Discussion about relativity

[Zyxzevn]

Relativity is the basis of modern astrophysics. When it is false, it automatically falsifies the big-bang
and many other modern theories. In many thunderbolts video it is claimed that there are errors in relativity.

So let us discuss about it.

Special relativity.
According to special relativity the Speed of light is constant from any frame of reference.

But in observations it appears that it is only constant relative to the source it comes from.

Website: http://www.extinctionshift.com/
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnvOybT2WwU
(website is clearer to read)

General relativity
General relativity states that the gravity is the same as acceleration.
This is related to black holes and expansion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGZ1GU_HDwY
The GPS shows that general relativity is incorrect.
Later it gets more complicated because of theory stuff.

Relativity is also describes length-contraction, changes in mass, time-dilation.
They are related to magnetism, particle physics.
Are these aspects of relativity still valid?

[Metryq]

I'm out of my depth with the exotic math in Relativity, but there are many authors who have challenged various aspects of Special and General Relativity. And thankfully, a number of them write for the layman. While not specifically endorsing Electric Universe, here are a few links:

* The late Tom Van Flandern's MetaResearch site includes many articles, including one with comparisons between Lorentzian Relativity and Einsteinian Relativity.

none of the 11 independent experiments said to confirm the validity of SR experimentally distinguish it from LR -- at least not in Einstein's favor.

I don't know if the MetaResearch Bulletin back issues are still available. Some may be archived on the site.

* http://www.relativitychallenge.com

* And anyone who frequents this site should know Stephen Crothers. (The guy reminds me a bit of Buckaroo Banzai.)

EDIT:

MetaResearch Bulletin vol. 12 no. 3 (15 Sept 2003) does not appear to be archived on the site, but includes one of many references to Lorentzian Relativity:

Length contraction in Lorentzian Relativity

Our next question is: what does Lorentzian Relativity (LR) say about length contraction? LR agrees with all existing experimental evidence at least as well as SR, yet has no time desynchronization. As we see from the above considerations, the absence of time desynchronization means LR has no length contraction either.

[Solar]

But; this has been discussed in dedicated threads ad nausea:

Relativity Linear Thread

Relativity

GPS satellite Clock Error Explanation

Rethinking Relativity

General Relativity "slightly" Wrong?

The Aether Theory of Relativity

Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation)

Not to mention countless references in subtopics of other threads.

* And anyone who frequents this site should know Stephen Crothers. (The guy reminds me a bit of Buckaroo Banzai.)

Right. Crothers' work provides quiet a lot a clarity about this topic. Easily found on YouTube and Spacenews in conjunction with the literature on his website.

[Zyxzevn]

It took me a while to see all posts referred to by solar.
Most are about general relativity, and there are some interesting comments about
the GPS video.

But there is nothing about the break in special relativity as described by:
http://www.extinctionshift.com/

As far I can see the problem that it shows in
relativity are not answered by the eather variations either.

To add to the discussion I found another interesting video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwIJ-URG_P8
He describes a relativity system in which c is just the speed of measurement,
which affects speed and time. It explains gravity.

[saul]

Relativity is the basis of modern astrophysics. When it is false, it automatically falsifies the big-bang
and many other modern theories. In many thunderbolts video it is claimed that there are errors in relativity.

So let us discuss about it.

Neither the Big bang nor black holes nor star trek wormholes are automatic consequences of general relativity. Nor are all the details of general relativity a consequence of special relativity.

Special relativity.
According to special relativity the Speed of light is constant from any frame of reference.

But in observations it appears that it is only constant relative to the source it comes from.

I would love to hear of such observations, I didn't find any discussed on the website you linked.

Special relativity might be called the electric universe theory, as it declares as an axiom that space and time are electromagnetic by nature (by construction) and defines the meter and second accordingly. If you disagree with this definition of what is meant by duration and extension then by all means provide an alternative definition. I have never seen a consistent definition of distance or time that is not electromagnetic but would certainly be interested to hear it. My apologies Solar for dragging this out further

[Solar]

My apologies Solar for dragging this out further

I really enjoyed that one. Two smilies

[Zyxzevn]

General relativity:

Neither the Big bang nor black holes nor star trek wormholes are automatic consequences of general relativity. Nor are all the details of general relativity a consequence of special relativity.

From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole:
A black hole is defined as a region of spacetime from which gravity prevents anything, including light, from escaping. The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass will deform spacetime to form a black hole.

