"Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"

"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from
mediocre minds." - A. Einstein

"The Einstein Hoax", and its related texts, were written
because post-Einstein physics has been degraded from a science which relies
on
the proper use of the "Rules of Evidence" and the "Rules of Logic" into a
religion which is based upon the acceptance by the scientific community of
items
of "Faith" as revealed by anointed "Experts" but which have not been proven
or
may not even be provable.

insured
the survival of that "Faith" by controlling what material that gets to be
published in scientific journals.

The difference between a "science" and a "religion" is that a
science follows the "Rules of Law and of Logic" and accepts as true only
that
knowledge which is verifiable unambiguously by observation or logical
deduction
while a religion requires that its adherents accept one or more of its basic
tenets on "Faith" since it/they cannot be proven, (even in principle).
Unlike
many, if not most, physicists, the writer is not foolish enough to accept
the
unproved or unprovable as "True" and consequently is not willing to accept
the
unproved portions of modern physics on "Faith" as is currently the custom.

In order to accept a proposition as true, one must be able, at
least, to recognize the existence of a path by which those assertions may be
verified unambiguously. Even if one is not able to rigorously follow all of
the
arguments, recognizing that of such a path exists means that he need only
accept
that the knowledgeable workers in the field are acting in "good faith".
Modern
physics, at least that part which is based upon Dr. Einstein's work, is
better
characterized as a "Religion" rather than a "Science" since some of its
assertions are at best unproven or reveal have no apparent path where proof
can
be developed and, at the worst, are demonstrably false.

In a recent airing of "Nova", an experiment was described in
which a physicist transported an atomic clock around the world on jet
airliner
and compared the time recorded by that clock with the time recorded by an
identical clock which remained at the starting point. Since the elapsed time
shown on the transported clock was less than that shown on the stationary
clock,
the physicist concluded that the velocity of the aircraft caused time to
progress more slowly. He did not accept the possibility that the velocity of
the
trip might have affected the calibration of the moving clock. He stated
"that as
far as he was concerned, time was what clocks measure". One should note that
in
the mundane field of Land Surveying, a surveyor regularly compensates his
readings for the effects of ambient temperature on his steel tape. Not only
must
he measure distance, he must correct his measurement for the effect of the
ambient temperature on his units of measurement for length (thermal
expansion of
his steel tape measure). If he failed to do this on a regular basis, he
would
probably find himself on the unemployment line. Similarly, taking into
account
the possible effects of velocity on the calibration of the moving clock is a
necessary part of the observation that the physicist performed, but he
failed to
take this step. Unfortunately, we do not seem to impose the same standard of
rigor on theoretical physicists as we do on Land Surveyors.

It is an unfortunate truth that the training received by
advanced physicists teaches them to think "within the box" (as represented
by
mathematics) and, unless they are extremely resistant, acts to destroy their
innate ability to think "outside the box" (which one might characterize as
intelligence) where the new information lies and where contradictions
indicating
errors are found. It is easy to believe that higher education provides the
tools
needed for the generation of new knowledge but destroys the ability of the
mind
to use those tools. The result is a population of scientific leadership who's
AQ
(arrogance quotient) effectively exceeds their IQ.

The physicist's conclusion was based upon "Faith" rather than
proof and, as such, is actually a religious pronouncement and as such is not
worthy of a legitimate scientist. The experiment showed the exact opposite
of
the physicist's conclusion. The moving clock started and finished the
experiment
at the same location and velocity reference frame as the stationary clock.
This
means, that regardless of what may of happened during the trip, the duration
of
the experiment was the same for both clocks since that duration was measured
at
the location and velocity reference frame of the stationary clock. As a
result,
any difference in the readings of the clocks can only have resulted from a
variation in the velocity-induced calibration of the moving clock. (A
similar
experiment can be performed in a gravitational field to any desired accuracy
by
comparing clocks at two different elevations for a sufficient period of
time.)
For "Time", at least, any difference in observations between reference
frames
must result from a change in size of the units of measurement of the clocks
(calibration) rather than from a difference in its rate of passage of time.
(This change in calibration is defined by Larmor's Lorentz Transformation
for
velocity and (incorrectly) by Dr. Einstein's Time dilation for the
Gravitational
Field.)

