Relativity
Public Group
Active 5 weeks ago
Hi. This is a place where we could voice our agreements, disagreements, and further thoughts, questions,... View more
Public Group
New model needed

New model needed
Posted by Deleted User on July 27, 2021 at 6:08 pmThere have been many articles and CNPS suggested problems of Relativity. Even if there is a new problem discovered, there are enough identified to compose a new model. I suggest going back to the basic experiments and starting again. This is a paper which was made following my Special Relativity video previously posted in CNPS. Because I had no comments, I wrote it to go on to other thoughts.
Replacing Special Relativity
http://www.intellectualarchive.com/getfile.php?file=1lWfpF459fL&orig_file=msesr.pdf
I would be interested in solving the models rather than regurgitating problems.
Hodge
Kasim replied 1 year, 4 months ago 8 Members · 53 Replies 
53 Replies

The problem is inside us. We must go backwards in our reasoning until we find the first mistake.
JohnErik

It’s simple: some theories do not need be replaced. They simply need to be thrown out.

David
Yes, but we stupid people do not throw away anything until we have found an alternative.
JohnErik

I completely agree: “There have been many articles and CNPS suggested problems of Relativity. – – I suggest going back to the basic experiments and starting again”. The following link will be a good starting point to review the basics as well as to start again with a model that solves many of the problems of Relativity:
https://beyondmainstream.org/theory/unifiedrelativitymodel/

Deleted User
MemberJanuary 4, 2022 at 2:38 amKen:
Agree with the part abou reexamining the experiments that SR used to create the model.

John.
Yes, I “Agree with the part about reexamining the experiments that SR used to create the 1905 SR model” Also. I have reexamined his assumptions and have created a 1905 SRT model that clearly describes how Einstein used the MMExperiment, aberration of starlight, and the Lorentz Factor to determine the geometry from which he derived his stellar aberration equation and reciprocity version that has a Twins Paradox, as well as his longitudinal and transverse length transformations and relativistic frequency shift equations. Also, I have created revised SR models that describe a geometry and dynamics from which new and more reliable stellar aberration equations and a reciprocity version that do not have a Twin Paradox, as well as new longitudinal length transformations and relativistic frequency shift equations that are more reliable.


John, et. al.
It’s good to see so many new participants – as well as some old timers.
Over the last 6 years or so, Relativity has been discussed by CNPS members AD NAUSIUM . In fact, I tracked one discussion for 2 years. The participants logged over 1,000 hours of their personal time and effort each of those years. The sad part is, after all that effort, NO PROGRESS was made! I’d hate to see this new format repeat that earlier model.
The reason I was tracking the effort was to get the participants to realize that the BIGGEST culprit wasn’t the science! It was the discussion process itself. That discussion was being held by email, which is actually more efficient than this post and reply process. BUT, even email is a disaster! The reason is that, the topics the group discusses are TOO COMPLEX to be discussed through a “comment and reply” approach – OF ANY KIND. (If anyone wants to understand this in more detail, the presentation I made about it at the 2016 CNPS Conference is still online: Structured Discussion.
Some additional perspective:
 One of our members has created a bibliography of over 2,000 papers disputing Relativity.
 A group in Europe filed a lawsuit against many universities for failing to challenge Relativity and study its errors.
 CNPS ran a “major project” to resolve the Relativity problem. Our member, Ron Hatch, had proof from his background developing the world wide GPS system, that Relativity was flawed. His experience provided proof of an aether. He described the conflict within NASA about it and their failure to raise the issue in public because of pressure from Universities. The project was never completed because I couldn’t find ANY member who could develop even the most basic model for how radio waves (i.e. light) acted within a satellite system geometry! Sure, I could do it. I created all the other models. But the participant team fell apart when they couldn’t (many being retired professors!)
Anyone wanting to follow up on any of this, contact me by reply to this post.
Bruce Nappi

Bruce,
Bruce, you wrote: “I couldn’t find ANY member who could develop even the most basic model for how radio waves (i.e. light) acted within a satellite system geometry! Sure, I could do it. I created all the other models. But the participant team fell apart when they couldn’t (many being retired professors!)”. — So, do you have a model that can make such predictions in the earth’s inertial frame? If not, I suggest that we start with trying to agree of a few basic things that are WRONG with Special and General Relativity as well as to agree on changes to basic functions that predict relativistic effects such as length contraction, time dilation, stellar aberration, gravitational mirage, and relativistic frequency shifts. Furthermore, I suggest that we do so in a simple venue such as outside significant gravitational forces and certainly outside the influence of the earth’s gravity or any solar system’s gravity. Subsequently, we may be able to calibrate the basic functions (or models) to account for problems like being an observer that is too close to the sun or too close to the earth for the functions to make precise predictions.

Ken,
Yes, I do have a model to predict the timing of radio wave pulses in the earth’s inertial frame. BUT, the basis of the project doesn’t require anything as complex as either the Special or General theories. For phase 1 of the effort, all I was trying to do was discriminate the basics for the 3 models of light propagation: ballistic, waves in an aether, and Relativity. To simplify this, the basic framework was a linear – vs. circular or spherical – geometry, no atmosphere, no gravity. AND the only math needed was high school level! I’ve attached a photo.
BUT, this avoids the major point of my post. The format of a post and comment discussion is NOT up to the task of such a discussion. We need to cite references. We need to post papers. We need to post graphics and spreadsheets. Each of these needs a formal structure so members don’t keep running off on tangents. Your reply is typical: “…I suggest that we start with [1] trying to agree of a few basic things that are WRONG with Special and General Relativity as well as [2] to agree on changes to basic functions that predict relativistic effects such as [3] length contraction, [4] time dilation, [5] stellar aberration, [6] gravitational mirage, and [7] relativistic frequency shifts.” With a large group, small groups will splinter off on each of these. ( [#]’s added to show 7 tangents.)
Furthermore, the discussion interface has major limitations. Right now, this reply, with photo is so large that it blocks your post. If I click your post to continue reading, this reply disappears. When I added the photo, a help box opened saying “Drop image here”. I can’t find any way to make it go away.
IN SHORT: this format is NOT adequate for efficient interaction.

Bruce.
🙂 I agree with your assessment of my “typical” suggestions in italics following:
“…I suggest that we start with [1] trying to agree of a few basic things that are WRONG with Special and General Relativity as well as [2] to agree on changes to basic functions that predict relativistic effects such as [3] length contraction, [4] time dilation, [5] stellar aberration, [6] gravitational mirage, and [7] relativistic frequency shifts.”
Your assessment with which I agree: “With a large group, small groups will splinter off on each of these”.
My response is: “So — where do we go from here?”.
Is anyone interested, at all, in delving into the complex and lengthy process of (A) selecting just one of the following: [3] length contraction, [4] time dilation, [5] stellar aberration, [6] gravitational mirage, and [7] relativistic frequency shifts. (B) selecting and creating an extant state of the art bibliography (C) Critical Analysis of extant theory on [?]. and finally, (D) to agree on changes to basic functions that predict relativistic effects on [?].



