Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

[rnboyd]

Thanks Scowie

You are right about all that you said. All you are missing is the quantum and SubQuantum aetheric media and its properties. Get hold of those, and you will see it is all very simple and interconnected, from a top-down view, while inordinately complicated from a bottom-up perspective.

Best Wishes,

Neil

[Chan Rasjid]

Hello Neil,

Definitely the quantum physics is fundamentally correct as it was founded along the old established traditions of the scientific methods. Only everything based on Minkowski spacetime need be removed. As you say, it is true that very much need to be done in quantum physics.

I think we are in the very midst of the Dark Age of physics that Einstein started. He unwittingly cast a spell on the world of physics that atrophied it which is the reason real physics has not progress as much as it could have done for the last one hundred years. Effort and resources have been diverted to physics that could never work. On the other hand, those who do proper physics face rejection and oppositions from the mainstream world. Also funding is a real fact of physics nowadays - proper experimental research may need fundings for equipments that are now rather complicated and beyond the reach of the individual.

We have to see who has the stature to again bring us back to the proper traditions of physics.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid

[Chan Rasjid]

Hello Saul,

I have just completed a simple short thesis on the nature of physical reality, space and time. It is the long answer to the issues you raised in your last post.

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

Abstract:
There are two spaces, the metaphysical space and the abstract mathematical space. The mathematical space of physics is the Euclidean space commensurate with the innate faculty of man. There is the mysterious metaphysical time and there is a physical time based on the mathematical scalar. The universe and everything within exists only in the moment of the present. The past and the future are only within the mind of man.The only reality is the present. Time in philosophy is metaphysical time.It is the motion of the present, the unceasing unfolding of reality. Every real event in the universe happens simultaneously. Absolute space time is a principle of the natural world. An Euclidean coordinate system together with synchronized coordinate clocks implements a system of universal physical timekeeping. There is a covenant of physical reality which sets forth in a determinate way what constitutes a physical quantity. Physical reality has absolute three dimensional Euclidean space and absolute universal time. The greatest blunder in physics in the twentieth century is Einstein’s postulate that the speed of light is a universal constant.The speed of light cannot be a universal constant.The physical reality of Newtonian mechanics and the physical reality of special relativity are mutually independent. If Newtonian mechanics is accepted, all of physics based on Minkowski spacetime had to be rejected; if physics based on Minkowski spacetime is accepted, all of physics not based on Minkowski spacetime had to be rejected.

...
But lets get back to Newton and perfect absolute galilean space. Do you like that idea? Can you come up with some way to define it or build it? Could you define a system in which there was an absolute simultaneity? Because I can't. I'm happy to consider a jinnetic halal bar and/or debate any side of this one ...

To talk about absolute simultaneity is to ask for a proof that God exists - there cannot be a proof. Time, and therefore also simultaneity, is basically metaphysical - unknowable because man has only a limited endowed faculties as a created being. In physics - meaning our physical reality - we only can have physical simultaneity that is achieved through our physical system of clocks - our UTC timekeeping system. The only simultaneity that man can have is one implemented with gadgets call clocks - we only can managed an "engineered simultaneity". And the proof that our engineered simultaneity is working universally (within earth's sphere) is in our smart mobile phones that all in the world are chatting with - live!

Einstein thought that he could overcome nature's constraint on mans's capacity. He wanted to have objective simultaneity define through the propagation properties of light relying on the assumption (from MME) that its speed is a universal constant - nature's conspiracy is hard to break! From the argument presented in my article, the speed of light cannot be a constant - the simultaneity of special relativity leads only to contradictions (not paradox!) that are described with the euphemism "counter-intuitive".

Then you may what? Length contraction and time dilatoin is indeed what is implied by the definition!! ALL the strangeness of SR, which has led so many (and my apologies if this is not what has led you) to claim the theory is insane, comes from that one definition. It is counterintuitive to say the least. Your measurement of the speed of an electromagnetic wavefront, with respect to you, depends not one iota on any acceleratoin you may have done parallel or perpendicular to the wavefront, prior to the measurement. The only way this situatoin can be arrived at is for the lengths of the meter sticks in your laboratory, and the intervals of the standard seconds, to adjust themselves according to your motion throught the aether....

Time dilation and length contraction are the twin grand silliness that Einstein gave to the physics world as a legacy. It is unimaginable how supposedly intelligent and sane people could embrace them wholeheartedly and fervently.

