Dear Thierry ~

I'm late to this discussionand haven't read all the responses. I address myself to your original question. I agree with you that the 1905 paper is not particularly clearly expressed; it was a first attempt at expressing his ideas and has been extensively refined and clarified in the later work of Einstein and others. I also agree with you that 'time dilation' and 'length contraction' are merely optical effects that arise when distant moving 'rods' and 'clocks' are observed by means of light signals. The 'proper' length of a rod and the 'proper' time interval measured by a clock are the quantities observed by an observer comoving with the rod or clock. The measurements of such observers are not dependent on the properties of 'light signals' they are intrinsic properties of the rod or clock.

The underlying assumptions of Einstein's Relativity are very simple:

(1) The laws of physics are the same for every inertial (ie, unaccelerated) observer. That Relativity Principle is due to Galileo, not Einstein.

(2) The speed of light is a universal constant and is the same constant for every inertial observer.

No further assumptions are required.

It follows from these assumptions ('hypotheses' or 'propositions'...) that all laws of physics are invariant under Lorentz transformations.

The Lorentz transformations involve time parameters t and t' employed by two different inertial observers, that are not the same. Einstein's 1905 discussion of 'clock synchronization' and 'simultaneity' illustrated how an inertial observer can establish his time parameter unambiguously. Einstein formulates the discussion in terms of 'light signals' but if that section is read carefully and critically it can be seen that that is inessential; other means of transferring messages between the clocks of an inertial observer's reference frame would lead to the same result.

Since Maxwell's laws of electrodynamics are indubitably 'laws of physics' (and, indeed, they are Lorentz invariant if hypothesis (2) is valid) there is not, as you claim, any disjunction between the 'kinematic part' and the 'electrodynamic part' of the 1905 paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305260245_Notes_on_the_Meaning_of_Einstein's_Special_Theory_of_Relativity

Hi Thierry, that is a well-put question, highlighting two features of relativity that should bare closer inspection. The way I examined this is as follows:

Preprint The Physics Chimera

Preprint The Conception of Time

In the Physics Chimera, I deal with your first query regarding the "kinetic" anomaly of mass-inertia, and in "The Conception of Time", the paper after, I address the second query of relativity in your question regarding light being related to the concept of observation and how that can be possible, if it can. These two papers are preceded by 8 papers carrying the same argument from a different theoretical angle: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stephen_Jarvis7/publications

Thank you Stephen. It is indeed a chimera that Einstein's relativity would imply any increase of inertial mass, as Planck wrongly assumed.

I also agree that time is no "hard" dimension at all, and is interpretable, hence, not truly defined.

My point here is about the fallacy that Maxwell's original equations should allegedly be "corrected" by the Lorentz invariance. That is of course nonsense, as I show in the details of my question above.

Best regards,

Thierry

Stephen Jarvis,

Einstein is incorrect in the Electrodynamical Part of his 1905 SRT paper. Why?

Please take into account that the theory may be based on mathematical or physical principles.

As for mathematical theory based on mathematical principles, everything is fine.

Similarly, when it comes to physical theory based on physical principles, everything is all right.

Problems arise when it comes to physical theory based on mathematical principles - as is the case of Einstein's theory of relativity, Lorentz transformations,...

Einstein and mathematicians brought chaos into physics. They has many non-physical bad concepts:

The definition of "local time" using the "Lorentz transformation formulas" (space-time).

The definition of "covariant equation" using "local time", and

"Lorentz transformation equations" (space-time).

The definition of "physical definition of simultaneity" using "covariant equations," "local time" and "Lorentz transformation equations" (space-time).

The definition of "invariant interval" using "physical definition of simultaneity", "covariant equations," "local time" and "Lorentz transformation formulas" (space-time).

In mathematics, the Poincaré conjecture is a theorem about the characterization of the 3-sphere, which is the hypersphere that bounds the unit ball in four-dimensional space.

In 1994, Grigori Yakovlevich Perelman proved the soul conjecture. In 2003, he proved (confirmed in 2006) Thurston's geometrization conjecture. Mathematic with space - time kill physics.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a mathematical theory. Why is it wrong from the point of view of physics ?

Einstein's Procedure for Synchronizing Clocks

John D. Norton

Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh PA 15260. Homepage: www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton

This page (with animated figures) is available at www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/goodies

John D. Norton's Homepage--redirect

Reactionaries and Einstein's Fame: “German Scientists for the Preservation of Pure Science,” Relativity, and the Bad Nauheim Meeting

Jeroen van Dongen

Einstein Papers Project California Institute of Technology Pasadena CA 91125, USA

Institute for History and Foundations of Science Utrecht University P.O. Box 80.000 3508 TA Utrecht, the Netherlands

Dear Thierry De Mees,

Einstein's theory of relativity can not explain ...

1. Movement principles of the fast-spinning pulsars,

2. Nuclear Fusion ,

3. Wave - Particle Duality as Kinetic Energy Against and In Direction of Motion

4. the 4th Maxwell's equation,

5. Lorentz equals without the help of Space-Time,

6.Confinement of quarks

7. Great Table of Elementary Particles

8. Spectral line Hα

9. Neutrino Oscillations

10. Form of the interference field must be non-linear.

11.Form of Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field must be asymmetrical.

12.Kinetic energy of a charge moving at the velocity of v has two different values:

Kinetic energy against direction of motion as wave

Tkin ad = mc^2[ln |1+v/c|- (v/c)/(1+v/c)]

Kinetic energy in direction of motion as particle

Tkin id = mc^2[ln|1-v/c|+ (v/c)/(1-v/c)]

13. Yukawa potential

Best regards,

Lubomir Vlcek

Dear Lubomir,

It is normal that a theory cannot explain everything, but only a part, in its domain.

That being said, it is true that special relativity is completely wrong in the domain of electromagnetism and generally in kinematics.

Within a very small local domain, SRT is only right for light as a way to observe moving frames.

In kinematics, it imitates the Newtonian kinetic energy for fast speeds, but this isn't substantiated, since one must admit the Lorentz transformations as a start.

The Lorentz transformations however are themselves questionable at large distances: indeed, it is disputable that c = constant at all times, and that the same signal would be running at that speed c on Earth, on the planet Serpo, and on any place between-in, as seen from either planet, when one assumes that there is a method to communicate much faster than light in order to check that, like it would be the case with the true speed of waves in the oceans, when checked by light.

Since we have no stable communication tool that is (much) faster than light, we cannot check the truth.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Thierry De Mees , We must remember light is just one part of the EM spectrum, so the precise error can't be where you suggest.

A more successful resolution is that light changes speed at the BOUNDARIES between inertial systems (k - k' etc) to always propagate at c locally. The mechanism is simple; the 2-fluid electron plasma Transition Zone between what are in fact Maxwells Near & Far fields. Electrons BOTH sides re0emitting the absorbed radiation at their own local c, so modulating speed. Thus the Doppler shift. We can only validly 'measure' what is local to us, and in OUR rest frame.

This gives the 'Discrete Field' model (DFM), where an EM fluctuation (light) propagates at c wherever it is at any time, so we then have "infinitely many spaces in motion within spaces... not (previously) thought of as bounded". Those words are from Minkowski 1916 completed by Einstein 1952. He was just a few years to early to identify the mechanism.

Simple intro & evidence here; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

The far more detail here; https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Jackson22/research

Dear Peter Jackson ,

What I refer to has nothing to do with the speed of light, which by the way is not "just part of the EM spectrum", it is a very special case, where the electric and magnetic field are interlaced by a specific harmonic law.

What Einstein did in his "Electrodynamical part" is taking a Maxwell equation with an electric field component and a magnetic field component.

Then, he says: "If we apply to these equations the transformation developed in § 3, by referring the electromagnetic processes to the system of co-ordinates there introduced, moving with the velocity v, we obtain the equations...."

What he is doing: he is applying equations unop fields, which he had calculated before in the "Kinematical part".

What are these equations of the "Kinematical part"? These calculations are the result of an observation of inertial frames by other, moving frames or vice-versa.

'Observations' are the same as 'observations by the use of light'.

Hence, light was used to observe the frames, and a deformation of this light has been calculated, when assuming that "c" is constant everywhere (which is also disputable by the way).

Since light has been used and the result of the calculus is the deformation of light, how would Einstein possibly apply that physically upon an electric field and upon a magnetic field?

It would mean that the electric field and the magnetic field would be observables by light?

Is that the case? Can an electric field and an magnetic field be observed by light?

NO!

That is my point! What Einstein did is physically impossible. Electric and magnetic fields act on their own (force fields) and do not need the implementation of an additional observation by light!

Hence, the application of the "Kinematical part" is utter nonsense!

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Thierry De Mees , Interesting concept that the range of EM radiation the HUMAN animals lens (uniquely, as ALL animals differ) can detect just happens to be special and uniquely interlace with gravity.

For me I must say the quite common effect of 'homocentrism' seems dangerously valid in that argument. Are WE really THAT unique? Why so?

Why is the light just outside OUR visible range not as special?

I certainly agree Relativity is flawed or incomplete, as did Einstein, but having tracked down and identified what looks like a more consistent and powerful derivation of gravity and it's relation with EM (NOT with homecentrically dependent harmonics) I may be prejudiced (I try really hard not to be!) but I've been unable to find agreement with a theory that DOES use that method.

My suspicion is that gravity should be the same for ALL creatures in this universe, whatever arbitrary wavelength range they can detect. Do you have a good argument why that should be false?

Dear Peter...

Our sensory apparatus has been honed over the better part of a billion years for the purpose of survivability by using light, a rather narrow band of EM energy - so much so that over half of our neurological complement is dedicated to this function. Our specie has evolved to tune into a specific set of frequencies and amplitudes deemed most advantageous to our survival.

My suspicion is that gravity should be the same for ALL creatures in this universe, whatever arbitrary wavelength range they can detect.

I’m unclear, Peter, what you mean about gravity being the same for all creatures in this universe. Evolution on Earth has a narrowly defined biosphere within which life has evolved. Humans themselves - a more narrowly defined subset of the conditions that include the relatively weak gravitational field of the Earth.

Typically, we go out and look for life mimicking lifeforms we find on Earth. We don’t know about all creatures in the universe (in the event they do exist) or if there might be life existing under gravitational conditions quite different from those on Earth.

Dear Peter,

It depends what you understand by "gravity should be the same for ALL creatures in this universe".

If you use the correct and full gravity laws (not GRT and that sort), it is true, almost by the definition of what a physical description of a natural process is.

One of the interesting issues is that an empirical law seems to emanate from the Sun's rotation speed: there is a link between Newtonian gravity and the solar dimensions and rotation speed, which determines the constant G. It suggests that for another similar star than the Sun, which has other dimensions and is rotating at another speed, the value of G is different.

In the paper below, the full explanation is given for the Sun.

Article Is the Differential Rotation of the Sun Caused by a Coriolis...

Also the description of gravity by a set of equations, analogeous to electromagentism describes a large quantity of cosmic events solely with this gravity theory, and resolves several issues, such as the motion of the asteroid belt, the shape of SN1987A, the flatness of the solar system and galaxies, the missing windings in spiral galaxies, the perihelion advance of Mercury and its orbit eccentricity and inclination, and it predicts and describes detailedly numerous processes, such as jets by black holes, accretion discs formation, binary starts formation, and so on.