In the 19th Century, it was concluded that all of space must
be filled with a medium, called the Aether. The existence of this medium
provided an explanation of how electromagnetic waves propagated though
apparently empty space and how forces (e.g.:- electric, magnetic,
gravitational)
acted at a distance. (Maxwell's Equations are readily understood at the
intuitive level in terms of the Aether.) The fact that light was known to be
a
transverse wave that could only propagate through a solid led to the
conclusion
that the Aether was a solid. The next step was an attempt to measure our
velocity with respect to that solid, and, to everyone's chagrin, such
experiments, such as the Michaelson-Morley Experiment, led to the impossible
conclusion that our velocity through the Aether was always zero even though
the
velocity of the Earth varied by 36 miles per second over the coarse of a
year.

One of the truly great minds in recent history, Fitzgerald,
provided the answer to that dilemma by recognizing that matter contracted in
length in the direction of velocity in accordance with the Lorentz
Contraction
for Length. Larmor recognized that a reciprocal effect for time was also
required and the Lorentz Contraction for Time resulted. In a Force-
Length-Time
system of units, these are all that is necessary to completely describe the
effects associated with velocity since, by their application to accepted
(and
locally testable) physical laws, the transformations for all other physical
parameters, including electromagnetic, can be determined. The result of the
work
of Fitzgerald and Larmor was the Lorentz Transformation-Aether Theory (LTAT)
in
1903. In 1905, Dr. Einstein showed in Special Relativity (SRT) that these
conclusions could be derived simply from mathematical considerations and,
since
as LTAT had demonstrated, absolute velocity could not be measured (then),
the
existence of the Aether could be ignored. (Dr. Einstein stated "we should
remember that we have not disproved the existence of the Aether, we have
merely
proven that we do not need it [for calculations]). LTAT is a special case
solution of SRT in which one (the Aether) of STR's infinite number of
allowable
velocity reference frames between +/-C and cannot be proven not to be the
correct one without disproving the validity of SRT. SRT showed that,
computationally at least, it is permissible to assume that the observer's
reference frame is at rest and all other velocity reference frames were in
motion, it did not show that the Aether was not a prime ingredient of
reality.
(Dr. Einstein is also reported to have believed in the Aether since he
maintained a belief in "absolute time" for 25 years after publishing SRT.)

Whether our reality is represented by the Aether as asserted
by LTAT or by "empty space" as represented by STR is not a mere academic
exercise, it determines how we view the remainder of the physical sciences.
Fortunately, a few simple reasonableness checks show that LCAT must be the
correct interpretation of reality.

A:- THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IS INDEPENDENT OF VELOCITY OF ITS
SOURCE. Such a result obviously occurs if LCAT represents reality. Light has
been determined to be a vibrational phenomena and the velocity of
propagation of
a vibration in a medium is determined by the medium (the Aether) and not by
the
velocity of the source. If, on the other hand as adherents of STR assert,
light
consists of particles (photons) traveling ballistically through "empty
space"
the only explanation for that independence would seem to be that some form
of
"magic" was at work. "Magic" does not belong in science. Rational
explanations
are required.

B:- EXPERIMENTS BY QUANTUM PHYSICISTS HAVE SHOWN THAT OUR
VELOCITY WITH RESPECT TO SPACE CAN BE MEASURED, JUST AS MICHELSON AND MORLEY
ATTEMPTED. THE "COBE" OBSERVATION OF THE "BIG BANG" SOURCE OF THE UNIVERSE
REINFORCES THIS VIEW.

