The Observational Collapse of Einsteinian Physics

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.

E-mail:-

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.

Reappa23 wrote:
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!

And the peer reviewed evidence proving that absolute velocity exists is
located at? Until such is found then people are perfectly at liberty to
believe it does not exist. Any claims to the contrary are the rantings of
people whose logical reasoning faculty needs an overhaul.

Thanks
Bill

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
Reappa23 wrote:
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!

And the peer reviewed evidence proving that absolute velocity exists is
located at? Until such is found then people are perfectly at liberty to
believe it does not exist. Any claims to the contrary are the rantings of
people whose logical reasoning faculty needs an overhaul.

For example:

G. Builder, Ether and Relativity, Aust. J. Phys. 1958, Vol. 11, p279-297.

His ether paper convinced me. He published it after the debate in Nature on
the implications of the clock paradox had calmed down. Builder was to be
taken seriously concerning this topic, for example he was the first or one
of the first to extend SRT to accelerated systems -see "The Resolution of
the Clock Paradox", Aust. j. Phys. 1957,10, p.246 and same in Amer. J.
Phys.1959, 27, p.656. )

I promised to Bilge to explain his ether paper to the group, and will make a
start by typing here below the summary of "Ether and Relativity", which
makes at least the subject matter clear.

Harald


Ether and Relativity, G. Builder (Aust. J. Phys. 1958, Vol. 11, p279-297)
-----------------------------------
Summary.
The relative retardation of clocks, predicted by the restricted theory of
relativity, demands our recognition of the causal significance of absolute
velocities. This demand is also implied by the relativistic equations of
electrodynamics and even by the formulation of the restricted theory itself.
The observable effects of absolute accelerations and of absolute velocities
must be ascribed to interaction of bodies and physical systems with some
absolute inertial system. We have no alternative but to identify this
absolute system with the universe. Thus, in the context of physics, absolute
motion must be understood to mean motion relative to the universe, and any
wider or more abstract interpretation of the "absolute" must be denied.
Interaction of bodies and physical systems with the universe cannot be
described in terms of Mach's hypothesis, since this is untenable. There is
therefore no alternative to the ether hypothesis. It is shown that this is
compatible with the restricted theory of relativity and even provides a
tenable basis, when taken together with the principle of relativity, for
that theory. It is shown that the hypothesis provides a satisfactory and
sufficient causal explanation of the predicted relative retardation of
clocks, and attention is drawn to its striking pedagogical and heuristic
advantages.

Harry wrote:


G. Builder, Ether and Relativity, Aust. J. Phys. 1958, Vol. 11, p279-297.

His ether paper convinced me. He published it after the debate in Nature on
the implications of the clock paradox had calmed down. Builder was to be
taken seriously concerning this topic, for example he was the first or one
of the first to extend SRT to accelerated systems -see "The Resolution of
the Clock Paradox", Aust. j. Phys. 1957,10, p.246 and same in Amer. J.
Phys.1959, 27, p.656. )

I promised to Bilge to explain his ether paper to the group, and will make a
start by typing here below the summary of "Ether and Relativity", which
makes at least the subject matter clear.

Harald


Ether and Relativity, G. Builder (Aust. J. Phys. 1958, Vol. 11, p279-297)
-----------------------------------
Summary.
The relative retardation of clocks, predicted by the restricted theory of
relativity, demands our recognition of the causal significance of absolute
velocities.
Is this statement assumed or proven in the paper?





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Harry quoted:
'The relative retardation of clocks, predicted by the restricted theory of
relativity, demands our recognition of the causal significance of absolute
velocities.'

The author's logic is simply false. For his statement to hold water he
would need to have the support of an experiment that is able to detect the
special inertial frame that absolute velocity is measured relative to.

Harry quoted:
'This demand is also implied by the relativistic equations of
electrodynamics and even by the formulation of the restricted theory itself.
The observable effects of absolute accelerations and of absolute velocities
must be ascribed to interaction of bodies and physical systems with some
absolute inertial system.'

The fact that no logical inconstancy between SR and electrodynamics has ever
been found again makes the authors statement false. For it to hold water
the author would nee dot demonstrate his assertions. Since none is provided
such statements lack any credability.

Harry quoted:
'We have no alternative but to identify this absolute system with the
universe. Thus, in the context of physics, absolute motion must be
understood to mean motion relative to the universe, and any wider or more
abstract interpretation of the "absolute" must be denied..

