See https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/earth_drag.html and

https://www.space.com/42641-einstein-gravitational-time-dilation-galileo-probes.html

More detail at:"Relativistic Timekeeping, Motion, and Gravity in Distributed Systems" https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=7982857

Compensating for error induced by relativistic effects like time dilation from velocity and gravity are a essential component in global positioning systems.

You should contact the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency ( https://www.nga.mil/ ) and the European Space Agency ( https://galileognss.eu/ ) immediately and tell them they have it all wrong, before something happens to the trillions of dollars and hundreds of millions of lives now depending on accurate clock data for mobile platforms like aircraft and fixed infrastructure like electrical utilities. ( graphic from https://www.ieee.li/pdf/viewgraphs/gnss_fundamentals.pdf )

Michael John Patrick

Dear Michael:

Thank you for your information.

According to Yangton and Yington Theory, light speed in vacuum can be characterized as follows:

1. Light speed observed at the reference point C' is the vector summation of light speed observed at light source C (it is called Absolute Light Speed which is a constant 3 x 108 m/s on earth) and the speed of light source (it is called Inertia Light Speed) observed at the reference point V. (No aether in vacuum space)

2. The Absolute Light Speed is dependent on the local gravitational field (and aging of the universe) no matter of light frequency and light source. Because Wu's Pairs (a Yangton and Yington circulation pairs) are the building blocks of the universe, also Wu's Unit Length (diameter of Wu's Pair) and Wu's Unit Time (period of circulation) are dependent on the local gravitational field (and aging of the universe). Both Wu's Unit Length and Wu's Unit Time are bigger as local gravitational field is bigger. In other words, for corresponding identical object or event (constant amounts), their dimension (length) and duration are also become bigger, while their speed and acceleration are getting smaller.

3. Light speed doesn't change with velocity and acceleration (except gravitational acceleration).

4. Light speed observed at the reference point is also subject to the unit length (or Wu's Unit Length) and unit time (or Wu's Unit Time) used for measurement which are also dependent on the local gravitational field (and aging of universe) at the reference point. For example, because Wu's Unit Length and Wu's Unit Time are bigger at a star with large gravitational field (or at a younger universe), for a corresponding identical object or event, their total length and duration are bigger and their speed and acceleration are smaller, because Wu's Unit Length and Wu's Unit Time are bigger at the star. In addition, if it is observed on earth, because the unit length (or Wu's Unit Length) and unit time (or Wu's Unit Time) on earth are smaller, therefore the amounts of unit length and unit time measured are bigger, also the velocity and acceleration are measured smaller on earth than that at the star. In this case light speed (Absolute Light Speed) on star is also measured smaller on earth.

5. Yangton and Yington Theory agrees very well with General Relativity that Dimension (not space), Duration (not time), Speed and Acceleration of an object or event are dependent on the local gravitational field (and aging of the universe, Einstein missed this part), except the relativistic factor 1/(1-V2/C2)1/2 which has no meaning to Yangton and YIngton Theory.

According to Yangton and Yington Theory, photon is a free Wu's Pair escaped away fro light source (parent object). As light travels in matter including solid, liquid, air and particles, its speed changes with the density of the substance (object). Often, light get reflected, scattered, refracted, diffracted and transmitted from the substance (object). So far not many studies have be done on light speed and time dilation by the effects of particles and particle speeds such as Aether, Graviton and other fine subatomic particles.

For your information, attached is a graphic presentation on the time dilation caused by Aether flow.

Best,

Edward

Searching for "Yangton and Yington Theory" on Google Scholar yields yourself as the only author ever mentioning the term, and all the citations to those papers are pretty much you citing yourself. Except two exceptions: Some early 1900's papers by Einstein, and the Wikipedia article on General Relativity. From this I gather your work is put some sort of scientific lipstick on what is basically the philosophical / spiritual notion of 'Yin and Yang' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang ).

This is not to say that philosophical and spiritual concepts are not fair game for a research topic, but it is disingenuous IMHO, to mislead a reader by not simply explicitly declaring your intent by using the term 'Yin and Yang' as the basis of your perspective, not some unique coined terms. By doing this you severe your work from both the roots and the leaves of the tree of knowledge - and I assume you want peer interaction of you wouldn't post on ResearchGate.

