Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

[upriver]

Nicely said Chan.
I have a saying that I generally avoid using around these parts: NATURE IS SUPERNATURAL.
My own physics paradigm unites light, mass and inertia under the realm of Centropy, ie. a centrally directed pressure field premised upon the finitude of the universe. This finitude both infers and is generated by an infinite field, the source or foundation of all "energy." For something to be "finite" it must be contained, thus a universal "holding" force is exigent. In balance with this centropic pressure, is the primordial and ever present momentum of all particles contained in the universe. The two balancing agents combine to generate the following effects:
1. Light, gravity, voltage, and nuclear force are manifestations of the universal pressure field.
2. Light and gravitation are thus inherently unified, instant in action, since all points and parts of the universe are connected thereby. The universe is a single field, so a change in one member of the field simply affects the entire field.
3. Light's vectors [as gravitational vectors] are directed toward the source as a sink, not emitted from it as particles [like photons or gravitons] nor emanating as expanding waves. Light is purely and essentially radiant, an effect upon a peripheral member generated by a collapse, condensation, or decay at the source, such as the dropping of an electron to a lower "energy" level.
4. All motion is [apologies to Sir Isaac] curvilinear, because every object is influenced/vectored by a centropic force toward the local system centroid(s), ie. there is no "straight line" inertia in the real universe. Inertia is itself a result of centropic vectors "holding" an object [the particles of an object] in place. This is not an "attraction" from within objects or particles rather a squeezing pressure from "outside".
5. Centropy is also Entropy. All changes in the energy of a local system result in a net centropic displacement, regarded as "decay".

All of the manifestations of this field that you describe can be tied to expressions of different forms of kinetic energy??
Different vectors or shapes of wave or motion produce different effects that we see as EM, gravity and motion.

[webolife]

While energy is elusive to define physically, the centropic field manifests as a dynamical equilibrium of systems potential and kinetic energy, fields within fields... pressure, waves, pulses, vibration, acting at different levels or hierarchies as angular momentum, and all describable by vectors.

[Roshi]

http://www.neoclassicalrelativity.org/

The Neo-classical Theory of Relativity (NCTR) uses concepts of Classical Mechanics and Classical Electromagnetism to describe the relativity of inertial motion better than it is described in the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) conceived by Albert Einstein in 1905.

The Neo-classical Theory of Relativity reveals the conceptual errors of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity and also explains why the STR doesn’t have a valid experimental basis.

Also NCTR confirms the works of several physicists of the last century which showed that the absolute nature of space and the absolute frame of reference are valid concepts which can be proved experimentally and used practically.

Very well made presentation.

[Zyxzevn]

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists ... space.html

This essentially means that they are stepping away from Einstein's equations,
and back to a common space/time.

Link was Posted by Roshi somewhere else, but it fits here very well. Thanks Roshi.


They show that the observations still work when you use a common space/time,
and remove time as a dimension.

“Time dilatation exists not in the sense that time as a fourth dimension of space dilates and as a result the clock rate is slower,” he explained. “Time dilatation simply means that, in a faster inertial system, the velocity of change slows down and this is valid for all observers. GPS confirms that clocks in orbit stations have different rates from the clocks on the surface of the planet, and this difference is valid for observers that are on the orbit station and on the surface of the planet. So interpreted, 'time dilatation' does not require 'length contraction,' which as we show in our paper leads to a contradiction by the light clocks differently positioned in a moving inertial system.”

They also explain how Einstein's special relativity can not work in certain examples.

They also refer to Aether as a possible medium:

.. They note that other researchers have investigated abolishing the idea of spacetime in favor of separate space and time entities, but often suggest that this perspective is best formulated within the framework of an ether, a physical medium permeating all of space. In contrast, Sorli and Fiscaletti think that the idea can be better modeled within the framework of a 3D quantum vacuum. Rather than viewing space as a medium that carries light, light's propagation is governed by the electromagnetic properties (the permeability and permittivity) of the quantum vacuum.