It can be found here:

Book Gravito-Magnetism - Including an introduction to the Coriolis Theory

Best regards,

Thierry

Charles Wohl , "I’m unclear, Peter, what you mean about gravity being the same for all creatures in this universe."

It means exactly what it says. (I'm sure nobody interpreted it as suggesting all planets have 1G!). I simply suggest the 'law' of gravity is universal, as we've found on all travels to date.

What I think you may have missed is that Thierry's analysis suggests the particular range which the (average!) humans eye can detect is the ONLY range which is directly connected to gravity!

In fact Thierry's last post on Coriolis is precisely the 'wider' relationship, but with ALL EM wavelengths, which I identified in my post above.

Lets do a quick thought experiment. Imagine a rotating sphere in front of you. A globe of Earth will do. Lets find the surface momenta;

Now with eyes shut touch any point on the equator and answer this;

Q1; How much can you feel it rotating CLOCKWISE? or ANTI-CLOCKWISE?

Now with eyes still shut touch either pole and answer this;

Q2; How much can you feel it moving UP?, or DOWN? (or LEFT or RIGHT?).

Now the answer to both those questions should be; ZERO.

But does that mean zero momentum can be transferred at any tangent point on the sphere? Of course not. There are two PAIRS of quite DIFFERENT momenta that change inversely over 90 degrees and both REVERSE over 180.

Can you tell me precisely where that momenta set currently appears in OAM or physics in general?.

Well, Peter, I take no issue with your response that, "the 'law' of gravity is universal, as we've found on all travels to date." Though when you earlier used the word 'universal', your statement to me took on an entirely different connotation. I guess we could say that there's a 'universal' with respect to that which we have directly observed and a 'universal' relating to the extent of the far reaches of the universe, and the latter was how I originally interpreted your statement.

And though I've read Thierry's article on the Coriolis effect, I'm unclear as to why this thread has deviated to incorporate the Coriolis effect as this seems to have little relation to your statement about 'gravity being the same for all creatures.'

As far as 'the particular range which the (average!) humans eye can detect is the ONLY range which is directly connected to gravity!' - well, this statement makes no sense to me at all, and I'd go so far to say that it has no merit whatsoever - other than the fact that we are visually capable of observing the effects of gravity. Yet, the visual range is a minute sliver of the EM spectrum, all of which is influenced by gravity.

And, speculatively, from another perspective it might be that the wave density of the EM waves at a given location might be the vehicle that spawns gravitational effect along with the associated warpage of space. Yet, again, this has nothing to do with limiting such wavelengths to the visual spectrum.

@Thierry De Mees

Your analysis of Einstein's 1915 paper is based on what I use to refer to as a realist interpretation, in which the theory is thought to describe a theory-independent reality. Einstein was one of the first to realize that it is necessary to take up measuring instruments into the theory. He did so in what he called the

Kinematic part of his paper, in which he introduced clocks as

time-measuring instruments (being length-measuring instruments too if the velocity of light is defined as being independent of the velocity of the light source). For him, as he often communicated in later papers, `time' is `that which is read off a clock', and nothing more.

Nowadays it is more and more realized that in the microscopic and upermacroscopic physical domains we are not able to observe the objects we are interested in, but that `what we observe' are the pointers of our measuring instruments (for instance, Einstein's clocks). As a consequence, we develop theories that do not describe objective reality, but our theories are describing the pointers of our measuring instruments.

All paradoxes of RT are a consequence of the idea that RT would describe an objective reality rather than the pointer positions of our measuring instruments. Whoever is not satisfied with this state of affairs, and aspires at developing an objective theory will be confronted with an essential circularity caused by the necessity that objects and measuring instruments must be described by the

same physical theory (see, for instance, F. Suppe, The structure of scientific theories, 1977; also N. Rescher, Methodological pragmatism: a systems-theoretic approach to the theory of knowledge, 1977). In 1905 Einstein did the only possible thing, viz. he cut the circularity by positing a postulate of `invariance

of the velocity of light'. Admittedly, this choice is arbitrary. But it does not cause RT to be wrong.

Charles Wohl , "As far as 'the particular range which the (average!) humans eye can detect is the ONLY range which is directly connected to gravity!' - well, this statement makes no sense to me at all, and I'd go so far to say that it has no merit whatsoever."

My point exactly. That very 'homocentric' view, has been a human error throughout history.

I note you didn't answer where current doctrine identifies the TWO momenta pairs on a spinning sphere surface.

It does NOT of course. Another error, and I've identified that it's correction is the key to coherent theory!

Actually Poincare DID give the distributions in the 'Poincare Sphere', completely forgotten about, and Maxwell also DID include both parts with his orthogonal 'linear' AND 'curl' momenta of Near/Far field transitions, but never understood physically so also ignored.

I can also tell you that the rate of change of BOTH those surface momenta over 90 degrees between pole and equator is by the COSINE of the angle of latitude to the relevant tangent point. If you know anything about the (Dirac etc.) formulation of QM and the spin stats theorem that will ring a big and important Bell!

If it DOES so I'll post the links to the papers showing how it derives QM CLASSICALLY! and the NON-homocentric fundamental relationship between EM radiation and gravitational potential.

@ Charles Wohl ,

Of course, a complete theory, applicable to the whole universe, needs to contain all of its ingredients present in Nature for that domain. Then it automatically applies to "all creatures".

In my example, the Coriolis interaction between (as Louis de Broglie saw it) "trapped light within a confined space" and an orbiting graviton (at speed c) from elsewhere gives an attraction between both considered particles, and this can be seen as the underlaying process of (Newtonian) gravity, confirmed by the empirical equation that relates the sun's dimensions and dynamics (spin) to the gravity constant G.

It suggests that other stars will produce other constants G (due to their different dimensions and spin, and it clarifies that the full laws of gravity need to be known in order to claim 'gravity being the same for all creatures.'

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Peter, yes, thanks - please either post those links on the thread here or message them to me.

Thierry, I appreciate your clarification and your explanation of the Coriolis effect with its connection to ‘trapped light in a confined space’ being circled by a graviton. And this interaction of the graviton encircling the trapped light revealing the underpinnings of gravitational force. I think I see what you are getting at, though it appears our minds are wired somewhat differently with respect to the reasons dictating the underpinnings of gravitational force.

First, I don’t see gravity as being a force unto itself. As I mentioned previously, I see it more as a secondary effect related to wave energy accelerating (or decelerating) due to concentrations of wave energy and the associated warpage of space. Matter and energy are influenced and shifted about through this process, and it is this secondary influence which we characterize as the gravitational effect. Of course, this effect becomes most obvious to our senses when the flow of the wave energy is blocked by a hardened material shell like the surface of the Earth, as it is here where we have come into being and transformed over a very, very long time.

All creatures living upon this shell, depending upon their size and shape, in varying degrees have to deal with the influence of energy accelerating toward the Earth’s surface. Off planet who knows? I think we are so rigid about what we think of as life that if there was some other life form on the surface of a star or upon the event horizon of a black hole, it’s likely its form would totally escape our sensibilities as our minds are fixated on 1G, carbon based, water world lifeforms.

Dear Charles, isn't "wave energy accelerating (or decelerating)" and "due to concentrations of wave energy" and "warpage of space" still a bit mysterious and undefined?

Isn't that though globally close to what I have explained in my paper with a substantiated and detailed physical process?

In that hypothetical process, the "gravitons" are extremely tiny particles that are orbiting about spinning elementary particles (as seen by Louis de Broglie, "trapped light" in a confined space). The orbiting gravitons express a loss of gravitons by these particles.

When gravitons "hit" another spinning elementary particle (Gain of gravitons), this results in an acceleration, pointed towards the first elementary particle, by a mechanical contact-process. The name of the described mechanical contact-process between a moving object and a spinning object is: Coriolis force.

However, comparing this with your "when the flow of the wave energy is blocked by a hardened material shell like the surface of the Earth", I merely see that as a Lesage variant, which strongly differs with mine insights: since the particles mutually attract directly by the explained process above, there is no push gravity whatsoever, but attraction gravity. Not even an influence from other particles/energies at all.

In my paper, this process complies empirically with the data of Newtonian gravity at the data at the Sun's surface (including spin), which I consider as an interesting and promising result.

Another topic was your philosophy about what other life forms could be elsewhere in the universe. I will not extend on that, but I am confident that many life forms exist on many planets and artificial planets throughout this galaxy, maybe even not always incarnated as we know it. So, the required gravity or the gravity that is present at these places can vary quite a bit. However, life at the surface of a star or the place of the event horizon seems to me as "running before being able to walk", as it is always the case with mainstream science in the last century+.

Best regards,

Thierry

Dear Willem Marinus de Muynck ,

I agree with you for almost all of it, but was a bit surprized to see your last sentence.

To me, the constancy of speed of light in SRT is implying that any and every light beam (as seen with an assumed much-faster-than-light system) would be at velocity "c", whatever your measuring position is on Earth, on a planet, say, Serpo in Zeta Reticuli, or any place between-in.

Compare this with the speed of a wave on the sea's surface, as seen from any location (moving ot not) with light.

Thus, a SRT type constant "c" is impossible, except maybe very locally.

So, even that part of SRT, as generally interpreted by the mainstream, is wrong to me.

More on that here, where another important misinterpretation is explained:

Article Special Relativity Theory: Only for Geniuses?

Best regards,

Thierry

Charles Wohl; "please..post those links" 2 of many on key aspects below.

Thierry De Mees; Once you accept G is valid for ALL masses, as found, a far simpler model emerges, with NO 'graviton' particles required! Do you know Bernouilli? A fast motion (/rotation) reduces the density pressure around it with a radial density gradient. Precisely as gravity. The condensed electron and larger particles are the fast rotators, giving the condensate density gradient.

That is a key part of a complete solution resolving ALL so called 'action-at-a distance'. See the rationale, just published, here; www.isaacpub.org/images/PaperPDF/TP_100087_2019070910523565700.pdf

The classical reproduction of QM data is in the fqXi 2018 finalist essay here;

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3012

Computer plot verification here; https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3014

StR resolution in the essays leading up to the top peer scored 2015 one;

Peter Jackson April 2015 FQXi Essay Contest; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2430 The Red/Green Sock Trick. Can Mathematics Demystify Nature?

See many other papers on all aspects on RG here; https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Jackson22/research

No flaws identified yet but please do try, or ask questions.

Dear Peter,

"Once you accept G is valid for ALL masses, as found"

As found? You must be joking, Peter. Only a goldfish in a bowl would agree. How much is it on planet, say, Serpo in Zeta Reticuli? As found?

"NO 'graviton' particles required! Do you know Bernouilli?"

What is Bernouilli if without particles in his fluid, Peter?

Then: "A fast motion (/rotation) reduces the density pressure around it with a radial density gradient."

How does a Bernouilli fluid really operates, and how can it produce attraction between masses?

"Can Mathematics Demystify Nature?" No! Mathematics never describe Nature without a physically substantiated process. Mathematics are only a tool to associate with the physically substantiated process.

