If you're tired of hearing about 'Intelligent design' creationists and the court wars against Darwin's theory in the U.S., you might be surprised to learn that another pillar of modern science, Einstein and his Theory of Relativity, is under attack.
A burgeoning underground of 'dissident' scientists and self-described experts publish their theories in newsletters and blogs on the Net, exchanging ideas in a great battle against 'the temple of relativity'. According to these critics, relativity is not only wrong, it's an affront to common sense, and its creator, Albert Einstein, was no less than a cheat.
A quick glance at anti-relativity proponents and their publications reveals a plethora of alternative theories about how the universe really works – very few of them in agreement with each other. But despite their many differences, common themes among these self-described iconoclasts do emerge: resentment of academic 'elites', suspicion of the entire peer-review process in mainstream scientific journals and a deep-seated paranoia about the extent of government involvement in scientific projects.
An aethro-kinematics website (www.aethro-kinematics.com) claims to refute relativity by resurrecting René Descartes' theory that the Earth and all the planets are carried around the Sun by an "Aether vortex". Another site points to the work of one Stefan Marinov, a self-described dissident, who apparently threatened to immolate himself in front of the British Embassy in Vienna, Austria, because he was so incensed by the refusal of the respected journal Nature to publish his 'proofs' against relativity.
This is just a taste. A visit to Google reveals the extent of the phenomenon. Is this a new front in the war on science? Can we expect a new Discovery Institute, armed with millions of dollars from eccentric fundamentalists, spoiling for a rematch in school boards across the U.S. — this time attacking Einstein and not Darwin?
Hopefully not, according to Bryan Gaensler, a professor of physics at the University of Sydney. "The anti-relativity cranks are not nearly as well-organised as the creationists. Probably none of them would get along well enough to form a serious threat to science."
Having said that, he adds, "there has just begun a new series of conferences, held by anti-relativity cranks, called 'Crisis in Cosmology'. I think the first one was held in Spain and they're planning another. It looks exactly like a legitimate scientific conference, with the difference that everyone delivering a talk there is insane."
The conference planners sent out invitations to Gaensler and hundreds of other physicists. "Before registering," he says, "you had to fill out this 10-point, bulleted manifesto, agreeing to all sorts of propositions from the start. For example, 'I do not accept that the universe is expanding', and so on, the kind of thing you would never see at a real scientific conference. It was hilarious."
The anti-relativity movement got underway as soon as Einstein's first paper on special relativity was published, in 1905. Some scientists disputed its assertion that the old Newtonian concepts of absolute space and time — which had never been scientifically established — were superfluous. Indeed, the attempt to restore these concepts to mainstream physics has been the essential foundation of almost every crank theory since.
Even more enraging to some scientists and engineers was the worldwide fame Einstein attained with the 1916 publication of his General Theory of Relativity, which extended special relativity and offered a radically new explanation for gravity.
A number of Germans, many of them anti-Semites, despised Einstein's socialist views and envied his fame. Outside Germany, however, Einstein's theory also met resistance. Albert Michelson, famous as the American who devised the failed Michelson-Morley experiment to detect aether, the invisible medium that 19th century scientists supposed responsible for the propagation of light waves through space, never accepted relativity and he politely admitted this to Einstein when they met.
Like many physicists and astronomers, Gaensler routinely hears from individuals claiming to have proven Einstein's theory false. "I have a boxload of material from cranks," he says, "but currently it's in storage aboard a ship somewhere between the U.S. and Sydney." A native Australian, Gaensler has just completed an eight-year stint in Boston, teaching at Harvard University and conducting research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics.
"But there is a pattern," he says. "They're always male — never female. Normally professionals of some kind, doctors, pilots, engineers. And they're always retired and have years to spend on their pet theory.
"Whenever the observatory sends out a press release, they read it and send out mass-mailings to every scientist listed as having anything to do with the event."
May the Temple of Relativity collapse!