And describe an accurate gravity model.

“We are developing a mathematical model where gravity is a result of the diminished energy density of a 3D quantum vacuum caused by the presence of a given stellar object or material body,” Sorli said. “Inertial mass and gravitational mass have the same origin: diminished energy density of a quantum vacuum. This model gives exact calculations for the Mercury perihelion precession as calculations of the general theory of relativity.”

I think these researchers will be surprised how bad the evidence is for general relativity,
and in favour of their ideas. If they ever find out.

[Chan Rasjid]

The power of the media and the internet is tremendous as I recently experience.

physics.stackexchange.com is a very good place to get information on contemporary physics, but bad to learn the truth about Einstein's relativity theory.

I gave an answer to: "What does time dilation really mean ?".

The question "what is time dilation?" depends on whether special relativity is valid. The question is valid only if special relativity is valid. If valid, then time dilation can simply be stated as "time runs slower for frames, observers, objects with motion relative to those at rest". There are rather simple relativistic formulas that enables calculations to be made.

But no one has yet been able to answer the question:"Given two clocks with relative motion, which of the two clocks runs slow?"

As usual, no one likes the question:

"Which of the two clocks runs slow ?"

Very quickly, I was voted down with -3 points which triggers a deletion flag - my answer was deleted. The reasons for the down votes was I "totally miss the point of relativity entirely", "I did not provide any answer". It seems the whole of the internet has been won over by the relativity world - it is unlikely that the media's hold on the world on this matter of physics would change in the foreseeable future.

For some strange reasons, I think Einstein's relativity has become a cult religion in the western world more popular and powerful than Christianity. Many adherents of relativity are not persons with low intellect; many comes from the academia with Ph.D in physics. It's a strange world we live in.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[Chan Rasjid]

Newton's Five Laws of Motion

Physical Reality Has Only Absolute Space and Time.
http://vixra.org/abs/1508.0108

In the above article of mine, I proposed the principle:

Absolute Space and time are principles of the physical world.

At the time of writing the article, I had the idea that there was no necessity in the past to explicitly state absolute space and time as principles of the natural world - it was inconceivable for space and time to be otherwise. It is just common intuition to man that the reality of space and time are beyond the imaginations of mere mortals - leave them to the gods! Just measure what the gods have created for us to play around within the limits of space and time. You may create your science of the natural world, but only within the set limits of space and time. Come the twentieth century, what's inconceivable became the norm.

Newton's Principia:

AXIOMS CONCERNING LAWS OF MOTION

• Law 1. Every body remains in a state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change that state by forces acting on it.
• Law 2. Change of motion is proportional to impressed motive force and is in the same direction as the impressed force.
• Law 3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, or, the mutual actions of two bodies on each other are always equal and directed to opposite directions
• Newton's Fourth law: Time flows equally, without relation to anything external and there is an absolute time
• Newton's Fifth law: Absolute space, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable.

M A de Gosson:

These two last laws are about absolute time and absolute space. They were never widely accepted by physicists, because they pose severe epistemological problems, especially because of the sentence "without relation to anything external." In fact, one does not see how something which exists without relation to anything "external" could be experimentally verified (or falsified, for that!): In fact, Newton's fourth and fifth laws are ad hoc postulates. It is interesting to note that Newton himself wrote in his Principia:

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover and effectually to distinguish the true from the apparent motion of particular bodies; for the parts of that immovable space in which bodies actually move, do not come under observation of our senses"

I was wrong about Newton! As you can see from the translation, there are Newton's five laws of motions - not three! The fourth law is: time is absolute. The fifth is: Space is absolute.

My understanding of "without relation to anything external" means space and time are independent of all else within the universe - everything exists only within space and time. So the fourth and fifth laws means simply that space and time are not within the purview of theories of physics - they are only the physical dimensions within which our physics theories are built; the physical dimensions are also the only environment created commensurate with the endowed faculties of man to examine the natural world.

