HOME PAGE 2 TECHNICAL

back to home page 1

 

Another problem for the Special theory of relativity

The Sagnac experiment destroys the special theory of relativity.

 

There is no dragging of the light by any medium whether the air or the aether. Therefore it does not prove the existence of an aether if any other reason for URF c constancy can be declared.

The Sagnac effect has got everyone confused because it does appear to show light being dragged by a medium which is easily demonstrated to not be air because the effect can be seen in a vacuum. However it appears that somehow it is being dragged by the aether yet unlike the Michelson Morley experiment (MMX) it appears to show light speed anisotropy. A coaxial cable does show emr speed anisotropy and along with the Sagnac result both of these phenomena begin to seriously question the STR. Neither of them can be rationally explained away by 'that's relativistic' because relativity actually denies the possibility of both. But there they both are!

Essentially you can make a mirror apparatus like Sagnac did or you can shine light in both direction through a circular light fiber and spin it through its flat plane. In both cases the light travelling in the forward direction of spin takes longer than the beam in the reverse direction. There is an answer from outside of the box.

Lets say that the G-theory conjecture; being that light is a URF* constant--- in that regardless of the direction of URF relative motion of the light emitting object the relative speed of any IRF will be c+- v. However the mirrors will show anisotropy in the Sagnac instrument because of the circular pathway; with a c+v in one direction and c-v in the other and we are left with the proof of the theory of URF c constancy as per G-theory. This means in effect that light cannot travel faster or slower than c in the URF but must be able to in the IRFs involved here. So the apparatus is absolutely seeing the relative speed differential (anisotropy) between the directions of motion relative to the constant speeds of the light beams in the URF.

Saying this another way and comparing it to the MMX--- In the MMX the light travelled out and back along both arms. In the Sagnac experiment the light travels around the apparatus in one direction for each beam and they both travel at a URF constant c. The only time there is any difference is when they both hit the optical screen which shows the interference pattern. This is because the screen is also rotating such that in the forward direction we must see c-v in order to show URF c constancy and in the reverse direction we have c+v for ditto. Those two beams must be travelling at different speeds relative to the IRF of the screen. Therefore the speed of light is not locked between all relative reference frames as Einstein declared by his misreading of the MMX nul result. The only common fact being declared by both experiments is URF c constancy.

*URF means universal reference frame thought by G theory to be universally relative to any given gravitational field strength. Refer to G-theory thesis at neuvophysics.com       IRF means inertial reference frame of constant motion.

Note: This (including the MMX) is all based on the G-theory contention that mirrors absorb at + or – the speed of light relative to any given IRF and instantaneously re-emit light at a constant URF c. I iterate: In that theory every moving mirror has a c+- speed vector component. So if the light bounces back and forth in the same direction there will obviously be a nul result. However light travelling in only one direction will show a changed speed exactly motion relatable to the IRF speed compared to the URF. That can only be declared in mirror experiments by the various versions of the Sagnac apparatus Such devices can 't declare the motion of the Earth through space. They can only show a summed interference pattern which will change dependent upon the motions of any of the IRFs. So in that case we are able to use it to accurately declare motion in the Cartesian plane of the device.

**Ref to the Michelson Morley experiment in the thesis.

 

 

The reason for the Michelson Morley experiment nul result. The reason for the nul result of the MMX is that mirrors don't reflect according to some lame prep school physics. They absorb and re-emit light at constant c regardless of the IRF speeds. This means that the relative anisotropy which would otherwise have been detected by the MMX does exist as expected and declared by the Sagnac experiment. So relativity is not required at all to explain the nul result! That is the only solution to the recognizable problem that the Sagnac and MMX are in conflict. Visit neuvophysics.com and email your interest in another laser- atomic clock experiment to prove light speed anisotropy. Emr anisotropy has already been observed in a coaxial cable. I kid you not. Science has made a serious mistake. Special Relativity is provably just mathematical back the front crap.

 

The aether--- Even though there is strong support for light speed anisotropy and c constancy, neither the MMX nor the Sagnac experiments declare the existence of an aether of the universe, which I actually suspect does exist in some form unlike any sort of wind or treacle etc. The only experiment that can show that, is -as I have just let on- one that I have devised but which I have neither the resources or the wherewithal to carry it out.

This G theory actually allows that the reason for the constancy of the speed of light in the universal reference frame is not necessarily some sort of physical aether substance. It may well be caused by a field force such as gravity. This I actually promote in some depth. Because of the headwinds of an entrenched science, I repeat, it is imperative that another experiment be carried out for added support.

Note: The existence of an aether of any description does not prove geocentricity. In fact the other reason for the proposed experiment is to show the differential light speeds that the MMX was looking for in order to prove the speed and direction of the Earth as it travels through space. If there is no differential then I guess I ' ll then have to start thinking outside that box.

 

Rational question--- If Einstein had two choices before him when the MMX returned a nul result. Which of the following two was the more rational choice?

1/ A new theory to evaluate declares that mirrors absorb light and re-emit it at a constant c.

2/ All the reference frames have a locked speed of light regardless of their motion so because of the idea I got from Lorentz that seems to be supportive, I will change the known constants to conclude that because ' c ' is locked therefore it must be time that is changing dependent on the speed of the IRFs.

Unfortunately Einstein didn ' t possess the first theory as a choice so he had no alternative -other than duh!- than to go with the second choice.

It now turns out that he was wrong. Light is speed anisotropic relative to IRFs. If only MM had carried out the Sagnac experiment. Sigh!

Refer to the ---refutation of STR anisotropy tab ---home page subset.

 

 

Further explanation from a linear viewpoint.

 

STR declares that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames of relative motion. That means between IRFs as well as from IRF to URF. The speed of light is declared to be locked everywhere to be measurable as almost exactly 3e5kms. That means that the Sagnac experiment should show no fringe shift. The c in the forward direction should be the same as the c in the reverse direction with reference to each IRF both forward and backwards*.

 

However it does show a fringe shift. If there was any contraction/expansion then there wouldn't be any, so to argue like some do that it is that very Lorentzian feature which causes the observation is ridiculous by being self negating. Attempting to explain this by simultaneously adjusting the time as gamma factor is equally as stupid because each of those two can't be utilized simultaneously. You can enjoy contraction or factor but not together. If you have trouble understanding this then no wonder physics is in the boondocks.

 

*Essentially this means that the length travelled by the light in both directions should be the same according to STR so we would expect length contraction and expansion as we would with every relative motion of IRFs in the universe. That's what STR declares.