Let's define the standard meter with the crude use of a standard bar prototype. It should be noted that despite the reliance on the rigidity of the bar, there is no dependency whatsoever of the meter on electromagnetism. The subtlety that Saul fails to see is that the meter definition only made use of only two relatively stationary points in space - points which the two ends of the bar touches. The definition of the meter is based on distance separations in space and not on what forces that hold the bar together as a rigid body. The meter unit is a universal absolute as it should be by definition of it being a reference standard unit of length. That such a scheme would introduce experimental errors multiplied greatly when used near the edge of the universe is theoretically irrelevant - this is a technical constraint of nature. If Saul wants a demonstration that the physics of the bar is indeed irrelevant, he could draw a straight line on a good piece of paper as a one dimensional axis, mark two points A and B on it and use this "thumbprint" of the real prototype instead - the actual prototype could be locked permanently in a safe deposit box. Nothing in physics theory would be changed using this "thumbprint" meter!

Let's take length contraction. Consider the distance between two fixed points on the ground A and B where AB = L = 1.55 meter as measured. The real number 1.55 is obtained using a measuring tape. The calculation is L = number x 1 unit meter. L being a variable is assigned values by obtaining a real number and then multiplied by 1 unit meter - the result would also be in unit meter, physical; analogous to how we count Newtonian apples. We count apples but "measures" length - that's the only difference.

We may develop a theory of Newtonian Applean contraction where after counting 10 apples, we allow the set of integers {1, 2, 3, ... } to take on seller/buyer dependency so that the 10 is now 8 so that number of apples
N = 8 x real apples!

Length contraction and time dilation results from the exact same reason - making the set of field of real numbers being observer dependent. There cannot be greater silliness than this.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid

[Chan Rasjid]

My previous article does touch on the topic that the speed of light cannot be a universal constant. As the topic concerns the very foundation of Einstein's relativity theories, I feel the need to write an article dedicated to address this topic specifically.

Light Speed Cannot be a Universal Constant:
http://vixra.org/abs/1508.0108

Abstract:
That motion is relative is an accepted physical principle as everything is in motion relative to some other thing in the universe. The rule of additive relative velocity is based on this simple principle. If the speed of light as measured on the ground is c, then the velocity of light as measured by an observer moving at speed w towards the source would be c+w. There is no need of any experiment to confirm if indeed the speed would be c+w as it is simply the speed that would result following the accepted practice of how physical measurements of distances and time are made - speed is just distance divided by time.

Conclusion:
Contrary to the postulate of special relativity, the speed of light cannot be a universal constant. The speed of light obeys the rule for addition of relative speed. The speed of the observer may be added to the speed of light to give a speed different from what is measured by a stationary observer. That the speed of light is not a universal constant unequivocally repudiates Einstein's relativity theories, both special relativity and general relativity.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[rnboyd]

Dear Chan,

I thought you might like to see this article from the PST Journal, a version of relativity which contains a length constant l_p. I think that is an important understanding.

However, this addition does not appear to make Einstein's version of relativity any more applicable to the physical. Einstein's version of relativity was perfectly non-physical, from its inception.

What might be good here would be to develop a version of relativity based on absolute length, rather than anything to do with the speed of light or "curved time". Couple this constant length with the LaPlace model of gravitation, which describes the actual cause of gravitation, and Galilean relativity, and something actually useful might result.

Removing light speed limitations of actions and "curved time" is important to understanding the actual physical behaviors of the actual physical Universe.

It has been proven by experiment that the E field propagates at an infinite velocity (which implies that the B field also propagates at an infinte velocity).

Experiments have long ago proven that gravitation propagates with a velocity of at least 100,000 times the speed of light [See: Podkletnov (whom I directly worked with)], results which support LaPlace's model for gravitation, and my model of gravitation (which is similar to the LaPlace model but includes QM and SQ considerations).

http://prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/view/836

All the Best,

Neil

[Chan Rasjid]

Dear Niel,

I am not too sure of all these alternative theories trying to salvage special relativity or to provide alternative that are touted to be relativity without the weakness (whatever) of Einstein's special relativity.

If we were to apply the rule :" the proof of the pudding is in the eating", then Einstein's relativity theories, SR and GR, both fail absolutely; not one single instance of a practical technological application could be found that is due to the theories. Just this alone is very telling about the theories. All other physics theories contributed to real technological use; eg. QM gave us a better understanding of the valency theories of chemistry and about chemical reactions.

I think your earlier comments about QM being proper physics is important. I have this instinctive feeling that the next real fundamental breakthrough in physics should be a unification of just classical mechanics, aether and quantum mechanics - nothing else. With this, all mysteries involving electromagnetism, gravitation, etc would just fall into their proper place. Only in this manner would the mainstream finally let go of Einstein's relativity theories. I think the Standard Model too had to go. Again, there is not one single instance of real technological use that have come from CERN. They only tell about the high and higher TeV energies that their protons could go. They say the Higgs boson has been "finally" found. It is like the IMF telling they have already achieved a new financial breakthrough which could create unlimited "real" wealth without extra people needing to toil the earth. They already have run such a company for years producing "very positive" results - the catch is that no independent outside audit is possible - due to the peculiarity of this "breakthrough technology"! Take it or leave it! So it should not be surprising that many of the Nobel prizes have to face great humiliation in the future.