Without general relativity, light can escape from any object and black holes do not exist.

From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space:
Measuring distances in expanding space
Two views of an isometric embedding of part of the visible universe over most of its history, showing how a light ray can travel an effective distance of 28 billion light years in just 13 billion years of cosmological time.

At cosmological scales the present universe is geometrically flat, which is to say that the rules of Euclidean geometry associated with Euclid's fifth postulate hold, though in the past spacetime could have been highly curved. In part to accommodate such different geometries, the expansion of the universe is inherently general relativistic;

Without general relativity the expansion is not curved, the physics do not add up any more.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology)

The scale factor, cosmic scale factor or sometimes the Robertson-Walker scale factor[1] parameter of the Friedmann equations is a function of time which represents the relative expansion of the universe
....
The evolution of the scale factor is a dynamical question, determined by the equations of general relativity, which are presented in the case of a locally isotropic, locally homogeneous universe by the Friedmann equations.

As you can read: the expansion equations are determined by the equations of general relativity.

So: no general relativity no mathematical justification for expansion..

Special relativity.

According to special relativity the Speed of light is constant from any frame of reference.
But in observations it appears that it is only constant relative to the source it comes from.

But I am sorry, I did not find observations of it.

I was referring to:
http://www.extinctionshift.com/details.htm (page 2)
and it its effect is shown in the image:


It is pretty easy to test though.
1) Take two particle accelerators, one with protons and one with electrons, and measure the speed of the generated light coming from it.
2) send a signal from space from a moving object, measure the time.
The bad English in the video had confused me a bit there, because I thought that they had done that.

About the speed of light:
Rupert Sheldrake had some ideas about the changing constants of physics. One of them included the speed of light. He mentioned that this speed was changing, until the meter was defined in terms of the speed of light.
I will try to find that information if anyone wants it.

[saul]

General relativity:

Neither the Big bang nor black holes nor star trek wormholes are automatic consequences of general relativity. Nor are all the details of general relativity a consequence of special relativity.

From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole:
A black hole is defined as a region of spacetime from which gravity prevents anything, including light, from escaping. The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass will deform spacetime to form a black hole.

Without general relativity, light can escape from any object and black holes do not exist.

The concept of a black hole predates general relativity. However my point was that we can accept that GR is a useful and correct theory without requiring black holes to exist.. or wormholes or big bangs. All these things require specific initial conditions which may or may not occur in nature.

Sorry if my response was confusing, I merely wish to point out that many of the exotic structures discussed by general relativists and generally thought of as hogwash in this forum, are not -requirements- of GR. In other words, one can believe in turtles without believing the earth lives on the back of one. I believe GR is a true theory, in it's assignment of metric tensor and relation to stress-energy, but I haven't seen clear evidence that energy/matter has arranged itself to the densities required for schwarzchild singularities to form or any of this other stuff like inflation.

You mention the Ritzian hypothesis, that the speed of light is source dependent. I believe this has been experimentally falsified in various ways including spectroscopically in the lab and with astronomical observations.

[Zyxzevn]

my point was that we can accept that GR is a useful and correct theory without requiring black holes to exist.. or wormholes or big bangs.

GR might be a nice theory, but I want to check its correctness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

OK, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
According to general relativity, objects in a gravitational field behave similarly to objects within an accelerating enclosure

As a consequence of this principle:
1) light that goes through a gravity field should experience an acceleration, and the
light should change in frequency accordingly. (because speed of light is constant)
2) light is supposed to bend near heavy objects.
The links above seem to show that these assumptions were wrong.
The measurements in the GPS video show no change in frequency due to gravity (GPS).
The other from (http://www.extinctionshift.com) shows that light does not bend near heavy objects,
other than by plasma.
There have been measurements of gravity using clouds of atoms and interferometry.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/06/ ... -of-atoms/
But I don't think this has been performed with light, which is the issue here.

You mention the Ritzian hypothesis...

Thanks for that name (Ritzian). Found it at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
And indeed (according to wikipedia) there have been many measurements that do not support this theory.

----
But I'll have a new look at the links Solar and Metryq gave, and do some more studying.
Because, if the GR is not entirely correct, then what is a valid replacement?

[Zyxzevn]

Some new information about the Special Relativity.