Lets suppose that we could arrange to have two exactly equal light paths facing each other lengthwise with a screen located exactly in the center between them. We set the light paths moving towards each other at similar speeds and observe the result of the two exactly equal beams on the screen. We would expect to observe no fringe shift.

If we did see a fringe shift we would have to conclude that one or both of the beams saw a speed change. All things being equal that declares that something has affected both beams together and it obviously wasn't in the same direction. We are forced to conclude that there must be some sort of medium MOVING through the space and thus slowing the beams differentially. In the case of the Sagnac device we are moving the experiment through a medium as if we placed the linear experiment just described on a conveyor belt. In the case of the Sagnac apparatus it becomes obvious that it might be being affected not only by its own motion but also the motion of some sort of medium which all affects the speed of light differentially in both directions. The end result is that it does seriously infer light speed anisotropy.

 

 

A problem for the General Theory of Relativity

 

First we need to get some logic straight, something we can all agree on--- Concerning any object in motion:

1/ Any object in any IRF must be considered to have all of its parts existing in that reference frame whether it is being either seen as -for instance- being time dilated or length contracted to even the most infinitesimal degree but not both. Therefore we have to agree that all its parts are in the same time zone. The object's reference frame must be a single time zone because it is locked to the unchangeable speed of light which is measured in m.s and that second there pertains exclusively to that IRF. That's from special relativity where you are only able to contemplate different time evaluations of the second for other reference frames only. Note: ---considering a solid object we can ignore all of the internal motions because they are statistically even and are supposed to be operating in all manner of Lorentz type contractions and time dilations as well as Dirac four field machinations simultaneously; and that motion is also being averaged.

Regardless of any conceived contractions or expansions; objects of any size are unable to occupy the same space at the same relatable time. --- because they are in the same times zone.

Geodesic theory expects you to believe otherwise; whereby any object moving in any gravitational geodesic has various parts existing at different altitudes which in any space time warped geodesic- is easily declarable to be in different time zones. Refer to 1/

If the idea that time changes relative to motion is true; then after aeons of time, the mountain tops should have moved into noticeably different time zones and should be -at the very least- severely leaning on some direction or other. In fact an experiment has been done where a town clock visible from a mountain top has not seen any change over recently observable time.

The fact that atomic clocks change with speed isn't a known fact at all and is not in dispute of the proceeding observations as you might think. Atomic clocks are altitude affected gravity measuring devices and that is the only thing they measure other than really good time. Note: GPS's orbit at great ALTITUDES and centrifuges remain experimentally indecisive. Relativity is a croc.

 

One of the many other fundamental and damning problems for General Relativity in particular is this:

In consideration of the traditionally accepted isotropic nature of light--- If time is declared to dilate or else expand in an increasing gravitational field, in both cases we then have a serious violation of thermodynamic law TO CONTEND WITH.    

Simply put: Energy with regard to motion is called kinetic energy, but really that's just the potential to do work--- or in other words; potential to use power in watts per second. This is because a Joule of energy is actually one watt-second of power slash work. If you understand that then please notice the implicit relationship with time there--- you know--- the second! Yep that's the same time which is supposed to be dilated in G-rel. Therefore if by the mechanics of time dilation we necessarily change the linear velocity of light per second relative to the straight universal reference frame, then we've inadvertently changed the value potential for energy delivery upon reception of the light. Here we have energy just disappearing into thin air and the law of energy conservation is therefore violated!   Note: This is all because 'light' itself can't be made relativistic and length adjustment is simply relativity seen from another viewpoint..  

This historical faux par has occurred without any recognized force or energy transfer mechanism other than by use of a mathematical space time metric distortion called general relativity which is constantly being proven by itself whereby its proponents declare that space and or time must be somehow and miraculously capable of exerting the (gravitational) force required to keep the necessary jurisprudence with thermodynamic law (except for some particles). This sort of irrationality is often covered over by the glibly stated--- "It is not yet well understood."    

What's not to understand?--- This sort of thinking supplies the mathematics with a nice set of magical wings--- which then flutters over the stage performing the miraculous feat of conjuring up the physical-reality of a force. That is the force of gravity--- the force you perceive as weight!

Yes--- All that force-derivation by relativity occurs without any phenomenology or mechanics other than pure magic, and to any rational mind--- excuse me--- reasonable mind; this must be seen as ludicrous, if not at the very least questionable. So to be kind, one must suspect some hidden agenda behind relativistic thought. Perhaps Theo-phobia might have something to do with it?

Just a thought but in any case, until magic becomes allowable as a scientific process then relativity is precluded from being the actual cause of gravity. Therefore General Relativity must be, just a simplistic mathematical picture of some other, as yet unknown phenomenology, and of course one that's not magic or even metaphysical.

 

Simply put: What is G-theory?

Perhaps you could use a bit of a hint here--- but without any explanation of the mechanics involved: In G-theory, the proposal is that gravity is caused by e.m.r interactions throughout the universal space quantum field--- In other words; via light interaction, specifically as transitional-perturbative multiplex-photon to photon and photon to graviton interactions. The phenomenology for this has been fully fleshed out in my featured work on G-theory.    

Other problems concerning mass and energy are answerable at the sub quantum level under the constraints of similar jurisprudence: In response to a great deal of observed historical laxity surrounding the very laws of physics; it must be asserted that true science should never allow violations of its laws no matter how short the duration, how small the particle, or how long the time available for the proposed allowance of violation.    

In referencing G-rel--- please be aware that balanced system symmetry violations are not being referred to here--- That is where, light enters one side of a system and the potential remains for the light to become emitted again and the system becomes balanced and there is then an overall balance to be argued for. This can be argued for in relativity. However the killer fact is this: There is no such balance in a black hole. The supposed disappearance of the light is a complete violation of energy conservation law--- that is; space and/or time can be concluded to have snatched the energy right out of the vacuum. This means that space and/or time must be further concluded to once again be able to exert a force which is energized by mathemagics--- duh! All right then just plain magic!    

This conservation problem has been understood by some. So this has led straight to the specious idea of mass energy equivalence and the subsequent re-write of one of the laws of thermodynamics. Because of this, the thinking began to evolve that perhaps everything physical is actually made of energy (energy stuff), and the theories of wave particle duality and quantum wave-function began to see the light of day.

There are some serious problems associated with those theories however: Namely that energy as a 'stuff' is a complete unknown, as well as the fact that there is no phenomenology which can describe how such 'energy stuff' might actually become physical stuff in the end. Every up and coming new theory associated with that line of thinking is just as likely to be found to be as phenomenologically bereft and as full of holes as its predecessor.    

