Posted by: graemebird | December 26, 2008

Special Relativity Replacement Theories/Partially Entrained Aether All But Proven

Special relativity is dead from the neck up. It is a wrong theory. Easily refuted. So easily refuted in fact that people don’t believe it when you easily refute it.  Now I had known that there were other theories out there to replace it that merited empirical research. What I did not know is that there was experimental evidence confirming these other theories.  Perhaps this experimental evidence is a little thin at the moment. In any case the evidence is good enough such that the doctrine of the partially entrained aether can be held up as the default paradigm for explaining the Michelson-Morley experiments. 

So what keeps special relativity in the air if its a wrong theory? Dishonesty. Special relativity is only kept alive through rampant lying. Which points to an institutional problem in science. And this is the idea that dishonesty is upwardly-mobile in the scientific world. And the best theory to explain that is government funding of education and research.

I was arguing with Edney, or rather Edney was on the filibuster as usual, and I pointed out that light would travel at the speed of light relative to some sort of localized aether in whatever part of space the  light was in.  I must be some sort of genius since I’m always making these discoveries that in the fullness of time turn out to be entirely redundant. But there are some ideas that so far seem original to me. This not being one of them. Since this idea is really part of a pre-existing theory of the partially-entrained aether.

Why do people fall in love with stupid ideas? Why do they fight to hold onto them like a love affair thats bad for them? I wonder if we wouldn’t be better off if most scientists outside of fields that impinge on evolution were good Christians. Since the Christian view is that its Gods universe that they are trying to find out about, that he made it, its his rules, and the Christian is happy with anything that he finds. I don’t know whether my fellow atheists are cut out to be scientists. They act like they get to make the rules and not discover them. 

A Dissident View of Relativity Theory by William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.



  1. Not all 9/11 truthers are crackpots. This fellow does a magnificent job analyzing the way that the buildings fell down. Its worth looking at serious analysis even if one imagines that the conclusion appears ridiculous:


    My pick would be the thesis of spontaneously created space. Apparently going on as we speak. But where oh where is it going on? No-one can tell you. Apparently it must be going on BETWEEN galaxies. Why would this extra space choose to spontaneously create itself between galaxies as if reality was akin to LOTUS 1-2-3 or other spreadsheet software? No-one can tell you but what they can do is filibuster or come on thick and fast with the insults.

    There are many lame theories needed to patch together special relativity, its non-existent light speed limit, the Big Bang, and incredibly idiotic use of the Hubble Constant to tell us how fast things are moving away from us.

    Apparently the advocates of this stupidity appear to think that light can travel across thousands of light-years, bumping into subatomic particles every step of the way, and even after doing so not lose any energy and so not lose any wavelength. Clearly this is irrational. The universe and galaxies are full of subatomic particles between these stars and galaxies. So much so that these subatomic particles are constantly raining down on earth.

    But the doctrine of the hubble constant makes the incredibly bogus claim (by default and ignorance) that light from a distant star is unaffected by its absorption and emission from these particles. Therefore according to this lame excuse for a doctrine all red shift from stars no matter how distant is the result of the speed at which these stars are allegedly moving away from us.

    This doctrine puts us squarely back in the centre of the universe, although stupid-town appears not to so much as realise this. The problem came when it was discovered that by these measures there were distant galaxies that were moving away from us at faster than the speed of light. So therefore it was immediately apparent that both special relativity and the hubble doctrine could not be right…..

    …. well thats what ought to have happened. But instead the lamest excuse in the history of “science” was born. You see thats when they discovered that the stars were not moving through space at faster than the speed of light. Rather instead, by some mysterious process, new space was being created.

    Series people in the humanities take note. This is the sort of incredible stupidity that has been going on in cosmology and physics. There is just no oversight to these dummies and the way they waste public funds.

    It is true that these idiot-savants are for the most part very good at maths. But this is the very reason this scandal-of-stupid has been allowed to continue. Because most people have shied away from investigating this scandal because of the maths barrier.

    I got through watching about 4 hours of the derivation of relativity from Stanford from a mathematics perspective. It was all very clever. But nowhere in it is experimental evidence. And nowhere without it either.

  3. As always the only answer to fix this conundrum is mass-sackings. The villains leverage their place on the public tit in order to keep these irrational notions in the air.