The findings are published in:
http://www.shaping.ru/congress/english/ ... encer1.asp
(sadly the images don't work)
(and there is a bad video)

It declares for the speed of light:
In a coordinate system that is not moving with respect to the source and which is not in rotation, the velocity of light in free space is a constant c.
(Moon/Spencer, 1956)

And it claims that the original Einstein's postulate was wrong.
The velocity of light in free space is always a constant c irrespective of the motion of source or receiver
(Einstein, 1905)
--this needs time delation and length contraction etc.

And that the emission theory is indeed wrong.
The velocity of light in free space is a constant c with respect to the source at the instant of emission.
(Ritz, 1908)

For Moon/Spencer 1956, some of the problems listed in wikipedia seem to disappear.
The coordinate system stays with the source, even when it moves/accelerates.
This latter is actually what we see in quantum physics. Any emitted particle stays
connected with the source in some way: The particle is in a superstate position until it is "observed".
This variant is hardly distinguishable from Einstein's variant, but is a lot simpler to use.

The extinctionshift variant states that the particle is re-emitted when it encounters a
medium between the sender and observer. The author writes about the Ritz variant, but I think that idea
works better with the Moon/Spencer variant.
In combination they seem to explain all listed problems at wikipedia.

Also in quantum-physics we see that a wave-function is affected by an intermediate medium.
The particles that reach the receiver seem to originate from this medium itself.

[saul]

Because, if the GR is not entirely correct, then what is a valid replacement?

Indeed! Thanks Zyxzevn. In my reading the most common sourced evidence of gravitational effect on light after the Eddington experiment is the Pound-Rebka experiment. Unfortunately many of these effects are difficult to see in a small home laboratory using readily available equipment so in my view people are smart to question them. Hopefully better and cheaper atomic clocks spectroscopic techniques will make future generations not have to go through this kind of discussion.

Cheers --

[ZenMonkeyNZ]

I know it has been a while since this thread was commented on, but those who were interested in this topic may be interested in these:

Andre Assis discusses the redundancy of GR and SR in his Relational Mechanics and some of his published papers.

Measurements of c+v are discussed in the Farce of Physics, by Bryan Wallace. After a brief search I was unable to find free downloadable copies of the most pertinent material cited, but it is interesting enough to pursue further.

[Zendo]

I know it has been a while since this thread was commented on, but those who were interested in this topic may be interested in these:

Andre Assis discusses the redundancy of GR and SR in his Relational Mechanics and some of his published papers.

Measurements of c+v are discussed in the Farce of Physics, by Bryan Wallace. After a brief search I was unable to find free downloadable copies of the most pertinent material cited, but it is interesting enough to pursue further.

Relational Mechanics:
http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Relati ... hanics.pdf

Farce of Physics:
http://speedy.sh/9SPJf/Wallace-The-Farc ... s-1994.pdf

[viscount aero]

The concept of a black hole predates general relativity. However my point was that we can accept that GR is a useful and correct theory without requiring black holes to exist.. or wormholes or big bangs. All these things require specific initial conditions which may or may not occur in nature.

Yes.

To add my bit to this, black holes cannot exist if conservation of mass and energy are to be believed in our physics. A finite mass, of finite gravity, cannot implode and then perpetually collapse in upon itself. That is a physical impossibility.

[scowie]

Because, if the GR is not entirely correct, then what is a valid replacement?

Indeed! Thanks Zyxzevn. In my reading the most common sourced evidence of gravitational effect on light after the Eddington experiment is the Pound-Rebka experiment. Unfortunately many of these effects are difficult to see in a small home laboratory using readily available equipment so in my view people are smart to question them. Hopefully better and cheaper atomic clocks spectroscopic techniques will make future generations not have to go through this kind of discussion.

The Pound-Rebka experiment does not show a gravitational effect on light but rather a gravitational effect on clock rates. A beam of light with a specific frequency will, when measured by clocks with different rates, be measured to have a higher frequency by the slower clock. Eddington did not find a gravitational effect on light either. He may have detected good old refraction in the sun's atmosphere, but even that is debatable since the quality of his observations were so poor. He had to reject many measurements in order to achieve the desired result — the book "Fabulous Science: Fact and Fiction in the History of Scientific Discovery" by John Waller explains this well.

As for what can replace Relativity, well simply treating acceleration in a field like acceleration in a moving fluid (one that travels at a speed of c) would give the correct results without the need for any of Relativity's false postulates. Here's a good explanation (specifically the "Wind Tunnel" section): http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/ ... icMass.htm