In any case no matter what the theory--- in the end there always remains the fundamental problem of the origin of matter, typified in response by the profoundly stupid idea of the universe being created by the 'turning on' of time for instance. Such asinine hypotheses offer no solution to that problem either. So apart from a fiat creation event there are no other viable theories available regarding the formation of our universe; especially when considering its stupendous size, awe inspiring complexity and overwhelming magnificence. This must be the takeaway for anyone with a brain -and if you've followed the reasoning thus far you are likely to be included- therefore you should also understand this: A declaration must be made with regard to the only possible phenomenology available which can allow physical matter to arise from nothing. The solution to that problem is the holy grail of theoretical physics. From such an understanding perhaps further progress in physics will become possible.

 

Declaring--- The holy grail 

Consider a positive and negative charge. If we combine them we derive a zero charge--- being considered to be no charge at all--- a charge of nothing. The nothing is the salient point. The problem truly arises in actually deriving the two opposite charges from the nothing in the first place. For that to occur in our universe some actually charged particles have to move apart from nothing. In the pre-universe the unlike charges are replaced by biracial charges of matter and antimatter. So in that case there remains the very same problem to be faced when considering the rise of physical matter from a fundamental matter/anti-matter combo. I.e. from nothing.

It should now be obvious that G-theory hypothesizes the existence of pre fundamental charge which is not firmly associated with QED, or QCD or coulombic charge. However that new charge (which for want of a better term has been labelled biracial charge relative to matter/antimatter charges) is proposed as being similar to the latter in its charge sign attraction-repulsion mechanics.

The smallest biracial particle theorized to exist at the very point of vanishing has been called a trion because it is proposed to consist of three parts. I.E.  a sub/pre fundamental entity called a brane which is the separation membrane/mechanism (motion) which separates the two biracial plus-and-minus-matter-entities from nothing. It should be noted that none of these sub trion pre-fundamental entities are -by themselves- matter or energy in any traditional sense we might consider. However they are observed in the universe in the separated form and they've already been identified in quantum physics but that's not for here.    

These barely existing entities; -which will now be loosely termed particles- when residing in nucleons and other greater particles/matter usually remain permanently fixed in cross-brane attractive tension. If the brane were to be 're-moved' then they would simply vanish back to whence they came. I.E. nothing! But by being kept permanently separate, yet in opposite sign attractive tension they derive a remarkable quality called 'mass'. This is simply because the brane (which again; is pre-fundamental matter and not matter as understood in our macro/micro universe) is said to operate under pre-eminent cosmean* law and it resists any attempt by any perturbative or physical force to cause any change in the trion biracial charge separation eigenspace moments, whether the trion particle is moving in the universal reference frame or not.

It should be understood that this basic mechanism provides the 'moving' anchor for particle inertia (inertial mass); and also at a higher level within atoms; which is fully described in the G-theory thesis. I.e. Newtonian inertia.

*Greater infinite universe. Substitute for Cosmos because the word Cosmos has been usurped in language.

 

These two biracial particle inertias, and consequently masses are not necessarily exactly the same because particles don't necessarily exhibit the normal Newtonian action-reaction phenomenology by reason of the unseen existence of multidimensional perturbative forces yet to be revealed. This means that the theory of mass energy equivalence is not supported. In my humble opinion--- that which science deems to be mass in eV/c2 isn't mass at all. It's close but it is only the energy state which is (simply and case specifically) by reason of internal or linear motion caused by a force. The method by which multiplex forces cause motion and the subsequent energy states is addressed in the thesis.    

These trions are seen as being dimensionally multiplex--- around which hypothesis--- can be built a fully interactive theoretical phenomenology wherein a whole trion, parts or combinations (which can also provide variously recognizable fundamental charge particles, whether as matter or anti-matter particles) are variably called, gluons and bosons, neutrinos, and finally mesons and quarks. Because of their dimensional stacking capabilities the multiplex particles are identified by such things AS THEIR MATTER STATE, ENERGY STATE (NOT MASS) AND THEIR COLOR CHARGE or flavour. Trions as gauge bosons are just gluons in (a) different multiplex state/s. Neutrinos have transformative state flavours. Neutrinos will be shown to have a far greater role in the universe than that which is commonly thought. The relationship between neutrino forward scattering and light emission/reception statistics will be explored.

 

Summation 

So in summation we are able to consider the idea that the universe is not so much made of energy, or large scale matter and anti-matter as some suggest--- rather multiplex biracial charge sub particles called trions which themselves are derived by some unknown multidimensional brane mechanics from nothing at all.

Relativistic interpretations in particle physics are often used as proof of special relativity. That's unreasonable thinking: In that relativity is being proven by itself by way of forcing the assumptions being made; and a violation of the second law of TD is still being perpetrated in every case--- I.e. Action is being caused by mathematics without the use of the energy of the system- E.g. Lorentzian contraction purportedly causing an up-shift of light frequencies emitted by 'relativistic' electrons* to higher energy levels in a synchrotron undulator for instance! See how relativity has just created energy by magic without that even being noticed!

G-theory offers a reasonable non relativistic solution, and even for such phenomenologies as 1/ the hydrogen fine structure 2/ the four quantum states as well as the just mentioned synchrotron mechanics and much, much more are also able to be explained by this proposed particle theory -as shown in the G-theory thesis. By consequence, any relativistic explanation is demonstrated to be relegated to the status of only representing the mathematical picture and is legally disbarred from being the agent of causation in any manner.

*Here 'proving' relativity by utilizing a jargonistic misnomer.    

 

On this website; many other serious problems associated with all of the time warping relativities have been raised; the first being Lorentzian--- which historically required -and got- a convenient distortion of the actual definitions and understanding of charge, energy and mass in the first instance, and force in another. If you study the information on this website you should understand the reasons for the prediction that unless science lets go of applied relativity--- it's going to sit where it is, spinning its wheels!

For those of you who don't mind 'burn out' comps and who are still of the opinion that for all intents and purposes relativity has been essentially proven by experiments, I personally would hasten to suggest that apart from opportunism--- I mean -when other possible explanations are not permitted to be thought through, or just become conveniently ignored- apart from opportunism, even outright fraud is sometimes stooped to.

The reality is; that the only parts of relativity which are seen to be sort-of-upheld by observations are just the basic stand alone mathematical patterns or metrics but only ever in a simplistic way. In some cases as in the Lorentz, Maxwell, Heaviside debacle, even apart from the legal violations the science itself is partly questionable.  