Now, the speed of light is only a speed in the physical universe governed by our real Euclidean space - speed can only be : real distance / time. But in QM we know the space is complex space with the scalars being complex numbers. This complex scalars should have a very fundamental significance making it being something crucial in unification with classical mechanics. So the calculus of change is now : complex distance / time. So what we call speed may not have any more significance when we talk about the propagation of E, B or gravitational fields or waves. So anything goes; it may not be feasible to use speed to describe such propagation of interactions. I think it is nothing unusual if there is a need to go back to the supposedly outdated "action-at-a-distance" - only empirical evidence is the final criterion.

I personally think the current obsession with the limit imposed by the speed of light is silly. Light speed is just that of a fluctuation of the aether; it propagates at a constant speed c. This constant light speed in the aether is just analogous to the speed of sound v in our atmosphere - nothing magical about c. For all we know, the aether may be pure unadulterated electric charge with three states : zero, positive, negative. Out of empty space, a positron/electron pair may appear; back to the aether, they may return. The speed of mass particles may indeed be limited to an upper limit as c; but that's all to what c may limit.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[webolife]

Where have you been all of my life Chan?
You have summed up succinctly in a handful of posts what took me nearly 2000 EU entries to describe

You haven't mentioned yet what you think is the nature of light, however, so I am going to present a couple questions to you for your thoughtful consideration: Is it feasible to you that...
1. Light and gravitation, as well as charge and nuclear force, etc. are different manifestations of the same fundamental force [or pressure field]?
2. Fundamental force[s] and/or their manifestations are centropic, by which I mean to say that their vectors may be depicted as directed toward the centroid of the system being described, whether astronomic or atomic in scale?
3. The universal "present" implies or infers universal connectivity, or as I've mentioned elsewhere that the universe behaves as a single atom, with respect to its "field"?
4. Instantaneous "action-at-a-distance" is the observed phenomenon, all other musings of modern physicists being figments of their imagination [not to say or imply that such imaginations are a bad thing]?
5. Optical ray diagrams describe simply how light behaves, so light may in reality be an optical ray [no need for particles or waves]?

[Lloyd]

Quote "webolife": ... Is it feasible to you that...
1. Light and gravitation, as well as charge and nuclear force, etc. are different manifestations of the same fundamental force [or pressure field]?
YES
2. Fundamental force[s] and/or their manifestations are centropic, by which I mean to say that their vectors may be depicted as directed toward the centroid of the system being described, whether astronomic or atomic in scale?
YES
3. The universal "present" implies or infers universal connectivity, or as I've mentioned elsewhere that the universe behaves as a single atom, with respect to its "field"?
YES, I guess
4. Instantaneous "action-at-a-distance" is the observed phenomenon, all other musings of modern physicists being figments of their imagination [not to say or imply that such imaginations are a bad thing]?
NO, there seemingly cannot be a real force of attraction, i.e. action at a distance, but only repulsion by collision.
5. Optical ray diagrams describe simply how light behaves, so light may in reality be an optical ray [no need for particles or waves]?
NO, photons seem to be real particles, with radius and mass, which move like waves, like a knuckle ball.
Unquote.

[webolife]

Hey Lloyd, I was enquiring of Chan Rasjid, but thanks for piping in anyway

I don't believe there is a force of "attraction" either, rather a squeezing which is the [only?] logical conclusion from a premise of a finite universe, a presuuposition which I hold.

I don't believe there is sufficient evidence that light is particles, nor waves. What mass and radius are you seeing? I see people's imaginary corpuscles [aether quantums, photons, gravitons, WIMPS, and the like] as analogous to squirrel driven gas engines. Light acts as pressure, which is simply depicted by vectors, therefore I hold that optical ray diagrams are sufficient to depict the physicality of light. This pressure is a manifestation of the universal "squeeze", alongside of gravitation, charge/voltage, and nuclear force. Therefore light acts as pressure toward the "source" rather than as particles or waves emitted by it.

Force at a distance is as easy to visualize as the operation of magnets from behind a wall, beneath a table, or through a glass. And if the universe is an atom, then "distance" is relatively insignificant anyway.

[Chan Rasjid]

Hello webo,

I am sorry that I did not reply to your queries. I don't have much of a background in physics. Thanks Lloyd that he could answer some of your questions.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[webolife]

OK Chan, I'm not letting you off the hook that easily!
Reflect on my statements, if you please, and tell me what YOU think!

[Chan Rasjid]

Hello Webo,

Before commenting on the questions you raised, there is something more fundamental in science that I would like to comment on.