Hi Bruce,
I have some practical insights as to how to fix our understanding of radio physics. To get right to it, the problem starts with Einstein. Einstein received the Nobel Prize for his paper on identifying the photon as the quantum of light, but then he failed to quantify the photon properly.
The current understanding of the photon is that it is energy equal to Planck’s constant times frequency:
However, Planck’s constant is a constant, and therefore frequency and energy have to be variables. So the photon cannot be both quantum and also a variable amount of energy. Also, this simplistic understanding of the photon fails to understand the actual physics of light.
A photon is produced in an atom when an electron jumps its orbital and transfers its angular momentum to the surrounding space. The space then imparts the speed c, and only the speed c, to the photon. Thus a true quantum photon should be quantified as:
All photons are the same, all photons travel at speed c, and photons do not have inherent frequency. Atoms produce photons at frequencies, which are unique to the isotopes that produce the photons. This is why we have the science of spectroscopy. We can identify an isotope by the frequencies at which it emits photons. Light is therefore:
Light (radio waves) is not a photon or an energy packet; light is the condition where space is filled with photons being emitted at specific frequencies. Light, like photon, is also a unit of itself. When we talk about light, we should be talking about the unit of light and not energy packets, frequencies, or any other unit. Light is ligt.
When a receiving atom has an empty valence position, that empty valence position fills up with any light that happens to be incident upon that atom, and the light loses its velocity:
A valence position can only fill up with a specific amount of energy. The “energy packet” only occurs at the valence position of the atom, and the energy packet does not fly through space, and neither is there an energy packet emitted from the emitter. The energy packet is a constant, and therefore one cannot write $$E=hf$$ to describe the physics of light.
In fact, the energy packet equation could also be written as:
where a constant $$enrg$$ is accumulated by the collection of small bits of angular momentum arriving at the valence position and at the frequency of the emitting atom.
When a true quantum photon is emitted from an emitter, the photon expands as a wave of angular momentum into the surrounding space according to the Compton function. That is, a quantum photon spreads out like a true wave. The angular momentum is therefore dispersed into space and by the time a single photon reaches a valence position in a receiving atom, only a tiny portion of that particular photon is absorbed into the valence position. It is the constant sequence of photons following the initial photon that each add tiny bits of angular momentum to the valence position until that valence position fills up.
The amount of angular momentum from a given photon that arrives at the receiver is determined precisely by the distance between the emitter and the receiver, which is why there is an inverse square law for irradiance.
As for the “relativistic effects” of light near the Earth, the Sun, or any other massive body, this is easily quantified in terms of the length density constant of the Aether (an extension of Karl Schwarzschild’s work). This post would necessarily be much longer if I explained the space density gradient right now, but we can cover it. I have already made another post that touches on the simple Aether equations for curved space.
The physics of light is easy to accurately quantify with the right paradigm.

David,
Please read my reply to Ken above timestamp Jan 24 3:25p (I think this is GMT) I’m in Massachusetts so it was actually sent 10:25a. I agree that even the photon is still elusive. But that would add item [8] to the list I made in Ken’s reply if not a whole additional string of tangents. My paper: Space Lattice Theory provides some new concepts for all the things you mentioned. Again, not efficient to discuss here.

It is too bad the board does not yet function properly with regard to latex. I was able to download your book and spend some time perusing it. I am definitely interested in reading more about your insights into the lattice.
My work has mainly been centered around quantifying the structure of your Aa, which I call the Aether unit (A.u). If the picture comes through correctly, it should be at the bottom of this post. Although my work does not agree with yours as to the exact structure of the Aa, your work does make much progress in explaining the lattice of the Aas.
In my work, I show how the Aether units do have a temporal metronome, and how this metronome translates through physical matter as time.
For me, the most important aspect of your work is in understanding how these double sphere structures interact with each other to produce the natural lattice of space. I have recently worked out the precise mathematics for how physical matter causes the Aether lattice to “curve” but I would like to develop equations (or learn equations that already exist) that can generate an accurate graphical map for the mechanics of the lattice. Your work is already very close to what I seek to achieve.
In my work, anyone can calculate nearly all the known physics quantities using real equations. The equations I use base on the quantum structure of space as seen at the bottom of this post. All the details supporting the below image are in my book, Secrets of the Aether, which is available at sota.aetherwizard.com. I am in the process of updating the website to the fourth edition of the book, so there are still some formatting and editing that need to be done, but the main presentation of the work is now available.
My work also fixes many errors of mainstream physics. Mainstream physics is built on the MKS and SI systems of units, which are fundamentally broken. I have provided a new system of Quantum Measurements Units (QMU). Mainstream physics also only recognizes electrostatic charge; my work quantifies a second type of charge called magnetic charge.
The geometrical constant of the Aether unit below is ). If the latex gets fixed, I can present the information much more clearly. We definitely have much to learn from each other.

David,
All good points in your comments. I was able to download your graphic. It is complex enough that I’ll need to look at your paper to understand it.
I think as you get time to read more, you’ll get answers for some of your questions.
The Aas in my theory, as the lattice structure itself, also have a builtin temporal metronome. That is, the Aas have both a “conventional” inertial mass, and elasticity. If the lattice is disturbed, it recovers with a conventional mechanical response.
Note, the “Aa” in my model is much smaller than protons or electrons.
My concept of magnetism may give you some ideas how to develop your approach. In the lattice, the effect we call a charge is not spherical in its near field. It is a pancake of 2 countertwists in the lattice. If viewed from the axis of the twist, it appears as a magnetic monopole. In the far field, however, an amorphous grouping of charges produce only a spherical electric field. To produce a farfield magnetic field, the charges must move and distort the lattice in shapes we call “closed path” field lines.
Also, think through my description of “antimatter”. This is “true” anti MASS, not an “inverse charge” on particles.

With regard to magnetism, yes, I noticed your concept of twist and I agree with this. And yes, I am interested in understanding more about your concept of the twist as this is something I have not yet modeled, although I have it quantified. As I see it, the twist in the electron magnetic charge is represented by the fine structure constant of the electron.
I have a magnetic force law equation for the magnetic charge of the subatomic particles that is consistent with the Coulomb electrostatic force law and the Newton gravitational force law. I have succeeded in mathematically unifying all the fundamental forces using simple Newtonian type equations.
A difference between our ideas is that my magnetic charge is a magnetic dipole that is inherent to the Aa. Also, I see the subatomic particles as identical in size to the Aether unit, but with an addition of a string of mass. It is the string of mass within the Aether unit that both gives the subatomic particle its angular momentum and also its magnetic charge. The magnetic charge of a subatomic particle is directly proportional to its mass, and the same mass to magnetic charge ratio is consistent across all subatomic particles and the Aether units.
Your pancake graphic is nearly identical to a graphic I use to illustrate the geometry of c^2, which is a pulse.
It seems like your general concept of magnetism, and the ideas of twist within the magnetism, will be useful to explain the physics of magnetism.
Also, we are in agreement with our concept of mass in matter / antimatter. I see the mass in antimatter as being influenced by a temporal torque. Hence, antimatter has mass spinning to a right spin torque while normal matter has mass spinning to a left spin torque. The key to my understanding is that the torque applies to the temporal dimensions and not to the spatial dimensions. In fact, the right/left spin torque is a temporal dimension of itself, which works together with the other temporal dimension of forward time / backward time oscillation.
The forward time / backward time frequency dimension results in the experience of the present moment. Physical matter, being half spin, spins only in the forward time direction within the present moment. This is why physical matter changes in the forward time direction and why it never leaves the present moment.
The two temporal dimensions of frequency (as opposed to time) work in harmony with two spatial dimensions within the Aether unit, and it is the combination of the temporal and spatial mechanics which generates the double sphere geometry we both anticipate.





