Samuel Reich ,

I appreciate your Answer. I am interested in what you have to say about the axial Doppler shift, much of which is clear to me. My main suggestion is in regard to the form, not so much the content. But the content would be even clearer than it already is, if, possibly, you could "edit," by which I mean that, from time to time, it seems to me that there is "slippage" and a word appears that does not seem really to belong where it is in the sentence. You may certainly correct me if I err, but it seems to me that there are some typographical errors. My second point is in regard to the links, which my machinery is not readily able to access. I wonder if you have a project, such as a paper-in-progress, in which you state more formally, like in the style of an article, how Einstein's theory (or theories) of relativity fall short because inadequate to deal with the axial Doppler shift or another topic of your choice, discussion of which you can build into an effective refutation? Of course, the space in this thread is too limited and constricted for a complete and coherent, or even a concise, refutation. An option might be to work your way from the simple to the complex, step-by-step, cumulatively and gradually developing your refutation in a logical order, something like a series of lectures notes.

Hi Nancy!

Einstein's 1916 general theory can't cope properly with gravitomagnetism.

• [1] The general principle of relativity (GPoR) requires that a rotating star drag light around with it (rotational gravitomagnetism).
• [2] If we are in the rotating star's equatorial plane, this means that the receding side drags light away from us, and the approaching side drags light towards us. So rotational gm has a velocity component (velocity-dependent gravitomagnetism).
• [3] but when light is deflected by gravitational dragging (momentum exchange) this alters the energy and momentum of the light.
• [4] So in [2], light from the receding side of the star arrives at us with a weakened momentum and energy, and light from the approaching side arrives with an increased momentum and energy.
• [5] So a receding gravitational body must show a gravitomagnetic shift in its light, to the red when it recedes and to the blue when it approaches.

• [6] The gm shift isn't included in special relativity (which is a theory of flat spacetime, that doesn't attempt to tackle gravitational effects).
• [7a] So an SR Doppler shift combined with the gm shift would mean that the total motion shift effects on strong-gravity objects wouldn't obey special relativity.
• [7b] Alternatively, we might argue that the gm shift extinguishes and replaces the conventional Doppler shift for moving strong-gravity bodies (giving us one motion-shift effect rather than two). But since that single shift has to be compatible with curved spacetime geometry, it again can't agree with special relativity's predictions from flat spacetime.
• [8] So from [7a]/[7b], we know that, either way, the motion shift on a moving neutron star can't be in exact agreement with special relativity.

SR folks will say, "So what? SR was never designed to be able to cope with explicitly gravitational problems!"

• [9] But compatibility with a metric (and with wave theories of light) means that all moving bodies have to obey precisely the same motion-shift law.
• [10] This means that since the complicating gravitomagnetic effects of a moving black hole or neutron star must make it's shift relationship diverge significantly from the one given by special relativity, every other body and massed particle in the universe must show precisely the same non-SR Doppler relationship as our "moving black hole" case.
• [12] Which means that by proving that SR's Doppler relationship must geometrically be wrong for strong-gravity objects, we also prove that it's wrong for all objects, of any kind.

Special relativity is therefore a special case for how physics would operate in a universe in which particles have no associated distortion-fields – it applies to non-gravitational bodies. But according to the principle of equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass, there is no such thing as a non-gravitational massed body. SR has also been described as GR "with gravity switched off", but "switching off" gravity is illegal under a fully GPoR-compliant theory: it means that we also"swich off" inertia. The assumed reduction from GR to SR is illegal, and is the inclusion of SR in GR is also illegal.

Special relativity exists in its own non-gravitational universe, it does not apply and is not correct physics in a universe that conforms to the GPoR. Special relativity is NOT a limiting case of gravitational theory, it's a whole other system to itself. You can't try to mix the two without geometrical breakdowns.

So for our universe (which includes explicitly gravitational behaviours), special relativity is wrong physics. It depends critically on over-idealised assumptions that violate principles of gravitational theory and the GPoR.

And since Einstein's general theory is partly defined by a declared reduction to SR physics (which is supposed to live on inside GR1916 as a limiting case), the 1916 general theory is logically and geometrically inconsistent. To make GR consistent, one has to delete SR and turn GR into a single-layer theory.

So, both of Einstein's classical theories of relativity are wrong. Special relativity is disproved in a gravitational universe, because it's geometry doesn't "mesh" with the necessary geometry of gravitational physics (SR is internally valid, but inappropriate), and GR1916 is disproved, because its specifications try to incorporate two different elements that turn out to be mutually exclusive, the GPoR and SR (making the resulting attempt at a composite theory invalid).

One can work up a more consistent general theory of relativity by taking a more purist approach to the GPoR, but the results of the necessary changes run so deep, that the resulting theory is then no longer Einstein's.

Samuel Reich ,

I appreciate your Answer. I am interested in what you have to say about the axial Doppler shift, much of which is clear to me. My main suggestion is in regard to the form, not so much the content. But the content would be even clearer than it already is, if, possibly, you could "edit," by which I mean that, from time to time, it seems to me that there is "slippage" and a word appears that does not seem really to belong where it is in the sentence. You may certainly correct me if I err, but it seems to me that there are some typographical errors. My second point is in regard to the links, which my machinery is not readily able to access. I wonder if you have a project, such as a paper-in-progress, in which you state more formally, like in the style of an article, how Einstein's theory (or theories) of relativity fall short because inadequate to deal with the axial Doppler shift or another topic of your choice, discussion of which you can build into an effective refutation? Of course, the space in this thread is too limited and constricted for a complete and coherent, or even a concise, refutation. An option might be to work your way from the simple to the complex, step-by-step, cumulatively and gradually developing your refutation in a logical order, something like a series of lectures notes.

Eric Baird ,

Thank you for your well-organized Answer. I am interested in your major refutation of Einstein's general relativity theory, which does not accommodate gravitational magnetic fields. Before proceeding any further, I have a question about the way your enumeration jumps from [10] to [12]. In my opinion, this lacuna seems significant, almost symbolic of the absence of any bridge between the solar system and galactic space. Is your omission of [11] intentional?

I am nonetheless appreciative of your sense of logical development, which makes your writing very clear, for which I am grateful! For one thing, the mysterious disappearance of [11] creates a sense of tension and suspense, and, further, of surprise, almost of shock, but mainly of bewilderment, on my part. Admittedly, the way you leap to the conclusion that Einstein is categorically and across-the-board wrong, conveys the message that your aim is to refute Einstein. In the context of this informal RG thread, I have no objection to this approach, which may lead to a lively debate. If you were writing a paper, I imagine that you would try to explain why it is imperative to treat the solar system, which, to a significant degree, satisfies Newton's requirement for interplanetary gravitational force, as being subject to the same principles regulating mass, energy, and motion as, for example, a neutron star or a gravitational anomaly, e.g., "black hole"? Any explanation you may have for me at this time will be appreciated!

Nancy Ann Watanabe , My apologies Nancy, the missing [11] was unintentional. A renumbering error.

Einstein's general theory does accommodate some gravitomagnetic fields, just not the full set.

There are three basic classes of gravitomagnetism that have to be dealt with by a general theory of relativity:

The first one is arguably the most fundamental. Once we have the velocity effect, the main rotational effect can be blamed on the velocity effects due to different parts of the rotating mass, and the accelerational effect becomes the higher-order version of the velocity effect (there’s also a variable-acceleration variant called “jerk”, and there’ll be other derivatives).

Geometrically, the velocity effect has to exist for many, many reasons, not least because we need the associated dragging effect to exist in order to cancel out the forward acceleration that would otherwise be caused by gravitational aberration effects, and generate Newton’s First Law (Carlip ~1994).

The second and third effects are associated with measurable gee-forces when we accelerate or rotate wrt the background starfield (which Mach and Einstein argued should be treated as consequences of real gravitational fields for the observer experiencing them). The first effect sometimes gets overlooked because it doesn’t produce a measurable force when we move wrt the uniform background starfield, because of that aforementioned cancellation with the effect of the starfield’s apparent redistribution of mass around us due to aberration … but when a single mass passes us, we get buffetted by the field, and tugged in its direction of motion. Essentially, it’s the same effect that NASA use to slingshot space probes around the solar system.

For another example of the effect, we can look at the case of a Wheeler black hole. If a body falls into the hole and emits an outward burst of light at the moment that it passes through the r=2M horizon, then that light is supposed to be frozen into the r=2M surface. If we now switch to a different observer for whom the hole is receding, then if they are forced to agree that the light remains trapped, then the frozen light must move away (backwards) at the same speed that the hole is moving away. So a black hole horizon drags light 100% when it moves. If gravitomagnetic lightdragging as a function of velocity wasn’t real, modern gravitational physics would just fall apart.