No mathematician or physicist is able to constructively form an evaluation of your work because the only external references are a very narrow window, and not even in alignment with the last four decades of his life, including his own critiques of his own work. Glaring is the absence of any mention the original Michelson–Morley experiment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment ) and the more recent trials ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment ), nor any proposal of an experiment that would prove those results wrong.

Most remarkably, any serious research couldn't miss or avoid mention of an actual 'Yin and Yang' theory: Noether’s theorem.

"She resolved a nagging puzzle in Albert Einstein’s newfound theory of gravity, the general theory of relativity. And in the process, she proved a revolutionary mathematical theorem that changed the way physicists study the universe. ... It’s been a century since the July 23, 1918, unveiling of Noether’s famous theorem. Yet its importance persists today. “That theorem has been a guiding star to 20th and 21st century physics,” says theoretical physicist Frank Wilczek of MIT." ( from https://www.sciencenews.org/article/emmy-noether-theorem-legacy-physics-math )

An accessible presentation is here: Noether's Theorem and The Symmetries of Reality ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04ERSb06dOg&t=592s )

So any "Yangton and Yington Theory" would have to stand in contrast and similarity to Noether's work, not Einstein's earliest works on Relativity.

You should also watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ras_VYgA77Q , and more closely examine the reputation of the journals your work has appeared in. International Organization of Scientific Research (http://iosrjournals.org/index.html) (IOSR) is on the list.

Michael John Patrick

I believe that in 1905, when Einstein first proposed his special relativity, if you were there, you will give him the same criticism as this one. It is okay. I take it as a compliment.

So far, both relativity and quantum mechanics are still incomplete. A lot of conflicts and misleading are there among science societies. I think we should be open for any suggestion as long as it is logical and make sense. Only through open discussion, truth can be revealed.

By the way here is the logic of my Yangton and Yington Theory:

Five Principles of the Universe are proposed as the foundation of Wu’s Pairs and Yangton and Yington Theory. These Five Principles are:

1. There was Nothing in the universe in the beginning.

2. From Nothing to Something it must be a reversible process.

3. The Something must be a pair of Antimatter particles with an inter-attractive force such that they can attract and destroy each other.

4. From Something to permanent matter there must be an external energy to cause a constant circulation motion between the two Antimatter particles so as to avoid them from recombination and destruction.

5. Eventually the whole universe will end and go back to Nothing.

During Big Bang Explosion, Space and Energy were first generated from None through Singularity. Then, Energy of Creation and Energy of Circulation combined together to form Wu’s Pairs – a pair of Yangton and Yington super fine Antimatter particles with an inter-attractive Force of Creation in permanent circulation. Wu’s Pairs are the building blocks of the universe.

Also attached are the proposed subatomic structures based on Wu's Pairs and Yangton and Yington Theory.

You are welcome to give comments.

Best,

Edward

Michael John Patrick

I'd like to suggest you to read the following question on RG by Nancy Ann Watanabe (there are more than 2,800 replies and 20,000 reads):

What are the major and most effective refutations of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity? Question Asked December 6, 2019.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_major_and_most_effective_refutations_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Question_Asked_December_6_2019?_ec=topicPostOverviewFollowedQuestions&_sg=gbiqfBnZ3em2qT3t3WNcLobZJ8bp-lEd87JwBBLjXMrZqH5QI8elZINWGjQnpIFlIwFypy3ts6Br3Ull

Also, here is a great reply on this question by Eric Baird:

Quote:

In his 1919 piece for The Times newspaper, Einstein says:

Einstein 1919: [9] “

... the theory of relativity resembles a building consisting of two separate storeys, the special theory and the general theory. The special theory, on which the general theory rests, applies to all physical phenomena with the exception of gravitation; the general theory provides the law of gravitation and its relations to the other forces of nature. ”

...