    It ought to have been obvious to all and sundry that the doctrine of the expanding universe, accelerating in its expansion, is coming from the hubble constant doctrine alone.

    This doctrine was adopted as false-convergence for special relativity. Which just shows how this business is progressing, accumulating errors as it goes.

    Always remember. These are only public servants we are talking about. They operate as the post-office would. A post office run by public servant mathematicians.


    What I mean by the Hubble doctrine is the idea that red shift of distant objects is explained by the velocity at which they are moving away from us ALONE.

    This quite literally CANNOT be true. Since it is known that the space in between is filled with electrons and other subatomic particles. Not only is this doctrine not true. It cannot be true. This puts it in the same category as special relativity. Not only not true but cannot under any circumstances be true.

    Its a very wicked thing to be telling these outrageous lies to the children. The concept of a universe expanding at break-kneck pace, and accelearting in its expansion unto heat death is a bad thing to be telling the children and it encourages surely feeiings of hopelessness and nihilism.

    Still were it true one would have to get the kids used to living with the truth no matter what. But the fact is its a ridiculous lie.


    Another of the really foolish excuses these public servants have come up with is the idea that the entirety of the background radiation in space of 3 degrees Kelvin in temperature comes from the remnant of the big bang.

    Well of course there was no big bang. But these people don’t even know how to change a D into a B. They try and change it into an A. So one would think that if they were trying to accumulate pseudo-evidence for this big bang business that they could make a good fist of it. They would then take that background warmth and figure that it is something ON TOP OF what you would expect from billions of stars pumping out heat all over the place.

    So there it is. These billions of stars. Pumping out enourmous amounts of heat energy. And in the view of the public servant maths-boys every last bit of that heat is irrelevant to the 3 degrees background radiation. That 3 degrees background radiation is ALL coming from the big bang.

    Well once again this comes under the heading of NOT ONLY NOT TRUE BUT IT CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE.

    So stupid-town, right across the way from bloodsucker-central, could have changed their D to a B and held onto the big bang rubbish if they’d only made a calculation which removed the heat of all those stars away from that 3 degrees.

    Under calculations of how spread out the galaxy-clusters are supposed to be the warmth generated by the stars would probably be far less than this 3 degrees. This is because the Hubble doctrine, which cannot possibly be true, has all the galaxy clusters spread a lot further out then they must actually be.

  5. Sciene isn’t just about apriori thinking. And its not just about empirical investigation. We need both. But whereas its not normally possible to put together a paradigm on the basis of apriori alone, it is certainly possible to tear down special relativity on that basis.

    Special relativity cannot be true. There has been a bit of negligence from our philosophers letting the taxeating maths-boy-101 types get away with the sloppiest thinking imagineable when it comes to this special relativity. Which as I have said CANNOT be sustained on logical grounds.

    Why I thought to bring up this apriori business here is that I came across a magnificent passage by a bloke that Wayne has been talking about. That is Hans Hermann Hoppe. Just look at this summary of apriori truths:

    “Examples of what I mean by a priori theory are:

    No material thing can be at two places at once. No two objects can occupy the same place. A straight line is the shortest line between two points. No two straight lines can enclose a space.

    Whatever object is red all over cannot be green (blue, yellow, etc.) all over. Whatever object is colored is also extended. Whatever object has shape has also size. If A is a part of B and B is a part of C, then A is a part of C. 4 = 3 +1. 6 = 2 (33 – 30).

    Implausibly, empiricists must denigrate such propositions as mere linguistic-syntactic conventions without any empirical content, i.e., “empty” tautologies. In contrast to this view and in accordance with common sense, I understand the same propositions as asserting some simple but fundamental truths about the structure of reality. And in accordance with common sense, too, I would regard someone who wanted to “test” these propositions, or who reported “facts” contradicting or deviating from them, as confused.


  6. Stupid things that special relativity supporters say.

    Well the list is endless. But here are some to look for.

    Where the evidence contradicts their doctrine a matter that proves this is not TRUE. But instead it becomes “TRIVIALLY TRUE”. Now I ask you, What the fuck is that supposed to mean. Well we know what it means. Its a gyp. Its just a gyp from people who cannot handle the truth.