The GR & SR theories are the modern day equivalents of Earth-centric theories of the past. The level of academic censorship surrounding them is proof enough of their inconsistencies. Listening to a modern-day mainstream theoretical physicist is like listening to the rant of a meth-head at 3:00 AM on Friday night.
One thing that is universal for SR & GR is that whenever a finding is discovered that in anyway contradicts the establishment, it is claimed to be due to some unknown phenomenon, usually to be named "dark something". Under no circumstances can it be due to something wrong with GR or SR itself.
My biggest problem with Relativity is that it is now shoved into our faces from kindergarten through graduate school as an absolute, when the only absolute thing about relativity is the number of holes in it.
May GR & SR die swiftly, so that real science can move forward. :)
P.S. My wife and I were watching the Science Channel yesterday when a show about Relativity came on with host Dr. Michio Kaku. After listening to him explain GR & SR for about 10 minutes, my wife turned to me and asked, "Is he on drugs or something?". I wish some of these "theoretical physicists" could hear themselves speak, they sound like crazy people.
An end to this silly squabble.
I myself am a grad student currently pursuing a degree in Nuclear Astrophysics. First, let me note that if you don't know what a tensor is, what the Minkowski metric is, or for that matter what a Lorentz transformation is, your opinion doesn't matter at all in this debate and you should stop wasting everyone's time by attempting to contribute to something far above you. Now, to get to the root of the problem, it should come as no surprise to any true scientist that the fundamental concept in science is that nothing can ever be proven to perfect validity, one may only approximate based on their surroundings, and disprove approximations that are erroneously conjectured. Doing so however usually only involves a small correction to existing thought. Yes, special and general relativity are huge fields in and of themselves, however they merely serve as correction, an explanation for phenomena that did not agree with Newton. Newton WAS wrong; however, he was also right. His equations do in fact hold true for bodies in the limit of v >> c. But not for high speeds, too many different fundamental problems arose that absolutely spat in the face of Newtonian Mechanics. Now yes, there can be many, many ideas, and it could be a million different small effects that all miraculously cause this, but in science, you go with probability, and simplicity, and special relativity is a wonderfully simple solution that accounts for nearly all of the odd phenomena that plagued physicists at that time. For one model to fix so many different problems all at once does not make it perfect, however it does make it extremely valid. Einstein was no fake, and for anyone to call him that just reveals their ignorance and arrogance. Einstein was a revolutionary, could picture things no one else could at that time, and without him our current way of living might very well be extremely different. But even HE wasn't perfectly right. As I said, there were still many unexplained concepts, from Newtonian mechanics and relativity, such as the Black Body catastrophe. If you don't know what that is, stop reading now, turn off your computer, and go do something more productive with your time. This of course was explained with the revolution of Quantum Mechanics, which later evolved into the far more grand and encompassing Quantum Field Theory, which has since moved on to the more fundamental area of String Theory. And yet, string theory to this day still clashes with General Relativity on many aspects, yet both describe a VAST amount of information. They are not perfect though, and that is the key. Neither are 100% right, but that doesn't make them inherently wrong either, just as Newton wasn't really WRONG, he was merely looking at too small a picture. So no, Einstein was absolutely not wrong in his conjecture, he just wasn't completely right either. No scientist will ever be completely right, all we can strive for is to be more right then the last generation, to build on what they left us. To assume anything else is just...sad and pointless.
Also, just to note, I
Also, just to note, I noticed many of the Kepler equations here on the last few pages. Wow, very special, you can use a perturbation in the field potential proportional to 1/r^2 to generate results identical to Einstein's. I just solved that equation in my intro theoretical dynamics class a week ago. You're not special for posting a simple math equation. Keplerian equations only solve the precession of Mercury's ellipse by taking a perturbation into account, or rather, assuming that the force felt as a result of gravity is not proportional to 1/r^2, but rather 1/r^2.000x, i.e. some value extremely close to 2. But what you don't seem to take into account is that Kepler's laws are FOUNDED on the concept of that force being proportional to 1/r^2, so creating a perturbation along down the line then trying to solve the problem with the previous laws is idiotic. You may all play with your silly logic falsies and undergrad level mathematics all you want, I wipe my hands of this and move on to conducting real science.
Yes he is fake
Time: A scale and not a dimension
Abstract: Time as a dimension used in scientific calculation not only can lead to fires but to making fools out of the scientific community. Proof is attached.
Present time = present time
Present time = past time + [present time – past time]
A Measurement is done in present time of an event that had happened.
Equipment time = Event time + time delays
Measurement time = Event time + time delays
Physics Experiment = physics theory + time delays
Physics live = Event + corrections
Universal Mechanics = Mechanics + corrections
A measurement is an event taken in present time of an event that happened in the past. We measure what is happening live in present time of what had happened in an event that already had happened.
Applied to Planetary motion or star-star motion
An event: r (θ, 0) = [a (1-ε²)/ (1+ ε cosine θ)] Planet motion Event
Physics live: r (θ, t) = [a (1-ε²)/ (1+ε cosine θ)] {Exp [λ (r) + ỉ ω (r)] t}
Perihelion advance corrections:
W" (ob) = (-720x36526x3600/T) {[√ (1-ε²)]/ (1-ε) ²} [(v* + v°)/c] ²
= 43.11” of an arc per century for mercury
Relativity theory concept of relative time between event and measurement created a silly universe when in fact it is a distortion of information that has a deterministic value. This silly concept of relative time as a dimension is an imposed non scientific concept and it was imposed by Royals who for political reason backed bad physics and Physicists. The two most famous physicists are Newton and Einstein and Both made the same mistake or relative time and both were supported by Royal England. Sir Isaac Newton was a mathematician and the head of England Royal society and his physics is as bad as Einstein and Einstein was unknown till Lord Eddington did his Rigging of Data to prove Light bending. Eddington did see Light Aberration and claimed light bending and the correct formula is not Einstein's.
Newton and Einstein made the same mistake:
Einstein Mistake
W" (ob) = (-720x36526x3600/T) {[√ (1-ε²)]/ (1-ε) ²} [(v* + v°)/c] ²
= 43.11” of an arc per century for mercury
Newton Mistake
W" (ob) = (-180x36526x3600/T) m/M
= 43.044” of an arc per century for mercury
Joe Nahhas 1979 Picture stapled on my thermo book Whispering
"I am coming up to get the party started"
It is not only Einstein is wrong but 350 years of wrong physics started by England Royal Society Head Master Sir Isaac Newton
Universal Mechanics Solution: For 350 years Physicists Astronomers and Mathematicians missed Kepler's time dependent equation introduced here and transformed Newton's equation into a time dependent Newton' equation and together these two equations combines classical mechanics and quantum mechanics in one universal mechanics equation and explains relativistic as corrections to the difference between time dependent measurements and time independent measurements or visual effects or signal time delays effects.
All there is in the Universe is objects of mass m moving in space (x, y, z) at a location
r = r (x, y, z). The state of any object in the Universe can be expressed as the product
S = m r; State = mass x location:
P = d S/d t = m (d r/d t) + (dm/d t) r = Total moment
= change of location + change of mass
= m v + m' r; v = velocity = d r/d t; m' = mass change rate
F = d P/d t = d²S/dt² = Total force
= m (d²r/dt²) +2(dm/d t) (d r/d t) + (d²m/dt²) r
= m γ + 2m'v +m" r; γ = acceleration; m'' = mass acceleration rate
In polar coordinates system
We Have r = r r (1) ;v = r' r(1) + r θ' θ(1) ; γ = (r" - rθ'²)r(1) + (2r'θ' + r θ")θ(1)
r = location; v = velocity; γ = acceleration
F = m γ + 2m'v +m" r
F = m [(r"-rθ'²) r (1) + (2r'θ' + r θ") θ (1)] + 2m'[r' r (1) + r θ' θ (1)] + (m" r) r (1)
= [d² (m r)/dt² - (m r) θ'²] r (1) + (1/mr) [d (m²r²θ')/d t] θ (1)
= [-GmM/r²] r (1) ------------------------------- Newton's Gravitational Law
Proof:
First r = r [cosine θ î + sine θ Ĵ] = r r (1)
Define r (1) = cosine θ î + sine θ Ĵ
Define v = d r/d t = r' r (1) + r d[r (1)]/d t
= r' r (1) + r θ'[- sine θ î + cosine θĴ]
= r' r (1) + r θ' θ (1)
Define θ (1) = -sine θ î +cosine θ Ĵ;
And with r (1) = cosine θ î + sine θ Ĵ
Then d [θ (1)]/d t= θ' [- cosine θ î - sine θ Ĵ= - θ' r (1)
And d [r (1)]/d t = θ' [-sine θ î + cosine θ Ĵ] = θ' θ (1)
Define γ = d [r' r (1) + r θ' θ (1)] /d t
= r" r (1) + r'd [r (1)]/d t + r' θ' r (1) + r θ" r (1) +r θ'd [θ (1)]/d t
γ = (r" - rθ'²) r (1) + (2r'θ' + r θ") θ (1)
With d² (m r)/dt² - (m r) θ'² = -GmM/r² Newton's Gravitational Equation (1)
And d (m²r²θ')/d t = 0 Central force law (2)
(2): d (m²r²θ')/d t = 0
Then m²r²θ' = constant
= H (0, 0)
= m² (0, 0) h (0, 0); h (0, 0) = r² (0, 0) θ'(0, 0)
= m² (0, 0) r² (0, 0) θ'(0, 0); h (θ, 0) = [r² (θ, 0)] [θ'(θ, 0)]
= [m² (θ, 0)] h (θ, 0); h (θ, 0) = [r² (θ, 0)] [θ'(θ, 0)]
= [m² (θ, 0)] [r² (θ, 0)] [θ'(θ, 0)]
= [m² (θ, t)] [r² (θ, t)] [θ' (θ, t)]
= [m²(θ, 0) m²(0,t)][ r²(θ,0)r²(0,t)][θ'(θ, t)]
= [m²(θ, 0) m²(0,t)][ r²(θ,0)r²(0,t)][θ'(θ, 0) θ' (0, t)]
With m²r²θ' = constant
Differentiate with respect to time
Then 2mm'r²θ' + 2m²rr'θ' + m²r²θ" = 0
Divide by m²r²θ'
Then 2 (m'/m) + 2(r'/r) + θ"/θ' = 0
This equation will have a solution 2 (m'/m) = 2[λ (m) + ì ω (m)]
And 2(r'/r) = 2[λ (r) + ì ω (r)]
And θ"/θ' = -2{λ (m) + λ (r) + ỉ [ω (m) + ω (r)]}
Then (m'/m) = [λ (m) + ì ω (m)]
Or d m/m d t = [λ (m) + ì ω (m)]
And dm/m = [λ (m) + ì ω (m)] d t
Then m = m (0) Exp [λ (m) + ì ω (m)] t
m = m (0) m (0, t); m (0, t) Exp [λ (m) + ì ω (m)] t
With initial spatial condition that can be taken at t = 0 anywhere then m (0) = m (θ, 0)
And m = m (θ, 0) m (0, t) = m (θ, 0) Exp [λ (m) + ì ω (m)] t; Exp = Exponential
And m (0, t) = Exp [λ (m) + ỉ ω (m)] t
Similarly we can get
Also, r = r (θ, 0) r (0, t) = r (θ, 0) Exp [λ (r) + ì ω (r)] t
With r (0, t) = Exp [λ (r) + ỉ ω (r)] t
Then θ'(θ, t) = {H(0, 0)/[m²(θ,0) r(θ,0)]}Exp{-2{[λ(m) + λ(r)]t + ì [ω(m) + ω(r)]t}} -----I
And θ'(θ, t) = θ' (θ, 0)]} Exp {-2{[λ (m) + λ (r)] t + ì [ω (m) + ω (r)] t}} --------------------I
And, θ'(θ, t) = θ' (θ, 0) θ' (0, t)
And θ' (0, t) = Exp {-2{[λ (m) + λ(r)] t + ì [ω (m) + ω(r)] t}
Also θ'(θ, 0) = H (0, 0)/ m² (θ, 0) r² (θ, 0)
And θ'(0, 0) = {H (0, 0)/ [m² (0, 0) r (0, 0)]}
With (1): d² (m r)/dt² - (m r) θ'² = -GmM/r² = -Gm³M/m²r²
And d² (m r)/dt² - (m r) θ'² = -Gm³ (θ, 0) m³ (0, t) M/ (m²r²)
Let m r =1/u
Then d (m r)/d t = -u'/u² = - (1/u²) (θ') d u/d θ = (- θ'/u²) d u/d θ = -H d u/d θ
And d² (m r)/dt² = -Hθ'd²u/dθ² = - Hu² [d²u/dθ²]
-Hu² [d²u/dθ²] - (1/u) (Hu²)² = -Gm³ (θ, 0) m³ (0, t) Mu²
[d²u/ dθ²] + u = Gm³ (θ, 0) m³ (0, t) M/ H²
t = 0; m³ (0, 0) = 1
u = Gm³ (θ, 0) M/ H² + A cosine θ =Gm (θ, 0) M (θ, 0)/ h² (θ, 0)
And m r = 1/u = 1/ [Gm (θ, 0) M (θ, 0)/ h (θ, 0) + A cosine θ]
= [h²/ Gm (θ, 0) M (θ, 0)]/ {1 + [Ah²/ Gm (θ, 0) M (θ, 0)] [cosine θ]}
= [h²/Gm (θ, 0) M (θ, 0)]/ (1 + ε cosine θ)
Then m (θ, 0) r (θ, 0) = [a (1-ε²)/ (1+ ε cosine θ)] m (θ, 0)
Dividing by m (θ, 0)
Then r (θ, 0) = a (1-ε²)/ (1+εcosθ)
This is Newton's Classical Equation solution of two body problem which is the equation of an ellipse of semi-major axis of length a and semi minor axis b = a √ (1 - ε²) and focus length c = ε a
And m r = m (θ, t) r (θ, t) = m (θ, 0) m (0, t) r (θ, 0) r (0, t)
Then, r (θ, t) = [a (1-ε²)/ (1+εcosθ)] {Exp [λ(r) + ỉ ω (r)] t} ---------------------------------- II
This is Newton's time dependent equation that is missed for 350 years
If λ (m) ≈ 0 fixed mass and λ(r) ≈ 0 fixed orbit; then
Then r (θ, t) = r (θ, 0) r (0, t) = [a (1-ε²)/ (1+ε cosine θ)] Exp i ω (r) t
And m = m (θ, 0) Exp [i ω (m) t] = m (θ, 0) Exp ỉ ω (m) t
We Have θ'(0, 0) = h (0, 0)/r² (0, 0) = 2πab/ Ta² (1-ε) ²
= 2πa² [√ (1-ε²)]/T a² (1-ε) ²
= 2π [√ (1-ε²)]/T (1-ε) ²
Then θ'(0, t) = {2π [√ (1-ε²)]/ T (1-ε) ²} Exp {-2[ω (m) + ω (r)] t
= {2π [√ (1-ε²)]/ (1-ε) ²} {cosine 2[ω (m) + ω (r)] t - ỉ sin 2[ω (m) + ω (r)] t}
= θ'(0, 0) {1- 2sin² [ω (m) + ω (r)] t}
- ỉ 2i θ'(0, 0) sin [ω (m) + ω (r)] t cosine [ω (m) + ω (r)] t
Then θ'(0, t) = θ'(0, 0) {1 - 2sine² [ω (m) t + ω (r) t]}
- 2ỉ θ'(0, 0) sin [ω (m) + ω(r)] t cosine [ω (m) + ω(r)] t
Δ θ' (0, t) = Real Δ θ' (0, t) + Imaginary Δ θ (0, t)
Real Δ θ (0, t) = θ'(0, 0) {1 - 2 sine² [ω (m) t ω(r) t]}
Let W (ob) = Δ θ' (0, t) (observed) = Real Δ θ (0, t) - θ'(0, 0)
= -2θ'(0, 0) sine² [ω (m) t + ω(r) t]
= -2[2π [√ (1-ε²)]/T (1-ε) ²] sine² [ω (m) t + ω(r) t]
And W (ob) = -4π [√ (1-ε²)]/T (1-ε) ²] sine² [ω (m) t + ω(r) t]
If this apsidal motion is to be found as visual effects, then
With, v ° = spin velocity; v* = orbital velocity; v°/c = tan ω (m) T°; v*/c = tan ω (r) T*
Where T° = spin period; T* = orbital period
And ω (m) T° = Inverse tan v°/c; ω (r) T*= Inverse tan v*/c
W (ob) = -4 π [√ (1-ε²)]/T (1-ε) ²] sine² [Inverse tan v°/c + Inverse tan v*/c] radians
Multiplication by 180/π
W (ob) = (-720/T) {[√ (1-ε²)]/ (1-ε) ²} sine² {Inverse tan [v°/c + v*/c]/ [1 - v° v*/c²]} degrees and multiplication by 1 century = 36526 days and using T in days
W° (ob) = (-720x36526/Tdays) {[√ (1-ε²)]/ (1-ε) ²} x
sine² {Inverse tan [v°/c + v*/c]/ [1 - v° v*/c²]} degrees/100 years
Approximations I
With v° << c and v* << c, then v° v* <<< c² and [1 - v° v*/c²] ≈ 1
Then W° (ob) ≈ (-720x36526/Tdays) {[√ (1-ε²)]/ (1-ε) ²} x sine² Inverse tan [v°/c + v*/c] degrees/100 years
Approximations II
With v° << c and v* << c, then sine Inverse tan [v°/c + v*/c] ≈ (v° + v*)/c
W° (ob) = (-720x36526/Tdays) {[√ (1-ε²)]/ (1-ε) ²} x [(v° + v*)/c] ² degrees/100 years
This is the equation that gives the correct apsidal motion rates -----------------------III
The circumference of an ellipse: 2πa (1 - ε²/4 + 3/16(ε²)²- --.) ≈ 2πa (1-ε²/4); R =a (1-ε²/4)
Where v (m) = √ [GM²/ (m + M) a (1-ε²/4)]
And v (M) = √ [Gm² / (m + M) a (1-ε²/4)]
1- Advance of Perihelion of mercury. [No spin factor] Because data are given with no spin factor
G=6.673x10^-11; M=2x10^30kg; m=.32x10^24kg; ε = 0.206; T=88days
And c = 299792.458 km/sec; a = 58.2km/sec; 1-ε²/4 = 0.989391
With v° = 2meters/sec
And v *= √ [GM/a (1-ε²/4)] = 48.14 km/sec
Calculations yields: v = v* + v° =48.14km/sec (mercury)
And [√ (1- ε²)] (1-ε) ² = 1.552
W" (ob) = (-720x36526x3600/T) {[√ (1-ε²)]/ (1-ε) ²} (v/c) ²
W" (ob) = (-720x36526x3600/88) x (1.552) (48.14/299792)² = 43.0”/century
This is the rate of for the advance of perihelion of planet mercury explained as "apparent" without the use of fictional forces or fictional universe of space-time confusions of physics of relativity.
Joenahhas1958@yahoo.com all rights reserved