Pilote Tempête
11th May 2014, 14:05
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."- Albert Einstein (anti-relativity.com (http://anti-relativity.com/)).
Relativity is regarded as proven by experiment (of course, by fools who say nothing can be proven). But the real story is very different.
The ether was not disproven by the famous Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 and subsequent replications, because they were not done as properly as they should have been (and acheived slightly positive results instead of null ones). Case Western's Dayton Miller, '25-'26, used highly sensitive equipment and higher altitudes (on Mt. Wilson), where the ether would be more likely detected, instead of in a basement as the earlier experiments were done, his experimentation was more extensive, and used very meticulous and thorough controls for any possible random, thermal, or mechanical effects that might skew results. His results were positive. Critiques of his work after his decease were fraudulent so attempts to debunk him failed. Georges Sagnac had also achieved positive results in 1913 as did Maurice Allais in 1997, and Ruyong Wang in 2002, all of which disproved the constancy of the speed of light.
The perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit is supposed to be a confirmation of the theory. The equation that accounted for Mercury’s orbit had been published 17 years earlier. The author, Paul Gerber, used the assumption that gravity is not instantaneous, but propagates with the speed of light. After Einstein published his GR derivation, arriving at the same equation, Gerber’s article was reprinted in Annalen der Physik (the journal that had published Einstein’s relativity articles). The editors felt Einstein should have acknowledged Gerber’s priority. Although Einstein said he had been in the dark, it was pointed out that Gerber’s formula had been published in Mach’s Science of Mechanics, a book that Einstein was known to have studied.
Tom Van Flandern was convinced that Gerber’s assumption was wrong, so he studied the question. He pointed out that the formula is well known in celestial mechanics. Consequently, it could be used as a target for calculations that were intended to arrive at it. He saw that Gerber’s method “made no sense, in terms of the principles of celestial mechanics.” Einstein had also said (in a 1920 newspaper article) that Gerber’s derivation was “wrong through and through.”
So how did Einstein get the same formula? Van Flandern went through his calculations and found to his amazement that they had “3 separate contributions to the perihelion, 2 of which add, and one of which cancels, part of the other 2, and you wind up with just the right multiplier.” So he asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, how in his opinion Einstein had arrived at the correct multiplier. This man said it was his impression, “knowing the answer,” Einstein had “jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value.”
The experiment concerning deflection of light by the Sun done by Eddington was fraudulent, a fact accepted even by the mainstream, but subsequent experiments for it are said to have confirmed it, which is totally false. Light deflection due to the sun was already described. Theimer (1977, p. 142, cited in gsjournal.net) stated: "A gravitational deflection of light was already predicted by Newton and was calculated in 1801 by the astronomer Johann von Soldner. His value amounted to only half that of Einstein's. In 1911 the value predicted by Einstein was the same as that of von Soldner. It was not until 1917 that he changed it to twice the value." Philip Lenard first received notification in 1921 of the publication by von Soldner in 1801 and he therefore republished it in 1921 in Annalen der Physik. In his preface Lenard remarks that Soldner, without the assumptions of GR, had calculated the deflection of light due to gravity and found a value that agreed with the results of observations of the eclipse of the sun in 1919. An effect that is explained by several theories can not be claimed by any of these theories as compelling evidence of their validity. An effect that has already been described cannot be subsequently claimed as the special performance of a later-developed theory, and its empirical support of the later theory is in no way compelling. Just as a nebula or dust disk around other solar systems is no confirmation of either the planetismal hypothesis nor solar fission since they are part of both theories. Also, the predictions of GR and Newton's theory differ only by small amounts (Penguin Dictionary of Physics).
The Hafele-Keating experiment, using atomic clocks and GPS satellites, is seen as irrefutable evidence of time dilation and therefore relativity. But how the GPS satellites stay synchronized has nothing to do with the experiment, it was one of the most botched experiments of all time, and the results were so tampered with that it could be considered fraudulent. Engineer A.G. Kelly of HDS Energy in Celbridge, County Kildare, Ireland, obtained the original 1971 test report from the United States Naval Observatory, on which the 1972 article was based, and discovered that the original results actually did not support the result computed in the 1972 article. The portable cesium-beam clocks that were carried varied in time so badly that some of them could vary more than the total supposed results during the time of the test. The most stable of the 4 clocks, no. 447, by itself constituting a better experiment than all the clocks together, indicated, as an overall result of the test, zero kinematic time accumulation. In addition, the expectations of the experiment were based on a 3d reference point called "proper time", which takes relativity out of the equation because it is analogous to adding a hidden ether (universal reference frame).
