[Bruce]

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]

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]

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 non-infinite 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]

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 built-in 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 counter-twists 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 far-field magnetic field, the charges must move and distort the lattice in shapes we call “closed path” field lines.

Also, think through my description of “anti-matter”. This is “true” anti MASS, not an “inverse charge” on particles.

[Bruce]

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.

[Bruce]

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.