I’ve been challenging physicists on both theories of relativity on Quora.com and they replied to my challenges. For example, I contended that the usual calculation for time dilation in the twin paradox is based on the illusion created by the doppler shift due to relative motion. This means that if you’re viewing a clock on a rocket moving away from you, you’d see it running slower than yours because the clock is getting further and further away from you; hence, its images are taking longer and longer to get to you. Since this is an illusion, it can’t be used to calculate time dilation.
They countered that tests have shown that on shorthaul and longhaul flights, there was a residual time dilation which was cumulative i.e. the longer the flight, the greater was the discrepancy which was still there even after taking out the effects of illusions and gravitational time dilation. I had to accept the findings as I couldn’t come up with an alternative explanation.
But I concentrated on the word ‘discrepancy’ which I was glad they were using. You see, the moving clocks and the stationary ones were being pesented at the same time which means that the passage of time is invariant i.e. it didn’t change as claimed by SR. I interpreted it as the fact that the moving clock had somehow ran slower than the stationary one; and it was the act of movement that did it; and that’s why I call it clock dilation.
In order to move the clock, you have to accelerate it by applying a force visavis the thrust of the planes i.e. the clock dilation is caused by a mechanical force. Relativists call SR time dilation velocity time dilation; but it isn’t velocity that does it. Velocity is a consequence of acceleration which is a consequence of an applied force. Therefore, it’s the applied force that causes clock dilation. They claimed that SR doesn’t deal with acceleration; so they have to use GR which is too complicated – but they insisted that it’s velocity that did it because when they calculate time dilation, they use the Lorentz factor which is a function of velocity; and that’s their reasoning.
In another QA session, I described the clock dilation of GPS clocks when in highaltitude orbits as being due to the lower gravity there than the higher gravity on the ground; thus they run faster because of the lower hindrance that lower gravity causes. All they could do is call me a crackpot and even antiscience. Personally, I believe that gravitational clock dilation is also caused by a force – the force of gravity. Thus I’ve unified SR and GR clock dilation i.e. they’re both caused by forces. I’ve read an article by Ken Moore who unified SR and GR by stating that signal response time dilation can be explained by using queuing theory method of Operations Research. Who am I to argue?
I’m currently studying Length Contraction which is another illusion. More on this in a later post. But the implication of my findings so far is that if the current explanation of SR time dilation is using illusions; and the residual ‘time’ dilation is actually ‘clock’ dilation, which means that time itself is invariant; which also means that the speed of light is NOT the same for all observers.
As another poster here said: we need to go back to the first mistake that was made in relativity. From my research, the first mistake was by Fitzgerald and Lorentz who introduced Length Contraction which I suspect is an illusion and Glenn Borchardt reckons it’s a measurement problem i.e. it’s not real. This was followed by Joseph Larmor who introduced time dilation; and finally by Einstein who used both of them to give us the constancy of the speed of light. So, sorting out the first mistake would really unravel the relativity mystery.
Notice that in order for the speed of light to be the same for all observers irrespective of their state of motion, you have to dilate time and contract lengths and space. I wonder what would happen if you keep time, length, and space invariant? The speed of light would be variable – which it is because it travels more slowly in a more dense medium than it does in a less dense one.
 This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by Kasim.

“They countered that tests have shown that on shorthaul and longhaul flights, there was a residual time dilation which was cumulative i.e. the longer the flight, the greater was the discrepancy which was still there even after taking out the effects of illusions and gravitational time dilation. I had to accept the findings as I couldn’t come up with an alternative explanation.”
The highly accurate clocks used on long haul flights move through a space density gradient as they increase in altitude. The longer a clock is moving through a higher altitude, the more its clock will be off compared to a clock on the ground.
This is not time dilation; it is a space density gradient.
The Riemann mathematics used by General Relativity theory describes a space density gradient. What a space density gradient means is that space near the surface of the Earth is less dense than space at higher altitudes. It is this space density gradient that causes the circular deflection angle for photons passing near massive objects.
When a clock travels through less dense space, it requires fewer ticks to complete an orbit around the Earth. When a clock travels through more dense space, there are more spaces per circumference, and thus as the clock moves through each space it must tick accordingly.
Think of a flexible flat screen television. You play a Star Wars movie and you can watch the laser blasts move back and forth across the screen. If you bend the screen, the laser blasts do not fly out into the room, they stay in the newly curved surface.
Now imagine a television screen that has three dimensional pixels. You play a holographic movie in these three dimensions of pixels and you can stretch or compress the pixels as you want, but the movie still plays as it always did. This is the space density gradient of General Relativity theory. General Relativity theory is calculating the space density gradient of the pixels in which our physical world plays out. Space can curve, but we still will perceive straight lines in our world in spite of the space curvature.
However, since our physical Universe is not a prerecorded movie, but is a real time production of physical processes, when we are near the surface of the Earth there are fewer pixels of space for us to move through. When we move to higher altitudes, the pixels become more dense. It literally takes longer to move a foot at higher altitudes than it takes to move a foot at lower altitudes because there are more pixels in the higher altitude foot than there are at the lower altitude foot.
Hence a clock moving through greater space density will have more opportunities to tick within a foot than a clock moving through a lesser space density.
There is no time dilation involved simply because there is no such thing as physical matter in a physical timeline. There is no physical matter in a past reference frame such that physical matter from the present would have a place to temporally dilate into. The only reference frame for physical matter is the present moment. The whole of General Relativity is all about the space density gradient. And this is easily proved by Karl Schwarzschild’s solution, which is based on a maximum length density limit for physical existence.
Not only is General Relativity not a time dilation theory, but General Relativity theory also has nothing to do with gravity. It is only coincidental that the space density gradient is proportional to the gravitational force. The space density gradient is calculated based on only half the mass of a massive physical object, whereas gravity is always calculated based on the total mass of the physical objects involved.

John, Bruce & David,
If you guys have models, I challenge you to use them to make a prediction, just one, that is different from that of a specific function (i.e a predictive equation) of SRT or GRT. Please provide the SRT or GRT predictive equation as well as your model’s predictive equation for the same relativistic effect.
If you would make just one such prediction, I will spend some time to consider the valadity and reliability of your models.

Ken: special relativity and general relativity are wrong. Ask Dr. Cynthia Whitney who got her PHD in special relativity from MIT and when she applied it to ring gyroscopes, it failed. It also fails in particle accelerators where mass increase is not observed. General relativity predicts gravity bends light yet outside the corona of suns, it should bend but does not. Relativity is wrong so it is not necessary to reproduce a failed theory. Also, there is no physicality ever given to mass increase or spacetime.
Finally, you and I or any of us are not the judges of new theory or models. History will be the judge of that.

David.
If gravity does not bend light how do you explain the Einstein Rings? Also, the Astronomical Almanac provides precise coordinates (within 0.001 arcsec.) that astronomers use to locate and identify named stars based upon calibrations for gravitational mirage as well as stellar aberration. These calibrations are derived from sources such as the NOVAS software that predicts angular displacements of more than 0.1 arcsec at distance from the sun that are ten times the sun’s radius. This predicted displacement is large and must be accounted for by some other phenomenon if not by a gravitational mirage.
Finally, I do not intend to judge the reliability of other’s models predictions. However, I would like to know if any such models are advanced enough to make predictions that will account for the observed large displacements from the “true” coordinates of stars. I am even more interested to know if their predictions that are different from those of SRT or GRT are close to my own predictions that are significantly different than SRT and GRT predictions. I consider that if such agreement can be found among “any of our” models that are outside the mainstream would be something that CNPS would want to celebrate.