For instance when we specifically analyse GTR we find that there is no science. In fact there is a total lack of any recognized phenomenon that is capable of causing any force at all and certainly not gravity. In addition to that--- how gravitons and relativity have any interrelationship still remains a mystery. With regard to the origin of gravity; G-theory demonstrates that there are other far more likely and truly jurisprudent phenomena at work--- via a mechanics which only involves photons and gravitons in its derivation, and including neutrinos for universal energy balance, and quark lattices, and both nuclear force junctions, and including the Higg's Zo boson brane junction in the Higg's weak force superstruct in its delivery of force through atomic matter, and much more. Note: Some perturbative particle interactions are conditionally exempt.

Special relativity is truly absurd unless it is taken as just the observational relativity -exclusively applicable to non accelerative inertial reference frames- that Einstein first proposed. I.e. it only applies to cases of momentum and not acceleration or the thing becomes truly nuts--- Its further developed mind experiments are shockingly puerile. Especially but not exclusively by the 'and/or' allowance of the impossible to occur; as either instantaneous action or instantaneous observance, among other things like ignoring actions such as physical u-turns etc.

Special relativity can be basically describable as--- the observance according to the Galilean transformation with notice given to the finite speed of light in the observance. Simply put--- Take an 'instantaneous' observance in another reference frame of motion and you will observe a different motional occurrence than a person in the original RF being observed does. A distance travelled may be noticed to be different but the energy is still calculable as being the same by E=mv because the distance and velocity are inversely proportional. This is all OK for close observances where the speed of light doesn't have to be taken into consideration but when it does for distant observations then a different equation is required and it's not E=mc2. That's all! Except for the problem of light!

Even with objects other than light; If we stupidly decide that the observed distance of object travel and or velocity isn't to be changed--- in other words to make everything appear to be the same in both reference frames (relativity of simultaneity) then we can utilize mind games and simply make time be the vehicle of change. That's truly absurd, but that typifies the historical relativistic case we are faced with. It stands to reason that if RFs are moving relatively then observed distances will appear to be changed but we automatically mentally-adjust to that without relativity and we can use mathematics to make it all calculable.

Having said that; some might consider that the mathematics itself requires such relativistic treatment for it to be made workable. Even if that were true (which is what we see in R of S); this wouldn't mean that the mathematical notion is reality at all! Even if you are able to upload and display glitzy graphical models onto You tube to prove your case--- those are still mathematical and virtual models. When did virtual reality become concrete truth?

So what you really have with relativistic gamma is the speed of light and the distant action being held to be the same while the time is declared to contract or expand as required. The previously presented 'Twins in space' paradox has already been declared as the final debunk of that. Also don ' t miss the ' problem for the Special Theory of Relativity ' at the beginning of this paper

 

 

Whatever happened to Occam's razor when relativity was being evaluated? Oh that's right--- Lorentz and Maxwell slash Heaviside, Hertz etc, etc. How could they all be wrong?! Wait around and I'll show you. Note: Refer to the Lorentz Maxwell's errors tab and the tabs dealing with light  as the subject matter.

With the understandings that physics is currently deriving from the fundamental quantum level observations; don't you think that it's past time to rethink the fundamental -and probably flawed- assumptions of  Lorentz and Einstein? I.e. That the speed of charge and the speed of light are motional reference frame constants respectively. In that with respect to light; its emission speed from any point is thought to be constant relative to the observation at that point as well as to the observance from any other given inertial reference frame of motion. It's all magnificently pure drivel derived from mistakes and bad assumptions!

Historically; incorrect first assumptions have been made in all of science. The majority of these have been corrected. Such ideas as a flat Earth--- Terra-centricity and even Laplacian order -the Siren song of GTR really- were at first accepted but over many years disproved and rejected as false notions and incorrect science.

The first assumptions in physics have never been questioned. These assumptions are based on ideas surrounding charge, force, mass and energy to name just a few. Make false assumptions regarding these things and you will get a false paradigm. That indeed has occurred and G-theory has arrived to correct that.

The first assumptions that need to be fixed are 1/ that charge emanates from particles as some sort of unseen stuff. 2/ that energy is some other sort of unseen stuff that emanates through the universe and can be converted to mass and visa versa and that charge stuff can also be energy stuff!!! 3/ that gravity is some sort of pulling stuff that reaches out over unfathomable distances to pull other stuff into bigger stuff. Sorry I'm getting a bit facetious.

I'm a bit concerned because this all promoted further errors which then lead to the idea of missing mass and energy and now we have otherwise intelligent people running around looking for dark matter and energy and Higg's fields etc. Other dubious theories involve the speculation multiple time dimensions and even reverse time!!! The errors referred to surround the ideas of ME equivalence, simultaneity of action and the relativities.

G-theory firstly declares that any sub fundamental phenomenon of physics which drives/derives the macro behaviour that we subsequently apply laws to, is not itself necessarily or fully counter subject to the laws so derived. Mass and energy have attributes which are not transferable as any sort of equivalence. For instance energy parity can take time whilst mass is always in existence only according to spatial statistics and not unrelated time. Energy can be stored and not be in evidence. Mass can never be stored and it must always be evident -as in self evident-.

G-theory will show that mass is made up of three components. N-mass is relatable to brane statistics. P-mass is relatable to particle perturbations which can sometimes be mass zero yet energetic. G-mass is related to the femptospace unit graviton statistics 'G' statistics, or Sea gluons in the standard theory. 

G-theory works; and it works as a non relativistic straight forward physics because it allows for quantum behaviour to permit the reflection of light by conditionally re emitting received light at the URF constant speed 'c' which consequently makes the emission speed with reference to the motional reference frame a variable and invariant eigenvalue light speed reflection becomes a false assumption.

This proposed light speed anisotropy of course can't therefore be noticed in any experiments that involve reflection for obvious reasons. This means most speed of light experiments -that don't involve Doppler information*- involve reflection, whereby regardless of the direction of the experiment the result will always be the same because the 'reflection' speeds are all at the IRF variant--- URF RELATIVE SPEED OF LIGHT 'c'.

Anisotropic experiments carried out under fake relativistic assumptions will be useless because relativistic assumptions require that 'c' is an IRF and URF constant depending on who's telling the story. NOTE: Refer to this 2015 news flash first. In either case anisotropy can't be excused by calling it relativistic because relativity can't accept any anisotropy at all and that is because the existence of anisotropy -which the Michelson Morley experiment was trying to discover- destroys the very argument and reason for relativity in the first place.