That has always been the case with Maxwell (many books), Heaviside (many books) and the great scientists before the 1905 idiocy: not a single mathematical expression if not physically substantiated beforehand.

Sorry, I will not read papers, too time-consuming. A good theory can be explained in a few lines...

Best regards,

Thierry

Thierry De Mees , If you don't read papers you'll never learn, so retain the poor understandings you sometimes reveal. i.e. You seem blissfully unaware that NASA have a very good measure of the gravitational profile of a number of OTHER bodies in our solar system. The data agrees my point.

"How does a Bernouilli fluid really operates, and how can it produce attraction between masses?" Read the paper and learn. To simplify to kids level; consider a gas pressure, constant until one part is stirred up to rotate fast, then a pressure GRADIENT is maintained all the time the speed differential exists.

But importantly the sub=matter scale components of the 'gas' here are NOT MATTER, or indeed ''gravitons'' but the far smaller 'condensate' which does NOT couple with the M waves propagating through it. They can ONLY couple with the larger (smallest matter) particle, which is the fermion ('pair') or 'vorteces'.

Perhaps also think at larger scale of weather systems, here there's a 'surface' but; Low pressure surrounds high wind cyclones, with a radial density gradient.

What ARE 'particles' if not their very spin?

The evidential proof is quite overwhelming and irrefutable, all in the paper Thierry.

Dear Peter, sorry but I don't read papers upon request for all the theories that are exposed on RG.

Believe me, I am not the only one.

I do it only if I am interested in learning about explanations in posts that seem utmost valuable to me. Therefore, it is useful to explain it in posts in a few lines, sufficiently detailed, but short as well, so that it can intrigue the reader.

I think NASA *knows* nothing about far planets and is just guessing, based upon G. Prejudices.

Bernouilli: What is the underlying mechanics behind a radial pressure gradient in order to get attraction (coupling with vortices} ?

"What ARE 'particles' if not their very spin?" Precisely!

Best regards,

Thierry

Thierry, you ask, "isn't "wave energy accelerating (or decelerating)" and "due to concentrations of wave energy" and "warpage of space" still a bit mysterious and undefined?"

At least from one perspective, I tend to look at everything as waves, spherical waves radiating from locations of high density/intensity. And at these locations space is compacted (whether it be characterized as an atom, a planet, a star or a black hole.) The higher the density, the greater the compactification of the space, and the faster EM energy or light travels toward locations of higher density. The background (and average) velocity of the energy flow is c, and as higher density locations are approached, the flow exceeds c, likely many times c under the right conditions. One might liken this process as the emergence of a dimensional shift, the more intense the dimensional shift, the greater the perception of what might be considered as gravitational influence. Again, I see this influence as a secondary effect rather than being a primary force.

Of course I realize that the above perspective is speculative, yet it's no more speculative than gravitons orbiting elementary particles. I don't think anyone's been able to put together a jar of gravitons yet.

You mention a similarity between some of my ideas and those expressed in your paper. Maybe you could more clearly characterize the similarities.

Also, you mention the Le Sage theory, which other than the fact that it is a particle based theory, I can possibly see some similarities - though, I would describe the Le Sage theory in a sense as being a flat theory. In the Le Sage theory when two bodies are present, the bodies block the particles from interacting with one another, and because there are fewer collisions on the sides of the bodies facing one another, the bodies tend to gravitate toward one another.

In the process I was describing, wave energy would be added to both of the bodies, and in doing so both bodies would absorb the energy and their geometry would become more compact. Essentially space would be warped within the bodies along with the real estate appearing outside the bodies. The intensity of the wave energy at a specific location determines the extent of the dimensional shift. Bodies, rather than being attracted to one another would appear to be closer to one another (from an outside perspective) due to the change in geometry (warpage) of space rather than bodies floating toward one another because there were fewer particles colliding at the locations closest to one another.

As far as life forms are concerned, I don't think gravity plays that much of a role unless we're contrasting undiscovered life forms with those we're familiar with, those that have evolved in the way we have. As I said previously, there's no reason not to believe that a life form couldn't be embedded in the event horizon of a black hole - or the shell of an electron for that mater - or even in the overall configuration of the cosmos. In a sense, It's all alive.The problem is that if we can't eat it (or be eaten by it), reproduce with it, or somehow symbiotically interact with it, we tend to not even see it.

Dear Charles,

"I tend to look at everything as waves". Yes, right. But by which grace do waves propagate? "...radiating from locations of high density/intensity." What are "locations" physically? What is "space" physically? Does it even exist?

The answer is aether (whatever that precisely is, except a medium for light and waves).

"The higher the density, the greater the compactification of the space..."

I would rather say: the density of the waves. Only (confined, self-trapped) waves are seen as matter.

"The background (and average) velocity of the energy flow is c, and as higher density locations are approached, the flow exceeds c, likely many times c under the right conditions."

Yes, that is correct to me, see "entanglement".

"it's no more speculative than gravitons orbiting elementary particles."

What if the gravitons are simply the 'emanations' or 'extensions' of the trapped waves, because of the lack of real boundaries, like clouds don't have real strong boundaries?

"Warpage of space": I think you see the typical sink, as used to "explain" GRT to kids. In my language, that would mean that there is some reason for a radial motion towards it (so, attraction, though). In the language of Peter, that would be the gradient effect.

As you can see in my last post to Peter, my question was: what mechanism does Bernouilli's gradient work? For sinks, that's the same: how would they mechanically work?

Believe it or not, it is again the Coriolis force: each orbit with a smaller radius that comes in contact with an orbit with a larger radius, will experience that Coriolis force. The Coriolis force produces the gradient working as an attraction.

The Coriolis force is not just about a straight moving object in physical contact with a spinning object, it also works for close concentric orbits.

So, it confirms that Le Sage (the whole universe) is not necessary for the attraction of two particles.

Best regards,

Thierry

I have written that relativity theories suffer from the problem of ... relativity.

If some day we find a radiation with speed C>c, then entire view collapses down.

Data 111 years of Magic are enough: Let us return to Science now

Thierry De Mees , Yes I well know most think they know enough without wide research. That's the main problem with physics! Even some professors only read 1 paper a month! I work differently, finding coherent rationalization directly proportional to data input. Cherry picking those you think may support your ideas only leads to particularly poor science! I find the opposite works far better, try to DISprove a hypothesis and you'll arrive at sound solutions.

But I agree no one can read ALL the crazy theory emergent from inadequate research. I 'scan' much and read near half. Now and then finding great insights.

On planetary 'G', I agree prior assumptions are often wrong, sometimes exposed by explorations & always by data, except where misinterpreted. You should study the data in planetary cases as it quite conclusively suggests you're wrong.

There are of course 'anomalies', but nothing supporting your earlier hypothesis, except of course maybe as apparently modified by your later comments.

"What is the underlying mechanics behind a radial pressure gradient" More research needed. It's in my papers and others. Consider a 'fractal' reduction in scales, or higher order 'steps', and the underlying tendency of all to equilibrium.

Only 'MOTION' can resist that tendency. So all the while a yacht sail accelerates the rotating particles behind it to also 'flow', the pressure there will reduce and the boat move forward. Once flow stops the air pressure equalizes. Same at all scales.

All the while an electron rotates the 'sub-matter' ('dark') gradient will be maintained, if 'annihilated'; the G potential goes flat.

That's just one essential jigsaw puzzle piece in the whole DFM reproducing SR without paradox and QM classically. But we can't know & assess things without studying them.

Current physics is trying to achieve what though? Connecting electromagnetism with gravity? Who has the best hope there? Is it a "hope" in a bad contraption of design?

What if we accepted contemporary science "will not" be able to resolve gravity with electromagnetism? We did all those awards. Can we do that before seriously trying to join electromagnetism with gravity using a way that joins all the equations? We should....before realising that something more fundamental as an "understanding" of time and space needs to be considered, we should exhaust what we have done thus far officially. Yet what is that gold standard of exhausting what we have done thus far? What tells us Einstein wasn't complete a hundred years ago? Running out of funding, resources?

@Thierry De Mees

``It remains that the assumption of the constancy of light in all possible situations, whatever the place and velocity of the inertial reference frame can only be fictive or simply invalid.''

In my view Einstein's `Principle of the source-independence of the velocity of light' is neither fictive nor invalid. However, it is arbitrary. It is possible to consider alternative principles. The big advantage of Einstein's one is that it reproduces the Lorentz transformations, which has a considerable `physical domain of application' (i.e. the physical domain in which measurement results are in agreement with the predictions of Special Relativity). Note that already General Relativity leads us outside that domain!

Your analysis of Einstein's 1905 paper is based on what I use to refer to as a realist interpretation, in which the theory is thought to describe a measurement-independent reality. Einstein was one of the first to realize that it is necessary to take up measuring instruments into the theory. He did so in what he called the Kinematic part of his paper, in which he introduced clocks as time-measuring instruments (being length-measuring instruments too if the speed of light is defined in agreement with the `Principle of the source-independence of the velocity of light'). For him, as he often communicated in later papers, `time' is that which is read off a clock', and nothing more.

Nowadays it is more and more realized that in the microscopic and supermacroscopic physical domains we are not able to observe the objects we are interested in, but that `what we observe' are the pointers of our measuring instruments (for instance, Einstein's clocks). As a consequence, we develop theories that do not describe objective reality, but our theories are describing the positions of the pointers of our measuring instruments on their measurement scales.

All paradoxes of RT are a consequence of the idea that RT would describe an objective reality rather than the pointer positions of our measuring instruments. Whoever is not satisfied with this state of affairs, and aspires at developing an objective theory, will be confronted with the essential circularity caused by the necessity that objects and measuring instruments must be described by the same physical theory (see, for instance, F. Suppe, The structure of scientific theories, 1977; also N. Rescher, Methodological pragmatism: a systems-theoretic approach to the theory of knowledge, 1977). In 1905 Einstein did the only possible thing, viz. he cut the circularity by positing a postulate of `invariance of the velocity of light'. Admittedly, this choice is arbitrary. But it does not cause RT to be wrong.

Thierry...

But by which grace do waves propagate? In their pure form spherical waves emanate from locations of heightened wave density which are typically characterized as being subatomic particles, though non-standard configurations are found as the fronts superpose with one another. The wave action of the superposed fronts, traveling at c, traverse the aether, which is constructed of an infinitude of waves. Our senses and our instrumentation are capable of discerning high density fields intense enough to take on material form - yet wave energy penetrating the outer borders of these perceived material-like entities, again, are at these borders traveling at c when measured locally.

It takes a great deal of wave energy to produce a material-like entity like say an electron (if such a thing actually exists), which was fairly recently by Mohamed Hassani expressed to be 7.591 x 10^23 wavefronts, though I can't personally vouch for the accuracy of this number. The point is that it requires a great many fronts to facilitate the appearance of matter. And again, remember, that the fronts at the outer edge of the material-like entity are traveling at c at that specific location. Once this fringe is penetrated, the velocity increases (with respect to the local observer at the outer edge). Moving inward toward the center, as density increases, it will appear to shrink from the perspective of an outside observer (warpage), and the matrix will have dimensionally shifted, not to mention that its time has been accelerated - again from the perspective of the same outside observer.