One name who presented countless times at the NPA and even CNPS: Dr. Edward Dowdye. Here is a video about Einstein Rings and Dowdye’s work: https://youtu.be/iLavU8xjDsc

David,
Thanks for the video of Dr. Dowdye’s insights. However, the video is not clear. Is he saying there is no displacement from the “true” coordinates to a star outside the corona’s halo at 2R, 3R and beyond? If he is implying that the corona is causing the measured displacement when at 1R, then has he determined the intrinsic function that precisely accounts for the rather large displacement that are “reportedly measured” for glazing starlight. Then is he also implying that those rather large displacements that are “reportedly measured” at 2R and beyond are simply “fake news” for the benefit of mainstream group think. Why then does he not also believe the displacement of glazing starlight is “fake news” unless he has determined the function that precisely accounts for the “reportedly measured” affects of the corona? If he has determined that precise and reliable function I hope that CNPS members will have free access to it.

You had asked specifically about Einstein Rings. I gave you a video of that. Dr. Dowdye who unfortunately died a year back, has a website explaining his ideas. The simple fact that gravity does not bend light outside of a corona is evidence against GR: http://www.extinctionshift.com

If CNPS members would spend some time trying to understand Einstein Rings and Gravitational Mirages they may understand that they are the same thing, i.e. gravity causes both angular displacement phenomena and are predicted by the same displacement and redshift functions. Thus, if one is wrong then both are wrong! Also, both cause a redshift in the frequency of the observed ring or mirage and this redshift is accurately predicted within a small tollerance by GR. Does Dr. Dowdye have a function that accurately predicts the “observed” redshifts as well as a function that predicts the “observed” displacements that are caused by the highly volatile and nonhomogeneous fluids in the corona?
However, I will relent and admit that I have not taken the time and money that it would take to verify the accuracy of these “observed” effects. Therefore, I am not a witness in the defence of GR predictions.

Ken, you have to read Dowdye for yourself. I’m not truly interested in this because I’m not interested in math even though I’m a mathematician. I’m interested in a physical explanation for gravity and everything. Until then, we are working with math and arguing about GR being right or wrong but all the arguments do not matter until we give physicality to gravity, light, magnetism and electricity.

David D.,
You stated: “I’m interested in a physical explanation for gravity . . .”
I have a physical explanation for the functional aspects of gravity as well as velocity. These functional aspects are the same as the functional aspects of a computer’s processor (or single server) that is a functional as well as a physical reality. This explanation is that the physical server functions in such a manner that a “limit” of the physical server is expressed as (Arrival Rate) / (Service Rate) and this mathmatical function predicts the dependent variable called Utilization where 100% Utilization is a “limit” that can be approached but not reached or exceeded. Similarly, escape velocity (ve) / c and velocity (v) / c are “limits” that can approach 100% but not reach or exceed 100%.
I am much more interested in predicting the functional “effects” of escape velocity (ve) and velocity (v). There is a no more important innovative agenda for free world space force Operations Research than being able to reliably predict the functional behavior and “effects” of ve at a distance Ra from a “physical” Mass as well as the velocities (v) of targets upon the performance metrics and control of their “physical” weaponology and their “physical” space craft.



Ken, et. al.
Here is a new paradox that came up in a workshop at the 2018 CNPS Conference. The “Slow Light Paradox”
When measuring the length of an object that is moving, SRT presents the following equation:
beta = 1 / sqrt (1 – v^2 / c^2) where beta = Lo / L . Lo = the measured length of a moving rod. L = the length of the same rod in a “stationary” frame. This is Equation 22 in the following reference.
(https://www.academia.edu/37691246/Annotation_Reference_for_ON_THE_ELECTRODYNAMICS_OF_MOVING_BODIES)
The paradox arises when we carefully question the speed of light. That is, in the real world, we measure “c” in vacuum as approximately 300 x 10^6 m/s.
What if, instead of using a vacuum to send the light beams, another medium is used, say a glass fiber. This light beam will move slower. Let’s call that speed Cs ( i.e. C slow ). What happens to the calculation?
We are still doing all the synchronizations of clocks the same, and taking the measurements as stated in SRT. But the length dilation will be different!
Another way of looking at this is, if the speed of light actually had a different speed, say 200 x 10^6 m/s, then the entire universe would change because all the effects associated with SRT would have different values. In fact, consider the case where the speed of light is infinite. Then length contraction disappears.
The conclusion of the workshop was that, using light as a MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT introduces INSTRUMENT ERROR due to its noninfinite speed.
If this principle is accepted, and an analysis of any experiment using light as a measuring tool treats the “measured values” as having an error due to the finite light speed, and the measured values are “corrected” for the instrument error, then all the dilation effects DISAPPEAR!

Bruce,
You stated: “Consider the case where the speed of light is infinite. Then length contraction disappears.”
I would restate this as: Light speed c (approximately 300 x 10^6 m/s) in a vaccum is a “limit”. Just as in a single server computer the limit of the server’s ability to service transactions can be determined by the mean Ghz consumption of each transaction times the number of transactions (Arrival Rate) processed during a steady state elapsed time (T). Also, the server cannot process more transactions than the number that will consume the Ghz rating (Service Rate) of the server’s processor. The “limit” for a server is called 100% Utilization and is defined as “Arrival Rate” / “Service Rate” and as 100% is approached the “Queue Length” of transactions awaiting to be serviced approaches infinity. Thus, since Light Speed c (approximately 300 x 10^6 m/s) is a “limit” that can be approached “but never exceeded” in all inertial frames then the length Lo of the spaceship as “measured” by the Traveler is always Lo but the distance that the space ship has traveled (L) as well as the elapsed time in the “stationary” frame (T) are both dilated (made longer) relative to Lo and To similar to the server’s queue length and response time that approach infinity. These connections of heuristic significance is why I believe “Relativity is a Queuing System”.

Yes, your example applies to the server. But Special Relativity has no such claims. It is a pure math analysis for how to calculate how one set of observers measures objects in motion. ALSO, my paradox is for light moving at a rate slower than c in vacuum, which is routinely measured for light moving in a gas or solid.
But, Einstein actually did consider the paradox of objects moving faster than c in section 5 of the paper that discusses the “composition” of velocities. His example assumes a number of moving frames, each “measuring” rods in other frames. If frame A is stationery, and B, C, and D each measure the next higher lettered frame as moving 0.7c faster than itself, from simple math, we would claim the speeds relative to A are: B= 0.7c; C= 1.4c; D= 2.1c. Einstein states that Newtonian physics does not prohibit speeds faster than c. All he concludes is that his measuring scheme falls apart for velocities greater than c. In reference {122} of my annotated reference, it states, “For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become meaningless”. The reason is, his light beams can’t catch the objects in those other frames, so no measurements are possible. Furthermore, all objects have collapsed into pure planer figures – i.e. they don’t have any volume.

Bruce,
You stated: “My paradox is for light moving at a rate slower than c in vacuum, which is routinely measured for light moving in a gas or solid.”
Trying to understand relativistic effects in an assumed “vacuum” well outside a solar system has taken me more than 20 years day, night and weekends. Fluid mechanics was the most difficult course I have ever taken. I am sure that trying to account for relativistic effects of velocity (v) or escape velocity (ve) in fluids such as in a magellanic cloud galaxy is well beyond my ken.