The GPS satellites are supposedly adjusted according to the Sagnac Effect and the gravitational calculation supposedly proven by Pound-Rebka, but neither factor require relativity and have nothing to do with time dilation. (Anti-Relativity.Com (http://Anti-Relativity.Com))
Here are excerpts from the article by Kelly (Hafele & Keating Tests - Did They Prove Anything? A. G. Kelly, PhD - dipmat.unipg.it (http://www.dmi.unipg.it/)):
"Abstract. The original test results were not published by Hafele & Keating in their famous 1972 paper; they published figures that were radically different from the actual test results which are here published for the first time. An analysis of the real data shows that no credence can be given to the conclusions of Hafele & Keating.
1. Introduction
Hafele and Keating (1972) [1] (hereafter referred to as H & K) carried out experiments that purported to confirm the Theory of Special Relativity. The evidence provided was derived from the differences in time recorded by cesium clocks transported in aeroplanes, eastward and westward, around the Earth.
H & K avoided giving the actual test results in their paper; they gave figures that were radically altered from those results. These altered results gave the impression that they were consistent with the theory. The original test results are reproduced for the first time in this paper; these do not confirm the theory. The corrections made by H & K to the raw data are shown to be totally unjustified.
It is also shown that the clocks used were not of sufficient stability to prove anything. The magnitude of the random alterations in performance, during the air transportation, were such as to make any result useless.
7. Conclusions
The H & K tests prove nothing. The accuracy of the clocks would need to be two orders of magnitude better to give confidence in the results. The actual test results, which were not published, were changed by H & K to give the impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a failry steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results gives no difference for the eastward and the westward tests."
Frame-dragging, which says space is elastic, which can't be since only matter can be eleastic, is expected in GR but effects from it and tests for it are contraversial (see Tests of General Relativity-Wikipedia; there are 12 references).
The Hulse–Taylor binary pulsar system is also considered as a confirmation of GR but there are competing theories that agree with the data (Ron Cowen, 2013, Nature.Com).
The expansion of the universe is as well regarded as confirmation of relativity but, of course, such expansion is not even possible, and contrary to what is usually said, it was never discovered, it was only invented, and is part of what makes the Big Bang something that can't be taken seriously.
And in 2006 the European Space Agency conducted rotating superconductor experiments which showed an effect 100 million trillion times larger than predicted by general relativity.
Furthermore, if the GR method is correct, it should apply everywhere, not just in the solar system. But Van Flandern points to a conflict outside our solar system: binary stars with highly unequal masses. Their orbits behave in ways contraryto the Einstein model.
And G.O. Mueller (Catalogue of Errors for Both Theories of Relativity, gsjournal.net) documents around 130 serious errors in special relativity alone.
Moreover, University of London Professor Herbert Dingle showed why special relativity will always conflict with logic. According to the theory, if two observers are equipped with clocks, and one moves in relation to the other, the moving clock runs slower than the clock at rest. But the relativity principle itself (an integral part of the theory) makes the claim that if one object is moving in relation to another, either one is entitled to be regarded as moving. It follows then that clock A runs slower than B, and clock B runs slower than A, which is nonsensical.
And here is the summary of a Rolf Schock article in Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie, 1981, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp. 285-296, The inconsistency of the theory of relativity (philpapers.org):
"It is here shown that the relativistic doctrine of the relativity of simultaneity is untenable and that both the special and general theories of relativity are inconsistent. It is also shown that the theories can perhaps be made consistent, but excessively weak, through the reintroduction of absolute space and a weakening of the Lorentz transformations. Non-relativistic hypotheses for some events thought to require relativity are suggested. Finally, some conjectures are made on how so wrong a theory could have been accepted by so many for so long."
In 1933, Fritz Zwicky concocted "dark matter", a substance with occult propertys causing things to behave strangely, in order to explain galaxys rotating far faster than predicted by GR. It has never been observed.
And the ether was supported by Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Larmor, Tesla, and even Einstein, who said:
" According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." (Ether and the Theory of Relativity, 1920, wikisource).
But, naturally, space without matter in any rational theory is unthinkable, which is another reason the Big Bang is so ludicrous.
And P.A.M. Dirac stated that the quantum vacuum may be the equivalent in modern physics of a particulate ether (Is there an ether? Nature, 1951).
Robert Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chairman in physics at Stanford, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
"It is ironic [we might say "contradictory"] that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed... The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity... The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." (A Different Universe, 2005, cited in Ether Theories-Wikipedia).
So some relativists see the ether as compatible with relativity, but ether theorists don't. In any case, relativity contradicts QM and ether theory does not. And GR was certainly was not creative and is probably just as erroneous as SR.