C:- ACTION AT A DISTANCE:- The Aether was originally conceived
as a medium that would allow forces to act at a distance. When the post
Einstein
science took hold, it was necessary to find a new mechanism to explain
forces
(electric, magnetic, gravitational, etc.) that acted at a distance. To meet
this
requirement, the idea of the virtual particle (one which used quantum
uncertainties to allow it to spring into being for extremely short times)
was
substituted for the Aether. Such an idea has several difficulties that
obligate
science to either explain or find another concept.

C.1:- If forces acting at a distance were produced by the
exchange of virtual particles (e.g.- virtual photons exchanged by the atoms
in a
hydrogen atom), how do these virtual particles produce attractive forces?
The
forces they should be able to produce should only be repulsive, similarly to
the
production of a repulsive force between two athletes throwing a medicine
ball to
each other. They should not be able to produce the attractive forces needed
to
hold atoms and molecules and planets in their proper positions. (To date
there
seems to have been no attempt to answer this question.) While the
mathematics
describing the effects of virtual particles allows for the production of an
attractive force, the mathematical solution does not consider the momentum
exchange required to allow the process to work for attractive forces. To
achieve
that exchange requires a "substrate" (e.g.- the Aether). A boomerang would
not
return to the thrower on the Moon because there is no such substrate (i.e.-
air).

C.2:- If virtual photons are responsible for electric or
magnetic forces, then, for large spacing, these photons should be of low
enough
frequency to be detectable by a radio receiver. A rigorous experiment is
possible, but the fact that electromagnetic communication is possible in the
presence of the alleged "virtual photon" flux generated by the large
electric
and magnetic fields present on Earth would seem to be an indication that
Nature
does not use them to achieve "action at a distance".

C.3:- Without the Aether as a reference, how does light "know"
how fast to travel? The alternative to the Aether again would seem to be a
reliance on some form of "magic".

D:- Besides occupying a volume, space has at least two
observable properties. It possesses a dielectric constant and permeability.
If
space is filled with the Aether, this presents no problem, but if space were
"empty" as SRT requires, it would seem that "nothingness" has observable
properties. (How's that again?)

General Relativity (GRT) has allegedly replaced Newtonian
Gravitational Theory (NGT), but neither theory is a theory of gravity. NGT
describes an attractive force produced by matter that allows a first order
determination of orbits. GRT provides a refinement of gravitational theory
by
asserting that the presence of mass causes space to curve to produce the
orbital
motion of objects, refraction of those orbits and of light, and the observed
time dilation. Since, as you read this, the effects of orbital motion on the
force holding you to your chair are negligible, the source of the force that
holds you to your chair is remains unexplained. (One physicist who had
asserted
that GRT had eliminated gravity as a force became strangely silent when it
was
suggested that he step through an adjacent second story window so that we
could
discuss the subject across the windowsill.) A competent theory of
gravitation
MUST be able to pinpoint the source of the force and energy of gravitation
because that is its most observable effect.

When Dr. Einstein attempted to derive GRT using Tensor
Calculus, he was stymied for about 18 months and was unsuccessful until he
incorporated the Riemannean idea of curved space and asserted that gravity
was
caused by that curvature. This allowed him to predict additional second
order
gravitational effects that caused GRT to be accepted because the
gravitational
fields of the Solar System were about a million times too weak to reveal its
deficiencies. Since Dr. Einstein was reported to be uneasy about the
extension
of GRT to strong fields, it is uncertain whether, in proposing the theory,
he
was acting in good faith and merely failed to understand the significance of
the
relativistic phenomena or was actually faking his conclusions with a
confidence
that the errors could never be proven.

A:- In order to use Tensor Calculus in deriving the nature of
the gravitational field it is necessary to perform a mathematical
integration.
Unfortunately, the relativistic dilations (time and length in an FLT system
of
units) must be known in order to perform that integration and those
dilations
could not be known until the integration had been performed. The circular
reasoning induced by this error resulted in the production of a theory that
violated its own postulates, the Principles of Relativity and of
Equivalence. It
is inconsistent with both. The error resulted in the proliferation of weird,
and
false, conclusions such as "Black Hole", "Wormholes", "Singularities", and
the
idiotic idea of the continuous creation of additional space to accommodate
an
apparently expanding Universe without first determining whether the Universe
is
actually expanding or only appears to be. The nature of the error made in
the
generation of GRT is of a type which, if repeatedly made by a student of
Elementary Calculus would result in a failing grade.