In mathematics, you may create your structures and theorems - but no theorems of mathematics may violate the axioms of mathematics. Similarly In physics, your theory may create an Euclidean space structure to represent space with three rectangular coordinates; once set, your theory cannot violate this mathematical space setting.

I think no one now need wonder why Einstein's relativity theory, despite its great mathematical abstruseness, is invalid.

It violates the fourth and fifth laws of motion.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[Roshi]

Two observers leave Earth in the same direction, one travels at 1km/s the other at 100000km/s (in relation to Earth). From Earth a light signal is sent. Which observer sees it first? Light speed is not infinite, so the slow observer sees it first.

This proves that the speed of light is not independent to the motion of the observer, even if it is independent to the motion of the source. Because of this there is no need for dilation formulas, or speed limits (that first appeared because "mass dilation").

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... d-of-light

To keep the speed of light constant at all times and for all observers, in special relativity, space and time become stretchy and variable. Time is not absolute, for example.

Another feature that emerges from special relativity is that, as something speeds up, its mass increases compared with its mass at rest, with the mass of the moving object determined by multiplying its rest mass by the Lorentz factor. This increase in relativistic mass makes every extra unit of energy you put into speeding up the object less effective at making it actually move faster.

Not so. That is just some math considered to be real with no experiment. No - the Hafele Keating was not a valid experiment, and if atomic clocks run faster in space they do so because of other reasons. Mainstream just stopped at the first explication they liked - "time dilation"... Same thing with the redshift, same thing with neutron stars - "they must be lighthouses". Does that mean only half of the star is lit or what?...

More here:
http://www.neoclassicalrelativity.org/

Einstein didn’t relate the velocity of light to the motion of the observer, as he related it only to the motion of the emitter.

[Chan Rasjid]

Hello Roshi,

Your Neo-classical relativity theory,absolute reference frame:

Therefore, that region of space in which the electric field (or the magnetic field) appears can be considered an indicator of the Absolute Frame of Reference, as the “section” of the field present there has a zero velocity relative to any other section of a different ray of light present at that moment in space.

In short, light itself, as well as any electromagnetic wave, indicates the Absolute Frame of Reference.

Thus, NCTR considers light to be a perfect way to describe the Absolute Space. The variable electric and magnetic fields of light, which generate each other consecutively, have a fixed position in space: they are not dragged by anything away from each position in which they appear.

From what I understand, your absolute reference frame is non other then the frame of "sort of static" aether; aether is the medium (emptiness itself may be the aether! "emptiness" means all of whatever else unknown to us yet) of propagation of light.

There is one strong argument that the relativists claim, that relativity is fully integrated into current physics as particle physics shows the relativistic formulas to be correct experimentally; relativistic momentum and energy culminating with E=mc² in the binding energy concept.

I think there is currently empirical evidence for the "relativistic" formulas of mechanics. But many others have shown they have no relation at all with the two postulates of SR; rather just extension of classical mechanics through a redefinition of momentum :p = mv/√(1 - v²/c²). The reference frame for v and c is the absolute frame (ARF) of the aether; c is the constant speed of light in the aether; v is also speed in ARF. We have always to use the ARF. Because the earth has a small velocity in the ARF, all relativistic experiment in particle accelerators would not matter very much with the ARF as it is almost identical to our earth's frame.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[Roshi]

I don't believe in the Universal speed limit. Even if light has a speed limit of it's own. See this (also remember Tesla and his "cosmic rays" that travelled faster than light):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle

Also, due to special relativity effects, from the proton's reference frame, it would have only taken it around 10 seconds to travel the 100,000 light years across the Milky way galaxy

What do they mean by "it's reference frame"? If a passenger boards a ship and sees that he arrived at his destination on the other side of the galaxy in 10 seconds, did he break the speed limit or not? Is he there or not? Maybe in the Earth's reference frame the ship is still somewhere between Earth and Mars. Does that mean Earth can communicate with the ship? Where is the ship?