What is space physically? Does it exist? I guess you could say that there is no space. And what I mean by this is that we have evolved to ascertain material-like entities whose outer fringes are moving at c, not to mention that the vast majority of the wave energy that generates these entities consists of wave matrices that do not incorporate the necessary density for us or our instrumentation to perceive them as being observable entities. Yet, even though the matrix is below the observable threshold for us to be able to define it, it still remains an infinitely dense matrix. And remember we are only speaking about motion at c. We are not even taking into consideration the rest of the spectrum from 0 to infinity. Though in my musings with respect to the periodic table of elements, speculatively I'd say top cosmic speed might be somewhere in the range of c^8. But that's just a wild guess.

In any event - it might be that we're but an EM illusion flitting about within the densest imaginable aether, penetrating multiple dimensions, as well as times spanning the past, present and future.

Entanglement You use the term entanglement, one I've never been that fond of. Though in a sense the entire cosmos is unified and connected I prefer, rather than the concept of entanglement, to view things from the perspective of superposition - though to be honest, I've never been a really strong advocate of QM, at least in the way as it has been classically defined.

What if the gravitons are simply the 'emanations' or 'extensions' of the trapped waves? Essentially, any wave matrix of a particular density has an event horizon, a place where the incoming velocity of the wavefronts begins to exceed c. So, I guess, maybe you could say that this horizon could be considered a type of graviton shell - but I think that would be a stretch. In a sense, it is only a viable and observable entity if wave density exceeds certain required limits.

Bernoulli I used to work with Bernoulli boxes around 1980, so I have some understanding of the basic concept. They were the precursors to the modern hard disk. The boxes were bigger than the original IBM PC, made lots of noise, yet had a storage of about 5 megabytes, which was a lot of capacity back then. And they cost 5 grand in 1980 dollars.

In the Bernoulli principle we see lift due to accelerated flow of fluid or air.

In the Le Sage effect, as I expressed in another response, "...when two bodies are present, the bodies block the particles from interacting with one another, and because there are fewer collisions on the sides of the bodies facing one another, the bodies tend to gravitate toward one another."

With the Coriolis effect we see objects moving in a straight line appear to curve when an underlying body is rotating.

I'm having some difficulty making the connection between the Bernoulli principle, and the Coriolis and Le Sage effects. It appears to me that the dynamics of each of the effects relies upon an entirely different set of circumstances and mechanics. I also question if the Coriolis effect can be applied to elementary particles.

Maybe you could break it down and help me to clarify your claim.

Best,

Dear Thierry ~

I'm late to this discussionand haven't read all the responses. I address myself to your original question. I agree with you that the 1905 paper is not particularly clearly expressed; it was a first attempt at expressing his ideas and has been extensively refined and clarified in the later work of Einstein and others. I also agree with you that 'time dilation' and 'length contraction' are merely optical effects that arise when distant moving 'rods' and 'clocks' are observed by means of light signals. The 'proper' length of a rod and the 'proper' time interval measured by a clock are the quantities observed by an observer comoving with the rod or clock. The measurements of such observers are not dependent on the properties of 'light signals' they are intrinsic properties of the rod or clock.

The underlying assumptions of Einstein's Relativity are very simple:

(1) The laws of physics are the same for every inertial (ie, unaccelerated) observer. That Relativity Principle is due to Galileo, not Einstein.

(2) The speed of light is a universal constant and is the same constant for every inertial observer.

No further assumptions are required.

It follows from these assumptions ('hypotheses' or 'propositions'...) that all laws of physics are invariant under Lorentz transformations.

The Lorentz transformations involve time parameters t and t' employed by two different inertial observers, that are not the same. Einstein's 1905 discussion of 'clock synchronization' and 'simultaneity' illustrated how an inertial observer can establish his time parameter unambiguously. Einstein formulates the discussion in terms of 'light signals' but if that section is read carefully and critically it can be seen that that is inessential; other means of transferring messages between the clocks of an inertial observer's reference frame would lead to the same result.

Since Maxwell's laws of electrodynamics are indubitably 'laws of physics' (and, indeed, they are Lorentz invariant if hypothesis (2) is valid) there is not, as you claim, any disjunction between the 'kinematic part' and the 'electrodynamic part' of the 1905 paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305260245_Notes_on_the_Meaning_of_Einstein's_Special_Theory_of_Relativity

Dear Eric Lord , you wrote: "The measurements of such observers are not dependent on the properties of 'light signals' they are intrinsic properties of the rod or clock."

What you say is precisely impossible because in SRT, different observers would get different results, which is impossible if it are real intrinsical, physical alterations. Hence, nothing really intrinsical occurs at all.

"Maxwell's laws of electrodynamics are indubitably 'laws of physics' (and, indeed, they are Lorentz invariant if hypothesis (2) is valid)"

Of course not! Only the perception at a distance, by using light, is becoming Lorentz invariant by that, not the intrinsical physical properties of frames, which means that Einstein made the immense error to allegedly have the E-M Fields been perceived (of couse, by light, as if it were observable frames, by using light)!

In your last link, you pretend "All observed physical laws are the same for every inertial observer." That is the opposite of what Galileo said. Galileo said that such a thing is true, ONLY for observers in the SAME inertial motion,

Galileo said/meant NOT "All observers in a state of uniform steady motion observe the same laws of physics"

He instead said/meant: "All observers in a state of uniform steady motion observe the same laws of physics in the SAME inertial frame."

That is just as Newton stated "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it".

It means that we always have to look in the same inertial frame, as confirmed by Galileo and Newton.

So, the interpretation that for different inertial frames, the given laws remain allegedly valid, is plain wrong!

So, the subtle alteration of your sentences, allegedly said by Galileo, changes the perspective of the truth.

In the case of the "kinematical part" of Einstein's paper, Galileo's formulation says that the proper physical quantities remain the same in the same conditions, for every own inertial frame.

Galilei says nothing at all for the physical laws as seen from other inertial frames.

Indeed, when two distant ships see stones falling in their hold as if the ship were standing still, it doesn't mean that one ship would see the stones of the other ship falling the same way, if both ships don't have the same speed!

Hence, supporting the basics of SRT by pretending that the laws of physics are the ame for different inertial frames, is plain wrong.

The way how the symmetry of Maxwell's induction laws has been used to support the false view, is indeed trickery. The force of Maxwell's equations is precisely that these equations are sufficient in themselves.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Willem, I tend to agree with most of what you wrote, which (and as far as it) is in fact far away from the mainstream interpretation.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Charles, lots of reasonable thoughts, especially the first 2 parts, which are quite much where I agree with!

What if entangled particles are one elongated particle, of which the inner part (beyond the event horizon you talked about) has a low-density ether, hence faster than light?

"In the Bernoulli principle we see lift due to accelerated flow of fluid or air." That isn't quite entirely so. It is because one part has a shorter path (lower side of wing) than the part next to it (upper side of the wing), so that at the end-of-course (end of the wing), there is a gap (vacuum at the upper side).

The other way to see it is that a smaller orbit that mechanically touches a larger orbit has a mechanical effect that is explained by Coriolis (= limit case of mechanical Coriolis interaction of straight path with spinning path). It gives attraction towards the direction of the (assumed) center, without the need of any Le Sage push hypothesis.

Remark that the latter (Coriolis) and the former (Bernoulli) explanations are connected by the same process of short and long paths .

Best regards,

Thierry

Thierry De Mees

``far away from the mainstream interpretation''.

You may be right on this. As a matter of fact, I try to remain within the domain of application of quantum mechanics, leaving the mainstream by extending that theory to joint nonideal measurement of incompatible observables.

Eric Lord , that's a clear point you make, especially in your paper:

The symmetry group of Maxwell's electromagnetic equations is the Lorent

z group SO(3,

1). Dirac's field equation for the electron is invariant under Lorentz transform

ations

SO(3, 1). (That's how Dirac arrived at it....) Feyman's Quantum Electrodynami

cs (QED)

deals with the interaction between electrons and photons. SR was thus an ESSENTIA

L

INGREDIENT in the development of QED. The predictions of QED are confirmed by

page 7

7

experiments with the astonishing precision. The anomalous magnetic moment of the

electron, for example,

accurately predicted to twelve decimal places

!

How is THAT to be explained, if SR is "wrong"??

I rest my case...

(24) (PDF) Notes on the Meaning of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305260245_Notes_on_the_Meaning_of_Einstein's_Special_Theory_of_Relativity [accessed Jul 23 2019].

I think though there is one thing that we’re all over-looking, namely that using “inertia” as a frame of reference doesn’t guarantee the idea of linking the field forces of gravity and electromagnetism. If it should, why should it? Simply, gravity is not inertia, so in using inertia from the idea of rest-mass to explain how it could be possible to link the idea of gravity with electromagnetism is a clear problem of physics theory and expectation; to find a grand unified equation for every inertial reference in reality moving at different speeds, and thus different time dilations, requiring unique mathematical transformations, fixers, from one event in space to another to accommodate for all the different relative inertial motions of objects, without a fundamental underlying common thread of either space or time to explain all those relative “inertial” references in the one kit, is a little presumptive.

In defence of Einstein, Einstein tried to explain the common reference of inertial bodies in motion and those time dilations as gravity, the curvature of space, yet no one can agree on what gravity really is….how can a curvature of space as an alleged common link between all bodies in motion be so separate from all the other underlying field forces?? Clearly, the process is wrong (relativity and inertia) as the aim of joining the field forces, even though the idea at the time (relativity and all its offshoots) was brilliant for inertial frames of reference. Simply, it would be hard not to suggest that relativity and more precisely “inertial frames of reference”, are not cutting the idea of joining the “field forces”.

I explain this more thoroughly in my recent paper:

Preprint The Physics Chimera

Possibly we’re going the wrong way about the “common reference” problem. Instead of using "inertia" and spatial transformations, we could use the idea of time. Yet in using time, the idea of the "observer" as a reference of consciousness and time needs to be addressed, not assumed. So, it was unavoidable for me not to consider penning the following:

Preprint The Conception of Time

The electrodynamics of relativity that Einstein penned are in many ways vulnerable to the idea of time and the observer, and the inertial frame of reference, yet gravity? No one is sure about gravity given its absence as a field force linked to electromagnetism, owing to all those transformations of every moving inertial reference with light and thus time. Otherwise relativity and inertia is fine, except for not reaching a grand unified field forces template, which it can't, and never could, based on how it is defined in employing inertia.

I think the best analogy I can use is "imagine" a "physical" explanation of all of reality using physical strings, physical inertial strings, joining every inertial frame of reference, like a vastly complicated spiders web, or bridges everywhere. Now consider replacing all those webs, those bridges, those strings, with "wifi", a wifi that is predominately an EM "field force". Just conceptually the wifi is a more realistic option.

I was asked recently "why do your new theory, what's wrong with SR and QED and so on". Its hit a wall, pure and simple, there are more questions becoming evident than answers with the standard model.

