The Observational Collapse of Einsteinian Physics

By H. E. Retic ONLY E-mail Address is

Observations made in the field of Quantum Physics have already established
that the concept that space and time are different aspects of the same entity -
"space-time" is flawed. This concept was based on the recognition that the
Lorentz Transformations resulting from velocity and our inability to transmit
information faster than the velocity of light made it impossible to establish
our absolute velocity through space observationally. Physicists who were more
enamored with mathematical elegance than with establishing a better
understanding of the way the Universe works extended that impossibility to
generate the belief that an absolute velocity did not exist! This leads to
logical contradictions, as Dr. Einstein recognized instinctively, causing him
to resist the idea of "space-time" for about 25 years after the publication of
Special Relativity and asserting that the "space-time" concept required the
existence of an infinite number of Aethers!

Lately, Quantum physicist have made observations which demonstrate that,
of the two current explanations of quantum theory, the one which requires that
the velocity of propagation of quantum effects be infinite velocity rather than
being limited to the velocity of light, is consistent with the results of
observation. Experiments have shown that the velocity of the coupling of the
polarization angle (the quantum number of the photon) of "paired photons"
occurs at a velocity of at least four times the velocity of light and perhaps
at an infinite velocity. Such a coupling velocity prevents physicists from
hiding behind the idea that there is no absolute velocity reference frame and
forcibly re-establishes the idea of Aether and demolishes the idea of
"space-time" as other than as a conventional mathematical abstraction.

The idea that information can travel at a velocity greater than the
velocity of light is not inconsistent with the requirements of Special
Relativity. If one examines all of the conventional means of transmission of
information one finds that they involve the transmission of energy (e.g.- light
signals, radio signals, particle transmission, etc). If one examines the
Lorentz Transformation for energy (F-L-T system of units), one finds that the
units of energy are the product of the Lorentz Transformations Force and for
Length. Since the Lorentz Transformation for Force (on axis) is unity, the
Lorentz Transformation for Energy is equal to the Transformation for Length and
is 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5). This transformation becomes infinite at the velocity of
light and becomes imaginary at velocities above the velocity of light. Clearly,
no observable process which involves energy can proceed faster than the
velocity of light!

The limitation imposed on the velocity of energy propagation does not
apply to the velocity of propagation of the polarization angle of "paired
photons". Since changing the polarization angle of a photon does not change its
energy content, the limitation that Special Relativity imposes on the
transmission of energy does not apply. To see how Special Relativity does
impose a velocity limitation on the propagations of the polarization angle of
"paired photons" one must apply the Lorentz Transformation for Angle to the
problem. Angle is measured as the length along an arc divided by the radius of
that arc. As a result, the Lorentz Transformation for Angle is
(1-V^2/C^2)/(1-V^2/C^2), and is equal to unity at all velocities between +/-C!
A simple calculus procedure shows that the Transformation for Angle remains
unity even at the velocity of light, where the Transformation for Energy
becomes Infinite!. Unlike the Transformation for Energy, at velocities above
that of light, the Transformation for Angle does not become imaginary. It
retains its value of unity for all velocities. From this it seems reasonable to
conclude that the velocity limit for the propagation of polarization angle of
such photons is infinity. It is the writer's belief that this results applies
to all quantum numbers and that the current interpretation of Quantum Theory
which asserts that quantum effects must pervade through all of space at an
infinite velocity is the correct one. (The alternative idea, that alternate
universes co-existing in the same space would seem to be a concept that is so
absurd that it seems reasonable to wonder how much LSD its adherents absorbed
during their college years.)

Quite significant is the fact that the original "big bang" fireball from
which our Universe is believed to have begun has been observed. We know its
location and we know our velocity with respect to it. As a result we have
actually observed our "absolute velocity" through space. Since this is
impossible under the "space-time" concept, we seem to be forced back to the
Lorentz Transformation - Aether Theory!