What is wrong with relativity? G. BURNISTON BROWN

About the ARF: don't need an aether to create one. We can choose any point in space for it's origin, and say everything else moves in relation to it. And the transformations from one such reference frame to another are galilean transformations. Also, time is absolute, everything happens now, it does not matter that we only find out later about it. And it does not matter if someone finds out sooner, because he was closer to the event.

[Chan Rasjid]

Hello Roshi,

From what I understand of the earlier quoted passages from your theory on absolute reference frame, it is indeed premised on the existence of the aether, a medium of propagation of light. Your absolute frame is that of the (static ?) aether frame.

About the ARF: don't need an aether to create one. We can choose any point in space for it's origin, and say everything else moves in relation to it. And the transformations from one such reference frame to another are galilean transformations. Also, time is absolute, everything happens now, it does not matter that we only find out later about it. And it does not matter if someone finds out sooner, because he was closer to the event.

That "We can choose any point in space" cannot be done. A point in space may be identified, but only with respect to a given reference frame. So what you mean actually is assuming a reference frame to start with. But starting off with an arbitrary reference frame usually will not give you any clue about the absolute reference frame of the universe.

Consider this. We know the speed of light measured on earth is nearly almost a constant c. Consider a frame at speed 0.5 c with the earth against the light source. The speed of light in this frame would be 1.5 c. This moving frame cannot be the absolute frame. The universal absolute frame may only be determined experimentally - it is the only frame, a unique frame, in which the speed of light has the constant value c. In all other moving frames, the measured speed of light will always be c ± w, different from c.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[Roshi]

Why would I need the absoulte reference frame of the Universe? If it's infinite, then it does not matter where I place my origin of the frame. And it is infinite. Space is infinite, if there is a wall at some point, what's behind it. And where does the "universe expand" according to mainstream if there was a wall, or a "curvature" that makes it go in circles?

"Universal reference frame" - would be the aether. Then you will need to find a point in the aether that stays still in the aether from which to emmit light, only then the speed of light would be c - as seen by the aether.

Yes, the speed of light is not constant for the observer. That's what the website above says. It may be constant for any emmiter, regardless of his own "speed". Speed does not exist if we don't measure it. The emitter (let's call him Mr .A) could have any constant speed, in relation to anything else, it means nothing, he does not feel it, if the universe was suddenly empty so he could not measure his speed, it would make no difference to him. In an suddenly empty Universe Mr.A would say "looks like I'm standing still" (even if before he could measure his speed against - a planet).

If there was a bottle of wine floating in space 100000000000000000000000000000km away (Mr. A does not know about it), in relation to which he has a speed of 100000km/s, it would not change anything for him. If he would find out about it - he would have no means to determine who is moving, himself, or the bottle of wine. Now, according to Einstein, time would suddenly slow down for Mr. A. because he has a "speed", his clocks run at a certain rate! Add a second bottle of wine, measure the speed of Mr. A against it. Mr. A is moving at 1m/s in relation to the second bottle. Now his clocks run at a different rate... He can't even read his clocks now, because they always show different times, as they please, the clocks are suddenly alive and start calculating their own speeds in relation to different objects around, and they slow down or speed up whenever they change their point of reference.

https://www.caltech.edu/news/farthest-g ... cted-47761

By 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe had cooled enough for free electrons and protons to combine into neutral hydrogen atoms that filled the universe, allowing light to travel through the cosmos.

Are they using "universal time"? Preposterous! Time would have run slower for the matter at the edges of the Universe! What does that even mean, and what does it do? Have no idea right now, it's absurd. Speed does not even exist if we don't measure it against something else, and we can measure it against 10000 other objects. To say it produces physical changes (no explanation given except a coordinate transformation) is absurd.

