CHAPTER 12:

 

 

IN REFUTATION OF  APPLIED GENERAL RELATIVISTIC           SPACE TIME CONTINUUM GEODESIC THEORY AND            SPECIAL RELATIVITY THEORY:

  • A PROPOSED EXPERIMENT TO TEST FOR---------------------------549

ANISOTROPY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT

BEING EMITTED FROM A MOVING OBJECT                       

  • THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND SPECIAL-RELATIVITY 1-------------554
  • THE MOTION OF MASSLESS PARTICLES-------------------------------563
  • THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND SPECIAL-RELATIVITY 2-------------565

Note: It may be of crucial importance to read the introduction book first before attempting to follow this line of reasoning. Also note that Lorentzian as well as special relativity must of course be also dealt with by way of being complicit within the argument.

 

 

The representation of the bending of space time by an object of supposed intrinsic mass resting on a cross gridded 'trampoline' type continuum representation, with another smaller ball rolling into it to represent gravity is one of the most questionable descriptions of the mechanics of an effect I have ever come across.

It seems as though the public at large are being treated like kindergarten children. As if any of them would even care. They just seem to love the sensationalism attached to 'white coats on their box' sprouting anything at all out into the field of dreams.

I care!

How can physicists (Ok you've got better things to do!) even give tacit accreditation to a supposition that requires an angular force (ostensibly at right angles to the space-time continuum) on every infinite plane of such? Please explain this force and where it comes from! Ah you say: 'The force is gravity!' Now we have the fascinating explanation that the geodesic warp causes the force that causes the warp ad nauseam. It is a circular argument and a significant dilemma. Note: The gravity in this case is often hidden under the guise of the term 'accelerating frame of reference'.

So digging yourself further into a hole; you may then argue that time causes the warp in space and therefore changes the distance/time relationship. This speculation has no empirical grounds in physics. I.e. What apart from 'relativity theory' (itself being the beginning and the end of this similar type of inter-variant or circular reasoning) allows the constant of time to vary and enable this effect? duh! Duh! And double duh! Even being such a skeptic I might be forced to allow this to stand, albeit as 'shellacked' science, only if G-theory didn't offer a more plausible explanation of the nature of things.

To be fair: If time could indeed be slowed down by gravity, then light must then travel a longer distance in order to keep its speed at 'c'. The notional reason it bends towards a body is because gravity is thought to exert an attractive force on photons. It is not (by some undeclared miracle) by relativistically traveling the shortest possible distance between two points as some have decided. Of course it always remains the same RELATIVE distance but only in subjective analysis within some devious thought gymnast's minds.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion whether it is rational, intellectual or aligned with any variations in intelligence, so if, and only if; time can be proven to NOT be a constant then and only then would I reconsider evaluating relativity (but not by being bound by the wishful reasons of others) in an attempt to support the theory. This would only be because as it now stands I cannot fault much of the math but I do however fault the rationality of 'mathematical constant' transmutation at a whim, as well as the direct transcribe-ability of mathematical concepts to be presented as objective reality in defiance of the laws of physics itself.

In this sense this subjection of mine may well be seen as mentally arguing against a twisting of terms and concepts and so the whole shebang is all just a veritable mind game. Without any other plausible model to examine; this could be taken to be the truth.

In any case relativity has been so important to science that without it I doubt that this G-theory of universal mechanics would ever have seen the light of day. However by consequence of G-theory it is now able to be declared that 'relativity is only a virtual tool for calculations that simplistically but usefully solve for the previously unknown actual mechanics and phenomenology', and hopefully the acceptance of such reckoning might now enable rational consensus to ensue.

Applied relativity (geodesics) not only assumes fictitious forces for gravity and space drag but the situation becomes even worse if we take that to its logical conclusion. Then we are faced with having to admit that it must also cause a phenomenal amount of fictitious 'energy' which is being continuously created to the 'nth' degree, with 'n' being the universal nucleon number. This 'ex nihilo' creation of 'energy' is in direct and complete violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Note: G-theory not only provides for a change of 'energy' from 'one form to another' it also provides a real time 'energy' return loop by 'real' matter transfer. Such a loop is also notably missing in relativity.

In some energy conservation violating theories stress 'energy' tensor (warp) was added to the space time warp G-rel theory once it became recognized that neither of those were able to produce any force or cause gravity. Unfortunately this tensor also treats 'energy' as some nebulous conceptual object and therefore fictitious as well. Historical perpetration of this patch job only brought science further out of empiricism and deeper into the realm of metaphysics.

Metaphysics is a school of thought which believes that 'energy', gravity and (until the unfortunately for that school discovery of the Higg's boson) mass are not caused by physical attributes of particles rather they are a mathematical substitute for the motion of matter and supposedly caused by entropic 'energy' imbalance or warping of the stress 'energy' tensor. This is a mathematical subjectivism derived from M-E equivalence theory which somehow equates matter and mass at the quantum level. Look at the mass/energy 'shimozzle' at that level!

Of course it is possible to consider that if I have a bottle of nebulous entropic energy 'stuff' and it is denser at one end than the other, that when the 'stuff' moves towards parity that it might be able to be considered to somehow –by an unknown physics- carry a particle or object (located in the middle) along with it.

However things become more difficult when you consider that the entropy in the universe is omnilateral and conditionally variable because the universal energy state is not 'even' and then we should see spatial variations in the rate of entropy which would necessarily result in spatially directional and proportional variations in gravity because of distortions in the energy stress tensor.

This we don't observe and any true solution requires gravity to emanate more evenly from the entire universe rather than just the space around the most energetic areas of the vacuum. Such thinking as 'entropic energy loss being turned into gravity' is on the right track but phenomenologically lame. That's an objection from logic but compounding that to infinity--- is the total lack of any substantiatiable or substantive phenomenology as well, and this even extends to that very general relativity defined 'energy stress tensor'.