Having said that how can the measured emr anisotropy and also theoretical 'c' constancy both be 'relativistic' solutions? That's just stupid! Therefore the detractors do err when they say that such emr anisotropy is "Oh that's just relativistic."

Under the traditional assumptions regarding the mechanics of light reflection; light speed anisotropy can't be exhibited like the emr anisotropy because of the proposed problems caused by light either travelling to and from mirrors at different speed. That assumed reflection at IRF 'c' by relativistic magic makes measuring the speed of light to be anything other than 'c' on earth impossible by traditional methods. As well as that, utilizing light fibres which also have total internal reflection is just as problematical and that is probably why emr in a coaxial cable by Torr and Kolen (b) shows anisotropy while light in a fibre doesn't. That radio frequency anisotropy compared to light fibre fact is still a very big problem for relativity*.

So we have the situation that if light and radio are both emr then the noted radio frequency emr anisotropy must predict that light anisotropy is the case and therefore a fact. This can only leave one rational deduction standing. I.e. that mirrors don't reflect; they re-emit at URF 'c' speed only. This means that if a mirror is moving it will re-emit at c+-v and because mirrors are always a part of the light speed experiments. The result will always be 'c' regardless of the motion of the experiment through space. That is because in one direction you might have say 'c' +v so in the reverse you will get 'c'-v and the resultant change in 'c' noticed will be nil.

*You can't win because the relativists explain this away by stating that adjustments made to prism mirrors etc were relativistic in experiments and that the coaxial cable experiment was caused by relativistic affects. That's proving STR by STR and is severely dogmatic; and such protectionist attitudes will never facilitate a serious evaluation of a theory like G-theory. Relativity is the God of physics. There is no other conclusion to be drawn. Science is pure dogma.

 

 

CONCLUSIONS and EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCES FOR A NORM AL 'DYNAMICAL THREE SPACE' UNIVERSE.  

 

Because of precedence being noted in the utilization of reasoned assumptions as being a solid basis for the grounding of theories; then it stands to reason that the theory of 'mirror re-emission at URF 'c' constancy must be the rational theory to be accepted by the physics community. De Witte circa 1991 appears to have measured light speed anisotropy and Tor and Kolen discovered anisotropy of around +-500km/s in a coaxial cable in 1981 at Utah University.

Any other outcome would be considered to be unreasonable by any rational mind for the reasons given as follows.

NB -as with the Tor and Kolen experiment- in the web article from Flinders university re 'De Witte 1991 Light speed anisotropy' experiment--- at (b) the figures on the first page of 300,000+-400+-20km/s are supposed to show gravitational waves. How about; it's simply the rotation/orbiting of the earth in its orbiting of the galaxy centre relating to the anisotropy showing the speed of the earth through the universe! Also note that orbits are ARF's and therefore exempt from STR and Lorentzian relativistic affects in any case.

Even though historically not measured so far; Notwithstanding that the light speed anisotropy -which was declared to be caused by relativity in that De Witte/Miller load of crap- because they could see this argument coming (already here).

It is herein proposed that such theorised IRF-speed-differential-anisotropy** can be proved naturally with a line of sight apparatus and either a geostationary orbit GPS satellite or 'that mirror'*** on the moon and that the absolute motion of URF 'c' constancy is a fact and relativity has nothing to do with it and we don't have to recalibrate anything relativistically in order to prove relativity by itself. That's just dumb!

Their argument re if statements versus if and only if statements concerning -Einstein's assuming that relativity must be true because there was no aether--- not in return declaring that relativity isn't true if there was anisotropy and an aether found - is foolishness to the extreme. That sort of 'artistic' thinking used to get you locked up. ---refutation here--- Of course it doesn't mean the reverse but then it would never have been thought of in the first place if there was an aether (or URF absolute motion frame). So NOW THAT ANISOTROPY HAS BEEN MEASURED IN A COAXIAL CABLE THERE IS NO NEED FOR RELATIVITY!

 There wouldn't have been any Lorentzian relativity either if Maxwell hadn't erred in his field propagation analysis. In that case it's not the fields that are propagating out at 'c'. it's the electrons moving into his plates at 'c' which are causing the field propagation to be at 'c'. Get IT? No LORENTZ REQUIRED! NO RELATIVITY--- IF Michelson Morley had been historically replaced by Tor and Kolen then the meaning of such evidence for anisotropy would have been recognized and Einstein would never even have thought of general relativity either. By using such common sense logic we can safely assume that there is no such thing as relativity. It is all a delusion based on errors and assumptions. Smoke and mirrors I guess!

 'neuvophysics.com' would be involved in a straight unadulterated non relativistically 'calibrated' experiment to test for light speed anisotropy but for budgetary limitations and lack of a team (anyone?) Flinders University perhaps?! LOL. Such an experiment would be expected to prove the reference frame motional anisotropic nature of light without any relativistic calibration and both STR and GTR can then be relegated to the 'dark age physics' shelf where they truly belong.

Don't worry as you can see; G man is not very kind to Fitzgerald-Lorentz per Maxwell either. If I destroy Maxwell's work then the lynchpin of Lorentzian relativity is gone. Look At the facts as presented in here and get over it--- there is no relativity, only a dynamical three space being VM multidimensionalism in Euclidean space plus time!

Anyway; let's move forward in time to now: Yep, there they all are getting really metaphysical now, because the question now is; that because anisotropy somehow destroys the notion of Euclidean space (dynamical 3 space) ha hah hah ha ha! -because they can't escape the problem that I'm throwing light on- then shouldn't some sort of multi space-time only universe, or some weird 4 space be theorized? I told you so. Rather than deny relativity like they should they simple reach further into the mathemagical bag of trick for answers which won't be forthcoming. They're a hopeless case methinks. Perhaps not: Maybe I'm being a little unkind.

*Doppler shifts are there regardless of the model and they will never show any proof one way or the other. The object of the exercise is anisotropy not to measure the speed of light per se. Doppler shift methods will show the same speed regardless of the direction of the experiment because they will exhibit the same local IRF exhibited shift regardless of any variance in the emission speed of the light but only if the speed of light is held to be A UNIVERSAL REFERENCE FRAME CONSTANT under the auspices of anisotropy and not relativity. This new direction is a fact driven assumption shift providing a -never before offered- option regarding this phenomenon. The vital subject of observed Doppler shifts and G-theory gets a more stringent treatment in the thesis.

Other speed experiments which involve timed light reflective spatial displacement are not very accurate.

