The ruins of 106 years Einstein relativity.
Last week the newspapers were filled with the discovery of "impossible" particles traveling faster than the speed of light. A month ago an "impossible" star was discovered and earlier the Pioneer space probes also refused to adhere to the law. This way, the scientific establishment will slowly but surely be forced to return to reality, the reality of the existence of a real, physical ether with fluid-like properties. The inevitable result of that will be that Einstein's relativity theory will go down in the history books as one of the biggest fallacies ever brought forth by science. In the future they will look back to relativity with equal disbelief as to the "Earth is flat" concept. The relativity theory not only goes against common sense, as Tesla already said in 1932, a fundamental thinking error has been made by Maxwell in his equations. This eventually lead to the erroneous relativity theory, as is proven in this article. It is therefore no exaggeration to state that the scientific establishment is going to have a religious experience.
The scientific establishment has been completely beside the mark by worshipping Albert Einstein and forgetting about NikolaTesla. This logical thinking realist already wiped the floor with the theory of relativity in 1932 and thus proved for the umpteenth time to be far ahead of his time:
"It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."
Isn't it just beautiful how Tesla makes perfectly clear that the Emperor of modern physics has no clothes with simple logic?
Think about it. Space is nothing more and nothing less than an abstract definition, a mere thought construct to track what is where at any given time. Just like a treasure map: twenty paces north, thirty steps west. Saying that space becomes curved by large bodies is the same as saying that a street map becomes curved because the cities and villages that are printed on it are so heavy. So, when your theory demands your abstract (nonphysical) logic to be adjusted in order to make it fit, then something is seriously wrong with your theory, no matter how many times you repeat it and preach it. Tesla said it like this:
"The theory of relativity is a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense.
The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."
Incidentally, Tesla already managed to break the speed limit before 1931 with his system of wireless transmission of energy. The principle of this system is that it transmits longitudinal electric waves through the interior of the earth, which propagate at a speed of pi/2 times the speed of light. He came to the idea of transmitting waves through the interior of the earth after he observed stationary waves caused by lightning. His system based on that observation is not understood my many. Eric Dollard describes it correctly in his book "The Theory of Wireless Power".
Anyway, now the counter of "impossible anomalies" stands at three, one can safely say that the theory of relativity has been proven to be incorrect. Further investigation shows that the origin of the errors in the theory of relativity can be found in the Maxwell equations. These equations describe the phenomenon of electro-magnetism, or the electromagnetic field, mathematically. A fundamental mistake has been made in the formulation of these equations.
The mathematician James Clerk Maxwell formulated his equations based on the experiments by Michael Faraday. Hereby, he assumed that the electromagnetic fields were caused by charge carriers, matter. Today we know from the particle-wave duality principle and quantum mechanics that matter is nothing but some kind of localized electromagnetic wave. In other words, there's a hole in the explanation of the mainstream science you can drive a truck through:
Either the fields cause the matter, or the matter causes the fields, but not both at the same time! Make up your mind, folks!
It may be clear by now that quantum mechanics is correct in this respect and that the Maxwell equations are therefore incorrect or at least incomplete. Both the electric and the magnetic field can exist on and by themselves and can also propagate trough space. When the Maxwell equations are corrected for this omission, as Prof. Dr.-Ing. Konstantin Meyl does in his paper "Faraday or Maxwell?", we basically return to the good old ether model. The ultimate result of that is that Einstein's relativity theory should be referred to the realm of fantasy.
Because Maxwell assumed that charge carriers were the causes of the fields, implicitly a certain reference frame is linked to the description of the fields. That leads to the Maxwell equations being not invariant to the so-called Galilean transform. This sounds complicated, but if you want to describe a ripple in a glass of water in a passing train, you have to take into account the speed difference between observer and train. Well, that's all the Galilean transform does. So, in order to describe the waves propagating trough the ether "generally", you have to basically use the same correction. And because the Galilean transform can be applied to all classical mechanics laws, we call these "invariant" for the Galilean transformation:
"Galilean invariance or Galilean relativity is a principle of relativity which states that the fundamental laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. Galileo Galilei first described this principle in 1632 in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems using the example of a ship travelling at constant velocity, without rocking, on a smooth sea; any observer doing experiments below the deck would not be able to tell whether the ship was moving or stationary.
Maxwell's equations governing electromagnetism possess a different symmetry, Lorentz invariance, under which lengths and times are affected by a change in velocity, which is then described mathematically by a Lorentz transformation.
Albert Einstein's central insight in formulating special relativity was that, for full consistency with electromagnetism, mechanics must also be revised such that Lorentz invariance replaces Galilean invariance. At the low relative velocities characteristic of everyday life, Lorentz invariance and Galilean invariance are nearly the same, but for relative velocities close to that of light they are very different."
What happened is that it turned out that the Galilean transform is not working with the Maxwell equations. In other words, the Maxwell equations are not invariant to the Galilean transform. However, this is ultimately caused by the incorrect assumption that the fields are caused by matter. As Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill argued some time ago, science resorted to the so-called Lorentz transformation, mathematically correct but in fact nonsense in terms of having any physical relevance. And it is this Lorentz transformation which requires the speed of light to be constant, while we actuall know this is not the case.
After all, within different materials, different media, the speed of light differs and is less than that in free space. And because materials consist of elementary particles, it is clear that the presence of (elementary) particles affects the speed of light. This is what causes light rays to break in the transition from air to glass. And since we also know from the particle-wave duality principle that all electromagnetic waves in the Universe are particles and we know that the Universe is filled with all kinds of electromagnetic waves, it is clear that throughout the Universe the speed of light is affected by the presence of all kinds of particles. The claim that the speed of light is constant in the Universe is therefore absolutely untenable.
Update (sept 30, 2011):
It turns out that it has actually been experimentally proven that the speed of light in deep space is not fixed, as reported by William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.:
"Evidence has surfaced that the speed of light is not c in deep space, based on satellite data from Pioneer 10 and 11. Launched in 1972 and 1973 respectively, radio signals received from these satellites contain an "anomalous" Doppler shift. Renshaw showed that this can be explained by assuming classical Newtonian mechanics for the Doppler-shifted radio signal in a heliocentric frame of reference. Staunch relativists take note: Here is a clear case, for both satellites, where classical theory gives the correct answer, but relativistic corrections lead to the wrong results. Einstein’s relativity cannot explain this result, and indeed, it is the cause of the problem in the first place!"
"Wallace discovered that radar data for the planet Venus did not confirm the constancy of the speed of light. Alarmed and intrigued by these results, he noticed systematic variations in the data with diurnal and lunar-synodic components. He attempted to publish the results in Physical Review Letters, but he encountered considerable resistance. His analysis indicated a heretical "c + v" Galilean fit to the data, so as a result, he had no alternative but to publish elsewhere. To say that Wallace was less than tactful would be something of an understatement. He made heated claims that NASA had noticed the very same results and was using non-relativistic correction factors to calculate signal transit times."
I just love coincidences like this. One day you prove theoretically that the speed of light cannot be fixed across the Universe and just two days later you find the experimental evidence just like that. And the article by Dr. Cantrell provides much more evidence that Einstein's relativity theory really is untenable after all.
When we add just this "anomalous" Doppler shift (which is a completely different phenomenon than the slow down anomaly referred to above) and the "anomalous" radar data, the count already stands at five. And still counting, cause I haven't even finisched reading Dr. Cantrell's article...
1. The concept of "space" is an abstract concept, comparable to a streetmap. Therefore space cannot be curved, because an abstract concept cannot have physical properties.
2. The field descriptions (Maxwell equations) are incorrect, because of the incorrect assumption that the fields are caused by particles. When this error is corrected, the normal Galilean transform applies, which does not demand a fixed speed of light.
3. The speed of light is not constant within the Universe, and therefore the Lorentz transform cannot be applied in the real physical Universe, even if it would have had any physical relevance.
And that means the bottom drops from underneath the whole relativity theory.
Update (Oct 20th 2011): Note that only one of these arguments has to be true in order for Einstein's theory to be disproven. After all, the whole idea of the speed of light supposedly being fixed is because that is being demanded by the Lorentz transform. So, Tesla's argument that space cannot be curved, because it cannot have physical properties is just an additional illustrative argument that shows how simple it really is to recognize that relativity cannot be correct. And the argument that the Maxwell equations are incorrect is the root cause that explains how and why physics went bazerk for over a hundred years.
Subsequently, the work of Hans Jenny is very interesting. He published a number of breathtaking videos which show what you can do with sound waves, eg in a bowl of water (parts 1, 2 en 3). He shows that many kinds of geometric shapes can be formed using standing sound waves in the fluid, whereby matter flows together naturally to certain areas and stays away from other areas. And that's also what happens in the ether. So, gravity is simply an electrostatic phenomenon caused by longitudinal standing waves in the ether, which determines the geometry of the solar system, our galaxy, and so on. Everything is connected to everything through these standing waves.