    Here is an example:

    “I have told you that many times. It is trivially true. I can take your stance or not, because it remains so from both perspectives…….”

    Believe me this is gibber whether we recapture the context or not.

    Here is another one. Its all about INFORMATION says the fellow who cannot deal with the information that contradicts his foolish doctrine:

    “I am afraid not. Einstein’s world is about information. Also, your view raises questions of what is computable, and how you manage get the data ahead of time.”

    So if an experiment breaks the speed of light they have three choices. Either they claim it didn’t happen, or its a quantutm effect, or since Einsteins world, in this particular gyp, is about information, then no information was conveyed in the experiment.

  7. By God these people over at the Amazing Randi’s site are morons. I wonder if the old man knows what has happened to his site.

    These people are so incompetent with the use of evidence they dogmatically refuse to entertain the idea that there is anything dubious about Obama’s not showing up with a birth certificate. These could be the most simple-minded people in the world. Since their simplemindedness is 360 degrees. Whereas you might find one bloke who is suspicious about the near free-fall of the twin towers, but figures there is probably nothing really up with that. Or you might find someone who thinks Barry Soetoro is not eligible, but its too much of a fuss to “reverse the verdict of the election” well these guys are uniform and predictable in their eeire trust of leftist authority. And on top of that their general mindlessness.

    This is what was wrong with the fraudulent certificate that was posted on Obama’s fight-the-truth webstie: The certificate on his website was an an obvious fake without a certificate number and in no way presented to the authorities.

    Its not even a birth certificate. Its a “certification of live birth”. And a fake one at that. The borders of a real one are darker. Entirely different typeface of the numbers on the bottom left-hand corner. This despite the fact that the revision number is the same as the one used to make the comparison. So its not a question of two different certificate types at two different times. Vertical bar of the fake, on the bottom left-hand corner goes down too far. Pressure seal is absent from the Obama fake. Embossed seal is missing from the fake. But on a real one its a pressure seal that a blind man could feel and that can be seen from the back.

    On the fake Barracks fathers race is described as African. On a real certificate in 1961 the term would have been negro. But you knew all that.

  8. Its a terrible tragedy with the Randi site that a real dummy has taken over as President of the Institute. His name I gather is Phil Plait. And he used to run the Bad Astronomy site where he stood up vigourously for all the obvious dysfunction that the public servants have foisted on us to do with cosmology and astronomy. He’s never found a mainstream theory, no matter how implausible, that he didn’t like. Actually LIKE is too small a word in this regard. This guy LOVES the status quo. He loves and has sworn allegience to every stupid idea that government sponsorship has ever come out with.

    Lets look at his analysis in action. Here he looks at the famous banded covered roads on Mars. I call them that since this is obviously what they look like. And it is pointless putting qualifiers on this notion. If Plait could get to them he’d have them blown up and buried so as not to have to deal with them as evidence.

    First this dummy shows that there is an optical illusion that can make a concave image look convex when turned upside-down.

    Then for his next trick he turns the banded covered roads upside-down and says LOOK HERE you see it was an optical illusion. But they still look the same. We see this all the time over at the Randi site. The dummies note that an illusion exists. Then the next step is to simply believe fervently that the illusion applies. You are supposed to believe that the illusion applies even when it clearly doesn’t.

    Note the reference to Arthur C Clarke. Clarke was a lifelong skeptic like myself. He had a television show debunking all sorts of voodoo. But when the Mars photos came back he immediately saw them as significant. Unlike myself however. Who didn’t get onto these pictures until just a few months ago.

    But the main thing here is looking into the extreme unreason of Plait. The illusion exists. Therefore the illusion applies here.


    “Obama on lab exchanges
    President-elect Barack Obama plans to resume scientist exchanges between U.S. nuclear-weapons laboratories and Chinese facilities, a program halted in the late 1990s after the loss of U.S. nuclear-warhead secrets to China.”

    There is nothing the magic negro cannot get away with.

  10. Clearly this planned treason, announced in advance for desensitization and cover, and it is surely payback for some of these illegal election funds which never come for free.

  11. “A straight line is the shortest line between two points. No two straight lines can enclose a space. ”

    Wierd has he not heard of curved space. Does he not live on a sphere and heard of lines of longitude?