Let me ask this, "if a theory of everything is meant to represent a perfectly natural account of the field forces all linked together, gravity and electromagnetism, how would that account for the idea of inertia, the idea of "mass-interrupted", if the idea of a unified field theory would herald the field forces being responsible for particles and their motion, not "mass-interrupted" as inertia"?

Dear Thierry ~

I haven't sufficient time just now to answer all your points; I have to go out. So for now I'll deal with just one or two of your statements and maybe I'll provide a more detailed response later.

Galileo's discussion considers experiments carried out on a ship in uniform motion and proposes that the results will be the same whether the ship is in uniform motion or in dock. So he is making a statement about two unaccelerated reference frames with a relative velocity between them, not one. Your statement that Galileo is considering "ONLY observers in the SAME inertial motion" is a misconception. Read again what Galileo actually said!

Also note that Galileo considers experiments carried out "below decks". He does not claim that observers will get the same results if they observe things outside their ships. Obviously they will not. An observer in a ship docked and an observer in a ship sailing at a steady speed will get different results if they measure (say) the speed of a third ship.

An "inertial frame" is simply a reference system appropriate to a particular observer, whereby the results of observations can be numerically recorded. Clearly, measured speeds, and hence kinetic energies and momenta, of observed objects are different for different observers. That is characteristic of Newtonian dynamics, it's not some strange peculiarity of Einstein's relativity!

To properly understand relativity (whether Einsteinian or Newtonian) it is crucial to understand the distinction between observed properties (''measurements') and intrinsic properties of physical phenomena.

"Relativity" is a framework for understanding all physical laws. It's not just about "light rays"!

That's all for now. I have to leave...

Thierry...

"What if entangled particles are one elongated particle, of which the inner part (beyond the event horizon you talked about) has a low-density ether, hence faster than light?"

Well, I guess you might be able to say that the cosmos is but one undulating aether complex, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I'd say I look upon this issue a little differently than what you have suggested - in that within the inner realm of an event horizon (at least from the perspective of an outside observer), it would appear to consist of a compacted higher density aether concentration, not lower. Compacted aether, again from the perspective of an outside observer, facilitates superluminal motion. Though, of course,, the capability of observing such motion when the direction of motion either recedes or approaches an observer at superluminal speeds is not possible.

The inner portion of an event horizon collapsing toward a center (again, from a perspective beyond the exterior of the event horizon) would appear contracted, and if the compacted wave energy (aether wind) exhibited sufficient density, like say density characteristic of a black hole, then for all practical purposes the matrix would disappear, not only from the perspective that inward velocity would be greater than c, and thus unobservable, but the super-dense matrix would in addition have been compressed down to a seed bordering upon invisibility. At this point the entity would enter a next higher dimension, and if the wave density warranted it, when the aether winds reached c^2 the flow would again undergo an additional dimensional transition. And again.

It is because one part has a shorter path (upper side of wing) than the part next to it (lower side of the wing), so that at the end-of-course (end of the wing), there is a gap (vacuum at the upper side).

I fully agree, I should have been more precise with my definition.

(Coriolis) and the former (Bernoulli) explanations are connected by the same process of short and long paths.

Got it! Makes total sense.

Best,

Charles

Dear Eric Lord ,

"Galileo's discussion considers experiments carried out on a ship in uniform motion and proposes that the results will be the same whether the ship is in uniform motion or in dock. So he is making a statement about two unaccelerated reference frames with a relative velocity between them, not one."

No, no no! That is simply not true! Just as Newton makes his statement of inertia for each inertial frame separately, also Galileo made his statement for only each ship separately.

He did not combine the two ships in one (thought) experiment.

"Also note that Galileo considers experiments carried out "below decks"."

Precisely! So, they cannot see anything otside their ship and thay cannot combine two ships at once in one (thought) experiment.

"To properly understand relativity (whether Einsteinian or Newtonian) it is crucial to understand the distinction between observed properties (''measurements') and intrinsic properties of physical phenomena."

Of course! And with what but light is being observed (measured) at a distance in the "kinematical part" of SRT?

You never answered my question: how is it possible that two different observers would observe different results for the same frame, if that were really intrinsic values of that frame?

And how would it be that all these observers A and B mutually ALWAYS observe (A observes B and B observes A) a larger mass, dilated time and shortened rulers if these were really intrinsic values in each of these mutual frames? Which one would then really have a larger mass, more dilated time and more shortened rulers?

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Charles Wohl ,

Yes, you may be right: higher densities give faster speeds. Just as the speed of sound is different in different materials (in diamond it is very fast), it can be the same for light/fields. Maybe the "rigidity" of the structure also plays a role.

Best regards,

Thierry

Dear Thierry, Eric,

Eric's and Thierry's above comments give me reason to be a bit more explicit about my views. Their core is that neither in RT nor in QM the measuring instrument can be left outside the mathematical description. I shall not go into details here (see, for instance, my Researchgate project on The crucial role of the measuring instrument in the interpretation of quantum mechanics). Suffice it

to remember that the human observer is an unreliable measuring instrument, and that in actual physical practice the human observer is not observing the object, but just the pointers of his measuring instruments.

In RT `forgetting about the role of the measuring instrument' is yielding confusion with respect to the distinction between active and passive transformations. For instance, it is often stated that (classical) electrodynamics is Lorentz invariant. I once did the calculation, finding only covariance, no invariance. This, of course, is comprehensible: a moving observer will see something different from a static one (for instance, when looking at a static electric charge the moving observer will see an electric current).

How can this be made invariant? In order to see that, we have to draw a distinction between active and passive transformations. In a passive trafo only the measuring instrument/observer is moved. The usual way to make a distinction with an active transformation is to move the object in the opposite direction. Of course, one has only covariance then. A necessary condition (not sufficient!) for invariance is that in the active transformation not only the object is moved but also the physical system encompassing both the measured object and the measuring instrument.

Forgetting about the measuring instrument is causing confusion. In a physical measurement it is `necessary and sufficient for having invariance' that the relation between the physical object and the measuring instrument is not changed by the transformation. The above-mentioned confusion is caused by forgetting about the measuring instrument: invariance can only be obtained if in the active transformation the measuring instrument is boosted with the object and their relation remains unchanged.

Note that Einstein in 1905 was (one of?) the first to take up the measuring instrument (viz. the clock) into the theory he was developing.

Is not the idea of entangled "inertia" the problem?

Entanglement from a theory of relativity dependent on inertia is hazardous in itself when even considering the idea of "entanglement".

Einsteinian "relativity" subscribes does it not to all that those who have taken from it, or not?

Manfred U.E. Pohl , ok, Thierry raises a very good point, a question regarding relativity, and there are many more questions, clearly. The bold question we "could" ask is if once we have learnt to push and shove basic mass objects, to learn about inertia, to then realise there are limits to what can be pushed and shoved, we then dive deeper to the field forces, the field forces which may indeed represent a greater natural algorithm of time and space that provides us the opportunity to move things upon which we understand such things as "inertia" as basic mechanisms of understanding mass. We can push and shove as much as we like with objects and theory, yet the idea of a fundamental field template should ideally hold our attention above and beyond our ability to "change" the motion of objects and theories thereof as per inertia, right?

We can debate ourselves blue in the face re. the fine print of relativity, inertia, Maxwell transformations, and so on....yet....what is physics about? Does physics "require" an ultimate understanding of time and space to include how mass objects inherently embedded in field forces can be "interrupted" with "inertial" considerations?

Dear Manfred ~

I agree: "Having in mind the time of origin (1895 -1930) of these ideas, one could argue there were quite a few misleading ideas around in science at that time."

Many of them are still around! (-;

I agree dear Manfred and Stephen, but the problem of the definition of time will always exist. It is not feasible to wire to the aliens at planet, say, Serpo in Zeta Reticuli for a meeting on Earth over 10 years, and expect that they will be exactly on time.

The problem is that whatever the definition is, the values will change locally by differences in field amplitudes, ether density, speed, ether speed, etc, which affect the clock measurements. Every type of clock will differ differently with these parameters!

This occurs all over the distance between Earth and Serpo.

Best regards,

Thierry

Dear Eric Lord,

Maxwell's laws of electrodynamics are 'laws of physics' for v

Dear Lubomir Vlcek ,

Your very interesting information reminds me the excellent work of the late Prof Oleg Jefimenko, who studied Maxwell's and Heaviside's electromagnetism for events at a distance, taking into account the speed of the propagation of the fields.

This leads to the true, "relativistic" results, without the use of the crooked SRT (Heaviside developed it in fact 10-20 years before Einstein, which didn't read or didn't understand it).

There a at least 4 remarkable books of Oliver Heaviside that can be downloaded free on the internet.

Remarkable work which explains all the known issues of electromagnetism!

Remember, thanks to Heaviside's theory of lines, we could build microchips!

Here is a great book of Oleg Jefimenko:

https://www.amazon.com/Causality-Electromagnetic-Induction-Gravitation-Gravitational/dp/0917406230/ref=sr_1_2

He also treated gravitomagnetism for events at a distance, taking into account the speed of the propagation of the fields.

This allows to explain many events in the cosmos, related to gravity: even Mercury's perihelion advance is straightforwardly explained, its eccentric orbit and its orbit inclination.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Following.

I agree with you, dear Manfred for the philosophy about time, but I do not agree with "The Gravitational constant is G = 1/(4pi * 4C)"

The figures match if one uses the SI system, but will not match with the Imperial system, neither does the dimension check match in the equation.

Best regards,

Thierry

Dear Thierry De Mees,

Similarly is explained:

Nuclear fusion

Neutrino Oscillations

Movement principles of the fast-spinning bodies

see you please

https://www.trendsinphysics.info/

and Slide16.JPG

Best regards,

Lubomír Vlcek

Dear all, the findings included in my question are integrated in the new paper about Special Relativity, which analyses all the aspects of it.

Preprint Special Relativity Theory: How to Become a Genius

Preprint Special Relativity Theory: How to Become a Genius

Abstract: In this second stroll about the Special Relativity Theory, I analyze Einstein’s insights about the actual meaning of his Relativity Theory. This analysis clarifies us about the way that the Special Relativity Theory should be understood, and help us to see if one really needs to be a genius for fully understanding it. It is found that the Special Relativity Theory is consisting of several independent concepts, of which the basics are unveiled and put in the right context of physics. Both the “Kinematical Part” and the “Electrodynamical Part” of Einstein’s 1905 paper are analyzed. The experiments that are claimed to prove the Special Relativity Theory are scrutinized in the context of the findings. A solution is found to deal with the paradoxes.

• 1. The discussion since 1905
• 2. Einstein’s “Kinematical Part” in his 1905 paper, a thought experiment with light
• 3. Relativity of, or between inertial reference frames?
• 4. The constancy of light and its consequences in the Special Relativity Theory
• 5. Postulate of a constant velocity of light : a physical analysis
• 6. The meaning of the relativistic mass
• 7. Summary of the Special Relativity Theory
• 8. Michelson & Morley: what did they prove?
• 9. The “Electrodynamical Part” in the 1905 paper
• 10. The proofs from accelerators like CERN
• 11. The proofs from fast muons: time dilation
• 12. Why the results fit with the Special Relativity Theory
• 13. Hafele-Keating’s proof for time dilation
• 14. The proof of the Ives-Stilwell experiment
• 15. The proof of the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment
• 16. Planck’s proof for Kaufmann’s experiment
• 17. Other proofs
• 18. Conclusion
• 19. References

Manfred U.E. Pohl , To be a person to see reality is one thing, to quote the bible is to be a believer. You're taking belief to science on levels that requires something not "something done"....in science. The people here all respect faith, silently, mostly, why then do you think an "absolute" reference is warranted in voice without hijacking this post/subject?