Einstein 1950, [43] “ ... all attempts to obtain a deeper knowledge of the foundations of physics seem doomed to me unless the basic concepts are in accordance with general relativity from the beginning. ... I do not see any reason to assume that the heuristic significance of the principle of general relativity is restricted to gravitation and that the rest of physics can be dealt with separately on the basis of special relativity, with the hope that later on the whole may be fitted consistently into a general relativistic scheme. I do not think that such an attitude, although historically understandable, can be objectively justified. The comparative smallness of what we know today as gravitational effects is not a conclusive reason for ignoring the principle of general relativity in theoretical investigations of a fundamental character. In other words, I do not believe that it is justifiable to ask: What would physics look like without gravitation? ... ”

====

So (in Einstein's 1950 opinion) it's not justifiable to ask the question whose answer is "special relativity", all components of a general theory have to be compatible with the general principle from the outset, curved-spacetime arguments will probably need to be applied to a wider range of phenomena that current theory assumes, and we can't simply bung special relativity into the mix and cross our fingers and hope that it'll all work out in the end.

Einstein's 1950 article (in no less a magazine that Scientific American, apparently to try to get the message out to the widest possible audience), basically trashed the approach that he'd taken with his 1916 theory, as "historically understandable" but no longer objectively justifiable. The 1916 theory had been "of its time", but was now outdated and could no longer be defended by an objective researcher.

I've noticed the 1950 article seems to be missing from the bibliographies that you find in the backs of relativity textbooks. It seems that nobody wanted to hear that Einstein had already decided by 1950 that the design of his general theory was fundamentally wrong.

Einstein provided the community with an argument against his own 1916 attempt at a general theory of relativity, which, if followed up, ought to have led to an alternative general theory. The amount of work that the community then did to follow up on this lead in the next five years before Einstein's death, and in the following sixty-plus years after, seems to have been ... nothing,

And this is why the current state of relativity theory is such a fake. The community make a big deal about respecting and protecting Einstein's legacy, but when Einstein himself criticised one of his own theories, they treated him as just another anti-relativity crackpot to be ignored. They don't check alternatives, they don't check for logical consistency, they don't do proper background research, they don't check arguments that support the status quo for errors, and when errors are pointed out, they seem to do everything they can to avoid publicly acknowledging or correcting them.

We have a community of mainly n-th class theorists, who seem to have realised that everyone in the community can have long and happy careers just as long as they all stick to the same script, and collectively stamp on anyone who suggests a departure from it. This is a group that have proved that they could collectively block even Einstein. It's a research group that's been trying desperately hard not to do any proper investigative, challenging, or radical research for more than half a century.

It wouldn't matter if there was 1,000,000,000 replies and 1,000,000,000,000 reads - 30% of Americans believe in astrology ( https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/11/42552/ ).

In the OECD, statistics show that only 0.5% ( or 1 in 200 for statics challenged ) have the adult math literacy Level 5 skills to begin at the 1905 paper ( https://bit.ly/3x42H8F ). Which is why ya'll choose that particular time point to bifurcate all of the subsequent arguments, because there is a century of further refinement after that which require Level 5+ mathematical skills, and these require an exponentially growing investment in personal time and effort to acquire.

And that time point of bifurcation also is coincident with most of modern technology, which are systems of interdependent advanced mathematical principles, and importantly, more than a single human mind can hold in their own skull or reasonably achieve in a lifetime of study. Correspondingly, moving the frontier of those mathematical ideas forward increasingly became concentrate in the minuscule portion of the population at level 7 developing pure theory, with Level 6 translating that into technologies that Level 5 folks turn into engineering praxis manifesting as MRI machines, Quantum Computers, rendezvous beyond the orbit of Pluto, and such.

Which this mass of belief ( 2,800 replies and 20,000 reads ) you refer to above seems to steadfastly ignore. Relativity has become, over the past hundred years diffused throughout and commonplace in modern technology. And although I might not be a Level 7 like Einstein to conceive it, or a Level 6 to manipulate it, or a Level 5 to engineer it, as a high level 4+ I can certainly account for it and use tools made by those others to parse out it's effects, say on terrestrial networks, satellite down links ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0405001.pdf ) - which is essential for activities involving orbital debris cleanup to avoid a Kessler Event ( http://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Engineering_Technology/The_Kessler_Effect_and_how_to_stop_it ).