----

This means that current textbook GR has a whopping great design flaw due to Einstein’s decision to also try to accommodate special relativity in the same structure. On the one hand GR1916 HAS to accommodate all three forms of gravitomagnetic effect, or else the gravitational side of the theory is logically and geometrically incoherent – on the other hand, the velocity-dependent effect has to be absent for all moving bodies, for them to be able to obey the flat-spacetime relationships of SR.

So under Einstein’s 1916 theory, v-gm effects simultaneously must exist for all matter, and must not exist, for any matter. The thing is self-invalidating. ↯

Nancy: " Admittedly, the way you leap to the conclusion that Einstein is categorically and across-the-board wrong, conveys the message that your aim is to refute Einstein. "

For the record, my original aim with this project (some years ago) wasn’t to refute Einstein, it was to find a better method of deriving the SR relationships that was provably compatible with the idea of curved spacetime and particles with associated curvature. The normal derivations of SR assume for simplicity that the presence and motion of matter in a region has zero effect on the propagation of light. We know that this assumption violates the principle of equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass, and is physically wrong (refractive index, Fizeau effect), but it's convenient and (with the PoR) generates Minkowski spacetime.

What I originally set out to do was to prove that one still got the same SR relationships even if one used more realistic starting assumptions and assigned curvature to particles. Unfortunately, it turns out that this isn’t true, because as soon as moving particles have curvature, gravitomagnetic dragging effects kick in, and the equations of motion change. SR only works for particles and bodies with exactly zero curvature (and zero associated dragging effects).

This isn’t personal, it’s geometry. Since SR is synonymous with Minkowski spacetime, which is perfectly flat, if lightdragging produces a velocity-dependent deviation from flatness, and the principle of relativity still holds, then there has to be a matching velocity-dependent deviation from SR. Geometrical physics doesn’t let us change the geometry without also changing the physics. So the one result we know immediately is that whatever the shift equations may turn out to be, they can’t be those of special relativity! :)

At this point, GR folk tend to say, " Yeah, well, okay, in theory there must be a divergence from SR, and maybe GR can’t reduce to SR exactly, but the gravitational field of individual atoms is so tiny that the deviation must be absurdly small, making SR still effectively correct for all conceivable purposes. "

Unfortunately for this argument, wave compatibility requires the deviation from SR for a single moving hydrogen atom to be precisely the same as the deviation from SR for a moving black hole. And we can work out exactly what the gravitomagnetic deviation from SR needs to be for a black hole, and it’s not small.

So it’s not the case that GR’s disagreement with SR is infinitesimal and unimportant. It’s quite a sizeable disagreement, and its also the reason why GR1916 is incompatible with quantum mechanics, and why it also gives a geometrically inconsistent explanation of cosmology.

The 1916 theory, structurally, is actually a bit of a car crash.

Eric Baird ,

Thanks for clarifying [11], also for stipulating Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GR) accommodates some but not all gravitomagnetic fields, which makes me wonder about the feasibility of choosing only one of the fields to refute, or proceeding one-at-a-time? I take it that the "velocity effect" and the "rotational effect" are related to each other, and, possibly, to the "accelerational effect, such that, as you say, " Once we have the velocity effect, the main rotational effect can be blamed on the velocity effects due to different parts of the rotating mass, and the accelerational effect becomes the higher-order version of the velocity effect." If I were to edit this sentence, I would replace "blamed" with "attributed to"; would you, hypothetically of course, accept the change in wording?

Your explanation of the original context of your research is exceedingly helpful. In this regard, is Einstein, in his focus on, I am assuming, the solar system, as opposed to galactic space, simply following Newton, who is similarly, and even more restricted by the science of his day, limiting himself to the solar system, I presume? You say, " The normal derivations of SR assume for simplicity that the presence and motion of matter in a region has zero effect on the propagation of light. We know that this assumption violates the principle of equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass, and is physically wrong (refractive index, Fizeau effect), but it's convenient and (with the PoR) generates Minkowski spacetime." I am aware both Newton and Einstein researched light. Einstein leaped ahead of Newton with his observation of the photoelectric effect. To my knowledge, Newton did not take light into account, because he was unable to, when he documented his observations of inertial and gravitational mass, and, for this reason, his math and physics are much less accurate than Einstein's and Minkowski's. Certainly, the moon landings, probes to Venus (Russians), and intergalactic space (USA) would not have been possible if Einstein had not extended with greater precision and accuracy the scientific research of Newton and others. But what scientist is associated with "the principle of equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass"? Is it Fizeau? (I have not heard the name before this, on Research Gate or anywhere. Maybe he is part of your in-depth research.

Two other statements you make conjure in my mind the strong ties between Newton and Einstein. Again, to my mind, your logical presentation is fascinating because of the way it both transcends and implicates history, that is, historical progression as manifested in advancements in scientific research as displayed in the landmark works of such scientists as Newton, Minkowski, and Einstein.

(1) "At this point, GR folk tend to say, " Yeah, well, okay, in theory there must be a divergence from SR, and maybe GR can’t reduce to SR exactly, but the gravitational field of individual atoms is so tiny that the deviation must be absurdly small, making SR still effectively correct for all conceivable purposes." As you imply, rocket researchers and astronauts would disagree with "absurdly small."

To my mind, the most interesting statement you make is the following because it alludes to the particle and wave research with which Einstein was concerned:

(2) "Unfortunately for this argument, wave compatibility requires the deviation from SR for a single moving hydrogen atom to be precisely the same as the deviation from SR for a moving black hole. And we can work out exactly what the gravitomagnetic deviation from SR needs to be for a black hole, and it’s not small."

Einstein would probably agree with you about the disjuncture between GR and SR. He may well have been thinking about the imagery you invoke of "a single moving hydrogen atom" and "a moving black hole," and he was perplexed. Maybe this is off-topic, but have you heard about a scientist's report that the merging of two black holes released light on the order of magnitude of several of Earth's suns? Would this have any bearing whatsoever on your research?

Všetci čo absolvovali strednú školu sa musel oboznámiť v optike že, v šírení svetla v hmotnom prostredí platí zákon o indexe lomu svetla v hmotnom prostredí. Prečo tento zákon nie je aplikovaný vo výpočte Michelson Morley experimente ? Veď to je tak do očí bijúci omyl že to sa nedá prehliadnúť. Chápem tých ludí čo nikdy nemerali interferometrom že, na túto realitu neprišli, nechápem ale tých fyzikov a výzkumníkov čo merajú s interfero-metrami že na tento omyl už nepoukázali ako na omyl fyziky. Já meriam s interferometrami dlhú dobu preto s plnou vážnosťou môžem prehlásiť že to je velká chyba fyziky , lebo som sa pri meraní s interferometrami na vlastné oči presvedčil že to je omyl.

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Hi Nancy,

in the light of the outcome of the previous discussion, I fully agree that your reformulation of the question is more realistic. For the record, the view I submitted is that Relativity is refuted 1) conceptually by the clock absurdity (it predicts that 2 clocks can each run slower than the other). And 2) experimentally by the M&M result, 18 years before it was formulated. Details in my .

I shall follow with interest your latest slant on the discussion. But probably won't add much, if anything, as I have already said all I want to say.

The question as I see it is now political: how to get through to the general public the massive lie tat the physics establishment has been perpetrateng for the last 100 years, in the face of its proven capacity to stifle and censure all disagreement with its official line.

Being English, I can legitimately wish you "the best of British luck!"

Regards,

Jeremy

Ďakujem za priania "britského šťastia" to som zatiaľ od nikoho nedostal. To čo som tu napísal na adresu o relativite je veľmi málo s tých omylov čo som doteraz nameral, dúfam že budem mať šťastie všetko publikovať tak že si odborníci na interferometre budú môcť vysloviť svoje výhrady. Prajem Vám veľa úspechov vo vašej práci a príjemné prežitie Vianočných sviatkov Jozef

Dear Nancy Ann Watanabe

Einstein's equation links the curvature of space and stress–energy tensor. Energy is not matter, so Einstein's theory is pure math. How does matter take up space? What is the relationship between energy and matter? Gravitational waves propagate in a vacuum according to the principle of "Ricci curvature tensor change due to local metric and vice verse" does not seem really reasonable, because one of the two factors must be potential and the other is kinetic.

Nguyen Le Anh Le Anh ,

Thank you for your response to my question! You raise a number of issues and I would recommend that it is important to focus on one as , for example, on "Ricci curvature tensor change due to local metric and vice versa" perhaps by working backwards until you focus on the most basic elements that cannot be analyzed any further. Focus is very important as is reviewing what you have written. For example, "vice versa" is correct, but "verse" refers to poetry or to the Bible. Einstein is already difficult even for highly specialized scientists to discuss; therefore, even one misspelled word can nullify your refutation, which, moreover, really should be supported by the name of your source or sources, if any.

It is important that I tell you that your statement that "Energy is not matter, so Einstein's theory is pure math" resembles pieces of several different puzzles arranged at random on a table. In other words, this statement of yours leaves a great many gaps and therefore appears rather incoherent.

