Re: The Einstein Hoax

From: Ron Poteet (purrcy_at_mminternet.com)
Date: 02/26/05 

Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:10:14 -0800

you can get rid of einstein if you conserve time and allow energy to occupy
imaginary time

"Posting" <kcehc@isp.com> wrote in message
news:cv7sn1$5bl$1@news.chatlink.com...
> The Einstein Hoax
>
> "The Einstein Hoax" is intended for those who have been suspicious of
> the premise that reality is so subtle that it can only be understood in
> terms of sophisticated abstract mathematics to which only the elite was
> privy. The understanding of reality in concrete terms was presented as
> being beyond the capability of intelligent individuals. Instead, reality
> turns out to be readily understandable in terms of common sense reasoning
> once the smoke and mirrors of mathematical obfuscation and the
> mathematical and logical errors associated with Special and General
> Relativity have been removed. All that is required in reading this text is
> a good understanding of undergraduate level physics and a passing
> familiarity with the meaning of elementary calculus. The Alice in
> Wonderland reality of Black Holes, Singularities, Wormholes, Superstrings,
> etc. vanishes and, by reverse engineering, the nature, construction,
> origin and fate of our Universe becomes rather obvious. (As the cycles and
> epicycles of pre-Copernican astronomical theory demonstrate, General
> Relativity and the Superstring concept show that any theory can be made to
> agree with observation if one adds enough superfluous degrees of freedom).
>
> In attempting to understand the phenomena associated with Special and
> General Relativity one must of necessity rely upon information provided by
> experts and make a judgment as to whether the experts are providing valid
> information. Over a lifetime of integrating the work of high technology
> experts into useful product designs, the writer has recognized that a
> reliable means of evaluating their expertise exists, to wit: -
>
> A: - Over time, the expert will occasionally discuss some of item of
> information of which the listener's expertise overlaps that of the expert.
> If the expert has the subject wrong, he is not an expert; he is a
> charlatan pretending to be an expert.
>
> B: - When someone is expert in a field, he will be able to adequately
> explain the workings of his field in terms that are understandable to an
> intelligent layman. There is only one possible reason why he would be
> unable to do so; he doesn't actually understand his field.
>
> When one corrects two minor errors which still exist in the
> mathematics of Special Relativity, as is done rigorously in "Corrections
> to Special Relativity" and derives the properties of the gravitational
> field in a rigorous manner, as is done in "Gravity", all sorts of
> wonderful and completely unexpected results are obtained in terms which
> are completely consistent with common sense. These results include the
> location of kinetic energy, the nature of mass, the reason for the
> relativistic effects of velocity, the source of gravitational energy, the
> mechanics of the apparent "Big Bang" origin of the Universe and its
> subsequent expansion, and even the nature of matter and the source of the
> forces between particles. The likelihood of the results that are provided
> being wrong is vanishingly small. Unlike the mathematical reasoning
> typically used by theoretical physicists, which has the unfortunate
> characteristic that the probability of error increases with the number of
> steps, the probability of error when common sense methods are applied in a
> disciplined and self consistent manner decreases as the number of steps
> and factors involved increases. It is impossible to complete a jigsaw
> puzzle incorrectly.
>
> In your reading of the material presented, the author asks you not to
> take his word or the word of anyone else for anything. Instead, he asks
> that you check the material presented with your own knowledge,
> intelligence, and common sense. The only background required is an
> understanding of College Level Freshman Physics and a familiarity with the
> principles of Elementary Calculus. Please do not accept the fiction that
> the subject matter can only be understood by highly educated individuals
> in terms of abstract mathematics. When an expert cannot make himself
> understood by an intelligent and motivated layman, it invariably means
> that the expert does not understand his subject! The author hopes that the
> material presented passes this test. He can only guarantee, however, that
> he has done his homework and that the material presented has been
> developed with extreme care.