Hi Ken, It is not my view that the mathematics of Special Relativity theory or General Relativity theory are wrong. In fact, I strongly support the math in both theories. What I question is the interpretation of the mathematics in terms of physics.
I could make the same request of Special Relativity theory that you made of us. I challenge you to show how Special Relativity theory makes a different prediction from the Lorentz transformations. Albert Einstein added nothing the the fluid Aether theory of Lorentz other than his postulates. The postulates of Albert Einstein simply changed the interpretation of the Lorentz transformations from an Aether drift to an interpretation of time drift (time dilation).
At least Lorentz developed his Aether theory based on the physical experiments of Michelson and Morley. Albert Einstein produced an hypothetical postulate involving nonphysical reference frames based on thought experiments. Where are the physical physics in Albert Einstein’s Special Relativity theory?
As for General Relativity theory, Albert Einstein used Riemann curvature mathematics to calculate a long and complex approximation for the circular deflection angle of photons passing near the Sun. The Riemann curvature mathematics describes a space density gradient. Einstein then took the result calculated in Riemann coordinates for the fabric of space and reinterpreted that result in Euclidean and Minkowski coordinates to incorrectly ascribe the Riemann results in terms of gravity and time dilation. That is not proper physics. One cannot calculate a solution in Riemann coordinates and then claim the result can be seen in terms of a different coordinate system. If you can produce the circular deflection angle around the Sun in Minkowski coordinates or Euclidean coordinates, I would be interested in studying the equations.
However, it can’t be done because the Riemann coordinates are describing the outside structure of space, whereas gravity takes place through the inside structure of space. One cannot directly calculate a Minkowski solution for the circular deflection angle because there is no physical timeline such that physical matter exists in a past and future time frame relative to a timeflowing present moment.
The question of the Relativity theories is not the accuracy of the math; the question is whether the math is being interpreted in terms of real world physics. If you would like to see my rendition of the circular deflection angle equation, which is calculated based on a “matter equals Aether” tensor equation, you can see it in equation 15 on this page:
https://sota.aetherwizard.com/17therelativitytheories#gravity_theories
The whole of General Relativity theory can be expressed in Newtonian type physics equations; complex calculus versions are optional.
You will find a unique revelation on the above Relativity Theories page in the meaning of “radians.” I show that radians is actually an Aetherrelated unit with the units removed. Radians are the numerical portion of the unit of “curl.”

David,
You are longwinded! I will try to briefly respond to some of your quotes:
“The postulates of Albert Einstein simply changed the interpretation of the Lorentz transformations from an Aether drift to an interpretation of time drift (time dilation).”
It is clear to me that Einstein accepted the Lorentz length transformation theory that “a moving meter stick contracts along the direction of its velocity vector (v) according to the Lorentz factor (γ) = 1 / (1 – (v/c)^2)^0.5″ where the contracted Length (L) = Lo/γ.” And, it is clear to me that this is where Einstein made his biggest mistake. The moving meter stick must contract more than (L) = Lo/γ in its direction of motion! Furthermore, Einsteins “interpretation of time drift (time dilation)” was simply derived from his length contraction function, where the time and length transformations were both determined by the Lorentz factor. Thus the shortened time (T) = To/γ. This assumption by Einstein was also wrong because it is only valid when the meter stick moves perpendicular to its direction of motion.
You stated: “As for General Relativity theory, Albert Einstein used Riemann curvature mathematics to calculate a long and complex approximation for the circular deflection angle of photons passing near the Sun.”
I have a totally different and simple intrinsic model that expresses the deflection angle “in Newtonian type physics equations”, i.e. in polar coordinates (radians) as well as in cartesian geometry (km and degrees) without assuming “curvatures in space”.

Correction to last paragraph of my last post:
I have a totally different and simple intrinsic model that expresses the deflection angle “in Newtonian type physics equations”, i.e. in polar coordinates (radians and degrees subtended by lengths in km) as well as in cartesian geometry (x,y,z coordinates in km) without assuming “curvatures in space”.

“If you guys have models, I challenge you to use them to make a prediction, just one, that is different from that of a specific function (i.e a predictive equation) of SRT or GRT. Please provide the SRT or GRT predictive equation as well as your model’s predictive equation for the same relativistic effect.
If you would make just one such prediction, I will spend some time to consider the valadity and reliability of your models.”
I pointed out that Albert Einstein’s work was not different from Lorentz’s Aether work, and I presented a General Relativity equation that made a unique contribution to physics. You agreed that Albert Einstein did not add anything new to Lorentz’s Aether theory, which I appreciate. However, instead of spending some time on the validity and reliability of my circular deflection angle equation, you replied with a claim of having your own model. I am interested in your work if you would provide me a link to it, but I expect you will also honor your word in looking into my work as stated.
Please do not be unnecessarily brief in your replies, as I truly wish to understand your ideas.

I haven’t got a model for SRT but have an alternative explanation for it. However, I have accepted that there’s a unversal speed limit i.e. I’m not a conspiracy theorist; and I accept that the Lorentz factor works mainly because it’s essential for my alternative explanation of relativistic effects.
I use one of the implications of Newton’s first law of motion that changes require external forces to cause them. The current explanation of how time dilation is caused is the visual illusion of you seeing a clock moving away from you running slower than yours. Since, there’s no force, there’s no causation.
Besides, if you view a clock that’s approaching you, you’ll see it running faster than yours. In this case this model goes out of the window as it becomes a selfdeprecating theory. However, I put that to some scientists and they agreed that what’s decsribed are visual illusions. But when you take these illusions away, and correct the data for gravitational time dilation, there’s still residual dilation.
Hence, we have to explain this residual dilation separately through some other means. I borrowed one concept from the solution to the twins paradox i.e. that acceleration breaks the symmetry. However, I’m not using acceleration to break any symmetry, but as the basis of the cause of this residual dilation.
Remember ‘velocity’ time dilation? They think that velocity causes time dilation. How do you get to uniform velocity? By acceleration. But acceleration is a consequence of an applied force, which takes us back to Newton’s first law i.e. that the applied force causes the time dilation; we just need to investigate how this happens.
Scientists don’t tell us what happens during acceleration stating that SRT doesn’t deal with accelerating reference frames. But here’s my layman’s explanation:
 A clock at rest runs normally; but if you accelerate it
 after the first second, it’ll acquire a velocity v1; and the clock will run slower than at rest;
 after another second, it’ll acquire a velocity v2; and the clock will run slower than at v1;
 after yet another second, it’ll acquire a velocity v3; and the clock will run slower than at v2;
As you can see, the clock slower and slower with each passing second; but will carry on at the rate it achieved when the acceleration is stopped. This proves that time dilation occurs during the acceleration and not during uniform velocity.
Notice that I say that the clock ‘runs slower’; that’s why I call it clock dilation because the force is affecting the clock’s mechanism and not the passage of time. I only used time dilation because that’s what everyone is familiar with.
They also use the survival to sea level of atmospheric muons by claiming that time passes slowly for them enabling them to survive to sea level. My explanation is that the atmospheric muons simply decay slower so that they survive longer to reach sea level. This means that motion is affecting the rate of decay of unstable substances i.e. the decay constant is subject to relativity.
The implication here is what other constants are subject to relativity? If we assume that the gravitational constant is subject to relativity, dark matter may disappear altogether. This is because dark matter can be inferred only by its gravitational effects on matter within its vicinity. Hence, it could be a flaw in the laws of gravitation; and this flaw could be Big G itself.
This brings us nicely to gravitational clock dilation. Scientists calibrate clocks in the lab where the gravity is stronger than in highaltitude orbits. Then they assume that this is constant everywhere in the universe and under all conditions. In this case, it’s the force gravity that causes the clock dilation which complies with Newton’s first law.
This also means that the transition rates of caesium electrons or any other mechanism, slows down when a force is applied to the clock. Einstein was right when he said that dilation only happens to those actually moving. Besides, Einstein said that relativity affects the rhythm of clocks i.e. it doesn’t affect the passage of time. It seems that mainstream scientists have been putting words in Einstein’s mouth to give their theories credibility.
Another implication of this is that time is invariant which means that the speed of light is not the same for all observers irrespective of their state of motion.