** Such anisotropy has already been proved for microwaves and emr travelling in a coaxial cable. Although the glib throw away line is ---"That's just a relativistic phenomenon!" See; proving relativity by itself is possible! That's actually a stupid response, (Sorry--- 'not well thought out'.) because the relativistic answer should actually be that anisotropy shouldn't exist because the speed of the emr is an ERF (earth reference frame) constant in any direction by observation from anywhere. The only true relativistic answer available then is--- duh!

*** Only as a definitively simultaneous light source and not as part of the experiment's light path.

 

The other point which must be addressed is that G-theory declares that there is another quantum level reason for light to not require a propagation medium and this theory will be shown to be supported by the evidence from all branches of physics. Those little quirky observances such as the scintillation of light from stars when observed in space--- The isotropic nature of light through -relative to- the URF and the fact that we can clearly see the stars like forever!!! etc.

Even Einstein's equivalence principle -upon which the expounded general relativity is firmly based- is flawed. The reasoning (often described by the falling lift mind experiment) unfairly depicts a vastly expanded measurement of the amount of the bending of the light without due respect to the size of the accelerometer which is -either inadvertently or fraudulently- left to remain in the real world scale. It's all just a mind game--- a trick.

So now when you consider with consternation, some of the weird projects being uploaded to You tube--- projects that seem to be going to great lengths in support of ideas that violate the laws of thermodynamics and even logic, -and perhaps rationality as well; remember this: Such blithe flouting of jurisprudence should have been predictable because precedence was given by the historical, popular acceptance of those metaphysical slash mystical theories of relativity by classroom taught science itself. If it's good enough for the grown ups then it's good enough for the kids? Well the kids might think differently. Isn't it past time for a Copenhagen summit to thrash this relativity issue out once and for all?

I won't hold my breath--- but if you have a hankering for a more reasoned approach to physics -in the light of new knowledge of the quantum world; or even for an in depth critical analysis of a complete model of physics that does keep jurisprudence and at the same time does present a plausible phenomenology for gravity and mass--- One which does provide a unification without embarking on such a blatant ingress into metaphysics and physics law violation that applied space time warping relativism does, you are invited to visit the listed tabs for an in depth perusal. Note: The thousand page thesis and or its introductory tome are available as free e-books by email via the contact tab. Also note some of the tabs are located on flip-outs indicated by-   e.g.  Tabname -{

Pages which are asterisked are slightly edited thesis extracts.

 

 

LMAO--- OR FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE LESS THAN CONVINCED

 

In promoting a new physics; first let me put a case to you rather succinctly.

 

Newton, Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein have one thing in common. They were wrong! ---Magnificently wrong--- even slightly wrong perhaps--- but still wrong nevertheless.    

Newton made an error around work or energy used and kinetic energy confusion; a blunder which has slid under the radar until this day. The resulting absurd equation E=mgh* has led almost straight to E=mc2.

Compounding that; Newton 's Big G equation is a fudge. There is a more accurate formula provided herein which doesn't require big G. Sorry Einstein. Note: The derivation method is a proprietary secret. A full study of the thesis should enable others to be able to derive the same extremely accurate gravitational equation themselves.

*whether 'a' or 'F' it matters for different reasons, Both are absurdities.

 

Maxwell totally missed the propagation rate of a current flowing into his conductors/plates. There is no such thing as instantaneous application of a charge. This totally refutes his findings.    

Lorentz relied on Maxwell. So he's gone. There is now no Lorentz-Dirac conflict. They're both wrong. Mathematics doesn't prove anything! Neither does the proposing of strange ethereous phenomenologies that have no scientific possibility in order to attempt explanations for problems arising from a faulty paradigm.    

Einstein's gone on two fronts. Firstly; he relies on Newton's specious big G in his field equations. Also the facts from space science show that both Newton and Einstein were wrong. The facts don't fit either the Newtonian or relativistic geodesic metric. Also Einstein's equivalence principle is seriously flawed; as is his famous mind experiment of a lift falling in a vacuum. His SR mind experiments have serious flaws in that they are truly puerile by reason that they are not omnidirectional.    

As a result of these mistakes; all of physics is now fundamentally flawed which is why most physicists who don't just get paid to be wrong and teach it or otherwise hard at work are sitting around scratching their heads or contemplating their navels or something. They need to get back and fix the fundamentals first and then see where science leads them. Or is it a case of the stable doors being torn right off their hinges with the horses now running free with the wind at their backs- and no coming back? If that's the case then sorry human race!

Let's at least get physics to where chemistry is it. Chemistry is a wonderful science which has gotten most things right, and the world is advancing because of that; and in spite of the problematic physics.   Most of the classical physics -including electrodynamics and astrophysics- is fine. It's the Post Newtonian paradigm that's the problem. Oh you don't think so? Well refute this G-theory then! Go on--- It's open for denial.  Oh you don't like my attitude. Tough! This isn't about personality clashes. This is serious. The future of physics hangs in the balance ready to take the next five hundred year leap! Stop with the 'physics is fine' crap! It's full of holes and you know it. Everyone's tired of waiting for the promised ends. Enough is enough.

Oooh! Ouch! Wow G-man'd be reckoned to have a lousy bedside manner if he was a doctor, so I'm lucky I've got tenure I guess. Now--- getting back to Newton: We have the case where he couldn't figure out why 'g' was 9.81m/s/s and not the 10m/s/s it should have been. It's not because the gravitational metric is modified with an apparent SEP violation alone. There is another compounding reason.   Note: The reasons are to be found in the Newton's bad day tab and the Newton kgF enigma . Also let's stop with the m.s2 bit all you smarty pants. It's not an equation!    

Now about his E=m.a.d or m.F.d! Oops I mean E=m.g.h ---I ask you. If you push a 1kg object sidewise for 10m with 1kg of force you will use 10J of energy or do that work right? How then can you possibly arrive at the energy squared when the same object falls 10m with the same applied force, (this time it's the force of gravity) of approx 1kgf (9.81N)? You'll find the answer in the Newton's bad day tab as well--- That is even if you include the sideways or 'space case' spatial displacement implicit in the lifting to height. That's 1J at 1m, because that's logically based on the answer in the sideways case.   

Now a pushing force of 1kg (weight or down FORCE) IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS A SIDEWAYS PUSHING FORCE!.. FORCE IS FORCE: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. The calculation in BOTH cases is by E=mv. So by simple addition of 1+1=2 we find that the energy in the fall is about 2J by E=2mv.

Why only 'about'; and what happened to the Newton? Well that's a curly one but you can find out in the Newton's errors tab. Click above.    