  12. Curved space is a lie. Space is three dimensional and so its ludicrous to describe it as “curved”.

  13. You are so full of shit Edney. You know full well you don’t have a scrap of evidence for anything so contradictory as “curved space.”

    You have this pretense of the stars expanding on the surface of a big black balloon.

    The universe manifestly not like that in any way. So you are just an idiot.

  14. hey dopey
    curved space doesn’t contradict the idea that space has approximately 3 dimensions.


    Like give or take a dozen?????

    Yes 3 dimensions rules out a curved space. Its ludicrous. And every waking hour we have confirmation of three dimensions and absolutely no evidence for more than that nor any indication of the possibility of another dimension of any size whatsoever.

    Fucking Edney and you throwing make-believe into the fucking argument.

    Look up at the night sky. No big black balloon. And if there was one it would be manifest that the stars were WITHIN it and not on its surface.

    This is public service physics for you. All idiotic and make believe.

  16. This post under moderation and not likely to see the light of day so I’ll preserve it here:

    I’m not wrong. You are wrong. I’m right and you are most definitely wrong. And its pretty hard to refute a self-contradictory fantasy that hasn’t got anything going for it in the first place. If you can come up with some evidence for special relativity then I can go right ahead and refute it.

    Now you seem to be including Phil Plait as a skeptic. He’s a mindless bully-boy advocate of the intellectual status quo. Randi must have gotten real old all of a sudden to allow this fellow to take over his act.

    As to relativity ask yourself why its such a tough gig to get a bunch of supporters to answer the following refutation:

    “Dingle�s Question:

    University of London Professor Herbert Dingle showed why Special Relativity will always conflict with logic, no matter when we first learn it. 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 non-moving clock. But the Relativity principle itself (an integral part of the theory) makes the claim that if one thing is moving in a straight line in relation to another, either one is entitled to be regarded as moving. It follows that if there are two clocks, A and B, and one of them is moved, clock A runs slower than B, and clock B runs slower than A. Which is absurd.

    Dingle�s Question was this: Which clock runs slow? Physicists could not agree on an answer. As the debate raged on, a Canadian physicist wrote to Nature in July 1973: �Maybe the time has come for all of those who want to answer to get together and to come up with one official answer. Otherwise the plain man, when he hears of this matter, may exercise his right to remark that when the experts disagree they cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong.�”

    So which clock runs slow?

    Last time I tried to ask this outright refutation the bully-boy came up with an unfalsifiable proposition. This was immediately contradicted by a bunch of other mindless devotees with their various answers to the twins refutation. And they didn’t even appear to know that these were the same refutation. That the so-called twin paradox and the two clocks example were the same example.

    So thats a refutation right there. The alleged evidence is all circular. The experiments have not been done that could verify this. Since you have to eliminate for the earths field and acceleration. But once you eliminate for these things you will get no result for velocity since velocity is relative. This is what our public servants have foisted on us. This is public servant science. Taxeater make-believe.

    Special relativity is just incredible superstition. Its voodoo. Its mysticism. As I said its dead from the neck up. But we have a problem with the skeptics movement. Its transformed into a guiless, credulous movement that is allergic to reasoning and evidence.

  17. Here’s another one for preservation. These people calling themselves skeptics are mindless nutballs. I feel it to be a total betrayal in terms of the skeptics movement i used to know. This gentleman Blake is simply not going to let these ones through:

    “The more radical the proposition, the stronger the evidence expected in support. Irrelevant remarks about a science-fiction author (who was not a terribly good skeptic on all matters, swallowing as he did a great deal of bunk about cold fusion) and an anti-creationist who can’t keep his head screwed on when it comes to climate science do not support either your thesis or your general credibility.”

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. You mean you’ve fallen for the global warming fraud AS WELL?

    Blake. You’ve got to get your act together fella.

    So lets check your scientific acumen here. Can you find me evidence for:

    1. The likelihood of catastrophic warming?

    2. For the proposition that a little bit of human-induced warming is A BAD THING during a brutal and pulverising ice age?

    3. For the proposition that industrial-CO2 has more then a neglible effect on warming or cooling at all.

    You don’t have the evidence Blake. You are just fooling yourself. You are not a skeptic blake. The old skeptics are too old, ignored or dead. You are not one of their crowd.