B:- The Riemannean Geometry used by GTR is identical to
Euclidean Geometry except that the axiom that parallel lines never meet is
missing. Unfortunately, the definition of a straight line currently used by
all
geometries is deficient. The straight line is more correctly defined as the
shortest distance between two points WHICH REMAINS WITHIN THE GEOMETRY. This
revision works for all geometries. As an example, the surface of the Earth
is a
two dimensional Riemannean Geometry. The shortest distance between New York
and
Los Angeles is not a great circle however, as the Riemannean axiom asserts,
it
is through a tunnel which passing about 200 hundred miles below the
Mississippi
River and which is clearly outside of the Riemannean Geometry represented by
the
Earth's surface. ANY NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY OF N DIMENSIONS CAN BE CONTAINED
IN,
AND ALSO REQUIRES, A EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY OF AT LEAST N+1 DIMENSIONS. If a
non-Euclidean geometry is to be used for its convenience, it is necessary to
properly consider the effects of that higher order Euclidean Geometry on the
problem at hand. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE WITH GTR.

When it comes to particle physics, another question arises.
High Energy experiments have led to a plethora of short-lived high-energy
products. As an example, two protons, each having a mass equivalent energy
of 1
GEV are accelerated to a velocity close to that of light so that they each
contain kinetic energy as high as hundreds of GEV. These protons are then
induced to collide head on and in so doing produce short-lived high-energy
products having observable energies of hundreds of GEV. Where did the energy
they represent come from?

A: - The energy certainly wasn't in the original protons;
their rest mass indicates that their total energy was about 2 GEV.

B:- The only source of the excess energy represented by the
collision products is the kinetic energy of the impacting protons. (If the
excess energy was hidden in the original protons and did not come from their
kinetic energy, then where did the kinetic energy go?)

C:- Experiment indicates that electrons, and the quarks that
make up protons and neutrons have no solid structure down to the observation
limit of 10^-18 meters, as indeed they cannot have. The more rest mass
energy a
particle has, the smaller it is. If quarks contained smaller particles, the
rest
mass of those smaller particles would be greater than the rest mass of the
quark
and the proton or neutron would be more massive than it is. On the other
hand,
if particles making up the quark were less massive than the quark they would
also be larger and would not fit within the nucleon.

Rather than accept the fact that these particles contain no
structure, theoreticians have resorted to Superstring Theory that asserts
that
reality consists of curled higher order dimensions having a radius 20 orders
of
magnitude smaller than the nucleon. At this level the combination of Quantum
Theory and General Relativity is asserted to cause space to be a frothy
foam.
They would rather accept such a concept than accept the idea that there is
an
error in General Relativity, after all, the religious "Faith" must not be
challenged. Once that error is admitted, the merging of the two theories
becomes
much easier. The need for the activity at 10^-34 meters vanishes and space
becomes smooth.

Everything really does become much simpler when one follows
the rules of evidence in Science as well it is done in other activities and
recognize that it is necessary to consider the effects of possible changes
in
the size of the units of measurement used by instruments produced by a
change in
reference frame in addition to the results of those measurements. When one
takes
this step an entirely different view of reality results. This view of
reality is
much more straightforward and is capable of being understood by the average
man
since the operation of its mechanisms are clear.

The disturbing part of the present process is that the next
generation of scientists is having their minds destroyed by being
indoctrinated
into the "True Faith".

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}).
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not
monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the
same
courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of
our
parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that
you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:-

"Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"

"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from
mediocre minds." - A. Einstein

The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)

If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.

"Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"