See also Requiem for Relativity (by Michael Strauss, 2004) and Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science (by William Broad and Nicholas Wade, 1982).
Relativity is regarded as proven by experiment (of course, by fools who say nothing can be proven). But the real story is very different.
The ether was not disproven by the famous Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 and subsequent replications, because they were not done as properly as they should have been (and acheived slightly positive results instead of null ones). Case Western's Dayton Miller, '25-'26, used highly sensitive equipment and higher altitudes (on Mt. Wilson), where the ether would be more likely detected, instead of in a basement as the earlier experiments were done, his experimentation was more extensive, and used very meticulous and thorough controls for any possible random, thermal, or mechanical effects that might skew results. His results were positive. Critiques of his work after his decease were fraudulent so attempts to debunk him failed. Georges Sagnac had also achieved positive results in 1913 as did Maurice Allais in 1997, and Ruyong Wang in 2002, all of which disproved the constancy of the speed of light.
The perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit is supposed to be a confirmation of the theory. The equation that accounted for Mercury’s orbit had been published 17 years earlier. The author, Paul Gerber, used the assumption that gravity is not instantaneous, but propagates with the speed of light. After Einstein published his GR derivation, arriving at the same equation, Gerber’s article was reprinted in Annalen der Physik (the journal that had published Einstein’s relativity articles). The editors felt Einstein should have acknowledged Gerber’s priority. Although Einstein said he had been in the dark, it was pointed out that Gerber’s formula had been published in Mach’s Science of Mechanics, a book that Einstein was known to have studied.
Tom Van Flandern was convinced that Gerber’s assumption was wrong, so he studied the question. He pointed out that the formula is well known in celestial mechanics. Consequently, it could be used as a target for calculations that were intended to arrive at it. He saw that Gerber’s method “made no sense, in terms of the principles of celestial mechanics.” Einstein had also said (in a 1920 newspaper article) that Gerber’s derivation was “wrong through and through.”
So how did Einstein get the same formula? Van Flandern went through his calculations and found to his amazement that they had “3 separate contributions to the perihelion, 2 of which add, and one of which cancels, part of the other 2, and you wind up with just the right multiplier.” So he asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, how in his opinion Einstein had arrived at the correct multiplier. This man said it was his impression, “knowing the answer,” Einstein had “jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value.”
The experiment concerning deflection of light by the Sun done by Eddington was fraudulent, a fact accepted even by the mainstream, but subsequent experiments for it are said to have confirmed it, which is totally false. Light deflection due to the sun was already described. Theimer (1977, p. 142, cited in gsjournal.net) stated: "A gravitational deflection of light was already predicted by Newton and was calculated in 1801 by the astronomer Johann von Soldner. His value amounted to only half that of Einstein's. In 1911 the value predicted by Einstein was the same as that of von Soldner. It was not until 1917 that he changed it to twice the value." Philip Lenard first received notification in 1921 of the publication by von Soldner in 1801 and he therefore republished it in 1921 in Annalen der Physik. In his preface Lenard remarks that Soldner, without the assumptions of GR, had calculated the deflection of light due to gravity and found a value that agreed with the results of observations of the eclipse of the sun in 1919. An effect that is explained by several theories can not be claimed by any of these theories as compelling evidence of their validity. An effect that has already been described cannot be subsequently claimed as the special performance of a later-developed theory, and its empirical support of the later theory is in no way compelling. Just as a nebula or dust disk around other solar systems is no confirmation of either the planetismal hypothesis nor solar fission since they are part of both theories. Also, the predictions of GR and Newton's theory differ only by small amounts (Penguin Dictionary of Physics).
The Hafele-Keating experiment, using atomic clocks and GPS satellites, is seen as irrefutable evidence of time dilation and therefore relativity. But how the GPS satellites stay synchronized has nothing to do with the experiment, it was one of the most botched experiments of all time, and the results were so tampered with that it could be considered fraudulent. Engineer A.G. Kelly of HDS Energy in Celbridge, County Kildare, Ireland, obtained the original 1971 test report from the United States Naval Observatory, on which the 1972 article was based, and discovered that the original results actually did not support the result computed in the 1972 article. The portable cesium-beam clocks that were carried varied in time so badly that some of them could vary more than the total supposed results during the time of the test. The most stable of the 4 clocks, no. 447, by itself constituting a better experiment than all the clocks together, indicated, as an overall result of the test, zero kinematic time accumulation. In addition, the expectations of the experiment were based on a 3d reference point called "proper time", which takes relativity out of the equation because it is analogous to adding a hidden ether (universal reference frame).