When one recognizes that information CAN propagate at a velocity
significantly greater that the velocity of light, the idea of a "ABSOLUTE TIME"
cannot be dismissed, just as the idea cannot be dismissed by those who consider
the virtually instantaneously travel between locations using "wormholes". A
successful use of a "wormhole" in this manner would also effectively establish
"ABSOLUTE SIMULTANIETY". Unfortunately for the intellectual status quo,
"ABSOLUTE TIME" requires that the special case solution of Special Relativity
represented by the Lorentz-Transformation Aether Theory represent our reality.
The mathematical abstraction of space-time is just that, an abstraction which
makes the computations of velocity effects easier, it has no physical
significance. Nature doesn't actually give a damn about the abstractions we use
to make computations simpler, it does care, however, about the useful function
that the classical Aether performs. (Dr. Einstein is reported to have held on
to the belief in absolute time, identical to a belief in the Aether theory, for
25 years after he published Special Relativity and to have warned "remember
gentlemen, we have not proven that the Aether does not exist, we have merely
proven that we do not need it for computations.) We have reached a point where
the existence of the Aether has been observationally proven though the "paired
photon" experiments. It is time for the mathematical idiot-savants to step
aside and let intelligent men attack the problem objectively without fear of
repression.

Recently, astronomers in Australia announced that they have observed that
the velocity of light in the early stages of the Universe was greater than it
is now. At present, their observations are considered to be errors since the
velocity of light is "known" to be constant. WRONG! The velocity of light is "a
constant" only when measured with local units of measurement. It cannot be both
constant and "a constant" unless the Lorentz Transformations for length and
time are either equal or are unity. THEY AREN'T, they are reciprocal! In
addition, cosmologists are struggling to make sense of the apparent speeding up
of the expansion of the Universe at extreme distances from the original
"fireball". It must be pointed out that both these observations would result if
the correct gravitational transformations were employed,

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

instead of the erroneous ones which result from the naive error made in the
original derivation of General Relativity which was plastered over with the
fakery of "curved space". (There is no transformation for length in General
Relativity and the transformation for time provided by GR is (1/(1+$). $
represents the term used by General Relativity for defining its "time
dilation".

It is puzzling as to why there is a search for a mysterious additional
repulsive force to explain the observed rate of expansion of the Universe. The
reason that this is puzzling is the fact that nowhere in the discussions has
the writer found that the radiation pressure of the 3K background, and a
possibly much large pressure caused by neutrinos, has been taken into account.
Since it is currently estimated that the energy represented by that radiation
is at least 10 times the energy present in the matter contained in the
Universe, it is easy to believe that the pressure produced by the radiation can
easily produce the required espansive force. Is there proof that this is the
case, probably not, but this source of expansive force has not been included in
the calculations. With this viewpoint, the Universe would be analogous to a gas
(radiation) filled balloon containing a sprinkling of dust (matter). (An
article in the March 2003 issue of Scientific American describes the Universe
as just such a dist filled gas-bag.)

If one examines the big bang observations one finds that they are
consistent with the Universe being formed within a gravitationally collapsed
object when the correct gravitational transformations are employed. Such an
object, as observed internally without accounting for the relativistically
changed size of the units of measurement, would collapse and then, when that
collapse had proceeded to a radius equal to four times the horizon radius,
would be observed to expand explosively at the beginning and then settle down
to a more moderate rate of expansion. In directions away from the observed
source of the expansion, the rate of that expansion should also seem to be
increasing due to the fact that we are also looking into the past. These
effects are to be expected from the application of the corrected gravitational
transformations to the problem. The effects described are rigorously derived in
"Gravity" at http://www.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 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.

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.

The writer of the above post has, 1) made statements of fact, especially
about QM. and 2) made math statements and math arguments. I am not
sufficiently knowledgeable in math to evaluate those.
(understatement)

Has the writer made any misstatements of fact?

Quite significant is the fact that the original "big bang" fireball
from
which our Universe is believed to have begun has been observed. We know
its
location and we know our velocity with respect to it. As a result we have
actually observed our "absolute velocity" through space.

WOW!
1. So where is the location of the original "big bang" fireball?
2. So what is our velocity with respect to the original "big bang" fireball?
3. So what is our "absolute velociry" through space?
4. So where can I find recognized scientific journals to substantiate the
above so that people don't think I am a crazy person??

Marv

"Marv Raybin" wrote in message m...
Quite significant is the fact that the original "big bang" fireball
from
which our Universe is believed to have begun has been observed. We know
its
location and we know our velocity with respect to it. As a result we have
actually observed our "absolute velocity" through space.

WOW!
1. So where is the location of the original "big bang" fireball?

Everywhere. It's the 2.7 degree "cosmic background" which is
seen everywhere in the sky.

2. So what is our velocity with respect to the original "big bang" fireball?
3. So what is our "absolute velociry" through space?

About 600 km/sec, much higher than was expected when such
measurements were undertaken.

4. So where can I find recognized scientific journals to substantiate the
above so that people don't think I am a crazy person??

Under the keywords "doppler" and "cosmic background" or
"dipole" and "cosmic background". The cosmic background
is not uniform: it has a doppler shift which indicates
a state of relative motion.

Here are some pretty pictures of the doppler map.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...ology/cbr.html

- Randy

On 13 Aug 2003 10:57:35 -0700, (Randy Poe) wrote:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...ology/cbr.html

Just a silly question I know.

Why should any of the initial radiation from the supposed BB end up returning
back in our direction?

Henri Wilson.

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

Dear HenriWilson:

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
On 13 Aug 2003 10:57:35 -0700, (Randy Poe) wrote:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...ology/cbr.html

Just a silly question I know.

Why should any of the initial radiation from the supposed BB end up
returning
back in our direction?

The CMBR is not from the BB. It was emitted a few hundred thousand years
afterwards. And it just got here. Think of salmon swimming upstream, with
expansion being the "stream".

David A. Smith

(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:Ive%a.474$Qy4.64@fed1read05...
Dear HenriWilson:

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
On 13 Aug 2003 10:57:35 -0700, (Randy Poe) wrote:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...ology/cbr.html

Just a silly question I know.

Why should any of the initial radiation from the supposed BB end up
returning
back in our direction?

The CMBR is not from the BB. It was emitted a few hundred thousand years
afterwards. And it just got here. Think of salmon swimming upstream,
with
expansion being the "stream".

David A. Smith



"And it just got here." It just got here? Then how fast did we get here
ahead of it and how did it manage to catch up to us? By the way, where is
"here?"

Brad

Dear G. L. Bradford Jr.:

"G. L. Bradford Jr." wrote in message
news:38l%a.127203$Oz4.25633@rwcrnsc54...

(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:Ive%a.474$Qy4.64@fed1read05...
....
The CMBR is not from the BB. It was emitted a few hundred thousand
years
afterwards. And it just got here. Think of salmon swimming upstream,
with
expansion being the "stream".

"And it just got here." It just got here?

Yes.

Then how fast did we get here
ahead of it and how did it manage to catch up to us?

We started out ahead of it. And there is of course nothing that says the
light didn't go "around" more than once. Some of those galaxies we see
arrayed out there could be aged duplicates... even the Milky Way. Not
really likely, but possible.

By the way, where is
"here?"

It has changed since I wrote that, but not relatively. Is it important?

David A. Smith

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 17:01:44 -0700, \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net
wrote:

Dear HenriWilson:

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
.. .
On 13 Aug 2003 10:57:35 -0700, (Randy Poe) wrote:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...ology/cbr.html

Just a silly question I know.

Why should any of the initial radiation from the supposed BB end up
returning
back in our direction?

The CMBR is not from the BB. It was emitted a few hundred thousand years
afterwards. And it just got here. Think of salmon swimming upstream, with
expansion being the "stream".

That doesn't explain why it is almost isotropic around US. Why are we so
special?

Is this another christian plot to hijack physics?


David A. Smith



Henri Wilson.

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

Dear HenriWilson:

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 17:01:44 -0700, \(formerly\)"
dlzc1.cox@net
wrote:
....
The CMBR is not from the BB. It was emitted a few hundred thousand
years
afterwards. And it just got here. Think of salmon swimming upstream,
with
expansion being the "stream".

That doesn't explain why it is almost isotropic around US. Why are we so
special?

It isn't almost isotropic. It is quite "lumpy". The average is smooth
(big surprise). It happens to have about the same "average isotropy" as
the galaxies we have mapped.

Is this another christian plot to hijack physics?

ANOTHER christian plot? I must have missed the first one...

Besides it is Satan that confuses with the physical world. Or weren't you
ever exposed to Christianity?

David A. Smith