I would advise you to make a decision to focus on one or two of the many objections you have to Einstein's way of writing about "energy and matter," and you might want to begin by deciding whether you are best able to deal with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity or, on the other hand, with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Which refutation is "major" and which refutation is "the most effective"" This part of my question indicates that preliminary research may possibly already have been completed by the time you reply.

Good luck with your research, and thanks again for your participation.

Dear Nancy Ann Watanabe, very nice question, because it put us to think of the box. The origination of axial doppler shift must come from universe, because it makes all the planets sphere. In addition, to transfer this information into the space to form the planet's shape, it must have rotation too, which it put us to believe the Universe is hollow spherical with rotation as any planets that each has rotation to their axes. By having said this unprecedented statement, it put the Einstein Relativity obsolete. In order to understand universe, we have to find origination of it, not to find how it is working by postulation.

Javad Fardaei ,

It is nice to receive your response. Thank you. My only reaction to your statement is that it is untimely because Einstein's theoretical formulations are not "obsolete" with reference to planetary science. Einstein's contribution to modern science enables exploration of the solar system. Einstein did not intend to tell us how the universe was created; rather, he wanted to enable us to perform scientific experiments using the solar system as our laboratory. Because of Einstein, Russia sent a probe to Venus, USA sent a robotic lab to Mars, and because of Newton and Einstein, scientists are now able to use what they know about planetary orbits and gravitational constants to use the force of gravity to accelerate and direct the path of a man-made space voyager as it travels from Earth to, for example, Neptune, and into the Milky Way.

You would do better to designate the exact point where Einstein himself was stymied about how his General Theory of Relativity might not be adequate to deal with the "New Science". Good luck. And thanks for your participation.

Thomas Anthony Troszak The refractive index of air is only significant in conjuction with the Fitzgerald-Lorentz length contraction, both of which M&M and also Dayton Miller failed to consider. M&M can be excused since it was only formulated in 1895. Taking these into account (Cahill's analysis) gives a true aether speed of ~400 km/s, compatible with 1-way and spacecraft Doppler shift results. Details on p.21 of the 'Aether' article on my .

Regards,

Jeremy

Thomas Anthony Troszak

Hi Thomas,

you're right, there seems to be a problem with Weebly. The files are however also on my blog , which seems to be working. Or if you like, give me your email and I will send them direct. Mine is .

Regards,

jeremy

Lorenz transforms hide a logical contradiction. Please read the paper, may be helpful for you.

A new approach to the correction of Galilean transformation .

Problems with relativity their corrections and somw impacts:

The linked PDF files are details the proof that the axial Doppler shift changes observed time like the transverse and various implication. Section 3 of the last one shows the difference between in how mass varies with frequency in relativity and quantum mechanics, the second topic.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1o9mW38Vyx3C7IuN6xazdS7SSYF_JRdJY

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LiG8oeVm9eHiSYcbDJxwDvaewM4WFZWz

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1vU9ADVkG70s_UjV5MmDsrzcb7ME1XEkj

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ha24QHwfRzZAMV47_48Qt7Hs3LQVuDcb

A Short Outline of the Last 4 Linked Files:

Proof of an Axial Shift Doppler shift of Time: to be proven: It is in the fundamental properties of Fourier time series that if the frequency of each harmonic is multiplied by the same factor K, all values come out 1/K times the time they did in the original series.

F= Sum {An cos (wn t)   + Bn ( wn t)}   where the sum is from n=0 to n=infinity,  F is any function,  wn = the frequency of nth harmonic.   It obvious if all wn are multiplied by K  the value of  each {An cos (wn t) + Bn (wn t)}  is {An cos (wn K t’) + Bn sin (wn K t’)} and they are equal if t’/t=1/K. That that means the sum is if t’/t=1/K.  The reader can use a PC and prove it also by numerical experimentation.  If you remember advanced calculus any piece wise continuous function can be made into a Fourier series and how to find the An’s and Bn’s for that function.

This is limited to the period the constants where originally determined for.  Since the series can be of an information carrying signal, time is either compressed or dilated by that multiplication of frequency which what all Doppler shifts do, axial, transverse, red or blue. Since Doppler shifts can happen in a vacuum, they are a property of dimensions; the only things in a vacuum (vacuums are not perfect however).

The implications of the proof:  The above proved the axial Doppler shift changes observed time just like the transverse.   It was not given that property by writers on relativity because the Lorentz transformation had axial aether winds cancel each other.  When no found any aether everything was changed to Doppler shifts.  But since the Michelson experiment is attached to the earth there no velocity between parts therefore the light the Sun has only one Doppler shift.  Besides of which, the multiple reflections in the experiment is not usual case to apply relativity equations. As long as Einstein’s second postulate (light having the same velocity in all reference frames) is true there is a transverse shift, but with or without that postulate the axial shift exists.

Since at relativistic velocities Doppler shifts change observed time and distance, no observed point can be fixed in space and time without knowing the observation angle and velocity between the observer and the observed.  Therefore like time the observation angle and that velocity are dimensions of the point. If a coordinate axis is NOT in line with either, they each have 3 components or a total of 10 dimensions are required to fix, in observer’s world, points in world of the observed.  Note: neutrinos and quarks tend to move at relativistic speeds.

Doppler Shift of Mass and Momentum: de Broglie’s and Schrodinger’s equations show momentum proportional to frequency.  Therefore if and only if velocity relative velocity in both reference frames and therefore the same absolute value, mass has that same Doppler shift. None of that is so in relativity.  Note even relativity writers have energy proportional to frequency and if mass energy it likely to be also.

See the attached links above for details and more implications of this like having the observation angle of the axial Doppler shift being a dimension of time, distance, momentum and mass.  They also point out the difference in mass between quantum mechanics and relativity.

Thank you for your time,

Samuel Lewis Reich

[email protected]

6 Attachments

Hi Nancy:

My favorite and most effective refutations of Albert Einstein's Theories of Relativity are from the subject of Emergent Geometry in the collected works of Hyun Seok Yang [1], Quantum Inertia in the collected works of Michael McCulloch [2], and one paper on Fracton inertia by Michael Pretko [3]. Here I define the word refutation in the limited sense, that Quantum Field Theory (QFT) refutes classical Hamiltonian mechanics and Einstein's Theories of Relativity refute classical Electrodynamics and Newton’s classical theory of gravity. And, somewhat self-servingly, my least favorite refutation being my own project [4], which includes the other three refutations. To be complete in my list of refutations it should be stated that QFT refutes single-particle quantum-mechanics. This is relevant because the zero-point-energy of QFT is the gravitational source of Special Relativity [1]. And Fractons show how inertia actually works [3].

[1] Hyun Seok Yang, “Emergent Spacetime and Cosmic Inflation I & II” https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.00712v5 and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273058954_Emergent_Spacetime_and_Cosmic_Inflati_on_I_II

[2] McCulloch, M.E. and J.H. Lucio, 2019. “Testing Newton/GR, MoND and quantised inertia on wide binaries”, Astrophysics and Space Science 364 (8), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334708215_Testing_NewtonGR_MoND_and_quantised_inertia_on_wide_binaries

[3] Michael Pretko, “Emergent gravity of fractons: Mach’s principle revisited”, Phys. Rev. D 96, 024051 (2017), https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.07613v3 and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314080232_Emergent_Gravity_of_Fractons_Mach%27s_Principle_Revisited

[4] my project “Quantum Inertia and the electromagnetic (em) drive”, https://www.researchgate.net/project/Quantum-Inertia-and-the-electromagnetic-em-drive

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Wonderful you have continued this topic.

I can only add from the previous thread and now this continued thread that the idea of the means must validate the end, that relativity needs to explain cosmology accurately to be useful. The inertial process, the process of cause and effect, employed by relativity indeed works for the solar system, our own almost momentary level of scientific existence, as it should, yet it does not work for what the light of the stars offer, as fixes such as dark energy and dark matter are required there, fixes not found here locally, which is understandable, namely that using the idea of inertia should work locally, as it must in an almost immediate regard of space-time appreciation, yet to use the idea of inertia can only find itself asking what the ultimate initial cause was and what the ultimate effect must be, hence the problem with the idea of expanding space based on redshift observations, and thus the problem of the big bang theory, all because the idea of "inertia" as cause and effect creates a time paradox, a universal one, namely what was the great beginning cause and what will be the great end effect.

I present the case that "inertia" as a concept must be superseded through using the concept of time as a type of mathematical lever outside of what is commonly considered as "now" spacetime, a lever of time-before and time-after, a lever of time as an algorithm that must derive, as it does, what it must in replacing the idea of inertia, a general solution to the concept of the beginning and end, an algorithm of time employing the concepts of time-before and time-after around time-now, while of course explaining the redshift of light and associated phenomena of light of the stars without using what cannot be proven locally (dark matter and dark energy). Clearly this new process must explain all phenomena relativity has aimed to explain locally, and then explain the phenomena of light from the stars, which it does.

Is that an effective refutation though in blowing the concept of inertia out of the ballpark? Must the idea of inertia still be considered to effectively refute Einstein? This is not just refuting Einstein, this is also refuting Newton, and if not that, all processes of theory that employ inertia to explain cosmology. Should that discount though this response here in the context of the topic of this discussion?

Although this is not a discussion about the idea of God, it seems prescient that the idea of an absolute cause in the context of inertia theory, a prescient cause that is unknown, entertains the idea of God for that inertia theory. Yet if God, as an absolute cause, could give people the power to choose their fate, from humble beginnings, to choose, if not vote, based on data they have available to them, for people to weigh up data they can prove for themselves, ultimately, sure, two tribes could result, yet the idea of choosing, like voting, in the context of freedom of choice still exists, and should be judged on its merits, not taken away by the notion of the idea of one party against the other, not accusing the concept of bipartisanship per-se, inertia-theory for instance versus something else, yet data pointing to what an ultimate scientific constitution seeks to achieve, namely the most accurate testament of the platform we stand upon, as something devoid of delusion, devoid of magical fixes, devoid of colluding for instance with dark energy or dark matter.

To refute is to engage in disputing with facts, greater facts relevant to our local reality. Einstein achieved ideas of observed data relevant to the gravitational redshift of light, the precession of the perihelion of mercury, and light cleaving to spacetime (bending around massive objects). Yet, that's local. That is to be expected with an inertial take of reality, locally. Einstein did not predict the standard model, did not predict QED, did not predict the hypothesis based on observed galaxy data of the accelerating expansion of the universe and thus "vacuum crisis", and did not expect the inclusion of dark energy or dark matter.

Given Einstein's genius, what would he conclude today? Genius is admitting defeat also, and he admitted that with his cosmological constant, despite it being an accurate account of the vacuum energy of space. Einstein is ok it seems with upgrades. The world will not end if Einstein's relativity is superseded.

George Soli

"My favorite and most effective refutations of Albert Einstein's Theories of Relativity are from the subject of Emergent Geometry".

But what about the twin/clock absurdities, which are far simpler and non-mathematical? Meaning that any sensible, even non-scientific, person can understand them.

I think I know what you're saying.

I think of it this way. You play baseball...you just hit that damn ball to win.....you look at the ball park and say this ball is heading right out of that.

Twin clock. Is that what the coach said?

Jeremy Fiennes

I like "Introducing Einstein's Relativity" by Ray D'Inverno. In section , 3.9 The Twin Paradox, he describes the solution to the twin paradox graphically, by drawing lines of simultaneity for periods of uniform velocity. The vertical axis is (ct) and is traveled by the stay at home twin and the horizontal axis is the distance (x) traveled by the twin in the rocket. The rocket path starts at (x=0) and curves off to the right during acceleration, then moves on a straight line at a constant velocity. The simultaneity lines connecting the twins during outward motion have a positive slope. Than the line curves around and the rocket twin is heading back home on another straight line. On the return line the simultaneity lines connecting the twins have a negative slopes. This leaves a huge gap in the center of the vertical (ct) line traveled by the stay at home twin and caused by the different slope of the simultaneity lines for the outgoing and then returning twin. The gap is Lorentz contraction for the traveling twin. The rocket twin thinks he takes less time than the stay at home twin thinks he takes because of simultaneity line slope during the periods of constant velocity. Twin paradox solved, with no math.

Thomas Anthony Troszak

Hi Thomas,

thanks for yours. A bit of Latin now and then looks good and impresses people. It simply says that premisses that lead to a contradictory and hence absurd result, are themseves contradictory and hence absurd. If one defines a contradictory/-absurd premises as those that lead to a contradictory/absurd result, this becomes a truism.

THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES! DEATH TO RLATIVITY!

Best regards,

Jeremy

A problem with current models of gravity. The gravity unlike electrostatic force pulls on it's own energy and mass. Which means it must decline with distance faster. If not gravity of a back could not escape any more than a photon. For the mathematical derivation of the correction factor open the attached link to the PDF file:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1MPX6rhxd47v-Rq2LNAHo7mm0rIYM2Fkc

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Hi Nancy! Sorry for the late reply, pressures of work ...

"I take it that the "velocity effect" and the "rotational effect" are related to each other, and, possibly, to the "accelerational effect, such that, as you say, " Once we have the velocity effect, the main rotational effect can be blamed on the velocity effects due to different parts of the rotating mass, and the accelerational effect becomes the higher-order version of the velocity effect." If I were to edit this sentence, I would replace "blamed" with "attributed to"; would you, hypothetically of course, accept the change in wording?"

Sure.

If we imagine a body dropped into a black hole that emits an outward pulse of light as it crosses the r=2M horizon surface, then under current theory, that outward-aimed light is frozen into the event horizon and cannot escape ... for any outside observer. If the hole is "stationary", then so it the light.

If we now switch to the viewpoint of another observer for whom the light was generated at the closest part of the hole, and for whom the hole is receding at v m/s, then if the event horizon recedes at v, then the light must also be receding at no less than v (travelling backwards, away from the observer, with the hole).

This means that for the extreme situation of a black hole travelling at v m/s., light at its horizon is also dragged along by the hole, with the hole, at v m/s. So gravitational theory requires that a moving body with a significant gravitational field drags light (velocity-dependent gravitomagnetism), and that the strength of this dragging effect goes all the way up to to 100% for a moving gravitational horizon.

The trouble with this dragging effect is that if we drag light, we change its energy and momentum. So if we assume that flat Minkowski spacetime is correct for weak-gravity bodies, and then we superimpose the strong additional gravitomagnetic shift effects of a moving black hole (which seems to come out as E'/E=(c-v)/c ), the total velocity-shift result, of this multiplied by the SR shift, must be in significant disagreement with SR.

On the other hand, if the gravitomagnetic shift erases and replaces the SR shift, so that it becomes the motion shift for a moving black hole, then we are back to one shift effect rather than two ... but that shift effect must be compatible with velocity-dependent spacetime curvature, which means it (again) can't agree with SR or the Minkowski spacetime relationships.

... and since the principle of relativity requires that a single set of motion-shift relationships must apply to all moving bodies, then once we know the non-SR relationships for a moving black hole, the same non-SR relationships have to apply everywhere.

This gives the 1916 general theory a headache. It has to predict velocity-dependent gravitomagnetism to be internally consistent, and yet it must also predict the complete absence of velocity-dependent gravitomagnetic effects to avoid invalidating its SR component.

Nancy Ann Watanabe : " Certainly, the moon landings, probes to Venus (Russians), and intergalactic space (USA) would not have been possible if Einstein had not extended with greater precision and accuracy the scientific research of Newton and others. "

My understanding is that the differences between the Newtonian and SR equations only normally start to become significant when you get above a percent or two of the speed of light. That means that for almost everything in astronomy (below cosmological scales) or space probe physics, there's no real practical difference to using the Newtonian or SR-based equations. You probably do have to take things like gravitational time dilation and the Shapiro effect into account, but whether you calculate them using the SR or NM equations, again, probably doesn't make a great deal of difference.

Nancy Ann Watanabe , BTW, some folk in the relativity community have an awful habit of exaggerating. So when a GR person says something like "We know that GPS wouldn't work if special and general relativity weren't correct", you should ask to see their math.

For gravitational shifts and gravitational time dilation, the gravitational differential between a satellite orbit and the Earth's surface is probably not going to be more than the Earth's surface escape velocity, ~11.186 km/s . The speed of light is more like three hundred thousand km/s. That's v/c = ~3.7 ×10^(-5) ?

So if you now work out the difference between the predicted gravity-shifts for NM and SR/GR, the proportional difference comes out as about ... ~7×10^(-10)?

With GPS satellites having an altitude of ~20,200 km, that would mean an disagreement in gravitational shift prediction corresponding to a vertical difference of maybe (a couple of centimetres?) in height. Now bear in mind that the Earth's gravitational field is full of anomalies due to different densities of rock, etc, and the GPS system uses a "measured" anomaly map that's recently been upgraded to give nominal land surface heights accurate to about 200 meters (it used to be more like a kilometer or so), and you can see that the difference between the two theories' predictions is dwarfed by the errors inherent in the anomaly map.

Clever techniques can then be used to generate consistent location data to really very high accuracy, but this location data is arbitrary. Almost nobody cares whether it's technically wrong or not, as long as it's consistent (although a few years ago, if you looked up the Great Pyramid on Google Maps in satellite view, it showed a road going right through the middle of the Pyramid, as if it had an underground car park - part of Greater Cairo appeared to be "off" by a half-pyramid). And the Greenwich Meridian marker isn't at "zero longitude" in GPS coordinates, apparently because the Americans decided that the GPS starting reference ought to be on US territory (as it's their system), and then things didn't quite line up.