    “The more radical the proposition, the stronger the evidence expected in support.”

    Mistaken epistemology. Thats from Carl Sagan. Totally wrong and arbitrary. Mindless bully-boys of the status quo get no special handicaps.

  18. This faux-Skeptic is just pathetic.

    I didn’t notice this before. He banned me after the very first post challenging special relativity. He didn’t even wait for the other post. I might do a special post on just how pathetic this particular skeptic is.

    Here is the proof he banned me after the first post:

    Am I on topic to say that special relativity is dead from the neck up. And kept alive only be relentless lying.

    “This is the Skeptics’ Circle, the place where we praise science and reason, and smirk and mock the gullible and credulous.”

    The problem with this notion is that the skeptics movement has deteriorated and become almost the opposite of what it used to be. Rather than being rational enquirers they have become mindless bully-boy advocates of the intellectual status quo. There isn’t a conventional consensus mainstream taxeater idea that they won’t endorse. Arthur C Clarke is gone. Ian Plimer is no longer listened to. And Randi must have gotten too old to realise what dim bulbs his younger acolytes are.

    Its pretty sad.

    But what we can prove pretty quickly is that no-one is about to find any good macroscopic and non-circular evidence for this crap theory.

    Posted by: GMB | December 30, 2008 3:58 AM
    You’re not exactly on topic, and you’re also thoroughly wrong. For future reference, a statement about science should ideally be followed by scientific facts given in support of your proposition. The more radical the proposition, the stronger the evidence expected in support. Irrelevant remarks about a science-fiction author (who was not a terribly good skeptic on all matters, swallowing as he did a great deal of bunk about cold fusion) and an anti-creationist who can’t keep his head screwed on when it comes to climate science do not support either your thesis or your general credibility.

    I have, personally, done experiments using electrons emitted through radioactive decay whose results were consistent with special relativity and not with Newtonian mechanics. I was neither the first nor the last to take such measurements.

    For violating point 2 of the comment policy, I pronounce a sentence of summary banning.

    Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 30, 2008 9:26 AM

  19. If anyone doubted that Phil Plait was a real dummy check this out:

    “Deutsch also wanted another NASA scientist to make sure he put the word “theory” on a website everywhere the Big Bang was mentioned. Not because it is, after all, a scientific theory, but because the Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion… It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.”

    The fellow is totally sold on the Big Bang. One theory which cannot be true in its current form. Since its largely based on at least two theories that cannot be true and represents a reduction to absurdity of both of them.

    Now as a scientific experiment I predicted that he would turn out to be a CO2-bedwetter. And sure enough.

    “Surprised? You shouldn’t be. This current Administration has a long and successful history of science bashing. Global warming, the Big Bang, evolution, alternative energy sources, the environment, stem cell research, contraceptive medicine, HIV/AIDS, and even the most basic platforms of science education have all been abused under Bush’s Administration. These attacks may be motivated by religion, ideology, or possibly as base a reason as money; but they are real, and getting worse.”

    It just gets more depressing with these people who these days are calling themselves skeptics.

  20. But just to show that there is often a tiny spark of good judgement in even the most foolish person the article finishes:

    “IN Closing…

    Our friend Penn Jillette has his own daily radio show now, and you can listen live at from 2pm to 3pm Eastern every weekday. Randi and the JREF are mentioned often, as is the hit show “Bulls Hit.” ”

    I’d forgotten about Penn. Now THERE IS A REAL CLASS SKEPTIC. I cannot think of any other younger guys who are really holding up the side.

  21. GMB:
    “Yes 3 dimensions rules out a curved space. Its ludicrous. And every waking hour we have confirmation of three dimensions and absolutely no evidence for more than that nor any indication of the possibility of another dimension of any size whatsoever.”

    Curved space is defined in 3 dimensions. The (fairly advanced) mathematics of this is used in General Relativity and has been well known to mathematicians for the last few centuries. If you are interested then look up manifolds, especially Riemannian manifolds.

    The rest of your statement is slightly odd. Are you saying that all things that we cannot see directly see are ludicrous? I can think of a few things that se do not directly see such as electrons, etc. If electrons are ludicrous then do they exist?