The "absolute" reference is ultimately what science seeks with proof. First we need to establish those blocks on that that road.

The "absolute" reference of course is that science 7/11....its always there.

Dear all, in this Fermilab video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJauaefTZM&t=13s

it is stated (by a public relativist) that mass doesn't increase with velocity. (This is only the very first step of the SRT destruction.)

The guy's "Mea Culpa" is FAR too little, by the way.

Of course mass doesn't increase with speed!!! This hoax has been lasting for more than a century.

Indeed, it follows that Planck's paper "The Principle of Relativity and the Fundamental Equations of Mechanics", written in 1906, and which include the alleged increasing mass with speed, is also crap and rubbish, and so, Planck didn't explain Kaufmann's experiment (with charges) by SRT at all!

It follows that Kaufmann's experiments are indeed only explained by electromagnetism, as follows from Heaviside's material: "Electrical Papers, Volume II, p 495".

Therefore, the conclusion is that charges get higher transverse electric fields due to motion, which fully explain the behavior (reduced deviations) of the charges with speed.

someone did not like my answer so it was deleted by researchgate. I think this is ok.

@ Stephen: Einstein took Theology out ouf science and did, what Newton said one should never do. Theology is the most important science. It is not about belief. It is knowing. He introduced a very cheap religion instead, which he calles cosmic religion. Latest since SRT "Scientific community" should not call itself "Scientific" any longer. SRT is no "science".

I said to you, i am son of god returned to not debate, but to prepare those waiting for me for judgement day in 2060. Isaac Newton announced my return. I am the absolute reference. I wonder why you are that narcisstic. Who are you? You are not "we".. so don't talk about "we". You should talk about scientific community that you like to be part of.

Thierry wrote well researched papers i like a lot and can recommend. I can't find a mistake in papers of Thierry.

Your papers Stephen contain very serious conceptual mistakes as you violate scientific method and cause and effect. Talk is cheap, i have serious work to do, as i have take care about the children while you want to establish blocks for your narcisstic Ego.

Good bye.

Dear Eric Lord, I have the impression that you ran away from the debate. You told something, to which I replied scientifically.

Your followers did the same: massively "Recommend" what you wrote, but they have no clue whatsoever about the alleged truth of what you wrote.

I reiterate my objections:

"Galileo's discussion considers experiments carried out on a ship in uniform motion and proposes that the results will be the same whether the ship is in uniform motion or in dock. So he is making a statement about two unaccelerated reference frames with a relative velocity between them, not one."

No, no no! That is simply not true! Just as Newton makes his statement of inertia for each inertial frame separately, also Galileo made his statement for only each ship separately.

He did not combine the two ships in one (thought) experiment.

"Also note that Galileo considers experiments carried out "below decks"."

Precisely! So, they cannot see anything otside their ship and thay cannot combine two ships at once in one (thought) experiment.

"To properly understand relativity (whether Einsteinian or Newtonian) it is crucial to understand the distinction between observed properties (''measurements') and intrinsic properties of physical phenomena."

Of course! And with what but light is being observed (measured) at a distance in the "kinematical part" of SRT?

You never answered my question: how is it possible that two different observers would observe different results for the same frame, if that were really intrinsic values of that frame?

And how would it be that all these observers A and B mutually ALWAYS observe (A observes B and B observes A) a larger mass, dilated time and shortened rulers if these were really intrinsic values in each of these mutual frames? Which one would then really have a larger mass, more dilated time and more shortened rulers?

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Theirry ~

"No, no no! That is simply not true! Just as Newton makes his statement of inertia for each inertial frame separately, also Galileo made his statement for only each ship separately."

Yes, experiments to determine "Natures laws" will gave the same result in each ship separately - for all unaccelerated ships. The "relativity" conjecture is just that. No more and no less. I can't see why you find that problematic.

Galileo is not talking about signals between ships - the experiments are carried out "below decks"!

Relativity, whether Galilean, Newtonian or Einsteinian is not about signaling between frames!

Where exactly is point of disagreement between us? I cannot see it.

Eric Lord ,

The main point of the StR, built around the Lorentz Transformation, is to determine what happens when emitted signals cross BETWEEN frames! (There need be no controversy about anything else).

The problem is resolved. It just can't be 'seen' or recognised by most yet; Have a go;

Light changes speed on arrival and interaction with the particles of a new system, so always propagates LOCALLY at c.

Perhaps it's too simple to yet comprehend? It's actually Einsteins own 1952 ;discrete field' (thus 'DFM') correction to the StR to find the underlying PHYSICAL solution.

So called 'remote' measurement by rate of change of angular displacement is not then limited by c, so logic returns. The APPARENT speed of a pulse through the passing ships windows is c+v. But always LOCAL 'c'.

For 'process' we only need electron spin speed to modulate re-emission speed.

How did you get on?

Dear Thierry,

As one of the ``followers'' of Eric I would like to ask you whether you really think that according to Eric Einstein's relativistic description is about ``really intrinsic values of that frame'' (rather than about ``what is observed using clocks, and measuring rods, having been calibrated in agreement with the `principle of the constancy of the velocity of light'). If the former would be true I would have to withdraw my recommendation of Eric.

Maybe Eric is able to defend himself on this score? In his above answer he just tells what relativity is not. Perhaps he can tell what he thinks relativity is about.

This is My theory: The Universe is not able to make anything that carrying mass. The only thing that universe is making, is massless, shadow-less, volume-less. for detail Article Dark­Matter in the Quantum Mechanic Universe

Dear Eric Lord , for what you wrote in your last post, we indeed agree.

Yet, you wrote earlier "(1) The laws of physics are the same for every inertial (ie, unaccelerated) observer. That Relativity Principle is due to Galileo, not Einstein."

However, we have seen that Galileo is only the same as Newton's inertia principle.

So, Einstein's "the laws of physics are the same for every inertial (ie, unaccelerated) observer" is something totally different.

It speaks of an observer, this means someone who receives incoming light from an event elsewhere. However, we know that incoming light is not the same for every observer (Cfr. Doppler effect), especially for high speeds!

Please let that sink in! This is but the start of my objections...

Best,

Thierry

It doesn't make sense to think of an observer as something depending on receiving photons / light. It is possible to observe events without light / photons involved.

Thierry De Mees

I don’t think you’re being critical enough of the kinematical part. What you said is correct, namely both features of the relative bodies, both bodies, would “appear” distorted, in that light would be distorted regarding those two objects, according to relativity theory, to each observer, yet not just “perceived” from each reference would there be a distortion (and thus of light) yet also “at” each reference would there presumably be a distortion if indeed their relative motions produce a warping in spacetime, and thus presumably a distortion regarding how light would curve with that curved spacetime at each of those objects in relative motion...hence your objection. And this is why the theory of relativity fails, because in assuming light is altered “with” the curvature of spacetime and thus gravity at each of those source references being perceived, then where is the mathematical theoretical link between light (EM) and gravity (G) today? Otherwise our perception is merely and only being bent improperly with these Einstein relativity notions, and nothing more, which is a red-flag...like a DSM-V.

Manfred U.E. Pohl , Can you explain how it's possible to observe events without light being involved?

I suggest there are TWO distinct cases, but BOTH require light;

1. DIRECT By interaction with a lens or sensor so physically producing an 'output'.

2. INDIRECT By recording rate of change of angular displacement (Pythogorus).

Even No.2 requires the use of secondary scattering emissions from the pulse or body in motion!

Peter, you can observe acceleration / inertia / gravitation without light involved.

Ie you observe / measure earthquake without light involved.

Dear Stephen Jarvis , you are right, in that SRT is excluding the results of GRT.

Indeed, when calculating the SRT effects due to velocity of Mercury's orbit, it can be found that there already would allegedly be an advance of 14"/cy. So, since GRT "predicts" (rather made fit) the full anomalous advance, we get a contradiction.

The fact is that SRT became a scam, spites numerous proofs of its nonsense, and it enslaves us officially in ignorance, which seems to be the objective of the Have, or the designers of the New World Order (cfr. George Bush Sr.'s speech).

Manfred U.E. Pohl , Our many senses can "detect" many things, but the Cambs dictionary definition of "observe" starts; "To watch..." Also this topic is about the SRT and electrodynamics, so "LIGHT" (in AND beyond our visible band).

I agree with you about "receiving photons", but only as the 'photon' of energy is only quantised on and by the interaction. Otherwise you just deflect from the VERY important point I made above about the TWO cases of 'observation', presently confused in theory including the STR, so confounding logic.

Peter, i agree that observation in srt is confused anyway, but it doesn't make sense in physics / science to connect the concept of observation to photons anyway, but one should use the concept “observation of events“ synonym to measurement, as otherwise it ends up in a discusdion about the concept of time.

I repeat that Aristotle as well as newton had clear concepts of time, but Einstein brought us back pre aristotle with suggesting that time could be measured with colcks.

Btw.. quantum theory and heisenberg uncertainty are resulting of the fact that time was defined as periodic event by mistake. Therefore the barrier of 1 Hz is cause for quantization. It is not possible to model 0,5 Hz Frequency.

Peter, special when discussing the concept of Relativity, the concept of observation should not be mixed up with photons, as while on a ship under deck you observe in terms of measure waves and all kind of accelerations and events not involving any photon. Imagine Using an hour glass ringing a bell when getting empty below deck on a ship or plane.

Dear Thierry De Mees ,

I think at the time Einstein hatched his relativity theory he did all he could with those then variables of physics theory. To me it seems everyone back then was trying to reason the redshift of light, and so Einstein capitalised with relativity. Yet I also think that Einstein in using the idea of "inertia" assumed that it was connected to space, and thus theory developed such that the expansion of space as tagged with inertia-gravity required energy to the order of 10120 compared to what is evident as energy. So I'm thinking tagging inertia with space is the problem, the key problem, of relativity theory.

@ All,

It is very simple to point to the problem in SRT straight at.

I summarized the base of the misconception for you here:

Preprint Unified Principles of Nature: Solution to the "Problem of Ti...

Following this paper, i explain that (and why) 102 nations (and 7,5 Billion / Mrd People) on this planet do show symtoms of "mental disorder" and struggle in rational thinking and scientific argument.

@ Stephen: Tagging inertia to space is not the initial problem, as one must do so as long space is "tagged" with time. The problem with Einsteins Theories is just a misconception of the concept of time (his original idea that lead to his theories). To understand this, you must first understand Theory of General Relativity and why this theory is "successful" to such extent as it is confirmed.

I don't think is is helpful to agree on Einsteins Genius "at that time" (1905). Einstein was just "stupid" to ignore all previous knowledge. Already Aristotle and Newton discovered that time is not relative.

I think Einstein needs a little more credit. Einstein clearly has been developed upon, yet credit is due for all that he had the time he had it.