>
>
> I:- Summary of "The Einstein Hoax"
>
> Chapter Titles
>
> 1. - Introduction<BR>
> 2. - Historical Background<BR>
> 3. - The Nature of the Einstein Hoax<BR>
> 4. - Does the Aether Exist?<BR>
> 5. - The Resurrection of Absolute Velocity by Quantum Experiments<BR>
> 6. - The Nature of Reality<BR>
> 7. - Applying the Lorentz Transformations Properly<BR>
> 8. - Generating the Gravity Transformations<BR>
> 9. - Dr. Einstein's Error and the Introduction of Curved Space<BR>
> 10. - Gravitational Contraction and Collapse<BR>
> 11. - Gravitational Collapse and the Creation of a Universe<BR>
> 12. - The Space Time Continuum<BR>
> 13. - The Nature of Particles<BR>
> 14. - Adding Quantum Effects to Our Understanding<BR>
> 15. - Changing the Paradigms<BR>
> 16. - What Can We Conclude?
>
> There are 57,000 words and 53 illustrations.
>
> In the 19th Century, it was considered axiomatic that all of Nature
> was the result of the action of various mechanisms, mechanical,
> electromagnetic, and perhaps others that were yet to be recognized. Lord
> Raleigh was reported to have asserted that there were no phenomena in
> Nature for which a model could not be built. It was considered the
> physicists job to employ an iterative process which consisted of
> constructing that model, analyzing its behavior using appropriate
> mathematical techniques, and verifying the validity of the model and the
> mathematics by experimentation. Under that philosophy, 19th century
> physicists had concluded that light was a transverse vibration propagating
> through a rigid medium named the Aether. However, when attempts were made
> to measure the effect on the observed velocity of light resulting from the
> variation in the velocity of the Earth in its orbit, the experiments
> yielded a null result.
>
> By 1903, the recognition by Fitzgerald that matter contracts in the
> direction of the velocity vector, the recognition by Larmor that clocks
> ran slower as a result of velocity, and the derivation by Lorentz of the
> Lorentz Contraction for Mass (based on Thomson's derivation of E=MC^2 in
> 1888), led to the Lorentz Contraction-Aether (Aether Relativity) Theory.
> This theory resolved the dilemma. It demonstrated that all attempts to
> measure our velocity with respect to the Aether by conventional means
> would yield a null result. The reasons for the null result became
> intuitively understandable once quantum physicists had demonstrated that
> the forces between particles were electromagnetic in nature. At the time,
> the only apparent weakness of Aether Relativity was that it did not
> explain the effects of velocity on electric and magnetic phenomena. When
> 19th Century Dimensional Analysis is used to derive Lorentz
> Transformations for those effects, the apparent defect in the Aether
> Theory disappears, and it is found to satisfy the criteria demanded by
> 19th Century science.
>
> Two years later, in 1905, an obscure patent clerk possessing a Ph.D.
> in physics, apparently sensing an opportunity represented by the then
> apparent inability of the Aether Relativity Theory to explain
> electromagnetic phenomena, published the Special Theory of Relativity. In
> deriving this theory he applied mathematical techniques to Poincare's
> Principle of Relativity. Upon examination, Special Relativity is found to
> be identical to the Aether Relativity Theory with the conceptual restraint
> imposed by a preferred velocity reference frame (the Aether) removed.
> Since, under both theories, an observer could not measure his velocity
> with respect to that preferred reference frame by techniques known at the
> time, the academic community asserted that the concept of the Aether was
> meaningless. They then took the unscientific step of demanding that the
> Aether concept was not to be used as a basis for further work in the
> physical sciences even though its usage could produce no adverse effect.
> (To his credit, Dr. Einstein warned that it had not been proven that the
> Aether didn't exist, it had only been proven that it wasn't needed in
> physical theories.) It should be noted that, unlike the Aether Relativity
> Theory, Special Relativity Theory did not resolve the alleged
> electromagnetic limitations of the Aether Relativity Theory; it
> arbitrarily defined them as non-existent!
>
> While the Aether Relativity Theory was consistent with common sense
> and allowed Lord Raleigh's model to be constructed, the resulting
> interpretations of the Special Theory of Relativity contradicted that
> common sense and made it impossible to construct an equivalent model. To
> individuals with a strong sense of reality, Special Relativity leads to
> unanswerable questions. (E.g.- If light consists of particles traveling
> ballistically through empty space rather than vibrations traveling though
> a medium [the Aether], how does it manage to maintain a velocity which is
> independent of the velocity of its source without relying upon some form
> of magic?- Chapter 4). Instead of recognizing such questions as problems
> inherent in Special Relativity, relativists responded with assertions that
> they were indicative of the brilliance of Dr. Einstein's work and the
> questioner should not feel bad about them because there were only a few
> minds in the world capable of understanding that work. This was probably
> true, but not because of Dr. Einstein's brilliance, it was because Special
> Relativity only worked if one avoided asking embarrassing questions. Over
> the years, if any student working towards an advanced degree in physics
> persisted in asking the questions asked in Chapter 4, he would have been
> dismissed as not having the mental capacity to understand the subject
> matter. Recently, however, the situation has changed. High altitude
> observations of the radiation background of space have shown that an
> absolute velocity reference (the Aether) must exist. Furthermore,
> experiments in quantum physics have shown how our velocity with respect to
> that velocity reference could be measured. The fact that such measurements
> are possible demonstrates that Special Relativity's interpretation of
> reality is deficient. The Aether Relativity Theory, on the other hand,
> provides the same mathematical predictions as Special Relativity in a
> manner that is consistent with the requirements of a Raleigh type of
> model.
>
> Since Aether Relativity was provided two years before Special
> Relativity, one must ask the question as to why Dr. Einstein's work was
> considered to be more than a refinement of existing theory rather than a
> profound new insight. The answer would seem to lie in the political goals
> of the scientific community. Dr. Einstein achieved his results through a
> mathematical derivation rather than through the physical insight employed
> by Fitzgerald. Mathematics has a property not possessed by insightful
> reasoning. Mathematics can be taught by rote and, since almost anyone can
> learn by rote without actually having to understand the subject matter,
> the cadre of physical scientists could be readily expanded. It appeared
> that progress could be made by combining mathematics with experiment
> without the need for generating a conceptual model of the phenomena under
> study. It became vital, therefore to suppress the Aether Relativity
> concept so that the fiction that the combination of mathematics and
> experiment were sufficient to achieve progress could be established and
> maintained.
>
> The goal of suppressing the concept of the Aether was achieved by a
> form of intellectual slight of hand called "Space-Time" in which the
> properties of space and time were considered to be different aspects of
> the same entity. Because of the fact that the Lorentz Transformations are
> in the same form as the equations of the Pythagorean Theorem, this could
> be done mathematically, since a change in the velocity reference frame was
> mathematically equivalent to a rotation of axes. In terms of reality, the
> concept is absurd. As Dr. Einstein was reluctant to go along with such an
> interpretation or reality. He is reported to have commented that the idea
> of "Space-Time" required the existence of a large (actually infinite
> number) of Aethers and pointed out "we have not disproved the existence of
> the Aether, we have only proven that we do not need it for computations.
> In addition, it is reported that he retained a belief in "absolute time"
> (equivalent to a belief in the Aether) for about 25 years after the
> publication of Special Relativity.
>
> Spurred on by his success with Special Relativity, Dr. Einstein went
> on to derive General Relativity by combining the Principle of Equivalence
> (between inertial and gravitational masses) and the Principle of
> Relativity. Without the inherent safety net that would have been provided
> by the inclusion of a Raleigh type of model, Dr. Einstein apparently
> failed to recognize that the physical significance of the relativity
> phenomena prohibited the use of Tensor Calculus for such a purpose and
> used that technique to derive his new theory. He struggled for about 18
> months before revising his approach. Instead of eliminating the
> mathematical error implicit in his use of Tensor Calculus, he added
> another degree of freedom by using the flawed geometry of Riemann and
> allowed space to be curved. (This geometry lacks the requirement that
> parallel lines never meet and as such is a subset of conventional
> Euclidian geometry. A typical example is the two dimensional non-Euclidian
> geometry of the surface of the three dimensional Earth.) There was enough
> truth in his results to allow him to predict the effects of the Sun's
> field on the precession of Mercury's orbit, the bending of the path of
> light, and the slowing of clocks. The observations that supposedly
> verified General Relativity were, and still are, about a million times too
> crude to reveal its residual errors. As a gravitational theory, General
> Relativity is a failure. It cannot account for the force that holds you to
> your chair or the energy which gravity will apply to you if you fall. (If
> one falls out of a window, he couldn't care less about the precession of
> Mercury's orbit, he cares about the results of the force of gravity.) Even
> though Dr. Einstein was reported to have been uneasy about the extension
> of General Relativity to extremely strong fields, that extension has been
> made to include gravitational collapse and has led to the concepts of
> Black Holes, Singularities, Wormholes, etc. The existence of these
> conclusions should have caused a reexamination of the basic theory instead
> of blind acceptance.