I've used question marks on calculated values so that other people can double-check my math, in case I've made a stupid typo somewhere (in my first offline draft, I put mm instead of cm!). But the above seems to be about right.

Eric Baird

Eric,

" "We know that GPS wouldn't work if special and general relativity weren't correct", you should ask to see their math."

You don't even need math. The GPS uses the ECI (Earth Centred Inertial) frame as its "preferred" reference, the one that works. But SR specifically states that there is no such thing, that all inertial frames should work. Which they don't. GPS therefore refutes SR.

The same holds for the clock/twin absurdity. You don't need maths to grasp that two clocks can't each run slower than the other, as Eintein's station and truck observer thought exercise predicts.

And the positive MMX result further refutes the 2nd SR postulate, and hence the whole of both SR and GR. Again with no maths.

The whole of Relativity is "based on unlicenced premisses" (as Flan O'Brien would say), and is rubbish, an all-time scam.

Regards,

Jeremy

George Soli

George,

Sorry for the delay. For some reason your post escaped my notice.

"Twin paradox solved, with no math."

You have produced a complex "explanation" of the twin case using graphs, simultaneity, acceleration (which is part of GR, but not SR, and thus not a valid argument here), etc. I provide a simple refutation based on Einstein's station and truck observer thought exercise.

In line with William of O's parsimony principle, let's first decide where (if anywhere) the simple refutation is wrong, before going on to analyze the more complex case.

Regards,

Jeremy

Jeremy Fiennes , George Soli ... I don't think the twin paradox is a useful subject to work on, because even if you succeed in showing an inconsistency, the GR community will simply say, "But we already know that SR coordinates can't be used over astronomical distances when there's an accelerating observer. SR is only a local theory! If you want to combine acceleration and relativity, you have to use full GR!"

So one group will tell you that of course SR is valid for acceleration, and when you prove that it's not, the other group will call you ignorant for not already knowing that the exercise doesn't work. It's misdirection, a way of making SR critics waste their time on problems that the community already has a defence against.

For the record, SR coordinates "crash" at a forward distance of d when the observer accelerates towards d at acceleration a, and d=~1/a where d is measured in lightyears, and a in Earth-gravities. The units are a happy coincidence. So if you accelerate at one gee, the breakdown happens one lightyear ahead, and if you accelerate at ten gees, it happens a tenth of a lightyear away. You aren't supposed to use SR at greater (forward) distances than this.

Eric Baird

" I don't think the twin paradox is a useful subject to work on."

So you think it's fine for mainstream physics to continue perpetrating a lie?

Thomas Anthony Troszak

"He pointed out that refutations of relativity theory based on rational thought will have no effect on relativists, because relativists are incapable of rational thought."

Brilliant! I get your point. But I maybe optimitsically still believe that the truth will one day out. And that when one sees a small clique - in this case mainstream physics - perpetrating a lie for their own financial advantage, if those who can speak out against it (those with no jobs and pensions to lose) don't do so, then who will? Remember neoliberalism's initial "We have to create wealth before we distibute it"? And look at what has actually happened!

Thomas Anthony Troszak

PS "SR critics waste their time on problems that the community already has a defence against."

Minor correction: "SR critics waste their time on problems that the community alleges it has a defence against."

Lol. I get it.

Relativity is a "woods". The whole basis of relativity focuses on time as EM at "c" explaining something such as gravity with words, something (G) that has yet to be linked in relativistic equations with EM. Relativity cannot see the forest for the trees.

Jeremy Fiennes ,

Thank you for your contribution to this thread. I very much appreciate your careful concern for finding the right words to express one's thinking. Regards and Happy New Year, with best wishes for your research and other work for 2020.

Stephen Jarvis ,

Happy new year! With respect to your observation that "Relativity cannot see the forest for the trees," I agree if you are referring to the thought processes that enabled Einstein to demonstrate 2020 vision to discover something new about "the trees"; as he observed when he surveyed his lifetime accomplishments, he found it difficult to focus on "the forest." As a scientist par excellence, he tried to remedy this shortcoming and fought heroically, perhaps in the expectation that, one day, others would utilize his contributions pertaining to "the trees" to carry forward the quest to discover what scientifically observable phenomena point to a resolution of the mystery of how "the trees" might be "transformed," as it were, into "the forest" in the form of a unified theory. Best regards.

With regard to 'working on the 'Twin's Paradox', I offer a file of mine that completely repudiates any time changes associated with this 'paradox'.

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Happy 2020!, an anagram for perfect vision, and if it is, there's much to see this year, and it's up to who can do and see that.

There can only be a forest, not just trees, if we are to explain ourselves in commanding not just trees yet forests.

The forest is the middle ground, the centre, of what we are in to what lies above.

Using theories that explain trees without the forest and what is beyond the forest is just focussing on the trees.

A bigger mechanism in science is required to focus on the bigger mechanism of nature that is relevant to our forests.

That's the debate in politics...how is chopping down just one tree (one company to the next) affecting forests? What is the sustainability equation? Is it an exponential growth pattern signalling a runaway event at the expense of some other exponential growth event that something like "finance" for instance would like to base itself on?

Dear Thomas Anthony Troszak

You can easily solve the twin paradox within SR if you include Lorentz contraction in your analysis as I mentioned in my last comment on this question. Also, the experimental evidence for solutions within SR is huge. So, if you do use an alternative theory, it must give you the same answer that SR does for these old experiments. Sincerely, George Soli

Thomas Anthony Troszak

Dear Thomas,

"Therefore whatever applies to one "twin" must logically apply to the other."

Exactly! This is simply the principle pf Relativity. All the so-called "explanations" based on the so-called "asymmetry" (most of them!) don't respect this principle.

"I refer to such excercises as mathturbation."

Nice one! Can I quote you on it?

Best regards,

Jeremy

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Dear Nancy,

many thanks for your kind words. And a very Happy and Prosperous (not necessarily the same thing!) New Year to you too. You seem to come from a non-scientific background, and am very impressed by your grasp of, and cool clear comments on, a topic which is basically very simple. But which - the official interpretation being replete with inconsistencies - has to be enormously obfuscated to try to scare off people like you. (Complicated mathematical "proofs" of how two clocks can each run slower than the other, etc!).

But on the other hand "[Einstein] as a scientist par excellence". Well ... er ... . That is what I had assumed for most of my life. Till one fateful day ... Did you look at my EinsteinsTerribleTwins? It's on Researchgate, and also as a 'www'. I would be interested in any comments.

Best regards,

Jeremy

Dear Greorge Soli,

I attach part of an essay of mine which I hope will dissuade you of any belief in Lorentz and length contraction! Best wishes, Clive

Dear Thomas Anthony Troszak,

I will most certainly include your full definition in the next update of my CopenhagenTrip article.

May I submit for approval an extension to your 2nd working example:

"Several hours of continuous mathturbation had left his brain badly dehydrated and primed to absorb any rational absurdity."

Nancy Ann Watanabe being a literary lady, I am sure it is right up her linguistic street.

Best regards,

Jeremy

Dear Nancy Ann Watanabe , in physics, a well-definite theory such as general relativity can not have effective refutations, it is just not 100 % exact. For example, Newton had been (before Einstein published his general relativity) the God of law, and when his theory failed with mercury perihelion, people did not say there are effective refutations in Newton theory, just stated it is not 100 % exact for some degree of accuracy

With the continuous researches for a perfect theory of gravity , one day this Einstein's gravity will be just like Newton's gravity as compared to the current Einstein's one

Thomas Anthony Troszak

Very interesting. Mathturbation. That sounds like Facebook. Facebook began as a mathematical rating system by dudes in college about girls in college. It's surprising it's a modern form of "need", right? I'm surprised its developed the way it has. Something tells me people want that to continue from grassy roots? Or is Facebook going down like the Titanic? It's got the garden of Eden written all over it. I didn't go into Facebook when it came out, it was just so "mathturbation".

So, I'm still unsure about "mathturbation"......Big worry is twitter being fast-fracked mathturbation.

I know what you're thinking, we reflect into technology our history.

Dear Thomas Anthony Troszak , I replied to your first comment, but I think I deleted it accidentally, here is a comment to your first reply

in Albert Einstein 's quote: if we replace the phrase " which did not satisfy this condition " with " which did not satisfy this condition with percentage X ", Albert Einstein 's quote becomes:

"the relation between the ordinary and the accented magnitudes is given by the Lorentz transformation(...)If a general law of nature were to be found which did not satisfy this condition with percentage X, then at least one of the two fundamental assumptions of the theory would have been disproved with percentage X”

Einstein (I think) believes in ideality, and refuses approximation, which is true theoretically, but practically this can be applied, because the ideality Einstein is looking for can only be achieved by God

For accuracy , I do not think there is a way to know, it is just we put assumptions, and when they are verified experimentally we say they define the theory, and each time the precision in measure becomes bigger (with technology developpement) new theories arise, and so on

Thomas Anthony Troszak,

That's exactly right. Certain "functions" are required in mathematics to explain numbers, such as addition and subtraction. And even then the concept of what those numbers represent, such as lines in space or length in time, needs to be explained "with words". I totally agree. I think words are primary, they set the stage. To successfully address relativity theory, one must address the words used in relativity theory, and if found lacking, provide more useful words more relevant to today's observed data. One should be able to find a few flaws in relativity theory by examining the context of words used to set the stage for the numbers used and associated operators/functions of those numbers.

My last paper, I spent 19/33 pages introducing the "context" of the paper, "needing to use words, primarily". I felt I had to, because I respect the context of how mathematics must and can only be employed, namely with a definitive context in mind, whether it be time or space. Read Einstein's first 5 pages of special relativity. He mathturb…. More precise words could have been used, and general assumptions of Newton's theory of inertia accounted for, and why. See what I did there in response: Preprint Solving the "Cosmological Constant Problem"

The previous three papers from paper 14 (11-13) used the same approach of explaining as clearly as possible the context of equations with "words" in direct referenced comparison to the words used by not just Newton, yet Einstein, and those subsequent to Einstein to this day.

There's a cavalier attitude with relativity theory to round things off using mathematical scales to infinity. So many more words have been lost in using that simple premise and assumption of thinking one can round something off to infinity without explaining "why" something should be rounded off to infinity (and I explain that in my next paper).

To round something off to infinity without using the necessary depth of words to explain that context and process of rounding off to infinity is in fact requesting an act of faith if words are central to understanding. That does not discount the idea of God, oh no. It merely presents the possibility we could have jumped too far too soon with relativity theory and such rounding off to infinity. Thus here Ahmida is correct with his explanation.

Ahmida Bendjoudi

You said: For accuracy , I do not think there is a way to know, it is just we put assumptions, and when they are verified experimentally we say they define the theory, and each time the precision in measure becomes bigger (with technology developpement) new theories arise, and so on

As per my previous response, you are correct, yet there is a way to know. It is by not "assuming" anything, yet using "better words" to describe what mathematics is actually doing, or should one say, "trying to do" with its equations, to accept that precise words must be used to describe how numbers are being used, with what concept, space or time, and how that matches with observed data, to then begin predicting things we have yet to observe regarding astronomical data, or even links between EM and G.

We should ask ourselves how the idea of reaching infinity as a algorithm became sought after in physics. Euler. At the time, it was the mathematics of financial wealth. Still is, maybe. That's my next paper. Words ideally that define the context of historical and contemporary scientific pursuit and associated summarisations of mathematics that need to be addressed with the bigger picture in mind, the bigger so called infinite equation we should rather take one step at a time with.

Thomas Anthony Troszak and others:

"My argument against SR is not of accuracy but of logic."

Exactly! When SR predicts that two clocks can each run slower than the other, its illogicality refutes SR absolutely. Experimental refutations are interesting, but unecessary. One doesn't need experiment to show that there are no square circles.

The same applies to experimental results. With an agreed on a tolerance they are absolute. The MMX experiment (on Héctor Múnera's analysis) gave at a 95% confidence level an aether speed of 6.22+/-1.86 km/s. At this level there is absolutely an aether. Making Einstein's 2nd postulate not just "inaccurate", but absolutely wrong.

All this "Relativity is not necessarily wrong, but maybe just somewhat inaccurate" BS is just that: pure BS.

Thomas Anthony Troszak

Have we analysed all the words of science's theories, or have we been baited, and is that the problem, have we been baited with words?

For instance..."standing on the shoulders of giants"....that's bait. Can anyone tell me why that's bait? Maybe I should put that another way.....how did Einstein assume gravity as inertia, which Newton described as an "immediate" field force, without saying Newton was wrong with his notion of gravity "as" inertia being "immediate"? That's a big oversight if nothing was said. Did Einstein acknowledge Newton held gravity as "inertia" as "immediate" as a field force?

"Zeno's message: Integers do not exist in nature."

I see it as being much simpler. Zeno's argument is:

"While Achilles covers the distance to where the tortoise was, the tortoise goes another ...."

In other words, he only considers instants before Achilles catches up with the tortoise. Effectively:

"Considering only instants before Achilles catches up with the tortoise, he never catches up with it."

The rest is mathturbation.

Jeremy Fiennes

That's Euler though. Euler summarised Zeno with his logarithm. Yet, yet, Euler created not a paradox yet on that new log scale the "tendency" to fly to infinity. And science has been flying that plane ever since...Einstein, everyone.....assuming 0 to infinity is a mathematical slipstream. It is, if one wants to blow everything up (and think about that).

Yes Stephen Jarvis , having a well-definite words context by using "better words" to describe what mathematics is actually doing is a very organized way to keep things under control. Exploring this in a next paper is an important task.

Absolutely Thomas Anthony Troszak , always our models, variables, methods etc. are just few steps in infinite number of others

Dear Nancy,

The project "Presentation of the scientific evidence for the nullity of the special theory of relativity" presents a full set of evidence that proves the invalidity of the special theory of relativity. You can download the preprints:

Actually, the uploaded preprints :

1. One-way measurement of the speed of light - the factual analysis

2. Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment - the factual analysis

3. Sagnac experiment – the factual analysis

4. Michelson-Morley experiment - the factual analysis

not only prove that the speed of light is not the same for all frames of reference, but in the first section is presented a solution of all the "unexpected" and "inexplicable" results of experiments related to the behavior and measurement of the speed of light and carried out within our local time-spatial region, … and without of paradoxes!!!

5. In "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies - the factual analysis of the article" is shown exactly where and how the erroneous claim “the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference” is applied and actually rejects with arguments special theory of relativity.

6. The preprint "On the fundamental tests of the Special theory of relativity" reveals the essence of all the fundamental tests of SR and completes the full range of evidence about the nullity of the special theory of relativity, though there will be interesting additions. You can share the preprints with your colleagues who are relevant to physics...

Best Regards,

Gocho

Nancy Ann Watanabe Thomas Anthony Troszak and all

Yet another 'aether' mystery. I just discovered that in a series of lectures given in 1899, Michelson himself said of his 1887 experiment that "It was found there was no displacement in the interference fringes, so the result was negative."!! In his 1887 report, however, he gave a whole table of fringe shift readings taken over 4 days. So what the *** was going on?

1) when someone makes a statement, and later retracts, it is normally because he is under pressure. Meaning that his first version is likely to be the true one. But what was this pressure; where did it come from; and why?

2) if Michelson later said he measured no fringe shifts, that would imply that he made the first ones up. Highly unlikely, since his general tendency was to minimize his positive result. His 1887 report, for instance, said that he measured "probably less than one sixth, and certainly less than one fourth" of the Earth's orbital velocity of 30 km/s.

3) This in turn because the objective of his 1887 experiment was not (as is normally stated) to try to detect the aether, which was generally accepted by physicists of his time. But – as he also specifically says in his 1887 report – to distinguish between the Fresnel and Stokes theories of aether entrainment. According to the first, there should be an aether wind of 30 km/s measurable at the Earth's surface. And according to the second, zero. Since his result of 6.22+/-1.86 km/s was far less than the 30 km/s Fresnel predicted, he took this hypothesis to be refuted.

4) Einstein can't be blamed because all this was 6 years before his 1905 theory. Which anyway only became generally known after the 1919 eclipse show had catapulted him to fame.

Any ideas?

Regards to all,

Jeremy

Thomas Anthony Troszak

Hi Thomas,

on this we disagree. Michelson was an extremely careful and conscientious experimenter. He got the Nobel prize for his instrumentation, not for his experiment. Its results were later replicated by Dayton Miller with a larger and more accurate interferometer, but using exactly the same principle. Cahill has shown that both their results are fully compatible with one-way and spacecraft Doppler shift values (I've maybe already asked you whether you are familiar with Cahill's work). The solar system moves through the aether at ~400 km/s in an approximately southerly direction. And relative to the CMB (the best 'absolute' reference we have) at ~350 km/s towards the constellation Leo. The difference is the aether speed relative to the CMB. There doesn't seem to be any kind of entrainment.

Regards,

Jeremy

Dear Thomas Anthony Troszak

I think you're right, he (Einstein) didn't say anything (about Newton's premise of Gravity as inertia being an immediate force), and that's my point, namely that relativity theory assumed one or two things which then lead to a series of complications and unresolvable paradoxes, two key one's being quantum-entanglement and the cosmological constant problem. Although the basic notions regarding time and gravity in special relativity are correct, as relativity theory developed to explain cosmology (primarily the redshift effect) it (relativity theory) seemed to be carrying quite a heavy weight (inertia), necessitating QED and the standard model, which still although both using inertial theory, required the necessary "perturbations" to seek new theoretical considerations to accommodate for observed phenomena (primarily QE and the negative energy feature of gravity). I explained that in paper 14 (Solving the Cosmological Constant problem).

@

Dear Jeremy,

If you read “1. General Introduction” of the preprint “Michelson-Morley experiment - the factual analysis” you will see that

The misunderstanding of the dominant part of the physical society consists in the fact that the contraction of space moves along with the celestial bodies, but the space remains stationary!

Space itself is actually the medium of propagation of the electromagnetic radiation (the aether). The space is stationary, but the contraction of the space (changed density of the medium of propagation of the electromagnetic radiation), is moving along with the celestial bodies. All celestial bodies (as well as the Earth) are traveling through the space-time of the Universe along with the distortion (contraction) of the contiguous, warped by the bodies themselves (and belonging to them) time-spatial domains, which we can name “near the surface of the celestial bodies”.

The intensity of the gravitational field “near the surface of the celestial body”, remains practically the same, during the travel of the celestial body through the space, because the intensity of the gravitational field is determined (dominated) by the mass of the celestial body. The speed of light in vacuum (in the stationary empty space), in any particular time-spatial domain, corresponds to the intensity of the gravitational field in this time-spatial domain.

Therefore, during the travel of the celestial body through the space, the constant intensity of the gravitational field “near the surface of the celestial body” determines the constant “speed of light in vacuum” there.

However, in the local regions with a uniform intensity of the gravitational field (as in the region “near the Earth’ surface”), the experiments register different velocity of light in relation to the moving frames of reference in the stationary space. This reality is confirmed that the results of the experiments in our local time-spatial domain are in accordance with classical mechanics and the Galilean relativity (see the factual analyses of the following experiments):

• the experiments “One-way measurement of the speed of light”, (Marmet, P. 2000), (Kelly, A., 2005);

• the “Sagnac experiment” (Sagnac, 1913);

• the experiment “Michelson-Gale-Pearson” (Michelson & Gale, 1925).

The exception is only the Michelson-Morley experiment… The analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment shows that the inappropriate conceptual design, used in the construction of the Michelson interferometer (the advanced version of which is used in the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, held in 1887), is actually the primary root cause for the great delusion that “the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference”, which is the core of the special theory of relativity. The difference in the velocity of light (in the frame of reference related to the moving Earth’s surface in the stationary space,) between the two light beams, traveling in two opposite directions on the same arm, is completely compensated if the “two-way light beam interferometer” is used. So, in the “one-way measurement of light speed experiments” and the “Michelson-Gail-Pearson experiment”, the change of the speed of light as a result of the Earth’s rotation in the reference system related to the surface of the Earth can be registered, but in case of using the inappropriate conceptual design of the Michelson’s interferometer (“interferometer using two-way propagation of light beams”) – this is impossible!

An example of this continuing and nowadays delusion, is also a publication in “Physical Review Letters” and reported in “Physics World” (the membership magazine of the Institute of Physics, one of the largest physical societies in the world) – “Michelson – Morley experiment is best yet” from 14.09.2009: https://physicsworld.com/a/michelson-morley-experiment-is-best-yet/ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reality is: “Actually, if even the “ether wind” exists (caused by the Earth’s movement through the stationary space/ the stationary luminiferous ether) – the difference in the speed of light between the two light beams, traveling in two opposite directions on the same arm, is completely compensated. This is true for any arm in any direction! In other words, if the projection of the velocity of the “ether wind” on the direction of one of the light beams is (+V), then the projection of the velocity of the “ether wind” on the direction of the reflected light beam (traveling in opposite), will be exactly (-V).”

Dear Jeremy, you are right that Michelson got the Nobel prize for his instrumentation. However, his instrument (the Michelson’s interferometer - “interferometer using two-way propagation of light beams”) has inappropriate conceptual design for the purpose of the experiment, embedded in the construction of the interferometer. The difference in the speed of light between the two light beams, traveling in two opposite directions on the same arm, is completely compensated if the “two-way light beam interferometer” is used.

That is why, we can summarize that the “Michelson-Morley experiment” is actually the primary root cause for the great delusion that “the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference”, which is the core of the special theory of relativity (please, read “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies - the factual analysis of the article”).

Best Regards,

Gocho

Dear Gocho Sharlanov

That's a very good answer, with one or so conditions (still, that's a very impressive description :)):

Take two vastly different sized masses. They are not moving relative to each other, so the distance remains the same. Yet, one of the paradoxes of relativity theory is that time central to the larger mass is longer compared to the smaller mass, yet if the distance remains the same between the two objects, then in one case "c" is enhanced with the smaller mass (less time duration denominator) and minimised with the greater mass (greater time duration denominator). Time has passed faster in the weaker gravitational field, slower in the stronger, and if the distance between those two objects is held, a third object viewing those two references will not perceive "light" at "c" depending on what it is exactly viewing, the larger mass compared to the smaller. It's all about the reference of view.

Nonetheless, if light is fixed at “c”, as calculations prove for the propagation of light in space, this would have implications on how light travels through space, namely if there is only one object (mass), the tendency for light from "one" object would be for light to diminish it’s value in regard to seconds as it travels from that mass into the void (a zero mass), and thus enhance its wavelength given that light must nonetheless be “c”, as calculations suggest…..and thus a natural redshift effect of light travelling in space which is explained in the following paper: Preprint Space, and the Redshift Effect

I agree, inertia is the bane of exercising relativity theory properly, as here the idea of inertia is not considered. The question is how inertia as concept can be removed from the axiomatic definition of space and time theory congress (not entirely of course in the overall process, just where it needs to be). Space and time would require axioms, and not "new" axioms, yet "first" axiomatic definition, given current space and time axiomatic definition is based on "spacetime" aka inertia.

Any physicist who measures with an interferometer must easily determine by measurement that the refractive index law also applies to interferometer measurements. The inaccuracy in the MMX measurement lies precisely in ignoring the refractive index law for light propagation in the interferometer arms. The MMX measurement took place in air and not in vacuum as indicated in the MMX calculation. There is a problem measuring MMX.

Dear Jozef Babiak

That's a good point. Given air is central to a great mass, there is therefore a discrepancy already regarding gravity and what could otherwise be light in pure space. Yet is not the MMX dependent on terrestrial calculations? The question is what the MMX measurements seek to standardise or even explain. Climate change? Could it predict that with real models? Measurements conducted in air compared to a vacuum still are influenced by gravity if on Earth....it all depends what its for, where its from as an experimental reference, and in view of what.....what context of space, light, gravity, and thus time. What is MMX in your opinion trying to achieve?

You build a Michelson interferometer and you will get the answers to all the questions.

QED though. Nothing to do with relativity theory it seems, unless the pure reference contexts are defined and upheld according to mass, gravity, and light, which QED is unable to do, nor is relativity theory able to acquiesce with QED,.... or do relativity theory and QED have a more common fundamental problem that has been taken advantage of, a problem using and taking advantage of those who know no better, that has made physics today as "the Disney Channel"? There's nothing wrong with the Disney Channel, it's wonderful, yet are scientists using the Disney Chanel to be heard, primarily, to inspire debate? To have people believe General relativity was necessary, to explain a redshift effect according to inertia theory, in the stars? It's well-placed then.

QED is not necessary for interferometer measurement. There the laws of optics apply, you will understand this when measuring with an interferometer

Agreed. I agree with your initial statement. I'm interested in why the Michelin Morley Experiment is relativity or not though, and thus how precise is that experiment to the formalised proposals of relativity theory.

Given the parameters of the "experiment", the MMX, it "is" hard to consider it as an "axiom" though for time and space. Definitions have changed that require that experiment to be conducted in that new relativity appropriate environment. It's like Euler's equation, not using material substrates though, yet an experiment and associated theory that is being constantly half-lived because it wasn't completely precise to start with while failing to accept an actual solution care of all the observational data in time from the MMX that becomes apparent, new results that should beckon a new theory to become apparent.

I would suggest the MMX be conducted between the Moon and the Earth......or in deep space.....to be certain...about something, the relevance of gravity, light, and associated measurements of elementary particles. Do we have the technology to do that?

Dear all,

I’m sure you will agree with the following:

The characteristic of the electromagnetic radiation and the property of atoms correspond to the intensity of the gravitational field. It means that during their propagation, the characteristics of the electromagnetic radiation change their characteristics (frequency, wavelength, speed in vacuum) - they correspond to the intensity of the gravitational field.