There's a lot to consider since Einstein, of course, and the feature to focus on there I'm considering is "space", as I aim to express here:

Preprint Space, and the Propagation of Light

Taking a general look at "why" theories became apparent based on observed phenomena at the time is key. Newton was "pure inertia", the accolade, the idea of force, of resistance to a change in motion, and so on. Einstein didn't ignore that, and how could he...how could Einstein ignore that leviathan of scientific congress called "inertia" circa 1910? It may as well have been "space" itself. Surely to not respect the context of previous times and those discoveries when they happened and all that was available is to not respect our own ability of hindsight.

The question thus remains, where's this headed and why, where is physics headed and why, given our hindsight with the more we have available today with theory and conjecture? Steps should be made forward based on new theories voiding dark-fixes...surely....and deliberately.

Dear all, Einstein made a mortal sin against the fundaments of science by interpreting electric and magnetic fields as if they were "observable", i.e. communicating with light to the receiver of light, the observer. He did that by mathematically applying the results of his "Kinematical Part" of his 1905 paper to the fields, as he explains himself in his "Electrodynamical Part". However, physically speaking, he did an impossible action.

It is explained in the details of the Question of this thead.

He had 50 years (until his death) to correct his errors, but did nothing. He certainly knew his mistakes, because Louis de Broglie in his 1937 book “La Physique Nouvelle et les Quanta” already politely wrote how SRT is purely optical, and nothing more.

Louis de Broglie wrote :

"There is, however, one essential difference between Lorentz-Fitzgerald's contraction and that which, according to Einstein, results from the transformation of Lorentz: the first, indeed, was supposed to be a real contraction provoked by the absolute movement of the body. in the ether, while the second is an apparent contraction relative to the second observer: it derives solely from the way in which the various observers measure their distances and durations, and from the Lorentz transformation, which mathematically expresses the relationship between the measurements. Thus, the apparent contraction of the lengths is complemented by the apparent slowing down of the clocks."

He continued:

"In particular, we can perfectly justify the paradoxical fact that the contraction of the rules and the slowing down of the clocks are reciprocal appearances, that is to say that if two observers in uniform relative motion are each equipped with a rule and a clock, the two rulers and the two clocks being of identical construction, each of the observers finds that the rule of the other is shorter than his own, and that the clock of the other retires on his own. Surprising as this reproach may seem at first sight, it is easy to explain when one examines the theory carefully."

Hence, deBroglie clearly speaks of a fictive result of SRT, limited to the deformation of the measurement signals, in accordance with Einstein's thoughts.

Louis de Broglie didn't even mention the stupidity of Einstein's "Electrodynamical Part" of his 1905 paper, and was giving Einstein the chance to just make forget the paper to the scientific community.

However, the fake status of genius was lobbied by "you knew who" until he got recognition and was even considered the greatest genius of all times....

Best,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry De Mees ,

I thought about that. Yet the pressure would have been on the guy to push forward his work, despite it not being complete. Physics sees Einstein as genius, yet I see his work as doing what he had available to him and running with it. I don't think he said "I am a genius".

I agree with you Thierry that there is a resilience, a resilience to go beyond convention. Hawking though has also been given genius status, yet Einstein and Hawking are in the same camp of the redshift theory of expanding space. Einstein is the ice below sea level of an iceberg of contemporary peaks of achievement people hail as todays achievements. To melt that iceberg is to thaw out the general problem that persists in todays accolades of astrophysical achievement of theory based on relativity theory.

Are we focussing on a solution?

If there is a solution, it's a new Endeavor on many levels. And those levels, as many as they are, can be quickly changed or processed slowly. Ultimately, a solution is a new step in science and technology that clearly contemporary physics has not anticipated. Is that a necessary heart-starter and why?

@ Stephen,

science as every other field of interest is driven by interest.

Look at "Epstein" and the "Philantrophy" of science. If you were a person loving sexual absue of underage girls or buy underage girls or own billions of dollar, your interest is to justify your own action and to buy a clear conscience at cheap rate. Special when you are the old men near end of days you like to justify your EGO and your life and don't wan't to confrontate yourself with possible mistakes when reflecting your own life at the end of days.

So.. what interest had Epstein in sience and what interest had those Nobel-price scientist in Epstein or in contributing in discussions on some kind of "pedo-island"?

Why one would define time as a plain number like 9.000.000.000 with no meaning at all (irrational argument) instead of defining time as what it is in reality (scientific God) ?

.... if you teach the children the truth (that God is REAL and not just a number or speculation on consciousness), then you must justifiy your own action.. this is quite uncomfortable for some people.

So why Einstein promoted the cosmic Religion that argues that there is no God who has interest in what you are doing personally? This argument is promoting that you can go with any crime performed on society. Not more, not less.

Clearly: for Epstein it would have been great if science could prove that it is "legal" to promote sex with underaged at the reason he (you) is (are) superior in gene and intellect to others, which is "measured" in owning money (power) or intelligence. Evolution theory and this kind of stuff.. Todays religion is science and if one can buy a free concience from science: what difference is there then compared to a bad and cheap religion where you can buy allowance to murder in the name of science at price of penny-stock.

In days of churches Epstein would have paid that funding to church instead of to scientist.

"If we look closely at his role as a science philanthropist, Epstein’s more pernicious political significance becomes clear and gives us all reason to reflect on the values of the Western civilization in crisis that his worldview represents." (https://www.counterpunch.org)

Why you wan't to call Einstein genius? If you want to get fame it migth make sense to give credit to Einstein in oder to "improve" on such "genius".

Manfred U.E. Pohl

Science is science. Newton was Genius. Euclid was Genius. To look back and recognise steps, developments, are those steps not allowed to be honoured?

What is genius in the future?

Genius is mercurial. Let's say we have Einstein and Hawking and Smith. How do we determine what genius is?

Why focus on the definition of "genius"? What is "genius"? Its a "label", is it not? Why label greatness with a "label"?

And you ask about Einstein who presumably sought "labelling"?

Greatness can be hatched, yet that hatching is nothing.....tell me, what great thing as a hatching, in human history, lead to "genius"? Genius is not hatched, it's an analysis.

Stephen Jarvis ,

i wrote that in my paper very clear: First, i have to point out that the definition of time of the International Bureau of Measurement (60 states are Member and further 42 states are involved) is incorrect and must be changed.

What is a "step" ? You do promote that everything in sience is "steps". Ok then. There are "steps" forward and steps "backward" in science.

Why honoring steps "backward" when trying to go "forward".

The genius of "future" is clear presented in my papers:

The world is a 3-dim hologramm of a 2-dim basis in brain, that is the balance of forces between emotion and thought (1 dimenson enfolding into two enfolding into three).

Therefore "genius" is, to have thought and emotion in balance. One can measure that in scientific logic, because emotion is condition for thought as well as thought is condition for emotion and imbalance in emotion and thought can be detected as paradox or irrational thinking, while as balance of emotion and thought can be observed in logic without contradiction.

Manfred U.E. Pohl

So you're telling me you're stuck on the label of "genius"?

That's history, Manfred....many genius' there. Why forget them?

It's almost like we've run out of ideas, right?

How do "you" define "genius"?

Me, genius is "thinking on your toes". How do I judge that in history? I look at what we are walking on and why and how good that is, how solid, and how that foundation is "genius", that magical carpet ride, right?

Manfred, who is the next genius?

My guess is a continuation of Einstein, right, given the definition of genius?

sorry, i am not native in english language.

i asked to change the definition of time from

The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency Cs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom, to be 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s–1

which is a stupid, irrational and nonsense argument into

The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light c when expressed in the unit s m-1 s:

A second is the duration light needs to travel c meters.

That would be genious, great, kind, logical, human, whatever you like to label this action. So i talk about action (steps), whatever you wan't to label that action.

What is the "lack" of genius?

It should be all of us....like overcoming previous genius stuff.

No one needs to be a "genius".

Yet we do need to know how this works.

Stephen Jarvis

"Yet we do need to know how this works."

What is there to know?

Getting conscious works like balancing thought and emotion and praise and thank God.

It is not that difficult, because you just need to stop lying and deceiving and accept what was already known: Time is God, not Einstein is God.

Just change the definition (act) and there you go ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx4to2jedMQ

I am in contact with an NGO funded by EU and USA and hopfully i can start the project to claim a change on the definition beginning next year where people can take part in action against Einstein and in favour of humanity. Talk is cheap, action is needed.

Manfred U.E. Pohl ,

May I point out your definition just has different problems. Lets evacuate a bus and send it towards a source of 1 sec pulses. You stand behind it, I stand beside it, behind 2 static sheets of windscreen glass.

The light passing through the bus to YOU will arrive LATER than mine!

A lens IN the bus will find it does c in the BUS rest frame, not in ours.

A consistent 'universal' definition would be to divide our orbit by ~365, then rotation by 24, then x60 twice. Take the mass/distance/size/rpm data 1,000 parsecs away and it would still be valid. (Take a Caesium atom 1km up and it won't be!).

Peter Jackson

i think you did not read all of the papers. Sure, the definition is not given here in its full content, because with this definition it is said that "C" has to be a constant calculated on the geometrical properties of solar system.

That is given by the equation "1 = 12 * Pi * c^3" (TOE equation)

Therefore "c" is not depending on vacuum or medium, but just a constant as you suggested based on the relation between sun and earth.

Therefore my suggested definition is somehow identical to what you suggest as a "universal" definition, but more than that it is explaining and defining the constancy of c as center of universe in terms of an inertial frame of reference.

Yes. And why didn't our physics tutor remind us of this, right?

Not on topic: the Epstein arrestation. However, it is the start of the downfall of the satanic service-to-self organizations, in which numerous business people and politicians are involved. The ramifications reach all politics in the world, wars, drugs trafic, child and arms trafic, banking and money systems (crashes), mind-control, science. It is orchestrated by the "Holy Trinity" Cities.

More on that on qmap.pub

There's so much of this sort of stuff, where is a line drawn?

What's left or what's right?

What's up or what's down.

The focus even in physics relies on a connection with what is observed, as strange as it seems.

How does physics right itself though....?

We need to focus on not just what we think we know, yet what we could have known...those missed opportunities.....and here I am thinking how stupid I could have been in thinking I was right all the time....

that's not being a genius.

that's looking at oneself and asking what's left.

If there is anything left, the right has it.

(bad poetry)

Why you are confused / confusing Stephen,

i made a line like c is 0,298233409...

this is not changing in water or glass or ice but the universal ruler to define a meter and to define a second. The Meter depends on the second and the second on the meter.

Well, there is some change as light will not slow down in whatever medium then. But there you go with time-dilation.

The center of the universe is the surface of the earth. Thats the place where you were born, where you live and where life is.

If you see problems with this: what is the argument?

Light (speed of light = sensation of vision = Space) is linked to the "Thought" while Light (speed of light = time) is also linked to the "Emotion" as sensation of feeling (temperature).

Manfred, I'm settling....I think I've found something.....cards down.....

Manfred U.E. Pohl , Sorry Manfred but that simply can't work physically. The local parts of the infinite heirachy of background rest frames can have NOTHING to do with any beyond each ones (Maxwell) local 'far field' IRF.