So - from 0.000..............0001 until 380000 years, there was this giant ball of matter somewhere. It also expanded faster than the speed of light, but back then it was allowed, there were no universal speed radars yet... A little leniency, it's not every day a Universe is born.
http://earthsky.org/space/when-space-ex ... than-light

in the moments following the Big Bang, space expanded faster than the speed of light, growing from smaller than a proton to an enormity that defies comprehension

In fact, they say "space is expanding", not "chunks of matter the size of galaxies drifted away from each other faster than the speed of light" so they don't break their own laws.

They don't know and don't care what caused the "bang" at 0.00, physics has no bussines there. There should be a law that says "under certain conditions Universes appear from nothing", and we can expect to be wiped out at any moment by a Universe appearing from a coffee cup. There is no such "law of physics", the theory was the creation of a priest who thought to reconcile science with religion.

[Zyxzevn]

This video has a nice visualisation of Einstein's theory.
Visualization of Einstein's special relativity
This shows how weird the idea actually is.

The video states that this shift in time and length is the only way to keep the speed of light constant.

But it is not the only way.
The time-shift and length-shift can occur in the transfer of light itself.

Additionally we do not see such strange shifts. Time and space around us appear very constant,
while the earth and sun are moving in space.

[webolife]

Another solution is that light may not be a moving substance therefore has no speed.

[Cargo]

Another solution is that light may not be a moving substance therefore has no speed.

That is profound but strangely agreeable much in the same way that time is not a property of the universe. Therefore it can not behave as a substance like bending or stretching.

[Roshi]

Let's keep it simple. Law of addition of velocities, for big bodies (in fact for anything that has a mass).

Points O, A, B on a line, O at the center, A and B at equal distances.

Rock 1, moving away from point O at 0.9c. That means 270000km/s. What is a km? It's the length of a rod, and we placed billions of these rods, we get a very long rod. We know it's length in km. The "km" is defined by the length of the physical object, the rod.
What is a second? It's a number. We get this precise cyclical phenomenon and we count it doing it's cycles. That is all.

We count that in 10 seconds, Rock 1 is at the 2.7 million km mark on the rod in point A. And that is how we know it's speed! Not by light reflection measurements or any such fancy stuff. Is there a clock on Rock 1? Who cares.

Rock 2, does the same thing and in 10 seconds is at 2.7 million km mark in point B. That's how we know it's speed, because we counted to 10 and saw the distance it travelled.

The distance between Rock 1 and Rock 2 is 5.4 million km. What's the speed of Rock 1 in relation to Rock 2? Speed is distance/time. 5400000/10= 540000km/s. Then comes the "law of addition of velocities" and tells us that we have just done an illegal operation, like dividing by 0 or something. Max speed between rocks is 300000km/s, using that law, and our calculations are wrong. That means that after 10 seconds, both rocks are at 1.5 million km mark (150000km/s each)...

But we just saw each single rock, reaching the 2.7 mil km mark. Even without performing any illegal addition operations, each rock was travelling at the perfectly legal speed of 270000km/s. This is perfectly ok to mainstream, but if we somehow perform the calculation of the speed between them, suddenly the rocks teleport and are at 1.5 mil km mark now.

Big question: where do we count the 10 seconds from?

There are synchronized clocks in O, A, B. At the departure of the rocks, the time is written on a piece of paper, so it does not modify by magic sometime later. At the time of arrival in A, B, time is written on paper. Later, papers are brought together and compared. They show a 10 second difference.
As I said, this is a given of the experiment, this is what we write on paper, and it's perfectly within mainstream rules. Each rock moved perfectly legal, and covered 2.7 mil km in 10 seconds. But if we want to calculate the speed between them, we find out that we could not have written anything down, because the rocks did not reach A and B yet.... Each rock can legally reach A and B, but both rocks cannot reach A and B. At the same time the rocks are in A and B, and are not in A and B.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity- ... relativity

"Speed" does not exist unless we measure it. It does not affect anything on a physical body. 2 bodies do not know the speed between them, so they don't just "increase their mass with speed". Also one body has many speeds against many other bodies, but it can't have variable mass.