    Dingle’s Question is easily answered: Both clocks run slow according to the other observer.

  22. There are a lot of strange people out there in the internet. Thus you cannot believe what a web page states without checking it out further. “A Dissident View of Relativity Theory by William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.” is a case in point. Here is a person expressing a dissident view. The first question is whether the content is valid. The next question is whether the author is trustworthy which generally means has the author have a body of work in the area being covered.

    Taking the second question first – I cannot find anything about William H. Cantrell, Ph.D, e.g. there are no preprints of his obviously many papers on special relativity. I would especially be interested in the subject of his Ph.D. This may be a failure on my part. However it does make the web page a bit anonymous.

    The content has several errors, e.g.
    * “Numerous dissidents have made the argument that the theory is logically inconsistent because it assumes a constant speed of light, and then sets out to prove what it assumes.”
    SR does not derive that the speed of light is constant. It derives the consequences of what happens if the speed of light is constant.
    * “Over time the second postulate has been reinterpreted to mean that all observers, regardless of their own velocity, see light propagating always at the same speed (in vacuum).”
    No that is the second postulate as stated by Einstein. It stems from a thought that he had when he was 16 – if you were traveling at the speed of light parallel to a light beam then would you see a frozen electromagnetic wave (which is impossible according to Maxwell’s equations).
    * The results of Millers experiment have never been able to be reproduced, e.g. it was repeated by Kennedy (at the same location) with different results. Analysis of Miller’s raw data has shown that he made errors in his analysis.

  23. “Curved space is defined in 3 dimensions”

    Don’t talk fucking rubbish Fisk. The maths must follow the reality and NOT the other way round. Where do you have evidence for such a nincompoops idea as curved space.

    Don’t lie to me. Make good with the evidence you credulous Rainman maths-sucker.

    “* The results of Millers experiment have never been able to be reproduced, e.g. it was repeated by Kennedy (at the same location) with different results. Analysis of Miller’s raw data has shown that he made errors in his analysis.”

    Not thats lies. You only have the abstract. You got no evidence for that at all. And everyone knows that a surefire way to get published is to tell lies for Albert. Nice man that he was. I’m not going to accept blatant science-grant whoredom as evidence. Do better.

    Plus there is the fucking fact that all serious experiments lead to a non-null result. That is to say that they confirm the doctrine of the partially-trained aether and they refute special relativity. Using mirrors will obviously wipe out nine tenths of the effect. And thats enough to confuse the young and the devoted.

    “it was repeated by Kennedy (at the same location) with different results.”

    Look at that? How dishonest is THAT. You aren’t even a scientists bottom-wiper. What do you MEAN different results? The results were different AND NON-NULL. Thus reinforcing the doctrine of the p.e.aether and refuting relativity.

    Get your act together fella. You want a logic implant and a slut tumour removal.

    Special relativity is only kept going through lying. Lying for Albert. Nice man that he was.

  24. Did I say relentless dishonesty? Look at this:

    “* “Numerous dissidents have made the argument that the theory is logically inconsistent because it assumes a constant speed of light, and then sets out to prove what it assumes.”
    SR does not derive that the speed of light is constant. It derives the consequences of what happens if the speed of light is constant.”

    Now I know how the Lorentz transformation are derived. You get a cartesian graph. Have x, y and the movement of light. And one graph is from one observer and the observer is at a given speed.

    Then you take that graph and you overlay a tipped graph. Still the x and y axis are perpendicular to eachother but the graph is rotated anti-clock wise over the normal graph. And that tipped graph is a second observer. And you want to transform one guys co-ordinates with the other tendentiously. That is working backward from the idea that light chases us at c no matter what or runs away from us at c no matter what. Like the fast kid in school. You run faster but the kid accelerates so much faster,that he’s still catching up to you the same he was before.

    So out comes the trig, and the Cos Sin and then onto Cosh and all that. And you are pulling maths and stuff from all different directions until the whole thing is simplified down to a pretty clever little formula.

    Got nothing to do with the real fucking world. What it amounted to was a thought experiment by Lorentz as to have all the calculations transorm smoothly if it were the case that light-speed was constant to all observers no matter how fast they themselves were going.