>
> "The Einstein Hoax" does not require the possession of advanced
> degrees for its understanding. Freshman (or even high school) physics and
> an understanding of the nature of elementary calculus (skill is not
> needed) is all that is required. The text removes the mystery behind
> Special Relativity by demonstrating the how and why of the effects
> involved and shows that experiments already conducted by quantum
> physicists have proven not only that the Aether is real but that our
> absolute velocity through space is readily measurable. It is Aether
> Relativity, which represents reality. The text then continues and develops
> gravitational transformations equivalent to the Lorentz Transformations
> which allow the reader to visualize what the gravitational field is all
> about; the source of its energy; a demonstration that the idea of curved
> space is merely an artifice introduced by Dr. Einstein's to partially
> overcome his error in using Tensor Calculus; and the source of the
> pressure which causes the gravitational collapse of an object to cease
> before it becomes a Black Hole. As an unexpected bonus, these
> gravitational transformations show how our Universe was created; lead to
> the observed cosmology; show that the expansion of our Universe will
> continue forever; and demonstrate that every object which undergoes
> gravitational collapse eventually becomes another universe as rich as our
> own. The nature of space and time is discussed followed by a description
> of the nature of matter and the manner in which Planck's Constant insures
> that the three quarks that constitute a nucleon are fundamental and
> contain no smaller structure. (The zoo of high-energy particles created by
> particle accelerator experiments is a temporary product produced by the
> kinetic energy of the collision and quickly decay into normal matter and
> energy. Other than providing an insight into the nature of the Aether, the
> author suspects they have no significance.) The previously written texts,
> "Gravity" and "Corrections to Special Relativity", are rigorous
> derivations of the material presented in "The Einstein Hoax" are presented
> as a backup. As is the case with "The Einstein Hoax", these texts are
> written for those having an undergraduate understanding of Physics and
> Elementary Calculus, but their rigor does require more patience.
>
> The author accepts the possibility that the concepts presented may be
> wrong, however he finds it extremely difficult to accept that they are as
> defective as the concepts that are presently held. The material presented
> not only passes the tests of experiment and mathematical verification; it
> passes the test of Lord Raleigh that it is in accordance with a single
> self-consistent model. The fact that the material presented passes the
> Raleigh test provides the author with a great deal of confidence. Unlike a
> mathematical solution in which the probability of error increases with the
> number of steps, the probability of error in a Raleigh Model decreases
> with its complexity. Remember, it is impossible to complete a jigsaw
> puzzle incorrectly.
>
> The Website contains two additional texts, "Gravity", which provides a
> rigorous derivation of the properties of the gravitational field, and
> "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special Relativity"
>
>
> II: - Summary of "Gravity"
>
> Chapter Titles
>
> 1: - Introduction<BR>
> 2: - Laying the Groundwork<BR>
> 3: - Evaluating the Gravitational Conversion Factors<BR>
> 4: - Comparison with the "Real World"<BR>
> 5: - The Complete Gravitational Field<BR>
>
> There are 50,000 words and 22 diagrams.
>
> Being dissatisfied with the published treatments of the gravitational
> phenomena and recognizing that gravity was a relativistic phenomenon, the
> author began decades ago to study the subject carefully. It seemed obvious
> to him that the phenomena described by the Lorentz Transformations of
> Special Relativity and the time dilation of General Relativity described
> effects in which the measuring instruments by which observations were
> being made were probably being altered by the phenomena being
> investigated. To deal with this possibility and determine what was
> actually occurring (as would be observed by "godlike" instruments which
> were unchanged), the author elected to use the techniques of Dimensional
> Analysis.