No evidence provided.

You need to do better than this.

Bill

"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...
Harry wrote:


G. Builder, Ether and Relativity, Aust. J. Phys. 1958, Vol. 11,
p279-297.

His ether paper convinced me. He published it after the debate in Nature
on
the implications of the clock paradox had calmed down. Builder was to be
taken seriously concerning this topic, for example he was the first or
one
of the first to extend SRT to accelerated systems -see "The Resolution
of
the Clock Paradox", Aust. j. Phys. 1957,10, p.246 and same in Amer. J.
Phys.1959, 27, p.656. )

I promised to Bilge to explain his ether paper to the group, and will
make a
start by typing here below the summary of "Ether and Relativity", which
makes at least the subject matter clear.

Harald


Ether and Relativity, G. Builder (Aust. J. Phys. 1958, Vol. 11,
p279-297)
-----------------------------------
Summary.
The relative retardation of clocks, predicted by the restricted theory
of
relativity, demands our recognition of the causal significance of
absolute
velocities.
Is this statement assumed or proven in the paper?

The paper pretends to prove it. The proof did convince me, and obviously,
the reviewers deemed the proof strong enough for publication.

Harald

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
Harry quoted:
'The relative retardation of clocks, predicted by the restricted theory of
relativity, demands our recognition of the causal significance of absolute
velocities.'

The author's logic is simply false. For his statement to hold water he
would need to have the support of an experiment that is able to detect the
special inertial frame that absolute velocity is measured relative to.

Then publish a refutal against his paper! Obviously, you should first read
his arguments, for your argument is completely unfounded and worse, it's
false as you demand self contradiction! :-)

Harry quoted:
'This demand is also implied by the relativistic equations of
electrodynamics and even by the formulation of the restricted theory
itself.
The observable effects of absolute accelerations and of absolute
velocities
must be ascribed to interaction of bodies and physical systems with some
absolute inertial system.'

The fact that no logical inconstancy between SR and electrodynamics has
ever
been found again makes the authors statement false. For it to hold water
the author would nee dot demonstrate his assertions. Since none is
provided
such statements lack any credability.

Same, you ask again for self contradiction. And you seem to ignore that I
copied the summary (the paper is very long and most is relevant). As usually
done in papers, the summary is stricly a presentation of the results.

Harry quoted:
'We have no alternative but to identify this absolute system with the
universe. Thus, in the context of physics, absolute motion must be
understood to mean motion relative to the universe, and any wider or more
abstract interpretation of the "absolute" must be denied..

No evidence provided.

I did not intend to provide evidence, as the author did it very well; it
will be more than 10 min. of work to write a compressed version of his
paper, and it's more useful to read the full paper anyway.

You need to do better than this.

I need to do nothing at all!
I like to help people who want to know what quality arguments exists for an
absolute reference frame for physics.
Such people may now feel encouraged to get a copy from their library - or to
ask me for a copy.

Harald

"Harry" wrote in message ...
[snip]



G. Builder, Ether and Relativity, Aust. J. Phys. 1958, Vol. 11, p279-297.

His ether paper convinced me. He published it after the debate in Nature on
the implications of the clock paradox had calmed down. Builder was to be
taken seriously concerning this topic, for example he was the first or one
of the first to extend SRT to accelerated systems -see "The Resolution of
the Clock Paradox", Aust. j. Phys. 1957,10, p.246 and same in Amer. J.
Phys.1959, 27, p.656. )

I promised to Bilge to explain his ether paper to the group, and will make a
start by typing here below the summary of "Ether and Relativity", which
makes at least the subject matter clear.

Harald


Ether and Relativity, G. Builder (Aust. J. Phys. 1958, Vol. 11, p279-297)
-----------------------------------
Summary.
The relative retardation of clocks, predicted by the restricted theory of
relativity, demands our recognition of the causal significance of absolute
velocities. This demand is also implied by the relativistic equations of
electrodynamics and even by the formulation of the restricted theory itself.

The group property of the Lorentz transformation suggests strongly
otherwise.

The observable effects of absolute accelerations and of absolute velocities
must be ascribed to interaction of bodies and physical systems with some
absolute inertial system. We have no alternative but to identify this
absolute system with the universe.

If you want to choose any frame defined by the distribution of
universal matter, then you aren't using an "absolute" frame by
Newtonian standards.

Thus, in the context of physics, absolute
motion must be understood to mean motion relative to the universe, and any
wider or more abstract interpretation of the "absolute" must be denied.
Interaction of bodies and physical systems with the universe cannot be
described in terms of Mach's hypothesis, since this is untenable. There is
therefore no alternative to the ether hypothesis.

That depends on how you define "ether". GR doesn't use your confusing
ether concept.

It is shown that this is
compatible with the restricted theory of relativity and even provides a
tenable basis, when taken together with the principle of relativity, for
that theory. It is shown that the hypothesis provides a satisfactory and
sufficient causal explanation of the predicted relative retardation of
clocks, and attention is drawn to its striking pedagogical and heuristic
advantages.

What is a necessary condition for an "explanation" to be a "causal
explanation"?

Patrick

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
"Harry" wrote in message
...
[snip]



G. Builder, Ether and Relativity, Aust. J. Phys. 1958, Vol. 11,
p279-297.

His ether paper convinced me. He published it after the debate in Nature
on
the implications of the clock paradox had calmed down. Builder was to be
taken seriously concerning this topic, for example he was the first or
one
of the first to extend SRT to accelerated systems -see "The Resolution
of
the Clock Paradox", Aust. j. Phys. 1957,10, p.246 and same in Amer. J.
Phys.1959, 27, p.656. )

I promised to Bilge to explain his ether paper to the group, and will
make a
start by typing here below the summary of "Ether and Relativity", which
makes at least the subject matter clear.

Harald


Ether and Relativity, G. Builder (Aust. J. Phys. 1958, Vol. 11,
p279-297)
-----------------------------------
Summary.
The relative retardation of clocks, predicted by the restricted theory
of
relativity, demands our recognition of the causal significance of
absolute
velocities. This demand is also implied by the relativistic equations of
electrodynamics and even by the formulation of the restricted theory
itself.

The group property of the Lorentz transformation suggests strongly
otherwise.

Not surprising: the group property was designed to comply to the PoR.

The observable effects of absolute accelerations and of absolute
velocities
must be ascribed to interaction of bodies and physical systems with some
absolute inertial system. We have no alternative but to identify this
absolute system with the universe.

If you want to choose any frame defined by the distribution of
universal matter, then you aren't using an "absolute" frame by
Newtonian standards.

I agree with you, IMO he made a strange movement there, possibly suggesting
Mach, but then abandoning it. But I must read the paper again, perhaps
that's exactly what he did in the paper!

Thus, in the context of physics, absolute
motion must be understood to mean motion relative to the universe, and
any
wider or more abstract interpretation of the "absolute" must be denied.
Interaction of bodies and physical systems with the universe cannot be
described in terms of Mach's hypothesis, since this is untenable. There
is
therefore no alternative to the ether hypothesis.

That depends on how you define "ether". GR doesn't use your confusing
ether concept.

He can't read what you write, for he died some time ago!
But to put myself into his shoes, he would likely ask you: What do you find
less confusing about Einstein's ether?

It is shown that this is
compatible with the restricted theory of relativity and even provides a
tenable basis, when taken together with the principle of relativity, for
that theory. It is shown that the hypothesis provides a satisfactory and
sufficient causal explanation of the predicted relative retardation of
clocks, and attention is drawn to its striking pedagogical and heuristic
advantages.

What is a necessary condition for an "explanation" to be a "causal
explanation"?

I think that he meant that it provides a cause for the relative retardation
of clocks -in contrast to the mathematical explanations as given in this
newsgroup's FAQ that only help people to calculate what happens.

Harald

Bill Hobba wrote:
The author's logic is simply false. For his statement to hold water he
would need to have the support of an experiment that is able to detect
the
special inertial frame that absolute velocity is measured relative to.


Harry repleid:
Then publish a refutal against his paper! Obviously, you should first read
his arguments, for your argument is completely unfounded and worse, it's
false as you demand self contradiction! :-)


Harry if you want to subject why you believe in an aether to scrutiny then
you will need to post your reasoning - simple quotes form somewhere without
any supporting evidence will not accomplish that. I will be only to happy
to do so as soon as you post your experimentally based reasons. Hell I
would even be satisfied with a philosophically based reason - at least it is
something to work with.. If you do not post such then you have provided no
evidence for your belief in an aether. That is fine - but at least be
honest about it.

Thanks
Bill