    Nothing in it says that this is in fact the case. Its just a lot of maths, for one smooth hypothetical frictionless make-believe change in the speed of one observer, as understood by another, in order to make this impossible,illogical and wrong assumption work. We transform the one observer (their alleged observed relative speeds) to the other in response to the hypothetical that: what if light is the same speed independent of the speed of various observers. Not the same speed as c. But instead the same speed c for every observer. The same speed regardless if you are going close to that speed or if you lie down and take a nap. As observed by individuals a and b.

    So somewhere along the line the really dumb maths-boy 101 dickhead gets confused between the maths model and the reality So being stupid, and of a fractured ego, he figures he knows what he is happier with. He’s unhappy with reality. But he likes maths. One of the only things he’s good at no doubt. The maths model stays and the reality has to go.

    We are seeing this everywhere now. In climate science. With the Big Bang. And of course with special relativity. Reality takes a backstep to the model. And of course no experiment designed to refute these lies can possibly get funding.

    Because light doesn’t act like that. Light does not act according to that assumption and we were lied to. Light acts in surprising ways. It doesn’t act how we suspect it would. It acts counter-intuitively. And we act counter-intuitively too. Our perceptions and our instruments act counter-intuitively. They act as if they were made of standing waves. I’m not supporting or rubbishing the thesis of matter as standing waves. I take no position on this paradigm. Particularly as its no inherently contradictory.

    I don’t think that matter IS made of standing waves. I don’t really have an opinion one way or the other. But what I do know is that where speed and light are concerned, it is the case that we appear to act AS!!!!!! IF !!!!!! we were made that way. Perhaps it isn’t surprising when you assume orbiting electrons and what-not.

    But reality most definitely does not act according to that hypothetical that Lorentz constructed the transformations for. Thats all lies. And thats what keeps the refuted theory going. You can like someone without wanting to lie for him.

    Now what did you say again?

    “* “Numerous dissidents have made the argument that the theory is logically inconsistent because it assumes a constant speed of light, and then sets out to prove what it assumes.”
    SR does not derive that the speed of light is constant. It derives the consequences of what happens if the speed of light is constant.”

    Well thats a copout. Because special relativities devotees make the claim that what started out as a hypothetical exercise from Lorentz was revealed as the reality under Einstein. But thats bullshit and it didn’t happen and its lie.

  25. Science isn’t in the business of proving things right.

    Science is more in the business of proving things WRONG.

    E = mc^2 has passed every test to prove it WRONG
    (both in experiments & ‘thought’ experiments) over the last century (see below).

    If E = mc^2 WAS to be proved wrong then much of physics over the
    entire last century (including quantum chromodynamics) is also wrong.

    Quantum Chromodynamics has itself passed a few tests in the few decade or so.
    Perhaps there is no more important such test than the most recent computer
    demonstration of QC’s own self-consistency with E = mc^2.

  26. No thats not right. Science is about finding the truth. But in this case the theory is so wrong and irrelevant it could never get off the ground if being launched today.

    YOu can derive that formula without reference to special relativity. I’m not saying everything he did was useless. Just that special relativity is wrong.

  27. Special relativity is accurate only when gravitational potential is much less than c2; in a strong gravitational field one must use general relativity (which becomes special relativity at the limit of weak field). At very small scales, such as at the Planck length and below, quantum effects must be taken into consideration resulting in quantum gravity. However, at macroscopic scales and in the absence of strong gravitational fields, special relativity is experimentally tested to extremely high degree of accuracy (10-20) and thus accepted by the physics community. Experimental results which appear to contradict it are not reproducible and are thus widely believed to be due to experimental errors.

    Special relativity is mathematically self-consistent, and it is an organic part of all modern physical theories, most notably quantum field theory, string theory, and general relativity (in the limiting case of negligible gravitational fields)

  28. Did you read this article tho?

    Einstein’s celebrated formula e=mc2 has finally been corroborated, thanks to a heroic computational effort by French, German and Hungarian physicists.

    A brainpower consortium led by Laurent Lellouch of France’s Centre for Theoretical Physics, using some of the world’s mightiest supercomputers, have set down the calculations for estimating the mass of protons and neutrons, the particles at the nucleus of atoms.

    According to the conventional model of particle physics, protons and neutrons comprise smaller particles known as quarks, which in turn are bound by gluons.