>
> Investigation of the treatment of gravitation provided by General
> Relativity reveals several basic defects: -
>
> 1: - The time dilation expression it provides is not multiplicatively
> commutative and therefore is in conflict with one of its basic postulates,
> the Principle of Relativity. As a result, the predictions made by General
> Relativity must be grossly in error in strong fields such as existing
> around neutron stars. This error is undetectable within the extremely weak
> field of the Solar System. As currently stated, the time dilation
> expression for the gravitational field would cause the laws of physics to
> change as a function of elevation.
>
> 2: - The curved space predicted by General Relativity would allow a
> perpetual motion machine of the first kind to be constructed in principle.
>
> 3: - General Relativity leads to a singularity at its end limit.
>
> 4: - General Relativity fails to account for the energy of fall and
> concludes that the gravitational field is able to 'create' energy.
>
> 5: - General Relativity leads to conclusions that are in conflict with
> its other basic postulate, the Principle of Equivalence.
>
> These deficiencies do not result from a failure of the Principles of
> Relativity and of Equivalence in combination. They result from a
> misapplication both of the Principle of Equivalence and of the Tensor
> Calculus used in the derivation of General Relativity. When the
> misapplication of the Principle of Equivalence is corrected and the use of
> Tensor Calculus is avoided, the combination of the Principle of
> Equivalence and the Principle of Relativity is found to yield the same
> results as derived in the approach taken in this discussion.
>
> By combining the Principle of Relativity with Dimensional Analysis, a
> treatment of the gravitational field has been developed which is both
> internally consistent and which is consistent with the results of all
> observations and with all currently accepted 'physical laws'. Unlike
> General Relativity, the concepts presented meet the following criteria:
>
> 1: - Consistent with all accepted physical laws.<BR>
> 2: - Consistent with all observations.<BR>
> 3: - All dilations are multiplicatively commutative in agreement with the
> Principle of Relativity.<BR>
> 4: - Source of gravitational energy is revealed, an obvious failure of
> General Relativity.<BR>
> 5: - Energy is conserved in the absolute sense, another obvious failure of
> General Relativity.<BR>
> 6: - Gravitational collapse is self-limiting.<BR>
> 7: - Conclusions suggest observed cosmology.<BR>
> 8: - Conclusions are compatible with both the Principle of Relativity and
> the Principle of Equivalence.
>
> III- Summary of "Corrections to Special Relativity"
>
> Section Titles
>
> 1: - Introduction.
>
> 2: - Groundwork of Discussion.
>
> 3: - A Comparison of the Velocity Difference Between Velocity
> Reference Frames 'B' and 'C' as Observed in Reference Frame 'B' and as
> Observed in Reference Frame 'A',
>
> 4: - Determination of the Lorentz Transformation for Incremental Mass
> and for Force Between Reference Frames Having Relative Velocity.
>
> 5: - The Balance of Moments Applied to a Right Angle Lever in Velocity
> Reference Frame 'B' Moving with Velocity, V, with Respect to Velocity
> Reference Frame 'A' as Observed in Reverence Frames 'A' and 'B'.
>
> 6: - The Conventional and Revised Lorentz Transformations for
> Transverse Force as Related to the Right Angle Lever Thought Experiment.
>
> 7: - The Lorentz Transformation for Parallel and Transverse Force as
> Related to a Compressed Spring Thought Experiment.
>
> This paper derives the Lorentz Transformations for force parallel to
> and transverse to the relative velocity vector between velocity reference
> frames. In the process it demonstrates that both the accepted Lorentz
> Transformation for Force in the transverse direction and the current
> interpretation of the Right Angle Lever Thought Experiment, as described
> in many texts, are incorrect. A final result is the determination of the
> manner in which the kinetic energy associated with a moving object
> (particle) is stored. Finally, it is shown that the reason it is
> considered that Special Relativity is not valid for accelerated reference
> frames is that it defines mass in different terms than those commonly used
> in mechanics. The difficulty with acceleration in Special Relativity
> vanishes when the non-relativistic definition of mass is used, namely that
> inertial mass is the incremental impulse required to produce an
> incremental change in velocity.
>
> 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) located at
> http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm. 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 Newsposts by this Website are available at
> http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/newsposts.com
>
> 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:- einsteinhoax@aol.com
>
> The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
> years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
> MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
> individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
> questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
> objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
> Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
> exception for which a correction was provided.
>
>