So it is interesting that your claim "... the current state of relativity theory is such a fake" when that theory is being used daily to solve fairly prosaic technological problems, by myself included. Attempting to generate controversy over a state of theoretical affairs from a hundred years ago is is like arguing about what sort doping to apply to fabric on a biplane when the current discussions are about carbon composite layup composition on a Mach 12 hypersonic aircraft.

If it 'fake' why are theoretical predictions still being made, and then being confirmed by observations from platforms like the NASA Laser Geodynamics Satellites (LAGEOS) and the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission ( https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/a-snag-in-space-time )? By your assertion of 'fakery' one would have to believe that hundreds of thousands of the most intelligent mathematicians, physicists, engineers were experiencing some sort of shared hallucination over the past hundred years. If it's a shared hallucination, it's a damn useful one, for instance mapping the sustainable water supplies for agriculture in arid regions to feed the poorest people on Earth. ( https://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace-at-15-years/ ).

Which leads back to the morass mass of belief ( 2,800 replies and 20,000 reads ). Science is observation, hypothesis, experiment, which may eventually lead to some sort of consensus of a capital 'T' Theory. ( Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Book Thomas Kuhn

And that results in the cognitive dissonance ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance ) which gives birth to emotional claims like "stick(ing) to the same script" and "collectively stamp(ing) on anyone...". At worst, all these hypothetical 'alternatives' are just being ignored, for simple reason that it is more interesting and productive to push the frontier forward and, like, make discoveries that actually improve the human condition, like keeping people warm by better grid synchronization sensing to prevent winter black outs or finding water for poor farmers.

And that apathy is caused by not adopting the most basic minimal methods I mentioned in my criticism of your presentation ( and again, not the actual content itself): Lack of relevant ( especially chronological ) citations, non-authoritative citations, self citation, and no peer review, and nobody citing your work ). This is just an observation based on ordinary high school science projects ( https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/writing-a-research-paper-for-your-science-fair-project ). These aspects I mentioned are important for any reader, the actual content could be a cure for cancer or an actual working warp drive, and it wouldn't matter because it lacks the linkages that make it meaningful to the rest of the world. If you are using Einstein's work as backing for your case, simple citation with explanation is sufficient, if you are disputing Einsteins conclusions - if you are disputing it, you need to cite his citations and where he went wrong in interpreting those, i.e. the context. Hence the apathy, nobody is going to read your mind.

The apathy is also generated by the lack cooperation in dialog. I asked some very specific questions and observations - most notably since you posit the existence of aether, how your theory accommodates the original Michelson–Morley experiment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment With one exception, you never address my assertions point by point, just more of your own work when there is not even clarification about the first, or providing supplementary information to address the citation shortage. Or how you account for the existence of real world artifacts which incorporate Relativity. So, if you don't respond to questions especially foundational ones, you'll get apathy, not engagement, and certainly not that other activity.

The disparaging "...mainly n-th class theorists" remark is, well, 'remarkable'. I glanced through all your diagrams, and even discounting obvious case of symmetry and chirality, have you counted how many dimensions you are invoking? ( Hint: somewhere between the 10+ of M-Theory and 26 of Closed Unoriented Bosonic String Theory - but then even conventional weather data requires about 12 ).

Michael John Patrick

I am sorry that you are not thinking clearly. If you only believe what you insist, that is fine with me, I have no objection. But don't jump to conclusion too fast. Most of the replies of the question are from top scientists. For example, the quote I gave you is from Eric BairdI. Here is his introduction: 2006/2007: "Relativity in Curved Spacetime", a ~400-page book exploring the concepts of relativity theory from scratch without presuming a "flat spacetime" layer. 2010: "Alt.Fractals: A Visual Guide to Fractal Geometry and Design" (2011). The "Jerusalem Cube" fractal. The Baird Delta, arguably the first proper three-dimensional extension of a Koch curve.