    The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks is only five percent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 percent?

    The answer, according to the study published in the US journal Science on Thursday, comes from the energy from the movements and interactions of quarks and gluons.

    In other words, energy and mass are equivalent, as Einstein proposed in his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905.

    The e=mc2 formula shows that mass can be converted into energy, and energy can be converted into mass.

    By showing how much energy would be released if a certain amount of mass were to be converted into energy, the equation has been used many times, most famously as the inspirational basis for building atomic weapons.

    But resolving e=mc2 at the scale of sub-atomic particles — in equations called quantum chromodynamics — has been fiendishly difficult.

    “Until now, this has been a hypothesis,” France’s National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) said proudly in a press release.

    “It has now been corroborated for the first time.”

    For those keen to know more: the computations involve “envisioning space and time as part of a four-dimensional crystal lattice, with discrete points spaced along columns and rows.”

  29. Just settle down broken record….. and give me the evidence for special relativity. The universe doesn’t work like that anyway. With only gravity holding it together. Thats not the way the universe is. You have magnetic fields everywhere which means electric currents.

    While you are finding some reason to believe in special relativity lets have your resolution of the Dingle refutation.


  31. No good. You are beating around the bush. Throw yourself right at the problem. We need evidence for special relativities bizzare ideas. And answer to the Dingle refutation. Not all this tangential debris.

  32. Ok you want me to focus on your Dingle Refutation fine.

    In Dingle’s system in his present article A and B are the only observers who experience the event E0, or are “at” the event E0; H and B are the only observers at E1; A and N are the only observers at E2. Dingle arrives at his conclusions because in practice he does not adhere to the standard concept of an event. He asserts, “the reason why A must be held to read t1 at E1 is that H reads t1 at this event, and on this theory the process by which a is set in relation to H synchronizes it with H…. The reason why B must be held to read t’2 at E2 is….” A is not “at” E1 in any sense admitted by the theory. It simply has no meaning whatever within the theory to speak of what a must be held to do at E1. B is not at E2 and it has no meaning to speak of what B must be held to do at E2.

    Just before his formula (3), Dingle proceeds to state “between events E0 and E1, A advances by t1….” Because A is never at E1, the phrase is meaningless and so Dingle’s (3) is meaningless. Correspondingly his (4) AND THATS MEANINGLESS!!! get it already graeme bird…

    3. Naturally there is an event E1A, say, at which A reads t1. This event has x = 0, t = t1 and so clearly E1A is not equal to E1, thus corroborating what has just been said.

    4. Dingle’s language requires a meaning for what the clock A reads “at” some event involving B even though A and B are not adjacent. Indeed, Dingle expressly uses this phraseology in his 1962 paper. But this restores the notion of distant simultaneity.

    About the first thing that relativity theory does is to deny any operational meaning to the notion of simultaneity at two different places. Naturally, this fundamental feature in the theory is not affected in the slightest by any arbitrary conventions we may adopt for the synchronization of clocks. The latter is merely a particular way of putting the readings of two relatively stationary clocks into 1-1 correspondence with each other.

    5. While Dingle’s (3) and (4) are meaningless as they stand, the quantities involved can of course be assigned operational meanings in terms of readings of the relatively moving clocks


  33. SITE DEITY SEZ: No thats not right. Special relativity is something I’ve been very familiar with for many decades. Its General Relativity that I know almost nothing about. And I’m not inclined to learn it, since I already know its bullshit. The motivation isn’t there. It would be like learning French if all the French girls in the world had died. No reason for it. Or it would be like trying to qualify as an “auditor” in scientology. No point to learning occult religions, if they have such nasty maths barriers to them.

    One supposes that quantum has its uses, and if I were a physicist I’d learn it backwards. Just as I learned up on the Keynesian jive knowing all the time that it was idiotic rubbish from start to finish. I know very little about Quantum physics. Enough to know its utter garbage. Although as I said, somewhat useful idiocy.

  34. I am very interested in a dissident from relativity that may be a new prospect for human knowledge. I will appreciate your time if you visit the website A UNIFIED THEORY: THE BACKGROUND MATTER OF THE UNIVERSE, and give comment. Thank you very much.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: