"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
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). 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.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

Please make any response via 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.

E-mail:- . If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
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.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:04:22 -0400, "Ciit" wrote:


B:- EXPERIMENTS BY QUANTUM PHYSICISTS HAVE SHOWN THAT OUR VELOCITY
WITH RESPECT TO SPACE CAN BE MEASURED, JUST AS MICHELSON AND MORLEY
ATTEMPTED.

Actually Michelson and Morley succeeded in their attempt but didn't
realise it, because they didn't understand relativistic effects. Their
success was noted by Dayton C Miller in his paper:

"The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute
Motion of the Earth"
Reviews of Modern Physics, July 1933
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cp...Miller1933.pdf

From Page 218:
"...A study of numerical results as plotted in Fig. 26 shows that the
probable error of the observed velocity, which has a magnitude of from
ten to eleven kilometers per second, is +/- 0.33 kilometer per second,
while the probable error in the determination of the azimuth is +/-
2.5%. The probably error in the right ascensions and declinations of
the polar chart, Fig. 28, is +/- 0.5%"


From Page 237:
"Attention is called to the fact that the results obtained here are
not opposed to the results originally announced by Michelson and
Morley in 1887; in reality they are consistent with and confirm the
earlier results"

However, the above speed needs to be corrected for relativistic
effects. Eg see page 14 of:

Absolute Motion and Gravitational Effects
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0306196

On Apr 14, 12:00 pm, Surfer wrote:


Actually Michelson and Morley succeeded in their attempt but didn't
realise it, because they didn't understand relativistic effects. Their
success was noted by Dayton C Miller in his paper:

How stupid and dishones are you? Hold it, no need to answer.

On Apr 14, 4:54*pm, Dono wrote:
On Apr 14, 12:00 pm, Surfer wrote:



Actually Michelson and Morley succeeded in their attempt but didn't
realise it, because they didn't understand relativistic effects. Their
success was noted by Dayton C Miller in his paper:

How stupid and dishones are you? Hold it, no need to answer.

xxein: Actually this Ciit (yeah I know all about the Einstein Hoax)
and Cahill (and certain others) do present a dilemna to the logic that
we wish we could just simply ignore as that which comes from a
different logic.

I would dare anyone to provide a basis for any logic.

Ciit wrote:
"Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"

The version taught at the top colleges and universities is the former.
The novel ideas about it presented here, mostly the latter.

"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

No, it follows the scientific method, which cannot logically prove
the theories in question. It can, however, *disprove* theories.

[...]
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.

The point is not merely that the transported clock showed less elapsed
time than did the stationary clock. The support for relativity is that
difference was the quantity relativity predicted, to within the
precision of the experiment.

He did not accept the possibility that the velocity
of the trip might have affected the calibration of the moving clock.

More generally, correct predictions can never prove a theory. Any result
could be do to other factors, and happen to agree with the theory under
test by coincidence.

Nevertheless, the experiment described here came out a relativity
predicted and the ideas of "The Einstein Hoax" did not. Over and over,
relativity matches the facts, with a few anomalous observations not
yet understood at any given time.


--
--Bryan

"xxein" wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 4:54 pm, Dono wrote:
On Apr 14, 12:00 pm, Surfer wrote:



Actually Michelson and Morley succeeded in their attempt but didn't
realise it, because they didn't understand relativistic effects. Their
success was noted by Dayton C Miller in his paper:

How stupid and dishones are you? Hold it, no need to answer.

: xxein: Actually this Ciit (yeah I know all about the Einstein Hoax)
: and Cahill (and certain others) do present a dilemna to the logic that
: we wish we could just simply ignore as that which comes from a
: different logic.

: I would dare anyone to provide a basis for any logic.

It's a complicated issue - much more complicated than most fanatics on
either side want to admit. The deviations seem to be far too reproducible to
be merely due to chance. On the other hand, they tend to be explained with
theories that are either erroneous or in contradiction with the conservation
laws. Thus I'm sceptical about all strong views concerning this matter.

Harald

On Apr 15, 8:55*am, "harry"
wrote:
"xxein" wrote in message

...
On Apr 14, 4:54 pm, Dono wrote:

On Apr 14, 12:00 pm, Surfer wrote:

Actually Michelson and Morley succeeded in their attempt but didn't
realise it, because they didn't understand relativistic effects. Their
success was noted by Dayton C Miller in his paper:

How stupid and dishones are you? Hold it, no need to answer.

:xxein: *Actually this Ciit (yeah I know all about the Einstein Hoax)
: and Cahill (and certain others) do present a dilemna to the logic that
: we wish we could just simply ignore as that which comes from a
: different logic.

: I would dare anyone to provide a basis for any logic.

It's a complicated issue - much more complicated than most fanatics on
either side want to admit. The deviations seem to be far too reproducible to
be merely due to chance. On the other hand, they tend to be explained with
theories that are either erroneous or in contradiction with the conservation
laws. Thus I'm sceptical about all strong views concerning this matter.

Harald

xxein: Not that all conservation laws are based on a proper logic, or
the reasoning at the base of the logic... And this leads to belief.

As you may know (or not) I shun all belief. I start where the rubber
hits the road. I played a dumb f*ck when I started to study these
sciences. I looked at data and extrapolated raw data from the
processed data. It's sort of easy to do if you truly have no belief.
You simply suspect that everything is is not put together right. The
big grain of salt. You should see it from here!

BUT the only way to do this is to start over. No, we don't defrock
recorded data of any type. Just review it from a fresh perspective
(without sophisticated answers already built in).

It's only complicated by not understanding what we should have
understood in the first place. This is especially true of being
aware of conditions --- the conditions of observation for a start.
Secondarily, there are hidden conditions. Because they are hidden, we
can't take them into any account. Where is gravity in a quantum
theory? Where is a weak force in a relativity theory?

This is why we must rebuild. But we have to go back further than we
seem willing to. This is our Achilles heel. We already have a
universal belief (of sorts) that prevents us from re-organising our
thinking. We still think that WE are kosher. Still a belief
resulting from a single line of thought.

We have to find the beginning of that line and rethink.

Thanks Harry

"Ciit" wrote in message
...
"Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"

It science, mr. uninformed!