Well, and if you're that far off with your fundamental theory, it should surprise noone that you get strange results every now and then. The reported Pioneer anomaly is simply due to the distribution of ether pressure, the same kind of ether pressure that keeps our planet in orbit.
And for those who are still looking for the ether wind that they could never find: near the surface of the earth this exercises a force on matter, such that matter accelerates with about 9.81 m/s2 towards the earth. This still unexplained force can therefore be nullified pretty easily using very high electrical voltages, as Thomas Townsend Brown proved in the sixties with his "mysterious" anti-gravity experiments. (Recently replicated on a small scale by Jean-Louis Naudin).
So, IMHO, it's high time to restore the old ether theory and return to "reality" instead of "relativity". And to be honest, that seams relatively easy to me.
Arend Lammertink, MSc, September 26, 2011.
In case you feel that I might have little admiration for Einstein, this my favorite quote of this great scientist:
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
With this one, I totally agree:
"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."
And last but not least: this one:
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, His thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest ... a kind of optical delusion of His consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restrict us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free Ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
My article and statements in "the ruins of 106 years Einstein relativity" is directed against the theory of relativity as such, and certainly also against the way this theory is preached almost as absolute truth by mainstream science. They manage to ignore and/or ridicule well-founded criticism such as by Thornhill and Meyl. So, if one wants to take a stand against this, one has unfortunately little choice but to be blunt. It's a shame that this is needed today, but well, so be it. It is high time that the fundamental mistakes that were made are straigtened out, because with the "pretend and extend" politics of mainstream science, we will get nowhere.
And for the fans one more quote from Tesla:
"According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible."
This article may be freely copied, distributed and/or published, whether or not partially, translated, etc. A reference to the source www.tuks.nl and the name of the author is appreciated. If desired, here (small version) you can find a photograph of the author, which can alse be used freely.
Arend can be contacted by email at lamare at the gmail dot com domain.
The ideas and theories that lead to this article have been "peer reviewed" at Energetic Forum.
This article can be discussed here
A version of this article in Dutch can be found here
Further links and references:
A Dissident View of Relativity Theory by William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.
"In this issue we highlight some of the experimental facts that do not fit with relativity theory. We discuss some of its logical inconsistencies and offer alternatives for your consideration. We also look at the controversies associated with some of Einstein’s ideas and how they first originated. As always, our goal is to bring you viable, plausible alternatives to the cherished and protected dogma of mainstream physics—areas where theory does not agree with experimental facts."
This thread on Energetic Forum has lots of further information. For example, Paul Stowe:
"Many of apparent inconsistencies that exist in our current understanding of physics have results from a basic lack of understanding of what are called fields. These fields, electric, magnetic, gravitational...etc, have been the nemesis of physicists since the birth of modern science, and continues unresolved by quantum mechanics. A classical example of this is the problem of an electron interacting with it's own field. This case results in the equations of quantum mechanics diverging to infinity. To overcome this problem, Bethe(1) introduced the process of ignoring the higher order terms that result from taking these equations to their limit of zero distance, in what is now a common practice called renormalization.
These field problems result in class of entities called virtual, existing only to balance and explain interactions. These entities can (and do) violate accepted physical laws. This is deemed acceptable since they are assumed to exist temporarily at time intervals shorter than the Heisenberg's uncertainty limit. It has been known for some time that such virtual entities necessitate the existence of energy in this virtual realm (Field), giving rise to the concept of quantum zero point energy.
As a result of this presentation I will propose the elimination of both the need for renormalization and any such virtual fields. This will be accomplished by replacing the virtual field with a real physical media within which we define elemental particles (which more precisely should be called structures) and the resultant forces which act between them."
"The vortex is central to wave mechanics and when the academicians threw out the ether concept they discarded the investigation into vortices, which are the source of all wave motions in our Universe. By eliminating the vortices from the academic theory, it ensured our handlers, that those who dedicate themselves to the system of mind control in place would never question the extreme motive force of the vortex and apply it to solving our energy needs and freeing us from the polluting fuels sold at extreme cost by energy barons, then wasted by explosion, heat and pollution, extracting a fraction of its value in the form of usable motive energy."
Faster than the Speed of Light:
"If you follow the news concerning new developments in science, you might have heard that over the course of the last decade our scientists have ‘broken the light barrier'. Apparently experiments have been conducted that produce results that are ‘faster than the speed of light.' These experiments remain controversial, but they have been duplicated in different ways, producing similar results, and this then leads a person to wonder what might be going on here."
Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice
This is my earlier work. Just read it back today. Most of it still makes a lot of sense, even though some of the material is a bit outdated. An interesting read nonetheless....