G-theory is a standout with regard to its theorizing being typified by its comprehensive substantive array of described mechanics of process and construct whilst at the same time utilizing the same idea from the same law regarding outgoing energy loss being converted back to gravitational energy via the mechanics of a real force. "Energy may neither be created nor destroyed it can only be changed from one form into another."

 

Such metaphisicism as energy 'stuff' is a complete and debunkable falsehood and simply demonstrates the lack of a true phenomenology in the relativistic mindset. M-E equivalence can be disproved by the same law of the conservation of 'energy' which states that 'energy' can neither be created nor destroyed in a closed system; it may only be converted from one form to another, and I want to make it very clear that the phrase including mass can not be tagged on as a genuine part of that law until proven. Goodbye M=E/c2!

Thus any application of relativity to physics as a real phenomenon becomes illegal and even fraudulent if that aspect should remain ignored and/or discounted. Even to teach it as a fact becomes fraudulent when the agenda is economic or religious wherin the agenda is academic acceptance or 'party line cool aid'.

However having said that; unless the usage is legalized by the blind throwaway line of 'that's relativistic' ---relativity still remains conditionally useful in the mathematical sense, and it may become very handy for assaying the mathematics of graviton affects including the values of the modulators of GD. GTD and GS in stellar and planetary systems. The thing is that energy falling through ether space-time or just space or time can never be the correct concept of 'reality'. In the real non mathematical sense it is matter-energy (energetic particles) decelerating through bodies and objects within the differential gravitational field causing gravitational force and acceleration. The mathematics is usurping the place of reality and because the mechanics is only now being presented you might be forgiven for tending towards metaphysical answers in the logical sense but how about the rational sense? Wouldn't a firm--- "it is not yet understood" have sufficed?

Because the universe is based on a set of interrelated laws it is possible to arrive at correct answers for most problems by utilizing different legal equations. This can be seen whereby utilizing E=hf for calculations achieves almost the same result as E=mc2 in some applications but not in the 'real world' physics, so something must be wrong. Pursuant to that it must be realized that mathematics can never be used as the proof of an occurrence or theory, it can only be used to compute both possible and impossible outcomes.

The proof of a theory must be by the evaluation of the empirical logic and the actual rationality and probable factuality of the theory by consensus which should never be slave to assumption or agenda. Why is it I wonder, that where there is no timely proof forthcoming that the consensus seems to falter and succumb to the temptation to sink to the lowest common denominator which is the fanciful and sublime?

In a (philosophically evaluated) and scientifically perverse appeal to acceptance, relativistic mathematics sometimes successfully predicts universal outcomes. This can speciously and irrationally appear to provide profoundly model clinching evidence. In the case of relativity, appearances can be deceptive and this is not then necessarily the case. However once more I conditionally give relativity a pass and contend that even though phenomenologically full of logical conundrums relativity successfully solves for some problems. However I am hopefully showing that they are more successfully solved by the mechanics of this scalar theory which provides a better model fit to observations by the appeal to the empirical method of logic against the zeal of (pure??) mathematics.

Changing constants to suit a theory doesn't necessarily change the mathematical results if the terms remain the same; but general relativity at the time of its conception did actually change the terms even but it was the only theory that provided solutions to some fundamental problems.

Because these problems of the attraction (bending) of light toward a body, the lack of 'felt' accelerative force in gravitational free fall, the missing Newtonian inertial reference frame for hyperspeed and the true reason that inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass can all be more eminently explained by G-theory and the constant Euclidian geometric of space-time and the Minkowski geodesic is then able to be reinstated. In this scalar theory the time delays caused by the values of 'c' and 'y' are related to E which is the same mother of S-relativity theory and this is the common thread. So then with regard to its being accepted as actual phenomenology, relativity in either form is no longer required or indeed desired in the further proposed sense of describing any substantive reality.

Even though the basic fact is, that one is able to transpose constants in a formula within certain mathematical restraints, there are many flaws of logic within the theory of relativity. I would suggest in that case that it is far better to suppose supernatural forces or magic to be at work, than to superficially twist observational vagaries to suit illogical ends.

Similarly, throughout history other scientific blunders regarding theoretical concepts have demonstrated that like many phenomena wrestled with in the past, such forces as gravity and inertia including mass are most likely enigmas we simply don't understand yet and are still being wrested with but in this instance by mathematicians. This endeavor seems to be foundering and although my candle may be dim and flickering I am attempting to shine some plausible other-light on those subjects.

Any idea that the generally circular orbit of planets is actually an observational phenomena caused by a fictitious force derived from curved space time as well as the further mind warping concept that because of S-rel they are actually traveling in a straight line is probably absurd. Such concepts as this (and there are many) of course has led to the 'tangentially-shifting-angular-displacement' of an orbit being falsely referred to as 'acceleration'. Mind games! Ditto: 'falling into the gravitational center.' There is no such thing as orbital acceleration, or falling in the orbit. There is only equilibrium of forces with angular momentum. The acceleration is a mathematical acceleration only. It is a function of vector summing of continuously changing tangential vector relative to a fixed axial vector. If that's falling then pigs can fly!

This idea is subjectively explained -utilizing only simplistic observational relativity- by the fact that a ball thrown vertically upward actually looks to be tracing a parabola to an external observer due to the motion of the earth, whereas it only appears to be traveling in a linear manner to the observer watching in the frame of reference of the earth and that this earthbound observer is therefore incorrect in his conclusion relative to the observance from a different frame of reference. Note: The gravitational force is continuously acting so it can be seen as a 'flux' with no speed. The flux will exactly follow the parameters of the fixed reference frame observed motion of the object with a zero sum result. I.e. The object is moving in the same three dimensional plane sum as the flux. i.e. vertically with reference to the center of gravity of each object or body.