There seem to be an implied paradigm in mainstream science - probably more so in the physical sciences - that our mind is sufficient to comprehend our life, nature as well as the universe. In fact, many people in this so-called modern world of ours think man's power of comprehension through the mind has replaced the need to for a supreme creator, the God of religion. I think it is so as there seem to be quite many people who take things like the Big Bang, age of the universe seriously - as seriously as Christians and Muslims take their God. So this materialistic atheism now actually have supplanted God with another God - man the "God"; more accurately, the mind of man is God. Through scientific rationalization, man's thinking is sufficient for understanding everything - there is no need of any belief in a supreme creator.

There is a hadith that goes something like this:
"The fountainhead of wisdom is the belief in God".
I am not to debate that true science can only come from those so-called believers. But actually, the hadith does have wisdom. It just means humility - that if one insists one is never wrong, then the chances is such a person cannot really have anything great to show in his knowledge or scholarship - bigotry does not beget wisdom. Because of this new trend in thinking, there is even the talk that the traditional scientific method that is founded on empirical observation may be outdated - that beauty of a theory may be taken as another criterion of acceptability in science. Of course, this is utmost silliness to many of us; but it has been discussed and in some domains of physics, put into practice. I think this comes from arrogance - that man's intellectual capacity has no limit - or should not be limited. On the contrary, I think true knowledge comes first from the realization that man's intellectual capacity is limited - it must be constraint to within the domain in which it is is "created" for; one may take nature as the creator or God.

Of course, some may argue that there is no evidence that man's mind should only be capable of understanding some things and never be able to understand some others - like the beginning of life; in fact, man will never be able to understand the absolute beginning of anything. This is best illustrated in Einstein's relativity theories in which it attempts to go beyond the intellectual capacities of man - this, of course, is also only an opinion. So I am more incline to believe that man's intellect is not "all powerful" - there will always be areas where physics should be exceptionally careful where it tries to go - like relative space and relative time - these are areas where man is trying to play God and the chances are very high that such science is useless. I think it is for this reason that Einstein's relativity theories, the Standard Model, string theories have not give us a single piece of new technological application whereas all classical sciences have contributed directly to practical knowledge and useful applications so much so that human civilization has been changed very remarkably. It is correct that science is a pursuit that is from man's use of his gift of intellect, but man must first recognize the intellect has its limits.

Now back to your questions:
1) light - Light and the aether is the current grand trophy of physics. Ever since Maxwell, the controversies from the Michelson Morley experiments as well as the wave-particle duality of quantum physics, every physicist has his pet idea on light; but it seems no one yet has come out with something to be said to be a real breakthrough. I think most physicists do not consider our current understanding of light to be satisfactory; there are too many unanswered questions and controversies around it. I think a new breakthrough of physics to the next true level of understanding would bring about a very satisfactory understanding of what light is.
2) a universal force - I think there is. Ultimately there may be sort of unification of the forces. It is long known, through the development of Lagrangian dynamics, that energy may be a more fundamental physical concept then force. Of course, Newton could not go beyond his time. The idea of force is intuitive as it could easily be recognized in everyday life - it needs a great strength to lift a large boulder. But by the 20th century we already have knowledge about the atoms, the nucleus and other subatomic particles. We have to go from the macro everyday world into the quantum world within the atoms. So what is intuitive in the macro world - force - may not be intuitive within the quantum world. So it is not surprising that QM does not work with force, but with energy. So it is very likely the unification of the forces would come when we have a better understanding of energy. Maybe the key is to find some more interesting quantity (probably complex) that may be more general then what is now known as the Hamiltonian.

If we have a better understanding of energy, of course we should also be unifying light, mass and inertia - all at once. This is what most physicists is trying to achieve - a grand unification.

3) the universal "present" - I think it is very interesting. Absolute time actually imply an existence of a universal present that connects the whole universe - "universal connectivity" as you say. What we take as an infinitely large universe is only a habit of thought relevant only for our everyday experience; it may have no relevance when we are discussing physics. Nature itself may not distinguish the far much from the near. So there is as much "fartherness" mystery within the atoms as in the other faraway galaxies. Distance scalar may be needed, but it may only be a habit to start limiting how fast information may flow, etc. Nature does not work according to the whims of man. Of course, it is ok to say electric fields and information propagation is limited to that of the speed of light, but the criterion should always be empirical evidence and scientific reasoning. If it says "action-at-a-distance", then it should be so - we should not limit Nature a priori.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[webolife]

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".

[Chan Rasjid]

Hello Webo,

As you know, many of us hope to come up with the Holy Grail of physics. I think it is possible that someday, maybe not too distant in the future, physics may indeed have the next true breakthrough. When it comes, there may be initial controversies - as usual with us human kind.

Your work and ideas may be in the correct direction, but it takes time before anything gets acceptance. There are many propositions in this work of physics.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[webolife]

You are right, of course