Kasim,
I agree 😀! While being accelerated: “the clock runs slower and slower with each passing second; but will carry on at the rate it achieved when the acceleration is stopped.” Thus, time dilation occurs during acceleration from any “home” frame and not during uniform velocity in the “home” frame; but will continue to retain the same velocity and clock rate that it had attained when under acceleration until there is another acceleration of the clock.

I’m glad we’re in agreement about when dilation happens. But is it the rate at which time passes, or is it the rate at which a clock runs?
I feel that it’s the latter because it’s impossible for time to be manipulated especially for one thing and not others which is what’s implied by SRT.

Kasim,
Let’s assume that your clock is two mirrors that are 300,000 km’ apart moving in tandum with you and this moving light clock tick rate is 1 tick per second’. In this scenario, if your velocity (v’) = 0.866 c then for each second you travel a distance you measure as 300,000 km’ a stayathome unaccelerated light clock will tick twice while you have Traveled 600,000 km at velocity (v) = 0.866 c for two seconds.
If you believe this story is not science fiction, then do you believe the stayathome clock “ages” twice as fast as your clock or just “ticks” twice as fast as your clock in each of the following “What If: ____?” cases.
(1) What If: you measure the velocity of your light clock’s light as 300,000 km’/sec.
(2) What If: you think you will measure the velocity of your light clock’s light as something other than 300,000 km’/sec.

Kasim.
Correction to my last post:
if your velocity (v’) = 0.866 c then for each second you travel a distance you measure as 0.866 * 300,000 km’ a stayathome unaccelerated light clock will tick twice while you have Traveled 0.866 * 600,000 km at velocity (v) = 0.866 c for two seconds.

I don’t know what you’re trying to get at. All I’m doing is accepting that there’s a universal speed limit and that the Lorentz factor explains the residual dilation that I was presented with. I accept these findings on the basis that they’re correct and that I can’t provide an alternative. What I think doesn’t really matter, I’m just humouring the mainstream scientists.
However, they say it’s the rate at which time passes that’s affected by motion; and I say that it’s the rate at which clocks run that’s affected by motion because all clocks, moving and stationary, are presented at the same time. This implies that time hasn’t changed; they’re at the same time coordinates.
So, my explanation is based on the correctness of the Lorentz factor and the fact that there’s a residual dilation. If these are not true, then there is a conspiracy to defraud the world; and I’m just another victim. But I’ll tell you what I think is science fiction: the allegation that the speed of light is the same for all observers irrespective of their state of motion. If it were true, then the qualifier ‘in a vacuum’ is not necessary because it implies that the speed of light is variable everywhere else, which it is.
If you think my reasoning is faulty, please set me straight bearing in mind that I’m a novice.
 This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by Kasim.

Kasim,
You stated:
“But I’ll tell you what I think is science fiction: the allegation that the speed of light is the same for all observers irrespective of their state of motion. If it were true, then the qualifier ‘in a vacuum’ is not necessary because it implies that the speed of light is variable everywhere else, which it is.”
I believe you answered your own question. If the speed of light is not measured as the same value in all inertial frames then my openion is that the clock rate would be different from the ageing rate. However, I believe “in a vacuum” is necessary because it is known that the speed of light is measured differently in different environments such as a “vacuum” vs an inert gas, or a liquid.

I’m glad that we agree on most points. However, it’s possible that whatever is slowing the rate at which clocks run, may also slow down the rate of decay of muons and the aging rate. But this needs to be verified imperically not by mathematics let alone by thought experiment. I’m just assuming that the Lorentz factor applies to all processes.
But you maybe right because I asked scientists if you had 3 rods of the same length and travelling at the same speed but of different materials say iron, wood, and concrete. Will they contract by the same or different proportions i.e. is Young’s Modulus taken into account? The surprising answer was yes they contract by the same proportions and no, relativity doesn’t take Young’s Modulus into account. At which point I immediately concluded that length contraction is an illusion.
What do you think? Do we need forces to compress rods to shorter lengths.

Kasim,
You inquired: ”
What do you think? Do we need forces to compress rods to shorter lengths.”I will answer, not by rods, but by describing wave fronts in the “fixed” frame and the “moving” frame as described by two spacetime warp examples at the following link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zY0GZ1FCfzBwJVyYvsrx_4cYZJenZTr_/view
SRT describes the spacetime warp of a wave front from a moving source as an ellipse (see image 2) and as a circle from a fixed source (see image 1). The major axis of the ellipse is the same as the diameter of the circle, but the minor axis of the ellipse is contracted in its direction of motion according to the Lorentz factor. The theory then is that the spacecraft inside the ellipse is also contracted in its direction of motion due to the spacetime warp and not due to the force of its movement inside an aether. CNPS members unlike USA university students can believe what we choose due to our freedom of will. Thus, we can believe the spacetime warp is described by two circular cross sections as described in image 3 or any other scenario that we want including an aether wind (i.e. “a force”) that causes a warp in the moving wave front. I will intertain any proposition, but will not necessarily accept it as a reality.

In order for the wave front to be compressed, a force is required to compress it. Using sleight of hand doesn’t let you get away with it. My foundational belief is that Nature is blind and it interacts with its environment via forces – those it receives and those it gives. The absence of forces in SRT makes its phenomena sets of illusions; which is what I’ve been saying all along.
I gave an example of 3 rods of different materials. Are you saying that they all have the same wave fronts? What makes them different in reality? To me, it looks like smoke and mirrors and not science. Using mathematics doesn’t mean it’s true. In fact, a lot of people call it mathemagics for obvious reasons.
In the final analysis, SRT should be based on forces and not on illusions.

Hi Kasim, I hope you do not mind me joining in your discussion with Ken.
“…they say it’s the rate at which time passes that’s affected by motion; and I say that it’s the rate at which clocks run that’s affected by motion because all clocks, moving and stationary, are presented at the same time. This implies that time hasn’t changed; they’re at the same time coordinates.”
Yes, time dilation theorists are saying it is the rate which time passes that is affected by motion, and you are correct to say that it cannot be so since everything is taking place in the same temporal coordinates (present moment). However, the atomic clocks being used in these experiments have been tested to an accuracy on the order of losing one second in a billion years. The clocks are extremely accurate and do not lose any time during the span of the experiment.
I think it is helpful to back up a bit more in understanding the nature of this problem more accurately. The time dilation interpretation came about when Albert Einstein added his hypothetical postulates to the Lorentz transformations. Before Einstein, the relative motions were seen as Aether drift, rather than time drift. The Lorentz transformations were developed by Henrick Lorentz and Henri Poincare to explain the smaller than expected Aether drift measured by Michelson and Morley. Aether is another word for “space.”
When two objects move relative to each other, the space compresses or stretches (as opposed to the time dilating). The compression and stretching of space due to relative motion is what Special Relativity deals with. General Relativity deals with a static effect of stretching and compressed space.
In the case of General Relativity, something in physical matter is causing space to be compressed, and the result is that the space surrounding physical matter is being stretched. The General Relativity equations for the circular deflection angle around massive objects, and the equation for the precession of the perigee of objects in orbit around massive objects, give us a clue as to the cause. In these equations, only half the mass of a massive object is considered in the General Relativity effects. Half the mass of massive objects of normal matter is comprised of neutrons, and the other half of the mass is comprised of electron and protons.
Neutrons decay into electrons and protons, which suggests that a neutron is a bound electron and proton; only the binding takes place when the space of the electron folds over on top of the space of the proton. Thus the neutron has a space density that is twice the space density of a single electron and a single proton. Since neutrons are pinching the fabric of space, the surrounding space is stretched inward toward the neutrons, which creates a space density gradient around massive objects.
When muons pass from space down to the surface of the Earth, they are traveling through a space density gradient. Thus at higher altitudes, muons have more activity per unit length than they do at lower altitudes. When clocks move through denser space, the clock still accurately ticks through each quantum of space. With more space density, the clocks will make more ticks at higher altitudes per Earth orbit than they will at lower altitudes. The clocks still tick at the correct rate, but there is more space density to tick through. This is not time dilation.
Since General Relativity theory unequivocally describes the space density gradient, the Special Relativity postulates of Albert Einstein must be wrong. It is just as Poincare and Lorentz originally understood; there is an Aether, and the Aether has an absolute quantum nature, but the sum of all the Aether units produces a fluid of space with pressure and density gradients. Einstein’s postulates have led everyone astray for over 100 years.