However if this is the case then the orbits of the planets would be seen to be far from circular to an external observer -unless he was travelling a very weird and coincidental path- and even if he was relatively stationary in the URF then the ball will be seen to be tracing a spiraling parabola within a greater spiral because the solar system is itself moving through space. So if I fly a particularly gyration-al course in a theoretical space ship I might then able to observe the moon say moving in a straight line.

This is all mind games and the example is nonsense and has not connection with applied STR. The logic is that we see what we see from our own frame of reference and can ignore other frames of reference as being inconsequential to reality as it applies to us with our own universal observations and such subjectivity is only potentially mathematically useful in science and technology in a pragmatic situation.

This subjectivity is simply deciding to make a choice regarding any observational frame of reference objectively required. Subjective observational parameters do not necessarily respond to actual reality, otherwise we can glance across the universe at night and subjectively state that our arc of observation traveled at faster than the speed of light, and mistakenly think that such was objective reality. The speed of thought as well as thought itself, are captive to subjectivity and cannot be concluded to be objective in the end analyses.

The problems of skew time and observational non-linearity skew completely swamp other observational discrepancies by the overwhelming magnitude of the expected observational distortions. If you add other observational interpretive errors to this mix you probably WILL end up with relativity but only in subjective analysis. The problem with all of this is that empiricism demands substantive concepts. Consider the following examination of subjective relativistic arguments.

One argument in support of geodesic relativity gravity mechanics is that gravity is caused by the geodesic bending of the space time continuum such that we are able to feel gravity (weight) because the space time continuum is accelerating through us at approximately 10m/s/s and we don't feel inertia when falling because we are then traveling along with the changing time in the actual state of momentum.

I have refuted the possibility for this phenomenon throughout the body of this work. I.e. In any case the warp is mathematically proven to be unable to cause anywhere near 'g' to be the actual gravitational acceleration rate by an object moving with it even after I illegally allow that the warp can produce any actual force at all.

The relativistic argument presented here is that your time changes and that is what moves you automatically and there is no actual force involved.  Well if that's the case then please explain the force we call GF and weight--- purportedly caused by the geodesic falling through you. That is in violation of the energy/thermodynamic laws of physics.

Another argument considers that time is traveling towards us at 'c' and therefore the observance of the (relatively stationary) event and the event are simultaneous. Fundamentally this seems to create a serious conflict between the two arguments.

In the case of moving frames of reference: If an observable object (alien spaceship) is traveling towards us at close to 'c' then the travel time by earth's reference frame was close to zero. However the actual reality for us and the aliens is completely different. If the constancy of 'c' was true for both reference frames then while the space travel might have taken a very long time with thousands of generations having been passed away for the Aliens; for us we only observed their sudden appearance out of nowhere and we must consider that the time taken for their journey was almost zero time, and if they showed us their event time keeping device (clock) it must surprisingly show that exactly the same time had elapsed as ours showed.

To explain how that must be the case, then that would be because the time dilation has to be the same between reference frames no matter which way you observe them unless we pompously presume to believe that 'ours' is the fixed reference frame because our spaceship 'Earth' is bigger than theirs and we might petulantly ask; "whose story is this anyway? What if their spaceship was the size of Jupiter say"! then the timepiece that we would show them would declare millions of years while theirs would be stopped!!! Ridiculous. Quick lets compare clocks. You show me yours and I'll show you mine. No mines got the real time on it. No mine has!

So in any case; from the reference frame of the aliens it could have been reckoned that we were the ones traveling towards them at around 'c' instead, so whose clocks are we going to take any notice of in that case? It doesn't matter, because if S-rel is true then they both by reason must show little elapsed time and we then have a zero sum game. The only possibly answer would be -by this other submission from the crazy hall of fame- that relative time would have to be traveling across the universe at 'c' from some arbitrary point. Which point? You wouldn't want to live there huh? …quite the conundrum isn't it? Who's doing the moving? Where is the URF. Oh no light doesn't travel with any speed relative to the URF.

Thus special relativity is plainly a conceptual abstraction which can serve no substantive purpose for any theory describing reality which is based on it. I once again rest my case on this point, in that frames of reference are PURELY OBSERVATIONAL AND SUBJECTIVE. This is able to be nailed down as a fact because the same subjective case can be made where the reverse would also be true if we just switch observational reference frames wherein the space travelers returns to find that the earth has aged for millions of years whilst the traveler has only undertaken a relatively short trip. Once again if this is the conceptual tack taken we still have a zero sum game.

Thank God for that. I don't then have to argue which RF point of view is correct. They are both false.

 Having said that it is still to be expected that such controversial analyses will infuriate the protagonists holding to either of the opposite subjectivisms with proofs many and diverse but if they have a good look they will see that strictly defining the outcome by S-rel actually refutes the latter logical determination! However because any and all of those ideas have become so entrenched over time, it behooves me to drive one more nail in the coffin!

By S-rel: Whereby the observed 'speed of light' must remain constant regardless of the reference frame velocity of the observer--- In the case of a space mission leaving earth and traveling away at almost 'c' for a million years and then traveling back. We would have the observance that though their mission took two million years for them; to us their departure and arrival by S-rel theory would be almost simultaneous and our clocks would supposedly show close to zero time compared to their two million years and visa versa. We have just seen how this can't be!

This would have to be because with S-rel 'c' constancy; while they were traveling away from us at close to 'c' then our observance of them would be taking an almost infinite amount of time by still coming back at 'c' so unless both reference frames have time dilation we would just see their craft almost stationary while they are observing the earth ditto. So we would simply watch them board, take off, turn around and shortly their far distant future progeny would be seen disembarking almost immediately after they left and all our clocks would show almost zero time. Relativity annuls differences between reference frames it is only a unilateral subjectivism and Einstein was right. It was only observational relativity needed to keep the speed of light constancy between reference frames. It is a mind game.

The standard argument says that we would age while they would stay young. May I ask. Which reference frame are you arbitrarily taking to be the 'standard'. It should be reversible which leaves you relativists in a bit of a pickle doesn't it. You have also forgotten the relationship which I have just described for you. Perhaps you need to go back to pre school and learn how to conceptualize properly! Huff! Now all you can retaliate with is the fact that I left a question mark off the end of the last question!!!

If they were to travel faster than light then they would be seen to just vanish and reappear at some time in earth's past and their clock will have gone backwards. This is where the ridiculous idea of time travel into the past comes from. Oh; it's the future is it? Depends on the reference fame doesn't it? OK, I haven't got the time or inclination to evaluate the rest of this drivel. The salient takeaway here is that if you combine the observational relativity between the reference frames of the traveler and the 'travelee' you end up with a zero sum game, the time involved was two million years relative to the observational reference frames of both parties and S-rel becomes a paradoxical absurdity.

Let me hold your hand* and take you on a trip through the valley of the shadow of logic! If you were to disregard all size relationships and any subjective ideas of which was stationary and which was moving then you should be able to understand: If one object takes off and travels at the speed of light away form another object then relative to the reference frame of each other; by STR they can both be considered to be traveling away from each other at relative 'c'. So then each of them can consider the same scenario of aging to occur and then we have the situation where one scenario voids the other. This leaves us with the only conclusion left: The only reference frame for any contemplation of universal speed is that of the universe itself; and that is relative to a constant called time and another constant called 'c'.

So from RF transposition we find that both RFs are constrained to keep the actual time involved and therefore none of the RFs are able to see a constant speed of light in the forward and reverse direction and so the speed of light must be different relative to any motion relative to the URF. This means the light speed is anisotropic. This is a major contention of G-theory.

*Yes I'm being facetious because I must admit to being exasperated by the fact that people have been only pretentiously evaluating this subject for more than a century! "Look at the Emperor's magnificent costume" declared the blind man. "My word!" opined the deaf. "Shuddup, I can't hear myself thinking" chided the dumb--- not very PC am I?

 

Unfortunately for all such time dilative theories which single mindedly ignore everything else except for unilateral conceptualism (including G-rel) which then allows the proponents an intellectually illegal reason to concentrate thoughtlessly on such philosophical (excuse me; metaphysical) time warp subjectivisms which is refutable in the omnilateral sense. This might seem stimulatingly arguable over a couple of 'buds' in the dorm but it all becomes very murky indeed if someone sober brings gravity according to G-rel into the picture. Because then we must have it that space itself is required to undergo a change in its relationship with time but somehow very strangely and extremely problematical for those S-rel theories (conjectures!); NOT LIGHT whereby the subjective time warps are totally dis-related from the G-rel time distortions. Oh I'm sorry; it's the metaphysical energy stress tensor warping now is it? What will it be next week? When you can demonstrate that energy -not by your definition- can cause a force as well as travel ethereally through space, and that mathematics can cause a force--- I'll be all ears.

The relativistic arguments are just gross assumption and straw grasping. In fact you scientist so often change your positions and 'current understanding'. How on earth can you ever rationally assume you have arrived at any knowledge at all? Just remember Occam's razor should your beard of failed suppositions get too long.

Of course you do realize that under that evolved 'stress energy tensor' theory the chances of unification between G-rel and quantum physics is now zero. This is because quantum physics thinks it absolutely requires time reference frame warps and disjuncts. I implore both of you. You don't need either. With G-theory the problem is bilaterally solved.

If you haven't evolved up the 'magic' scale like that quite yet, and are still holding to space-time warping scenarios I will explain my main refutation: The fundamental G-rel geodesic argument necessarily assumes an absurd relationship by supposing that the speed of time 'c' remains the same while space itself magically accelerates into the earth so it can pass through your body at 10m/s to give you the magical feeling of weight. Because space is accelerating through your body downward at 10m/s/s; if you think about it that must subjectively give you an unfelt acceleration rate which must be vertically upward; duh! Weight is now a vertically felt inertia caused by mathematics wow! This means that if the time dilation causes your fall and the same time dilation causes your inertial weight then the two cancel out.

 A worse problem with that is: How can space even apply a force on you to cause you to accelerate at 10m/s/s in any direction? It can't! OK then you say; we can overcome that little problem by allowing time to change as well can't we? It stands to reason that by doing that we now end up with a space-time continuum warp right? But It's time that's doing the moving simply by changing your position by passing through you at a rate of change--- dt.

However if space doesn't provide force in the direction required then time can't change anything. Otherwise if we changed relative to the earth surface then because you are already travelling with the earth at hundreds of Kms per sec relative to the URF -and the geodesic must also be relative to the URF- then you would move sideways at a rate per second to who knows where. So you are actually constrained to be moved by the changing space and not the time after all. How then does space apply a force towards the earth if it's made out of nothing?

Another problematical thing about that is that actual LIGHT SPEED DOESN'T CHANGE AND THEREFORE THE SUPPOSED CLINICALLY EQUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH TIME NOW BECOMES ABROGATED. I.e. Light speed is a RATE which by reason gives it absolute dependence on a concretely invariant time in order to make any sense of the relationship whatsoever.

For example: If you drive your car down the road with the cruise control set at a hundred miles an hour, then warping time will make your cruise control a liar and your speedometer will read incorrectly because you will actually be traveling at some other speed. However for you to be able to not notice the change, relativity requires that not only your clock but even the speedometer and the cruise control are required to be 'physically corrected' by some magical FORCE of time within your world reference frame.

That's a ludicrous concept specifically because your speedometer (unlike a clock which is usually shown to be ticking more slowly in the graphical demonstrations of the concept) is measuring distance and not time and in order to correct that, it would be necessary to adjust the distance in inverse proportion to any change in time which would lead to another relativistic anomaly (absurdity), being inverse space expansion and contraction. I.e. space and time would have to be warping in opposite directions.

This makes mincemeat of any previous cases for S relativity being acceptable except by sub-prime minds that are really unable to comprehend the vagaries of the complexities of the concepts at all--- which include G-rel geodesics and time light relationship and /or 'c' constancy! Note: In the introduction book I have also convincingly showed that time itself is unable to provide a force called gravity; no matter how much you warp it!

 In light of this it behooves us to look elsewhere for a reasonable solution. Let's take a ride back in history: Once upon a time there was a man who suddenly realized that the apple that fell on his head got there by reason of a force. Up until that moment the force was taken for granted and (if it was even thought about at all) it would have likely been determined to be a 'supernatural' provision. The fact that such a fine thinker as the obviously recognizable Mr. Newton may have got things a bit back the front, simply showed a defect in full understanding. It was this forlorn subjective interpretation which was incorrect and it was a mistake that finally festered to the degree that (in combination with the other time skew problems just mentioned) a tipping point of necessity was reached and the relativistic mind gaming drivel was stooped to in order to try and make up a force for gravity as well as the required inertial reference frame for hyper velocity speed limitation which up until this G-theory couldn't otherwise be provided. This as well as attempting to keep the speed of light the same between reference frames of motion. Note: That missing reference frame is the requirement for increasing inertial force acting against acceleration with increasing speed which is only to be noticeable at hyper velocities. I.e. space drag, or in relativistic thought--- mathematics drag. 

 

The other problem is that if you warp time to solve the space warp problem as seen in a geodesic 'sink' the two actually negate each other. If you shrink space by 10% and also see time shrink by 10% then you've actually seen nothing shrink because velocity is distance per time! Ten feet per ten seconds is the same as one foot per one second don't you think? We can stop holding hands now.

Fantasy and mind gaming is an essential part of theorizing but theories without fairly reasonable logical substance* should be tossed out within a respectable time frame don't you think? Earlier I suggested an exit strategy for mathematicians and I now find it necessary to drive the philosophers into lockstep with their general company on the way out.

*reason.

 

Surprisingly, the truly fascinating idea of being able to bend or warp the 'space time continuum' and conceive of 'accelerating frames of reference' actually leads to a more realistic idea that might not be so silly, but rather than bending it (or even better still, crumpling up the 'bleeping' piece of paper with a grid drawn on it and tossing it into the trash can) so as to somehow envisage the fascinating idea of time or space travel through wormholes, G theory actually envisages the hypothetically remote possibility of universal travel through black holes and the remote possibility of transportation of some description. This would only be possible in the first case because faster than light speed and encapsulation and protection technology may not be out of the question someday! However I think it would require either stupid or intrepid explorers (perhaps both) to venture on such a mission! The second case is dealt with elsewhere.

Another thing to consider perhaps, is the fact that in order for space-time to be considered to be warped; the warp must rationally be a curved SPEED line otherwise it can't be related to an object (photon) traveling at speed 'c' which would supposedly travels through the warp in a linear manner and it would appears on the other side of the 'warp' sooner than expected because light travels a bent course through a geodesic even. In that case, if 'c' is an assumed constant then we must consider the time to have SLOWED down (with respect to some reference frame) and this concept necessarily confers a VARIABLE SPEED on time which is a geodetic absurdity because it is impossible for time which is somehow supposed to be capable of being subject to acc/deceleration by gravity TO BE MEASURED IN TERMS OF DISTANCE ALONE except by the very insane.

Otherwise then, please call out though the bars of your 'padded cell' and answer the following: How many seconds per meter does time travel at through space!? I won't hold my breath waiting for that answer because I know I won't be provided with a sane one. The expected answer in that vein would (stupidly enough) be 'c'. Of course we can conversely understand from the previous that it is actually space that is somehow able to change its velocity! Hang on then gravity can't work! Oh no it must be time… or both… no it's 'c'--- I'm losing my mind… I can feel  it… I'm  l o s  i  n  g     m   y      m      i         n         d…

Of course that's really an asinine question which would otherwise be unnecessary except that it is relatable only and completely to the similarly farcical idea of a geodesic warped space time continuum. Also if you were to take the idea of relativistic space time reference frames to its logical end, then each photon of light can be declared to be stationary and that it is actually time that's traveling past each and every one in the universe at a relative speed of 'c' with infinitely variable relative distances being observed by warping space.

This is stupidly akin to an observer on the side of the road observing correctly that a car is going past at speed while the observer inside the car (declaring it to be his frame of reference) sees himself as stationary while the road and the whole external world is traveling at a speed under him. Such thinking is patently ludicrous and is only the stuff of mind games and weird perceptions.

"Aha!" Cry the elitist intelligentsia: "Time is actually a dimension and so it must be able to be measured as distance".

Me: "So we now have the quaint situation that an object can be declared to travel at a speed measured in meters per meter?"

Your turn! "Ok then it's a sort of distance, and anyway it's a relative distance".

Me:  "I'll agree a little for the sake of the argument, but only with the relativity bit (because I've never actually observed a SORT OF distance before), and so I'll just have to settle for explaining what distance really is relative to the featured G-theory actually concurring with classical physics".

If time is part of the fabric of space then please make me a 'time suit'!

If you permit me to wax more anti-philosophical about time and relativistic space time, then I can state that "rate is the only measurement for time that exists", and this is all it would be if it wasn't for our whimsical evaluation of it over the duration of our progressing life spans and beyond. Of course how will we ever forget its abuse by relativity, being the child of the ability of wayward minds to comprehend and then rationalize impossible concepts? That pretty much describes unfounded religious and metaphysical belief systems as well, don't you think? In mixing sense metaphors; they sound like 'peas in a pod'!

Bang! Oh no, not another nail! Yep! Let's now consider the famous 'train going past the station' example with our hammer in hand: It goes like this---

A train is going past a station at hyper speed (almost 'c'). There is an observer sitting in the train who (as observers do) observes an object travel at 'c' (or as a magical beam of light) vertically from the floor to the ceiling. Another observer is sitting on the platform and watching the train as it passes by (The theoretical train has no side to obstruct his view).

At the exact moment that the object in the train begins to move from the floor to the ceiling at 'c' the platform lounger's view is at ninety degrees to the track. It is then supposed that he then observes the motion of the object at an angle from the vertical relative to his fixed line of vision, and the length of that observance is now longer to him than the length observed by the passenger in the carriage. This is supposed to show time dilation because the object still moved at 'c' even thought the train was traveling at almost 'c' and because the observer saw a longer line of observance, then his time must have dilated with reference to that of the observer in the train in order for him to have still observed the object to travel at 'c'. unfortunately this declares that the train isn't really there or it's speed will need to be 'relativized' by his time dilation as well. The problem here is that STR only applies to light and not trains. If you have trouble with this conceptual argumentum then please resign your tenure forthwith. Note: ---a little soliloquy: Please don't presume to tell the relativists that this relationship would be the same for a dropped object at any real world relative train speed. You know; where's the sensationalism in that? We might then ask: Isn't such time dilation supposed to be only relative to travel at close to the speed of light? Duh! Answer. STR doesn't apply to anything other than the observed speed of light and that includes dropped objects. Unfortunately for them this doesn't apply to sweeping torch beams, waving sparklers or magical observances at instantaneous speeds! Such relativity can only be analyzed between directly emitted and received light from moving light sources which applies to all visible reflections from objects in other relatively moving IRFs. Because you can't observe photons; then in the train experiment we are observing photons being emitted from a moving object travelling vertically and sideways at 'c' or almost the speed of light in the latter case and the speed of light back to the observer hasn't been taken into account at all. The experiment is fraudulent.

 This is special relativity which Einstein knew was just as subjective as the Galilean transformation is.

Now in order to see this as some sort of proof for time dilation we are forced to consider that the platform observer is magical and he can see instantly without the requirement for the light from the observance to travel back to him at 'c'. Unfortunately for the expectation of the outcome of this experiment to be in favor of the relativists; if he was a normal observer in a normal world he would see exactly the same length of the event over the same time period as the duration of the event observed in the reality on board the train. It would just be angled that's all!

As is the case in all these 'exercises' in magic -including the train and tunnel- mind? experiment. Such requirements as instantaneous observability or instantaneity of action are the impossibilities required to make all this relativity nonsense seem possible and therefore real. That is a serous sleight of hand fraud being perpetrated by science in the name of dogma.

Even if the platform observer is proposed to be 'magical' and able to see instantaneously in order to enable this supposed time dilation to be (by the same reason) magically observed; then it stands that everyone who uses this example as proof for S-relativity also forgets (or have been born with minds that can't grasp simple concepts*) that the observer is actually watching the event relative to the whole moving train carriage, and in that case if he turns his eyes to watch the whole event go by (which he must do), he will only observe the object to MOVE VERTICALLY RELATIVE TO THE CARRIAGE AND just as importantly, EXACTLY THE SAME VERTICAL DISTANCE as the observer in the carriage sees so the observance is only subjectively transformative and not real. There is no relativistic time dilation required here only observational inertial reference frame (IRF) relativity applicable to any speed. Go figure! Perhaps you might be better occupied trying to figure what the platform lounger would see if the passenger shined a torch at him, or contemplate the meaning of infinity or, Zeno's paradox, or whether there is anything actually existing behind objects you can't see through, or your navel or some such! Oh I've gat a better why not visit neuvophysics.com and analyse the 'Twins in space' mind experiment in the home page essay.

*Not to disparage other brilliant mental faculties they might seem to posses.

 

An example of a similar kind of mind game technique which abuses logic and tries to show time variation with different frames of reference would be akin to two friends synchronizing accurate stop watches, and moving apart by a significant distance. One is to fire a shot and the other will stop his stop watch and fire an answering shot at exactly the same time. His other friend will then stop his watch when he hears that shot. They then get back together and compare watches and then stupidly conclude that because each heard their friend's shots with different time delays; that somehow they must exist in a different time frame and that one of their watches must have slowed down. That would be the case if we adjusted the speed of sound to compensate for each reference frame. That would be super-special-relativity right here in our back yards. Wouldn't that be fun?

All I say is that regardless of the time delayed observance of universal events; that simultaneous events are and always will be, exactly that, and that light simply brings a delayed observance. I.e. time skew and relative motion only causes subjective observational relativity. Relativity is observational only because of the dualistic philosophical relativities of the observers in relative reference frames, which all ends in the aforementioned zero sum game.

The only serious conclusion that is able to be drawn by reason and with special appellation to Occam's razor is that light speed must be anisotropic and only a universal reference frame constant. We are just having trouble measuring the speed differences and that is where science has stumbled.

For someone like me to take on Einstein might seem to be rather impertinent. But perhaps I can ameliorate this impertinence by pointing out that there are many other eminent dissenters out there in sanity land, and Einstein has himself already refuted his own assertion regarding 'c' being an 'own reference frame' constant within his other space time continuum machinations in G-rel. It may be of interest to note that he has also been recently proven wrong with his theory of Brownian motion. Note: In my assertion that 'c' is not an IRF constant, I must point out that in a vacuum it would be considered to maintain its original emission velocity but it is a gravity-flux-determined universal-reference-frame constant with motion inertial reference frame variability.

Now if we contemplate the case where 'c' is somehow concluded to not be an empirical universal reference frame constant after all but just local reference frame constant then we have other problems. Yes to the astute. WE HAVE ARRIVED BACK AT THE TIME WARP PROBLEM THAT WE BEGAN WITH. This could all shown on a circular flow chart, one which we have just seen only becomes a little more complex if we attempt to conjoin the relativities but still circular and fully refuted.

Considering that I have no great string of letters behind my name I risk nothing in the dis-accreditation stakes, so here I go now jumping in boots and all!

Another significant problem with Einsteinian space time continuum cosmology is that of the human observer. Who gave us the right to consider our planetary system to be the axiomic center for observation of the universe and even worse, for those observances to be considered scientifically justifiable in human terms? Who gave us the right to consider that our measurements and experiments are flawless? Remember how recently scientists believed that the sun and stars revolved around the earth? What was the cause of such incorrect assumption? Yes it was similarly by false observational 'relativity' assumption*.

Einstein's 'observer' should therefore be an empirical and logical observer able to see and measure without instruments, in an instant, and from outside the universe and from inside the smallest particle, UNLESS HIS OBSERVANCES LOGICALLY REQUIRE THE SPEED OF LIGHT TO BE A FACTOR. I will address some of the findings of the proverbial and 'magical' traveling observer shortly.

*Also reflect on how Galileo was treated for his findings.

 

Bang, bang Maxwell's hammer came down..! With this empirical, logical observer in position; consider him watching scientists conducting a hypothetical speed of light experiment on earth in two opposite directions at the same time with all other relevant things being equal.

The earth is moving through space at 250 (or so) km/s. The earth bound scientists both achieve the same result for 'c'; however the 'observer' must then see some URF anisotropy in light going forward faster than light being measured in the opposite direction by about 500 km/s. So if that were to be the case then such 'speed of light' experiments on earth would only go to prove that the speed of light traveling through the universe WOULD HAVE TO BE DIFFERENT; otherwise we have to expect that both scientists may age at different rates simply because they could be facing in different directions! Wow, we might have just discovered the 'elixir of youth'. All we need to do is develop a computer program which tells people which way to face at any given time and they will age more slowly. Please; this is sarcasm! This problem has supposedly been resolved by STR. However Anisotropy relative to URF CONSTANCY has indeed been measured for emr travelling in a coaxial cable!

 If IRF relative light speed anisotropy exists then the answer can't be relativistic at all. Refer to light speed anisotropy definition.

Scientists only have a mind for relativistic presumptions and not the serious accompanying logical conundrums. Very puzzling indeed! However, this doesn't prevent relativists from declaring this scientifically observed anisotropy in emr to be relativistic and therefore not real! Here they go proving relativity by itself this time like a snake eating its tail to (not real) non existence. Relativity can't brook anisotropy let alone explain it!!! Note: G-theory predicts anisotropy by reason of the speed of the earth through space and it presents a theory supporting plausible reason for it.

 

Visit: http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Cahill_Experiment.pdf

 

I can think of a probable objection at this point, in that one might argue that 'real world' astronauts in traveling to the moon and back should not have noticed a difference in observable color relative to their direction and speed in space should relativity be incorrect science because relativity enable speed of light constancy as well as Doppler shift observances.

The measurement of such a postulation is probably not possible because the astronauts were only traveling at somewhere around 10km/s, which is likely to be insignificant*. But what is fascinating though is that they brought back (Hasselblad) photographic 'stills' that appear to be slightly color changed dependent on the direction of their travel! They appear to be red shifted as the Apollo spacecraft move away from earth and very obviously blue shifted as they approach. It is in fact as obvious as 'the hand on the end of your arm'! Have a look for yourself. Note: The images can't be electronically transmitted photographs for obvious reasons.

*A slight fringe or Doppler shift may just be observable.

 

So then: "Houston we now have a problem" by being faced with seemingly contradictory observances, because on the one hand we have many experiments which show very little change in 'c' in the local reference frame that's (by some lapse of imagination) decided to be independent of the directional speed of the earth, yet we observe Doppler shifts from outer space and in photographs from moving spacecraft. How can we correlate and explain the seemingly inexplicable. How can relativity dis relate frequency from speed other than by another sleight of hand explanation or in fact a 'fob off'. Shortly I propose to show a valid reason of how G-theory allows that to occur.

Another set of observations which scientists are trying to explain away, is to do with the aperiodic time variations in some binary pulsars, and the strange problematic phenomena that the 'red noise' distribution is not according to the Lorentzian component which only has 68% compatibility. Rather we should perhaps reason that the distribution is actually according to a different power law relating to gravity. I have/will attempt to explain both of these problems.

Firstly, we can consider that the speed of the x-rays is being emitted at a higher speed from one side of the rotation than when the orbiting star is moving in the reverse direction. This speed difference would predictably be in the order of only about 0.2 'c' which really makes hay of De Sitter's conclusion--- 'if that were to be the case then the fast light would catch up and we would 'see' a scrambled image. Also; De Sitter never took into account the possibility of overall variability of the relative emission velocity of 'c', which phenomenon by itself is able to provide a correction to the speed differential. To be fair of course; he had no reason to assume such a thing. Note: De Sitter's explanation of the light catching up and interfering must be questioned on the grounds that the light beams being studied (by our ground based point sourced observation) have very real spatial (binocular) separation and because light beams don't interfere in a nominal sense,* all we would hope to see would be a 0.2% image variation over 90o of binary orbit which we couldn't pin down because we have no actual reference shape to relate to.