The gravitational constant (Big G) is just a fudge that Newton used (one which Einstein concurred with) because he couldn't derive the true gravitational formula. You can find the true universal gravitational equation in the new G-less gravity equation tab.* Both the Newtonian and Einsteinian metrics are flawed.    

*So if you want the true equation to get you to Mars without having to make course corrections or to calculate the correct orbital velocities for low earth satellite orbits then the equation you need is in there.

 

Some iteration for clarity: 

Concerning Maxwell: Well; he didn't calculate the propagation speed of charge at all. In that case Lorentz is left foundering in the wake of his error.

 

Both Einstein and Lorentz have only some incorrect prerequisite physics upon which to base any of their absurd fantasies. Gravity is a transitional particle derived force that pushes through every atomic matter object and body, and they all shadow each other in that 'quantum field' (particle field actually) to provide a roughly inverse square law gravity. However there are some surprising differences to the traditional metric and many answers -to such things as 'the Mercury problem', 'planetary orbit stability' here, as well as that a solution to the gravitational anomalies being noticed in close proximity to bodies- can be found in there. The answers to these and much, much more are all given. In fact; here you will discover the beginnings of a new science that answers the problems of physics like the puzzle pieces in a jigsaw falling into place once the correct key picture is found.

I do mean to step on certain sensibilities. If you hold to pet theories because they are pets; then don't let me stop you from acting like 'flat earthers' or 'terra-centricists'. This website is for those who are aware of the dilemmas in physics and are hungry for answers.

 

POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS and PERCEIVED PROBLEMS

1/ The speed of light in a vacuum is supposed to be the same throughout the universe. G-theory seems to disregard that.

ANSWER: It is accepted to be a URF constant! You obviously didn't quite get the picture.

2/ The moving reference frame in the 'Twins in space' paradox is only evaluable from the forward direction of motion and the rear can be disregarded.

ANSWER: That would be a convenient copout but unfortunately that's not how it goes according to STR in which light must appear to be moving at 'c' from all observers in all moving inertial reference frames. That includes the light being observed from the tail lights!

3/ This all means that light is transmitted a different speeds relative to IRF and so the laws of physics are not then able to be invariant between moving IRF's so how do you solve that problem?

ANSWER: That only appears to be the case but not so you would notice at low speeds, and at hyper speeds the laws don't vary; it's the rate of application of the laws. There is no law against that, so long as the equations still work and the law of the conservation of energy is upheld.

However I see a serious problem with the whole concept of the laws of physics being deemed to be the same between moving reference frames. This precept only actually applies to accelerative reference frames which aren't compatible with IRFs so therefore the question is insane because STR only applies to IRFs wherein there is no acceleration occurring, or else the internal RF within which the acceleration is occurring is no longer under the jurisprudence of STR. Therefore there are no laws of physics able to be relatable between IRFs because there is no acceleration (work-energy expenditure) at all with respect to IRFs.

4/ There has been a stupendous amount of mathematical investment in the relativities. Such profound mathematical solutions appear sublime and almost godlike in their ability to offer absolute credence to the theories of relativity.

Answer: Upon reasoned consideration of all the violations, contradictions and paradoxes there can only be one answer: What a sad waste of time and brains! Such a twisted perversion actually requires such mathematics to try and unravel it but it only takes one key brick to be kicked out from under it for such a mighty edifice to come crashing to the ground of common sense. Occam's razor--- remember?

5/ the new relativity is via wave function statistics as per the Lorentz Dirac solution.

Answer: I'm not going there right now but suffice it to say that the problem of this reality still exists and the paradox stands regardless of the proposed cause of the relativity.

Having concluded that relativity in all its forms is a mathematical delusion; how would you feel if you and your colleagues had spent a lifetime building a mighty ocean liner near the seashore only to discover that your ocean was actually a mirage?!

This is exactly what the science establishment is faced with if they now turn around and decide they need new science without relativity. ---talk about eating humble pie! Those who propose such a thing will of course be exempted and likely hailed as the new Newton! Not I--- I'm not a scientist. I don't care.

While G-theory is presented very comprehensively and offers a homologous solution; it is still only the skeleton of an idea which is open for denial or building upon. This remains the case even if the phenomenologies aren't exactly as I have theorized, which I fully expect to be the case.

Whoa--- hey!--- c'mon settle down everyone. It's OK if I'm not a scientist! Most historical scientists only became 'one of them' after their discoveries in any case.

5/ Who cares! Relativity is consensually accepted and is proved---

Answer: Both terracentricty and the flat Earth belief were consensually accepted as well! Secondly that 'proved' is a huge word! Or maybe that depends on what the definition of 'is' is. LOL

 

PS--- SOME GLARING PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH HISTORICAL ASSUMPTIONS

(a) Please explain how it is possible for science to know exactly how fast the solar system is travelling with respect to the URF. Is the proposed speed just an assumption perhaps?

If that speed seems to have been proved then why have we based that 'proof' on the further assumption that the local URF is exactly the same as the URF in other areas of space? Yes that's another assumption. In other words can we exactly calculate the motions of the universe to such a fine degree?* Considering the possibility of other universal systems travelling at hyper velocities mightn't the 250km/s or so of the earth travelling through space actually fit into the probable range of errors for such an assumption? Of course having a stationary Earth would be too much of a coincidence huh?

If such could even possibly be the case, then the fact is; we just don't know at all how fast the solar system is travelling with respect to its own local URF. The only way of measuring the relative speed is by the herein proposed 'light speed anisotropy' experiment.

(b) Simultaneity of action is an assumption based on the Galilean transformation that the laws of physics must remain the same in every inertial reference frame. This is only true with regard to Newton's action-reaction law and observability of similar events. Who said anything about the rate of action if the energy requirements of the different IRFs are not the same? Especially when we are able to consider that there is another sane form of relativity which is effective in the omni-space and is able to cause the appearance of similarity of events and the simultaneity of action and there is then no real violation of SOA without relativity.

There is no need for relativistically adjusted SOA to allow for Doppler shifts. All it needs is for some first assumptions to be changed. In actual fact spectral line shifts don't get 'fixed' by relativistic simultaneity of action. They become so falsified by motion in astrophysics that it is just patterns -rather than the actual spectra themselves- which are used for stellar identities. The Lorentzian prediction is only a 60 percent match. That's no match at all!

This proves tha SOA is not true!

Note: Including the likelihood that mirrors actually re-emit light at URF 'c' and that light may very well be speed anisotropic. These prior assumptions contain possible interpretive dilemmas which can lead to incorrect final assumptions.

*Such motion could possibly see the solar system actually quite stationary in the URF and this is a possibility which can't be ruled out. However this may have annual observable change depending upon how the heliosheath affects the gravity. This is all very complex and possibly intestable but these still difficult assumptions are able to lead away from absurdity so they should by reason be at the forefront of theorizing going forward.

Now; it is absolutely necessary for assumptions to be made in order to develop any theories moving forward. However because of the problems historically caused by the first assumptions that have been made; and the fact that the science community appears to have been led unwittingly into a theory being offered as a solution which -sadly- contains actual contradictions--- wouldn't reason suggest that the consensus should really be that there is no solution to be had yet so there must actually be something wrong with those first assumptions?

Neuvophysics is dealing with that problem. Where is everyone else? Have we seen the death of reason perhaps? Lorentz should definitely have questioned Maxwell's findings in the first place and not proceeded with his mathematical foray into metaphysics. It would seem that he was philosophically* bound to a course of action. Remember; the discipline (choke splutter) is called 'PHYSICS' not 'mathemagics'!

*You need to read the history of the time and the interaction of the ideas of the contemporary and historical thought of the time.

 

FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION for the traditional physics to answer.

Even if the solar system is orbiting around the galactic core at about 250-300kms/s--- then if -as you say- an orbit is a reference frame of acceleration and not an IRF. How then does STR have anything at all to do with the Michelson Morley nul result dilemma? It would appear to be a reasonable expectation that because STR only applies to IRFs and not orbits; then it must by that reason be disbarred from being any solution at all because the solar system itself is in orbit and therefore in an ARF. Is this additional and complete contradiction just an oversight, a stupidity or is a fraud being perpetrated?

It would appear to the rational mind that the MM experiment found no aether because of other reasons than--- "there is none, and therefore we need relativity and we'll even illegally use STR in a non inertial RF too". Neuvophysics has derived other more plausible reasons for the nul result in the MM experiment and you will find it all in the thesis.

Are you really going to answer that question above honestly? Or are you going to just ignore that obvious contradiction as well as the serious contradiction of logic shown in the 'Twins in space' mind experiment? Remember selling out to tradition and dogma won't ever lead to truth.

Note to audience: The two or three of you who have got this far will probably leave now. Is there even one left? Or has the human race been sold out to selfish agendas?

Yes this is a philosophical moment! God help us we need new physics based on sanity! G-theory meets that requirement. You are welcome to explore this website and copy and paste to your hearts content. Please don't plagiarize though.

 

There's a lot of material within the many assertations of the theory presentation suitable for in depth student discussions, as well as tempting subjects and ideas to develop further; either as theses or for technological purposes.

You may use any of the ideas you wish without credits but when using verbatim or paraphrased quotes from the works, you are requested to use specific citations of book/website, title and author. These complete works are covered by intellectual property rights and are copyright. I do not hold copyright on ideas, assumptions or theories. Having said that I would expect credit to be due where it is due.

 

 

STOP PRESS 11-28-2013 G-theory VINDICATED---

COMET Ison PROVES THAT COMET TAILS DON ' T ALWAYS POINT AWAY FROM THE SUN BECAUSE OF SOLAR WIND PRESSURE--- For a look at the impressive video of Ison ' s sun grazing orbit---

go to http://sohodata.nascom.nasa.gov  (include 11-28-13 in the date box)

Go to ' movie theatre ' check lasco C3 and observe Ison ' s tail following precisely behind its own actual trajectory.

To read more about this comet ' s remarkable science defying behavior; refer to ' The comet Ison enigma ' tab on this website.

 

 

 

THE SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF THE FEATURED 'TWINS IN SPACE' PARADOX

 

Two astronauts are in a spaceship travelling at hypervelocity; one facing forward and one looking back. The one facing forward would see the light going forward at 'c' as being too slow so his time and clock must slow down to keep it at 'c' relative to him. The one facing rearward sees the light going backwards too fast so his time and clock must be sped up to cause him to see the speed of light at 'c' also. The paradox--- dilemma--- relativity theory destroying contradiction. THE TWO ASTRONAUTS ARE BOTH MOVING IN THE EXACT SAME REFERENCE FRAME OF MOTION YET THEIR RESPECTIVE WATCHES ARE SUPPOSED TO DO WHAT!!!!?????? WHATEVER--- LOL--- CHOKE SPLUTTER!!!

THEIR WATCHES CAN'T BE DIFFERENT! This is a serious STR model debunking contradiction.

Wasn't Einstein supposed to be a genius? You might ask. Well yes it takes a certain kind of genius to envisage such a theory but another kind to see right through it. Which are you?

There is a true relativity which provides a real physical phenomenology--- Read about it further on--- but for now---

 

 

The previous paradox was with regard to special relativity. Now for THE GENERAL RELATIVITY PARADOX (refer to the full argument in the 'Einstein's lift fraud' tab)

 

With regard to the GTR please answer this: If gravity is proposed to be caused by general relativity then please explain how it is that some sub particles are exempt from gravity. How are they exempt from a geodesic (space/time) warp?

That's a profound question so because of that we are now likely to get the asinine excuse that sub particles come under Lorentzian relativity, and that connection then provides the quantum to gravity unification specifically required.

G man in shock!--- It is a known fact that both LTR and STR are truly incompatible with GTR and any connection is only possible if there is a demonstrable inter-connectivity of the phenomena; which is implicitly not the case at all! To wit- If a particle is affected by one phenomenon and not the other then there can be no connection implied.

The next equally asinine but more dangerous excuse is likely to be a subjective one in that somehow by a metaphysical magic; those particles are no longer matter but pure energy.

G man--- Metaphysics is a different subject than physics and In either case; as matter or energy- by the understanding of physics alone we have a violation of the second law of thermodynamics to contend with in that somehow a force (gravity) ' caused' either the energy or particle (it matters not) to ' remain in the same state' and this force causing no action--- did it use energy from the system to keep it the particle there against the said force? That's a valid question and one which points out another contradiction. No wonder physicists want to divorce quantum physics from the laws of physics. They can't legally do that however. Only by magic and metaphysics can that be achieved and those two in collusion with mathematics form the trinity of madness that destroys physics.

This mightn't appear to be very convincing to you at this stage; so to be fair we'll leave that as argument to be visited at length further in, and let G-rel stand for the moment.

 

back to home page 1

 

neuvophysics.com   neuvophysics@gmail.com