Space density gradient sounds like the variability of the force of gravity i.e. it mimics it. This is like the curvature of the nonexistent spacetime mimics the effects of gravitational acceleration on the trajectories of bodies in a gravitational field that emanates from matter.
So, I’d rather continue with the force of gravity as it imparts an acceleration on other bodies which also affects other physical processes such as the rate at which clocks run.

David,
You stated: “Lorentz developed his Aether theory based on the physical experiments of Michelson and Morley. Albert Einstein produced an hypothetical postulate involving nonphysical reference frames based on thought experiments. Where are the physical physics in Albert Einstein’s Special Relativity theory?”
I do not know what you mean by: “where is the physical physics in SRT?”
SRT has three basic equations that were derived from the MM Experiment (MME):
(1) The Tau equation for Transverse Time Dilation: (τ) = t’ = t / β = t / (1 / (1 – (v/c)^2)^0.5) where the Time Ratio t / t’ = 1 / (1 – (v/c)^2)^0.5 = β only when ∠Ꜫ of both MME arms = 90° (time dilation with no simultaneity calibration).
(2) The Longitudinal Tau equation: (τ) = t / t’ = β * (t – v * xs/c^2) where xs is the x coordinate of a moving point at the end of a Send transmission to the end of the contracted MME arm that applies only when ∠Ꜫ of the contracted MME arm = 0° or 180° (Longitudinal time dilation with a simultaneity calibration).
(3) The Longitudinal Length contraction equation: Where the Length Ratio of the verticle MME arm (l) and the horizontal MME arm (l’) = l / l’ = 1 / (1 – (v/c)^2)^0.5 = β only when ∠Ꜫ of the horizontal MME arm = 0 or 180°.
I submit these three equations as “the physical physics in Albert Einstein’s Special Relativity theory.”
I have not seen the “physical physics” equations in your Aether Theory. I need to see the equations you have that predict time dilation or length contraction that you believe will yield more reliable predictions than at least one of the three SRT equations listed above.

Hi Ken, “I have not seen the “physical physics” equations in your Aether Theory. I need to see the equations you have that predict time dilation or length contraction that you believe will yield more reliable predictions than at least one of the three SRT equations listed above.”
As I stated before, I agree with the mathematics of both Lorentz’s quantification of the fluid Aether, and also with Albert Einstein’s mathematics which are Lorentz’s quantification of the fluid Aether reinterpreted to mean “time dilation” rather than “Aether drift.” The equations presented involve sound mathematics for the purposes for which those equations were developed.
The issue is in understanding the purpose of the equations. All of the equations you listed describe perceptions of observers, and not physical events. There are no physical physics involved in Lorentz’s equations, just perception physics. Each observer still sees normal physics in their local space from their own perspective (reference frame). Neither observer sees their own rods actually changing lengths or shifting into a different temporal reference frame.
Likewise, there are equations for the Doppler effect that work. There are equations for curved mirrors that work. Optical equations explain why telescopes can make objects far away appear closer, even though the object never actually moves closer. There are equations for all kinds of perceptual situations that work. However, perception is not physical.
There is no need for equations of motion when discussing the physical structure of the physical Universe. Equations of motion are only needed for understanding perception.
The problem with Einstein’s Special Relativity theory is that people actually believe there is a physical timeline where physical matter physically exists in a past moment, and also physically exists in a future moment, such that physical matter could move from one time frame to another time frame. There is no physical evidence for physical matter existing in any other temporal reference frame other than the present moment. Special Relativity theory is smoke and mirrors with good equations that explain how the smoke and mirrors appear to create the perceptions that they do.
The reason we can have these perceptual illusions is because space is discrete at the quantum level, and space is fluid at the macro level. General Relativity theory accurately describes the space density gradient and how Aether appears from the “outside.” The outside of the Aether is explained with Riemann curvature mathematics, while the inside of the Aether remains accurate in Euclidean coordinates. The inside and outside of the Aether functions the same as in fluid dynamics.
I have given you the Aether equation that improves upon the General Relativity equations (which you have not commented on). If you would like to understand more about how the Aether is structured, you can read the second half of this page:
https://sota.aetherwizard.com/aether
The Aether unit is an actual unit (and constant) of physics, and it is more important than Planck’s constant. The Aether is a quantum rotating magnetic field with all the properties that create the physical space of the physical Universe. Furthermore, the Aether is the quantum unit of space that also serves as the container for subatomic particles. Matter can act on space, and space can act on matter because space and matter are essentially the same thing.
To learn how the perceptual mathematics of Lorentz, Doppler, Fresnel, Einstein, and many other perceptual equations work, we must first understand how space is structured and how space contains matter. People also need to understand how forward linear time arises within the present moment; the physical manifestation of time is not the mental linear timeline of a past and future that people think it is.
The equations and units for the Aether Physics Model are all laid out in the book at sota.aetherwizard.com. The APM equations are far simpler than what physicists of today expect because physicists have become heavily immersed in the complex and nested concepts of calculus, and have abandoned dimensional analysis for the most part.





Hi guys, one of the primary things plaguing the natural philosophy community for the past 200 years is a mistake that Fresnel made and we’ve repeated ever since. It’s the single source of all confounds including what led to the abandonment of aether.
That specific mistake is detailed in my paper https://www.academia.edu/65259673/Introduction_to_the_Neoclassical_Interpretation_Quantum_Steampunk (published in Cosmos and History)
In short, there’s two ways to think of the aether and wave speed. One is through the lens of density and the other through the lens of rigidity.
Fresnel could have chosen to postulate:
A) That matter has more dense aether in and between particles
B) That matter causes aether to be less rigid in proximity to it.The results of the calculation of wave speed is precisely the same but he chose A. The answer that clears up ten thousand little conceptual problems, however, is B. So the end result is the same but the worldview is inside out of the one most people in natural philosophy adhere to. In this new perspective, our view of reality is inside out such hat the aether is the “solid/real” and that matter is the ephemeral.
The change from 200 years ago leads to a complete reinterpretation of all physics developments and the revolution we have all been waiting for.
I’ve been working primarily in solitude for the past 20 years but I’d like to start bringing others in on my project. Some of you older folks probably remember antirelativity.com While it’s mostly abandoned, that is my website.
I’m going to start a fresh thread to introduce myself.