You are right that time passes faster in the weaker gravitational field, and slower in the stronger. It means that the frequency of any electromagnetic radiation changes – the “second” (the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom) changes. It means that the base unit of time “second” becomes shorter in regions with a weaker gravity (frequency increases), and becomes longer in regions with a stronger gravity (frequency decreases). However, the wavelength increases too in regions with a weaker gravity (it means “meter” increases, because it is “the length equal to 1 650 763,73 wavelengths in vacuum of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the levels 2p10 and 5d5 of the krypton 86 atom)… and decreases in regions with a stronger gravity. It means that the speed of light in vacuum (c=λν) increases in regions with a weaker gravity and respectively decreases in regions with a stronger gravity. This was proven by the American astrophysicist Irwin I. Shapiro in 1964 (“Shapiro time delay effect”) and later by the “Mariner-6” and “Mariner-7” space probes, when they orbited the planet Mars.

When, however, the light comes to the region of the observer, the characteristics of the electromagnetic radiation and the property of atoms again correspond to the intensity of the gravitational field of the location of the Observer. This determines exactly the corresponding permanent (expected) constant differences between the pairs of quantum energy states of the atom in the location of the Observer. This determines exactly the corresponding permanent specific atomic spectral lines for a particular atom (for example hydrogen spectral series) that correspond again to the gravity in the location of the Observer. That is why the spectral series are important in astronomical spectroscopy for detecting the presence of hydrogen…

Dear Stephen Jarvis, I am sure you will agree with the above mentioned.

Best regards,

Gocho

Dear Gocho Sharlanov , Stephen Jarvis , Jozef Babiak

I am amazed that in all this no-one ever refers to Reginald Cahill, who for me has resolved once and for all the MMX and related questions. I put together the various related bits from my Aether article as an attachment, since it contains diagrams, equations, etc. It is shortish, and has the refs to his publications. See what you think, For me it was the eye-opener that tied everything in together.

Best regards,

Jeremy

Dear all,

i put up an small essay to explain the "ether" and adress the fundamental problem to mathematics:

to define the number 1:

action / reaction := 1

means

π / π :=1

a=a falsified qed.

Here it can be found : https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3367

Dear Nancy Ann Watanabe

following my research, it is not possible to refute Einsteins theories.

take it as a simple way:

Quantum Theory contain π

General Relativity contain π

to unite them, we need to do a surgery like

π / π :=1

Then they are "one"

Mathematics then is back to be

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhind_Mathematical_Papyrus

3500 years of history crashed.

Thomas Anthony Troszak

"The ground velocity of a honk wave traveling East “into the wind” is now lower on its way East, but the ground velocity of the returning echo traveling back “with the wind” is now higher by exactly the same amount."

To be sure to be sure. But the times are not. The time lost on the upwind path is not compensated by that gained on the downwind path. Work it out. It's in the Cahill article I just posted. In a vacuum the FitzGerald-Lorentz length contraction exactly balances the time difference, but in air it does not. Hence Michelson's small residual of ~6 km/s and Miller's of ~8 km/s. The true aether speed is ~400 km/s.

"The ground speed of honk waves traveling North and South do not change at all."

They do. When swimming across a fast-flowing river you have to head somewhat upstream and take longer. Also in the Cahill article.

Doppler is irrelevant here. We are interested only in the initial and final conditions.

Regards.

Thomas Anthony Troszak

Great! It's well worth the cerebral investment, and I'm sure you won't regret it. The next question is: since the data has been around since Fitzgerald-Lorentz in 1895, how come it took more than a century for anyone to hit on it? It's not like M&M was ever really out of the news.

Best of British!

@ Dear Jeremy,

There is no wind and the "aether" is actually the warped space by the gravitation!

Please, read the preprint "One-way measurement of the speed of light - the factual analysis" and if you not pressed by time - and the other 5 preprints uploaded at the project "Presentation of the scientific evidence for the nullity of the special theory of relativity".

Sincerely,

Gocho

Gocho Sharlanov

Dear Gocho,

thanks for yours. I agree completely that SR is rubbish, but not for your reasons. You say:

"There is no wind and the "aether" is actually the warped space by the gravitation!".

But M&M did measure an aether wind of 6.22 km/s .

And then you say:

"The problem has two reasons. The first is that the speed of light in vacuum depends on the intensity of the gravitational field."

True, the speed of light does depend on gravity, though the gravitational potential, not the field as you say. But this does not affect the M&M result as it affects both arms equally.

Best regards,

Jeremy.

Dear Nancy,

I just scanned (maybe too quickly) the complete string of messages in this thread, and found no mention of the relation between SR and electromagnetism.

I also observed that on RG few people seem to pay attention to the electromagnetic nature of the massive and charged elementary particles of which all atoms making up all macroscopic masses in the universe are made.

On my part, I observed that it is easy to see why both of Einstein's theories are inconsistent with physical reality when analyzed from the electromagnetic perspective initially established by Maxwell 150 years ago, but that was immediately left aside because theoreticians of that era preferred the Ludwig Lorenz perspective.

If interested, the outcome of reconsidering the whole issue from the initial Maxwell perspective is analyzed in this synthesis recently published:

Ref: Michaud, A. (2020) Electromagnetism according to Maxwell's Initial Interpretation. Journal of Modern Physics, 11, 16-80. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2020.111003.

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/jmp_2020010915471797.pdf

Best Regards, André

Dear Jeremy,

How M&M did measure an aether wind of 6.22 km/s ??? Please send me the article...

Best regards,

Gocho

Dear all,

We are all aware that the MMX dispelled the idea of aether, and so it would be obvious for those who refute relativity theory to go back to aether theory by citing problems with relativity theory and how the MMX was conducted.

What is "aether" though? Has anyone explained that? I understand science takes the liberal approach to making up the ideas of dark matter and dark energy to fix the observed data of the stars, yet is that a licence to bring back aether-theory?

I re-iterate, "what is aether"? What is the explanation of aether as a stand-alone construct in time and space? How does aether relate to time and space? Bear in mind relativity theory used the idea of "spacetime", so aether cannot stand on those shoulders of "spacetime" syntax, or can it? Should aether try a different approach than the idea of "spacetime"? How does "aether" for instance "separate" what appears to be the defunct "spacetime" idea back to "space" and "time"? Or maybe something else?

No measurement in the optics was measured "ether", this is just the thought of Einstein. Every measurement proves this reality. Finally, Einstein himself claimed at one time that ether did not exist

So, Einstein used MMX to discredit something he didn't properly understand, like aether? And thus because he didn't properly understand it, it could still be valid?

Did Einstein understand gravity as inertia? Yet he assumed it was true.

Stephen Jarvis

"We are all aware that the MMX dispelled the idea of aether."

We are most certainly NOT all aware. You speak for yourself. Only unquestioning spewers-out of mainstream BS think they are. M&M reported an aether wind of "probably less than one sixth, and certainly less than one fourth of the Earth's orbital speed [of 30 km/s]", i.e. ~5 km/s. Héctor Múnera re-analyzed their results using modern statistical methods, and got at a 95% confidence level 6.22+/-1.86 km/s. Being abt 18'000 km/h, this is VERY DEFINITELY NOT null. Check out your facts before you spew!

"What is aether"

Everything is a question of definition. Light in classical terms being a wave, and a wave being a disturbance propagating through a medium, define the aether as "That which light is conceived as a disturbance propagating through". That will serve for most purposes.

Dear Jeremy Fiennes

Forgive me for being abrupt, yet, "What is aether? How does it stand alone?"

Could one suggest that everything else that exists in reference to one other by default makes aether that other unexplainable thing existable? Why not just say that if there is a God there must be a devil?

So, you're saying "aether" is going to be a big issue from a type of fuzzy-defined first principle basis?

Dear Gocho Sharlanov

"How M&M did measure an aether wind of 6.22 km/s ??? Please send me the article."

I got it from the Cahill article attached (bottom of p.5). He gives the ref to Múnera's paper.

Best regards,

Jeremy

Stephen Jarvis

since you don't seem to be prepared to accept my arguments, let me give you some quotes:

Maxwell:

"Whenever energy is transmitted from one body to another, there must be a medium, or substance, in which the energy exists after it leaves one body and before it reaches the other".

Michelson:

"The undulatory theory of light assumes the existence of a medium, the aether, whose vibrations produce heat and light, and which is supposed to fill all space."

Lorentz:

"I cannot but regard the aether as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from ordinary matter."

Einstein:

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativ­ity space is endowed with physical qualities. In this sense there exists an aether. Space without an aether is unthinkable. Not only would there be no propagation of light, but also no standards of space and time."

Dirac:

"It is natural to regard light as the velocity of some real physical thing. So we are forced to have an aether".

Bell:

"The aether was wrongly rejected on the purely philosophical grounds that what is unobservable does not exist."

Even Newton in his 1704 Opticks:

"Is not the heat of a warm room convey'd through a vacuum by the vibrat­ions of a much subtiler medium than air, which remained after the air was drawn out? And is not this medium the same as that by which light is refrac­ted and reflected?"

Though he later changed his mind, not understanding how waves could apparently travel in straight lines without diverging (it is due to their high frequency).

Dear Jeremy Fiennes

Because none of them had a clue, right?