That's how space works. It's trermed 'peculiar velocities'. The sun has a speed ONLY with respect to the local arm, which has a speed ONLY with respect to the galaxy rest frame, which has a speed ONLY in the local group. At the boundary of each of those IRF transitions is a 'bow shock' of electrons proportional to those speeds and those speeds ALONE!

c is a local propagation speed always with respect to the 'surface last scattered'. That also rationalises NASA's long distance probe radio signals and the 'ecliptic plane' (transition) problem, related to the aberration issue, in astronomy.

Peter,

I understand your problem with this, but please consider that the points you mention are not affected, because the change of definition just changes the cause into free will, while the space is curved then in reality. It is just a mathematical change of view of perspective. With the given definition space and time is ether and mass is made out of space and time. So you need to reboot your brain completly to see the light. Changing the definition is easy, adopting to the new picture is very complex.

Peter, a simple way to describe this new picture is : everthing moves with speed of light. C is not only the highest speed then, but also the lowest. Velocitiecs different of c are only imaginary because time is the unified force then.

There is a guy i found who is gambling with the numbers in solar system who claims that 4C IS a constant on which solar system is build.

My g = 1/(4pi * 4c) contains 4c as field constant.

I did not check his calculations, but he arrived at 4c in a very different way then me and this seems logic to me, as he analysises the geometry of solar system.

http://vixra.org/author/gerges_francis_tawdrous

After i finished my work i just searched the internet if someone else than me found the constant of 4c in universe as universal.

@ all: about reasoning SRT: This theory is much about "TIME".

There was and is and will always be fight on the topic of "TIME" / SRT

It is not obious at first hand why this Theory is that tricky therefore.

I tried to link in my last paper the contect of human right to the concept of TIME (and therefore SRT):

"To correct the ill defined concept of time in science the author suggest to claim a basic human right that is the use of a correct definition of „time“ as fundamental basis for scientific (logical, rational) argument.

The connection between basic human rights and the definition of time in science / physics / states / economies is obvious: The freedom of speach and the freedom of opinion cannot be given on the definition of time within society, as the definition of time is as well basis for law and order as well it is basis for contracting in economy as well it is basis for a definition of mental health or mental disorder. "

(Solution to the Problem of Time II) http://vixra.org/abs/1908.0392

"TIME" is the basic concept to create the EGO and MIND and the "World-Model" is the mirror of the "Self-Model" : In fact, the definition of "Time" is basis for an agreement on human rights (Human Right as Inertial frame of Reference)

There is some history in Africa, Egypt on to the Roman Empire that is linked to the definition of time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFI2KJcv5WE

David Bohm explaind quite well an "implicate" intelligence and avoided to name that "intelligence" to be the living God. On the other hand, Bohm also understood that human thinking has developed a misconception (wrong thought) that science could prove.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfHzfonAgX4&t=202s

As with the wrong definition of time human being developed a kind of "cancer" in thinking, as the rational thinking and correct "reproduction code" gone lost.

Today we define time (second) as the "effect" of the Caesium Atom or as effect of the rotation of earth around sun. But in rational thinking time is not the effect of such motion, but the cause. There is hidden the origin of irrational thinking.

Peter Jackson said, that this definition is "physical" not possible. That is just plain wrong, because the definition of time is the origin of thinking. It is not a question of oberservation. If one exchanges cause and effect, thinking will become irrational. Not more will happen, not less will happen.

Animals are to much more intelligent than human being (that has invented irrational thought) in terms of acting "rational" and without contradiction.

Example: There was a lion eating his two babies in a zoo after only two days. This is rational thinking: the lion gets x kg meat per day. The lion is not able to haunt in the Zoo or to teach his children haunting for eating. Therefore the lion thinks that the x kg meat / day will not be sufficient for 3 Lion. Best = perfect solution is to avoid suffering and to eat the own children to in order to give them the best life possible.

The Lion can anticipate that Humans would dominate cows and pigs to eat them, but no animal could anticipate that human being would held a lion in prision to just "watch" them. That is irrational in a grade that no living (intelligent) animal could ever anticipate such stupidity / irrational action. So the lion is not able to anticipate or analyse human behavior in a way that he could anticipate human being would increase the rate of meat given when three Lion instead of 1 are to feed. It is just impossible to make rational preditction on such irrational behaviour of human being.

I guess it is quite logic that more an more animals dissapear from this planet, as human being is getting even more irrational nowadays.

I think, that pointing to the definition of time and the "Special" Relativity of Einstein is scientific evidende that human being seems to be the most stupid species on the plantet, because human being can not see the difference between cause and effect. That would be necessary prior to use the word "intelligence"

What would be the argument against me? There is no argument, because the definition of time in the base-SI System is just switching cause and effect.

The effect of changing cause in effect in the beginning of thinking: Quantum Theory can only explain "probabilities".

Result is in fact: the most valid theory of human being (quantum theory) just explains that human being "know" nothing = 0,000 about reality and cause and effect.

Scientfic proof for being the most stupid species on the planet.

Thats why i disagree with Stephen on this point a lot, because i can't see any "steps" in the last 2000 years that i could label as "intelligent" "step". There is only war and stupidity to see in that past. But at least all of us try to improve for the better. There seems to be no "evil" as cause for irrational thinking but only our own stupidity. Something that just might have happend by chance, as well as cancer might occur sometimes by chance.

What is the argument then. To label human being as intelligent being we adress irrational action and thinking of human being to be the "nature" of human being and the aspect that makes the diffence between us and animal. We label us as more intelligent as animals, because human beeing is able to act and think irrational (as additional feature) , while aninmals are limited to just think and act rational. In that term we are superior, because we can do both: being rational and irrational.

What does Einstein do in his Paper ? He thinks irrational.

The Theory is just wrong, because it suggests that one could measure time (GOD) with a clock. That is one really stupid idea. But Einstein was driven by all those irrational thought around him, so was just more clever in thinking irrational than all the others. A Genius somehow if there is a competetion in thinking most rational the irrational.

Perhaps this statement no one ever heard or read, but I am going to say it, because my theory is quantum mechanics universe. Universe's products are massless, shadow-less, and volume-less. such as Temperature (photon), wave and electromagnetism. So E=mc2 is incorrect formula, and it is just beautiful formula. Let say sunlight takes 10 min to reach to earth, and if sunlight double its speed, it reach to earth in 5 min, that all, and nothing else would happen.

Javad Fardaei i agree that universes producs are Massless in a sense that the universe is a holografic universe.

E=mc2 in my paper / theory is right and wrong at the same time in a sense that talking of a closed system (universe) E=mc2 =0.

Therefore the correct formula from my point of view : 0 = mc2

That would prove your argument to be right that universes products on quantum-level are massless. But on top of this it is important in my theory to understand also why total Energy = 0

Therefore in a sence E=mc^2 is right, because E = 0

Would that fit in your qm-universe?

Manfred U.E Pohl, The Universe is made of two kinds of conscious hydrogen atom. One is creating all the suns, and second hydrogen is making all the periodic table element. These duality exist, and one can not live without other. The Universe gave these two Space to be born inside of universe. In a sense you are right E=0, but the speed of sunlight is nothing to do with anything. Speed is speed!

As you know, mainstream do not know where the mass of 100 billions of galaxies, with much more than billions of suns, planets, and moons inside them, is coming from. Energy can not makes Mass, period, or mass can not create energy.

you might say "How about hydrogen bomb?" this is chemical reaction, and nothing to do with formula. if you have time read below link, which I am going to reveal it in QM Physics seminar in France and Japan in next month.

https://www.academia.edu/38373675/Creation_of_a_Quantum_Mechanic_Universe_and_its_Rotation.doc

Javad Fardaei

i read over your paper in short and it seems to very similar to my results (geometrical construction of Universe). So no complain from my side. Yout ToE is very similar to mine in a sense but you use different labels in some places, while my universere is made out of two ingriedience only: space and time. So i need no "atoms" or any quark or quantum:

The ToE:

http://vixra.org/abs/1902.0164

Our conclusions are similar. You say: the atom is living. I say: the universe is living.

But: the speed of ligth and the definition : Yes speed is speed and speed of ligth is also no limit because you can move with whatever speed you like in that terms.

The definition of the speed of light is that important, because the speed of ligth is the basis for definition of time and space. In fact with my definition the speed of ligth is the one an only speed of sun circeling earth (in relative view), that means the speed of this relative motion between sun and earth.

Using this unified field to define space and time (12pi*c^3=1) (reflection on the Volumes) it defines in a sense the surface of the earth as center of the universe.

This is special: not the center of sun, earth or a galaxy is center of universe, nor it is universe expanding like a balloon and the center is in this baloon, but the surface of the earth : A = 4 Pi r^2 is the center of universe.

It is very important to define a center in universe for sciene, as otherwise you cannot agree on "one" universe and will always end up with a Many-World view as you got the concept of relativity wrong.

Basicly the most important aspect of my TOE is the fact that this defines a center in universe as initial frame and unified field.

While the standard gravity in Newton and Einstein is based on the center of planets (mass), this was the center of planets is the surface.

But each planet has a different "c" speed of light. so speed of light is then a constant only for our planet. But this makes sense, as this constant is fixed to our perception of the world as living

Manfred U.E. Pohl, I am happy that we have some in common. Time and space has no energy, How you defined the energy. I would love to read your article , when I go to site, it is telling me to login. how can I read your article. I am not so good with sites.

http://vixra.org/abs/1902.0164

Javad Fardaei

you can get the PDF from my first article here:

https://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/669/725

and here the follow up on:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1908.0392v1.pdf

I hope that works.

Dear Willem Marinus de Muynck , I owe you an answer.

You wrote: "As one of the ``followers'' of Eric I would like to ask you whether you really think that according to Eric Einstein's relativistic description is about ``really intrinsic values of that frame'' (rather than about ``what is observed using clocks, and measuring rods, having been calibrated in agreement with the `principle of the constancy of the velocity of light'). If the former would be true I would have to withdraw my recommendation of Eric."

I think that Eric defends the mainstream point of view regarding SRT.

There are two aspects to that:

1)

Since "relativity" has no preferred frame, two different observers at different speeds will also see two different speeds of the given frame, hence, the speed of the given frame is not even defined. Moreover, the calculated values for time, length, and mass, by applying SRT by the two observers will be different for the same given frame.

Hence, the calculated values are fictive, not real.

For an infinite number of observers of the given frame, there are infinite solutions for the calculated time, length and mass.

Hence, SRT is a theory of optics, and solely applicable for observation by light.

I think that Eric is apprehending this point of view.

2)

In the second chapter in Einstein's 1905 paper, "Electrodynamical Part", he applies the "Kinematical Part", hence, observation by light, to a Maxwell equation, upon the fields of that equation. He thus assumes that fields can be observed by light!!!

This is absolutely wrong and inexistent, and this invalidates SRT theoretically for Electromagnetism.

It invalidates the rest of the SRT interpretations from the mainstream (Lorentz invariance, CERN experiments, Kaufmann experiments).

I think that Eric is not apprehending this point of view.

Best,

Thierry