Deleted User
MemberJanuary 28, 2022 at 1:32 pmShiva:
I’ve chosen the A). I saw problems with the B). see
Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) unites the big, the small, and the four forces (GUT) by extending Newton’s model
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344442808_Scalar_Theory_of_Everything_STOE_unites_the_big_the_small_and_the_four_forces_GUT_by_extending_Newton's_modelhttp://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=2414
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlJGdTvuTU
Here I show correspondence between BOTH QM and GR, explain many observations the standard models fail (with calculation to the data points), and have made predictions (before the observations were made).
If you also do calculations (not jest hand waving), I’d be interested in your web site.

As far as I know, no one has mentioned B in the past 200 years so perhaps you’re thinking of something else? If, however, you believe someone other than me has suggested this then please link me to a paper. Thanks!
Please do not neglect to do this. It’s very important.
Additionally, if you think the phrase “hand waving” is broadly applicable or valid criticism of metamathematics, Please provide a mathematical only representation of what is wrong with this riddle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_riddle
The beginning of this video explains it as the “Theory of the Quantum Dollar:” https://youtu.be/pl02eVNai5o
Use no words, only math to describe what is wrong with the theory, or I will declare it “handwaving.” Hopefully in the attempt you’ll recognize it is impossible.
Hopefully you are familiar with Goedel incompleteness, Tarski’s indefinability, and how these concepts point out that there is a disconnect between the map and the territory. (between representative language and what it represents) which requires implied reference to an exterior system. (reason)
This is UTTERLY CRITICAL to the advancement of physics because mathematical equivalence is the nature of the problem. Most crucially with respect to LorentzPoincare ether being equivalent to special relativity.
Appeals to mathematical superiority alone are relic of a bygone era and those of us who are programmers who have worked on AI (like me) know that a computer can calculate faster and more accurately and regurgitate things better than any human and computers are not smart, they are stupid. Intellect is found in reason, not calculation or memorization.
Unfortunately a generation of people revered autistic savant abilities without recognizing the cognitive deficits autism brings. Modern AI developers are directly aware of the problem. The term “hand waving” denigrates the process of reason that is superior to computer intellect. It’s the ONLY thing that makes a human mind superior to a computer.
I’m not saying that we do not eventually need to prove out concepts through modeling in mathematics and eventually experiment, but there is a cart before the horse is the typical claims of “handwaving” that reduces human intellect to computer intellect. Math doesn’t falsify. Reason+experiment does.



Deleted User
MemberJanuary 29, 2022 at 6:01 pmShiva:
You may search arXiv for author “de Sangro” and his papers and references where his measurement suggest “rigid’.
You seem to be following one of Saul Alinsky’s (“rules for Radicals”) methods: first redefine the proposition to something false, then argue against your redefinition.
Certainly all physics and all math begins with propositions. In modern times, this is followed by a procedure that leads to observations which are, among other things, readings on instruments or measurements. If the statements are too vague to do this, the statements are possibly meta physics and, at worse, “hand waving”. As I see your video, add little. for example, the plasma has been suggested for redshift and discounted as it doesn’t fit other observations such as the clarity of the universe.

Look, I don’t want to have a pissing contest but we can if you want.
You’re the one who started with the passiveaggressive insult “Not jest handwaving” so now we’re doing this.If you’re going to make a claim BE SPECIFIC. Isn’t that the problem you’re starting out lampshading? Specificity? So don’t give me just a name. If you know an actual paper I can address, spit it out. Don’t just mention a random name and “rigid” as though the use of the word somewhere by someone invalidates my claim.
THAT is “handwaving.”
“You seem to be following one of Saul Alinsky’s (“rules for Radicals”) methods: first redefine the proposition to something false, then argue against your redefinition.”
That’s called a straw man. Everyone knows that term. Use it. State specifically what I’ve redefined improperly, not that I’ve simply done it somewhere somehow. BE SPECIFIC“As I see your video, add little.”
This isn’t even a sentence yet the insult is again somehow clear through the haze of your poor communication skill. It’s an edutainment video meant for laymen. My papers can be found by googling my name. (Shiva Meucci) I’m the only one in the world, so it’s easy. I have three publications in Cosmos and History. If you want to talk about specifics then criticize those in particular.
Finally, addressing the informal statement made in that edutainment video, which isn’t even really important or relevant to my overarching understanding of physics specifically the one paper cited to discredit compton scatter (I think there’s literally only one) is about imaging at close range. The author doesn’t understand optics well enough to grasp the cause of blur. (and apparently neither do you?)
Specifically, light which is coming in at various angles causes blur, however, light from distant stars is ultracollimated. Any given beam of light which is deviant in angle over light years of travel would miss the earth entirely. Thus any scatter events that would cause blur, would instead create a background of lower frequency light where plasma has caused scatter events that redirected that light, from the location of the scatter event in free space toward our planet. (Much like the CMB) Think about this collimation fact and stellar aberration goes back to being proof for aether like it initially was, but I digress.
Again, let me reiterate. I don’t particularly care one way or another, but the perfect relationship between distance and redshift is much more naturally explained as compton scatter. For that matter so is the CMB instead of some echo from an event 14 billion years ago having useful information about that event. That and the great gouts of plasma every star throws out that obviously are part of the interstellar medium and should be accounted for over unfathomable trillions of miles of well established to be nonempty space.
It’s a hypothesis and “blur” is an ignorant criticism without good grounding in optics. But it’s just a hypothesis I care very little to defend or pursue because there are bigger fish to fry.
So now can we move away from actual handwaving and get to specific criticisms?
First and foremost do you understand and agree that “reason” is a good label for what places human intellect above computers? Do you agree and understand computers are stupid? Do you agree and understand that computers can calculate and regurgitate better than humans? …yet they are dumb. Their intellect is inferior. That type of intellect is inferior.
Do you agree and understand that the map is not the territory and that the connection between the symbolic language (math) and what it symbolizes (physical reality) must be checked? Do you agree and understand that performing this task IS NOT POSSIBLE WITH MATH ITSELF ALONE?
IE: Do you agree and understand that some mentally handicapped people (autistic savants who are less autistic and less savant than some extremes) call critical reasoning “handwaving” because of the nature of their mental handicap and this is the problem of shutupandcalculate? …that it reduces human intellect to calculator intellect and holds the full mental set of abilities of Kim Peek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek) above the full mental set of an average intelligence person. IE: that it doesn’t consider disability that comes with ability.
If you do, then we can continue. If you don’t then you’ve identified yourself as one of those people and therefore, not capable of a useful discussion.
These are just important filters for this community of dissenters to understand what is worth discussing and who is capable of understanding discussion. The opposition to science’s progress who uphold orthodoxy is a band of semirobots who are literally mentally handicapped. It is not the information of the belief but the form and method of belief that is the problem. It is a mentality that stands in the way, not information. It is a mind type that is the problem.
I program robots. I don’t argue with them.
If you’re saying this is strawmanning; it’s not. It’s “changing the subject to give my opponents an upgraded “Turing test” before trying to continue forward into an exercise in futility.
I give this Turing test to anyone who utters the words “handwaving” because it generally indicates a handicapped intellect which I spent the past decade in neuroscience to identify and avoid.
I will not tolerate insults to superior intellectual pursuits one moment further. That’s what “handwaving” as a term is. It’s an insult you used to place yourself above me right off the bat. So now I must clarify the facts of what is mentally superior and what is inferior because you decided to use that term to disparage me at the start.
Sorry if that’s too straight forward. Time is short and I no longer use the tactics of the past 100+ years of failure to correct science. I take problems head on now and address them without trappings that have strangled progress.
Regards,
– Shiva