The GPS satellites are supposedly adjusted according to the Sagnac Effect and the gravitational calculation supposedly proven by Pound-Rebka, but neither factor require relativity and have nothing to do with time dilation. (Anti-Relativity.Com (http://Anti-Relativity.Com))
Here are excerpts from the article by Kelly (Hafele & Keating Tests - Did They Prove Anything? A. G. Kelly, PhD - dipmat.unipg.it (http://www.dmi.unipg.it/)):
"Abstract. The original test results were not published by Hafele & Keating in their famous 1972 paper; they published figures that were radically different from the actual test results which are here published for the first time. An analysis of the real data shows that no credence can be given to the conclusions of Hafele & Keating.
1. Introduction
Hafele and Keating (1972) [1] (hereafter referred to as H & K) carried out experiments that purported to confirm the Theory of Special Relativity. The evidence provided was derived from the differences in time recorded by cesium clocks transported in aeroplanes, eastward and westward, around the Earth.
H & K avoided giving the actual test results in their paper; they gave figures that were radically altered from those results. These altered results gave the impression that they were consistent with the theory. The original test results are reproduced for the first time in this paper; these do not confirm the theory. The corrections made by H & K to the raw data are shown to be totally unjustified.
It is also shown that the clocks used were not of sufficient stability to prove anything. The magnitude of the random alterations in performance, during the air transportation, were such as to make any result useless.
7. Conclusions
The H & K tests prove nothing. The accuracy of the clocks would need to be two orders of magnitude better to give confidence in the results. The actual test results, which were not published, were changed by H & K to give the impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a failry steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results gives no difference for the eastward and the westward tests."
Frame-dragging, which says space is elastic, which can't be since only matter can be eleastic, is expected in GR but effects from it and tests for it are contraversial (see Tests of General Relativity-Wikipedia; there are 12 references).
The Hulse–Taylor binary pulsar system is also considered as a confirmation of GR but there are competing theories that agree with the data (Ron Cowen, 2013, Nature.Com).
The expansion of the universe is as well regarded as confirmation of relativity but, of course, such expansion is not even possible, and contrary to what is usually said, it was never discovered, it was only invented, and is part of what makes the Big Bang something that can't be taken seriously.
And in 2006 the European Space Agency conducted rotating superconductor experiments which showed an effect 100 million trillion times larger than predicted by general relativity.
Furthermore, if the GR method is correct, it should apply everywhere, not just in the solar system. But Van Flandern points to a conflict outside our solar system: binary stars with highly unequal masses. Their orbits behave in ways contraryto the Einstein model.
And G.O. Mueller (Catalogue of Errors for Both Theories of Relativity, gsjournal.net) documents around 130 serious errors in special relativity alone.
Moreover, University of London Professor Herbert Dingle showed why special relativity will always conflict with logic. According to the theory, if two observers are equipped with clocks, and one moves in relation to the other, the moving clock runs slower than the clock at rest. But the relativity principle itself (an integral part of the theory) makes the claim that if one object is moving in relation to another, either one is entitled to be regarded as moving. It follows then that clock A runs slower than B, and clock B runs slower than A, which is nonsensical.
And here is the summary of a Rolf Schock article in Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie, 1981, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp. 285-296, The inconsistency of the theory of relativity (philpapers.org):
"It is here shown that the relativistic doctrine of the relativity of simultaneity is untenable and that both the special and general theories of relativity are inconsistent. It is also shown that the theories can perhaps be made consistent, but excessively weak, through the reintroduction of absolute space and a weakening of the Lorentz transformations. Non-relativistic hypotheses for some events thought to require relativity are suggested. Finally, some conjectures are made on how so wrong a theory could have been accepted by so many for so long."
In 1933, Fritz Zwicky concocted "dark matter", a substance with occult propertys causing things to behave strangely, in order to explain galaxys rotating far faster than predicted by GR. It has never been observed.
And the ether was supported by Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Larmor, Tesla, and even Einstein, who said:
" According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." (Ether and the Theory of Relativity, 1920, wikisource).
But, naturally, space without matter in any rational theory is unthinkable, which is another reason the Big Bang is so ludicrous.
And P.A.M. Dirac stated that the quantum vacuum may be the equivalent in modern physics of a particulate ether (Is there an ether? Nature, 1951).
Robert Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chairman in physics at Stanford, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
"It is ironic [we might say "contradictory"] that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed... The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity... The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." (A Different Universe, 2005, cited in Ether Theories-Wikipedia).
So some relativists see the ether as compatible with relativity, but ether theorists don't. In any case, relativity contradicts QM and ether theory does not. And GR was certainly was not creative and is probably just as erroneous as SR.
See also Requiem for Relativity (by Michael Strauss, 2004) and Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science (by William Broad and Nicholas Wade, 1982).