A:- In order to use Tensor Calculus in deriving the nature of the gravitational
field it is necessary to perform a mathematical integration. Unfortunately, the
relativistic dilations (time and length in an FLT system of units) must be
known in order to perform that integration and those dilations could not be
known until the integration had been performed. The circular reasoning induced
by this error resulted in the production of a theory that violated its own
postulates, the Principles of Relativity and of Equivalence. It is inconsistent
with both. The error resulted in the proliferation of weird, and false,
conclusions such as "Black Hole", "Wormholes", "Singularities", and the idiotic
idea of the continuous creation of additional space to accommodate an
apparently expanding Universe without first determining whether the Universe is
actually expanding or only appears to be. The nature of the error made in the
generation of GRT is of a type which, if repeatedly made by a student of
Elementary Calculus would result in a failing grade.

B:- The Riemannean Geometry used by GTR is identical to Euclidean Geometry
except that the axiom that parallel lines never meet is missing. Unfortunately,
the definition of a straight line currently used by all geometries is
deficient. The straight line is more correctly defined as the shortest distance
between two points WHICH REMAINS WITHIN THE GEOMETRY. This revision works for
all geometries. As an example, the surface of the Earth is a two dimensional
Riemannean Geometry. The shortest distance between New York and Los Angeles is
not a great circle however, as the Riemannean axiom asserts, it is through a
tunnel which passing about 200 hundred miles below the Mississippi River and
which is clearly outside of the Riemannean Geometry represented by the Earth's
surface. ANY NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY OF N DIMENSIONS CAN BE CONTAINED IN, AND
ALSO REQUIRES, A EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY OF AT LEAST N+1 DIMENSIONS. If a
non-Euclidean geometry is to be used for its convenience, it is necessary to
properly consider the effects of that higher order Euclidean Geometry on the
problem at hand. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE WITH GTR.

When it comes to particle physics, another question arises. High Energy
experiments have led to a plethora of short-lived high-energy products. As an
example, two protons, each having a mass equivalent energy of 1 GEV are
accelerated to a velocity close to that of light so that they each contain
kinetic energy as high as hundreds of GEV. These protons are then induced to
collide head on and in so doing produce short-lived high-energy products having
observable energies of hundreds of GEV. Where did the energy they represent
come from?

A: - The energy certainly wasn't in the original protons; their rest mass
indicates that their total energy was about 2 GEV.

B:- The only source of the excess energy represented by the collision products
is the kinetic energy of the impacting protons. (If the excess energy was
hidden in the original protons and did not come from their kinetic energy, then
where did the kinetic energy go?)

C:- Experiment indicates that electrons, and the quarks that make up protons
and neutrons have no solid structure down to the observation limit of 10^-18
meters, as indeed they cannot have. The more rest mass energy a particle has,
the smaller it is. If quarks contained smaller particles, the rest mass of
those smaller particles would be greater than the rest mass of the quark and
the proton or neutron would be more massive than it is. On the other hand, if
particles making up the quark were less massive than the quark they would also
be larger and would not fit within the nucleon.

Rather than accept the fact that these particles contain no structure,
theoreticians have resorted to Superstring Theory that asserts that reality
consists of curled higher order dimensions having a radius 20 orders of
magnitude smaller than the nucleon. At this level the combination of Quantum
Theory and General Relativity is asserted to cause space to be a frothy foam.
They would rather accept such a concept than accept the idea that there is an
error in General Relativity, after all, the religious "Faith" must not be
challenged. Once that error is admitted, the merging of the two theories
becomes much easier. The need for the activity at 10^-34 meters vanishes and
space becomes smooth.

Everything really does become much simpler when one follows the rules of
evidence in Science as well it is done in other activities and recognize that
it is necessary to consider the effects of possible changes in the size of the
units of measurement used by instruments produced by a change in reference
frame in addition to the results of those measurements. When one takes this
step an entirely different view of reality results. This view of reality is
much more straightforward and is capable of being understood by the average man
since the operation of its mechanisms are clear.

The disturbing part of the present process is that the next generation of
scientists is having their minds destroyed by being indoctrinated into the
"True Faith".

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 make and/or 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 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.

Esnepxe16 wrote:

Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?
[snip 300 lines of spammed crap]

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!

Esnepxe16 wrote:

Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?


See: http://www.csicop.org/si/9907/


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

B:- The Riemannean Geometry used by GTR is identical to Euclidean Geometry
except that the axiom that parallel lines never meet is missing.
Unfortunately,
the definition of a straight line currently used by all geometries is
deficient. The straight line is more correctly defined as the shortest
distance
between two points WHICH REMAINS WITHIN THE GEOMETRY. This revision works
for
all geometries. As an example, the surface of the Earth is a two
dimensional
Riemannean Geometry. The shortest distance between New York and Los
Angeles is
not a great circle however, as the Riemannean axiom asserts, it is through
a
tunnel which passing about 200 hundred miles below the Mississippi River
and
which is clearly outside of the Riemannean Geometry represented by the
Earth's
surface. ANY NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY OF N DIMENSIONS CAN BE CONTAINED IN,
AND
ALSO REQUIRES, A EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY OF AT LEAST N+1 DIMENSIONS. If a
non-Euclidean geometry is to be used for its convenience, it is necessary
to
properly consider the effects of that higher order Euclidean Geometry on
the
problem at hand. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE WITH GTR.
Please, please, please get a book and read. This is false. You look silly
when you say false things. People won't believe anything you say when you
have fundamental errors like this. I know you don't really follow that bit
at the end of your message about if someone proves you wrong, you'll remove
the material from your site. But this time, could you try removing it from
future posts. A small child might be reading some posts and think--I thought
spherical geometry was geodesically complete. Isn't hyperbolic n-space a
symmetric space?--Do it for the children.

By the way, what is Riemannean geometry? I'm also still waiting on your
proof that my construct of hyperbolic n-space needs an embedding into
Euclidean space.

Ben