*He also disregarded an observation of classical physics that shows that light beams don't interact in a vacuum; only when they are passed through holes and slits. So any idea of light with differential speeds becoming scrambled is an irrational assumption.

 

Such a flawed conclusion by this eminent S-rel 'c' constantist comes about by the fact that his perspective was in a way typical of the trap that we can all fall into, which is that we continue to forget about time SKEW distortion of events by thoughtlessly assuming that we are actually observing distant astronomical events as though they are occurring at the time of observation.

It remains possible that the binary pulsars under consideration, are currently exhibiting behavior that actually occurred many billions of years ago and close to the time when the universe was still young, when the speed of light was probably a great deal faster than it is now.

In such a case we could postulate an example whereby by the difference in emission velocity from either side of the pulsar, back then, was in the order of say 0.000001 of one percentage point, but whilst light slowed* down during the transit time to our eyeballs, the differential percentage remained the same, so now we have the situation that while Doppler shifts are observable with some significance, phase shifts in most distant binary pulsars are unobservable.

*The eos sets the local speed of light with reference and proportionality to the local universal GD at any given time, with some variance due to the first law of physics as well as the laws of thermodynamics that require deceleration rates, which even applies to light which allows for light to slow down over the time it takes to travel across the universe. This of course portends real problems for determining the age of the universe as well as the geological ages for that matter. The reasons for instantaneous emission of photons are explained elsewhere in the thesis.

 

Whether this is the case or not, it is reasonable for science to dismiss any conclusions drawn from the observation of binary pulsars which propose any relevance to the idea of the IRF constancy of 'c'. By these reasons, such observances then cannot be concluded to be able to lend support to any theory at all. however if G-theory should be deemed to be plausible from the many other proofs and assertations then this is water I have seriously muddied and unless we take notice of the 'genesis account' in the Bible we have no idea of determining -by guessing or supposing- any age factors applicable to universal events!

Light emitted at 'c' from a motionless body will never change significantly from the set URF value. Relative motion of emitting bodies or atomic sources however can cause a changed velocity of light relative to a motionless observer if he isn't at URF rest state*! Of course S-rel 'c' constantists will always appeal to their jaded argument that it is the time or distance that has changed. They are able to hold that position albeit with an embarrassingly shrinking degree of logic but when faced with the following example they will be rendered totally speechless.

*This is not S-rel; it is observational relativity which I have already concluded to be an actual empirical phenomenon. Of course the light emitting from the moving object will be at 'c' relative to an observer on the object. S-rel takes that observational relativity way too far by fixing IRF relative 'c' and changing the time frame relevance instead. Refer to the beginning of this section.

 

Bang, bang, bang, bang! Consider the case where two beams of light emanate from two light sources at different speeds yet they find themselves traveling though space along the same or even a closely parallel path. For a S-rel 'c' constantist; in order to maintain any shred of credibility he must show how either time or distance are able to be different for each light beam at the same point of space. Note: Different photons are able to occupy the same observable spacetime.

Also perhaps the relativists should note that radar is considered to be an emf under the current paradigm and it is well known that Doppler shifts caused by the slowing down of the radar being reflected from moving objects is used by police to support their right to give you a ticket for speeding. So by any reasonable valuation; the same MUST be applicable to light which has been confirmed by contemporary physics to be an emr, and once again it is absurd to consider two time frames of reference for both the incident light on a moving mirror and the reflected light, especially if the reflection is exactly one eighty degrees wherein you have two time reference frames existing at the same point (time!?). Note: Refer to light speed anisotropy in the thesis and anisotropic constancy in the following section.

In light (pun not intended) of the logical dilemmas presented; it would seem that a person could only continue to hold any view that relativity and IRF 'c' constancy are able to remain believable as actual phenomena could only likely be by reason of some irrational religious like verve. Considering the tortuous logical knots necessarily involved in arguing such drivel, can't common sense be appealed to? Is there no recourse to rationality?

Leaving all that philosophical fog of logic aside--- J ; it may however be of practical interest that if you look at the 'frequency translated' gamma ray image of the Vela pulsar for instance, you should notice that the pulse is blue in one direction and orange in the other. This might just be a result of digital image manipulation. In any case this can also be explained away by other typical nefarious means, but I suspect that the body in question is actually orbiting a black hole; I rest my case regardless! Note: The Lorentzian curve and transformation problem I have already addressed in a previous chapter.

Looking for Doppler shifts from binary pulsars is fraught with problems, in that the chaotic nature of light emissions from any star in general is going to provide a fairly white light source regardless of its angular momentum. Such random emissions will swamp many otherwise observable Doppler shifts in any useful summative vector related quantity.

This is why I have wondered if the red shift observed in far distant galaxies may be caused by another phenomenology other than outward acceleration. I have since firmed on this. Also it stands to reason that any difference in star colors is more likely to be spectrographic.

The fact that De Sitter actually got a result at all is therefore (while not being proof per se) very significant and not insignificant as he supposed. This is quite important BECAUSE THE NOTED and SLIGHT DOPPLER SHIFT IS ALL THAT'S PREDICTABLE BY G-THEORY either by the possible reason earlier proposed or BECAUSE OF the vector summed 'FORCE FRAME DRAGGING' OF THE GS (gravity) OF EACH STAR in the system.