My Yangton and Yington theory is a very new theory. My first paper was published in 2015. Since then I have published a total of 38 papers regarding to this topic. So far there are more than 7,000 reads and 123 recommendations. (You can find all of them on my RG page).

As to the interpretation of MM experiment and SR, please see my papers in the attachments.

https://youtu.be/jsUFpz1iU9Q

Manfred Geilhaupt Thanks, great that you had that slide about the heartbeat clock and a pendulum clock.

At least some of the papers cited in this thread are 'from sources like the 'American Journal of Modern Physics' ( https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/copyright?journalid=122 ) from the 'Science Publishing Group'. You can find mention of them in Beall, J. (2015). Behind the Spam: A “Spectral Analysis” of Predatory Publishers. Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 11(A29A), 166-171. doi:10.1017/S1743921316002684 Article Behind the Spam: A “Spectral Analysis” of Predatory Publishers

... many other places also.

Michael John Patrick

thanks a lot. When I started 1988 ( I red in Einsteins Booklet in parentheses, "independent of pendulum mass") I did not think all the literature that came around then will be important once in 2000 or today. So I lost a lot citing literature. But senses are still all in my mind. This is not good science. But I only tried to prove or falsify my part up to now.

NOTICE GR+TD REVEALS THAT t-DILATION IS DUE TO SIMPLE ENERGY CONSERVATION. The last step to complete GR t-dilation-problem!

See my video about that aspect

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsUFpz1iU9Q

I choose this way because no one believes in it. But I am sure Einstein would, :)

it is a sensation. Einstein's way of thinking is back in Quantum Physics. Don't know why I am the pencil.

Manfred Geilhaupt Your 'two clocks' appealed to me because unlike a lot of theoretical physics tautologies I see on ResearchGate, yours looked to be an simple experiment that could actually be built to confirm or deny your proposal. Reminiscent Newton's theories being tested in the section 'Weighing the World' in 'Nevil Maskelyne: The Seaman's Astronomer' Presentation Nevil Maskelyne: The Seaman's Astronomer

"Ten days after Cook departed, Maskelyne, encouraged by Henry Cavendish, read a paper tothe Royal Society in which he proposed an experiment to measure the gravitational “Attractionof Hills”, first suggested by Isaac Newton in the Principia. He suggested using the Society’s10 foot zenith sector, which he had taken to St Helena, upgraded to measure meridian transitzenith angles with arcsecond resolution. A Committee of Attraction, comprising Maskelyne,Henry Cavendish, Benjamin Franklin, Joseph Banks, the Rev Samuel Horsley and others,engaged Charles Mason to search for a suitable candidate hill.Schiehallion, Perthshire: North-west winter aspect from Loch Rannoch. Maskelyne’s twoobservatory huts were located to the north and south of the EW ridge.

Page 10"

Michael John Patrick

"yours looked to be an simple experiment that could actually be built to confirm or deny your proposal."

Yes it is, thanks for interest.

After 30 years suddenly all is so simple. Why not before? Good question always again. The famous formula Einstein explaining the photo electric effect: Light is a Particle

h*f=m*c^2

And De Broglie the electron mass is a matter wave

m*c^2=h*f

and now General Relativity yields but only if combined with Thermodynamic principles (based on Einstein De Broglie Nobel Price Formula above to come up with basically not really new)

m(alpha)*c^2=h*f(alpha)

Thus

T(alpha)=2pi*√m(alpha)/k

explains GR t-Dilation by simple energy conservation for every heart-beat clock like Spring-Pendulum (mass) and Atomic clock (light). BUT THE EXCEPTION IS THE PHYSICAL PENDULUM, because it is no heat-beat clock. This question was not solved until GR+TD came on stage.

.

It is a sensation in Physics?. Unbelievable? Only possible with this great Einstein and De Broglie way of thinking. Nothing new but the explanation will be in every textbook once, I think. Or not, if not true!

The clou: in GR+TD alpha, the FSC, depends on the metric of space and so back in GR t-dilation. Then back to SR by equivalence principle.

Einstein perforce needed to start with SR. All the problems with SR are solved by GR and the last Problem in GR ist solved within GR+TD.