Some Hodge-Podge thought for your Comments.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
PRAGMATIC FAILURE
OF
SPECIAL RELATIVITY
--------------------------------
ABSTRACT
For over one hundred years persons have challenged the Special Theory of Relativity. Some due to a lack of understanding of what it actually says and others by misapplying mathematics. Many however have presented challenges with sound evidence which falsifies Special Relativity but it is ignored.
This effort avoids the complex arguements of relavistic mathematics because it indeed has high utility and is highly accurate under certain conditions and applications. An effort is made rather by pointing out what one must accept IF one subscribes to the theory as a physical reality and where a simple lack of understanding of physical reality may be the basis for the flawed concept.
FALSE PREMIS
Every theory has some basic premis or assumptions. In the case of Special Relativity the premis or assumption that may be responsible for the error is based on actual measurements:
"The velocity of light is measured the same for every observer regardless of their relative velocity to the source" An exception to that is the Sagnac affect.
Since this has been a physical measurement it has been assumed that light velocity is invariant rather than perhaps we do not understand the origin of light. More on that distinction later but for now lets consider physical aspects of Special Relativity which relativists choose to ignore.
PHYSICAL AFFECT OF SYMMETRICAL RELATIVE VELOCITY
Since the relavistic argument is that either of two inertial moving observers with a relative velocity to each other can be assumed at rest and the other having all motion, such that when "A" is at rest "B's" clock runs slow according to "A" and distance between "A" and "B" is seen foreshortened by "B".
That is the purported equivelence of relative velocity produces two distinctly different physical affects to the two observers purely as a function of each being considered at rest. That is if we consider "B" at rest then "A's" clock must run slower than "B" and "A" then see's distance to "B" as being less than "B" measures to "A".
The initial claim by Einstein about the equivelence of inertial frames and that either can be considered at rest results in the paradox generally refered to as the "Twin Paradox". That is two twins, one that stays at home on Earth and another that goes out and travels at high relative velocity in space is to be younger than his stay at home twin when he returns. But the symmetry of either being at rest means that according to the space traveler he expects his stay at home twin to be younger since according to him he has been at rest and his twin has been zooming around the galaxy riding on Earth.
The "Twin Paradox" exemplifies the fact that if you do accept that inertial motion can be assumed at rest then "A's" clock is ticking slower than "B's" clock concurrently with "B's" clock ticking slower than "A's" clock.
This conundrum is arbitrarily labled "Counter Intuitive" when it clearly should be labled "Sheer Nonsense".
ENTER FUDGE FACTOR
The truth is relativists don't really envision or treat inertial systems as equal. To resolve the untenable physical conflict of the equivelence of inertial systems Einstein published The General Relativity 15 years later and explained that only the observer that switches frames experiences relavistic change.
"Frame Switching" is just a shallow cover phrase for the physical fact that to switch frames one must accelerate. That is if I experience F=ma then I undergo v = at and have force induced motion. So only one inertial traveler can be considered to have motion and that is the one with the greatest delta velocity due to acceleration times time, the other is comparative rest.
SO we are no longer dealing with mere "Relative Velocity", we are dealing with some form of universal absolute velocity change relative to the other observer due to one having experienced F = ma.
Relativists choose to ignore the fact that they are now claiming one observer has actual motion versus another which has remained inertial and hence IS at relative rest. That mere "Relative Velocity" has never and never can cause any physical changes.
Simply put relative velocity means neither, either one or both have had changes in absolute velocity in the universe. They say there is no absolute rest reference and they are only partly correct. They assume that "Absence of Evidence" is the same as "Evidence of Absence" and that simply is not a scientific fact.
But the bottom line is when two observers are at relative inertial rest and one accelerates that observer makes changes in his absolute velocity in a universal sense even though we can only measure velocity relative to some other point. The fact is the observer that did not experience F=ma and remained at rest can have NO physical changes because there has been no physical cause.
That is not to say there cannot be measurement changes it simply means they are clearly illusions of motion and not physical reality. "Observed" time dilation is a perception or measurement issue while in motion. The only true time dilation is that recorded between clocks once those clocks are returned to a common relative rest for direct comparision.
Since time dilation affects have been precisely measured then it is a physical reality. The question then becomes what is the cause. A change in time tick rate or a change in distance? Unfortunately Einstein and relativits ignore the obvious. IF time tick rate dilation is a physical reality then Lorentz Contraction of space cannot exist.
That is because IF my clock is ticking slow i.e. - 0.5 ticks to your 1 tick, then my accumulated time for a trip is only correct if distance remained the same. If distance were infact foreshortened by 1/2 and my clocks ticked slowed to 1/2 then I would accumulate only 1/4 as many tick times for the trip. That is inconsistant with observation.
Special Relativity is only valid mathematically because it ignores physical reality and applies two sets of time standards to the same clock at the same time. They argue the moving observer experiences no change. That therefore 1 second is still 1 second. That can be true locally but it simply means he has a distorted measurement and it does not make his time standard equivelent to the resting clock standard.
Relativity switches time standards between observers to make itself consistant mathematically to then claim distance changed.
They apply a common relative velocity cause and then not only have respective observers undergo different physical affects but claim which affect depends on observer view point. These cannot be considered physical facts.
It is utter stupidity.
DISCUSSION
Since as it will be shown that Lorentz Contraction of space is problematic and never has been measured. I choose time dilation to be the actual physical reaction to motion.
What does that mean for physics? It means that universally relative velocity is symmetrical but locally it is not. That is from a persepective of absolute rest all relative motions are symmetrical and distance does not change. However, from absolute rest one can be measured to have greater velocity than another observer to which you have a relative velocity and you will have the slower time tick rate than the other.
That would appear to be counter intuitive because we have been raised to think of relative velocity in absolute terms universally. If you are driving down the road at 60 Mph and veer off the road into a parked car we claim that each vehicle has a common relative velocity of 60 Mph.
However, it appears that is only true at everyday velocities and that at relavistic velocities our locally measured velocities will differ because v = d / t. Distance remains fixed but each t is recorded differently by the respective observers.
Remember that velocity is a composite calculated result of the ratio of two physical factors. Time and Distance. What relativity does is assume a common calculation of velocity and therein cause a physical change in reality. i.e. d = v*t when in fact velocity will not be the same to each observer because we have stipulated that one clock ticks slower than the other.
Therefore if you retain this physical assertion (which conforms with measurements and observation of clocks with relative motion) then you have as an example where relative velocity is 0.866c t2 = t1/2 or t1 = 2*t2.
v1 = d /t1 and v2 = d / t2 hence v2 = 2*v1.
Lets move into space and set up a test course. First while at common rest fabricate a cable which has mile markers attached ever 5,280 feet. The cable is of a known and long length. I then fire up my rocket and stretch the cable out between us.
Now I release the cable and fire my return rockets and achieve 0.1c such that my clock now is only ticking 99.4987% as fast as yours. As I pass the mile markers I notice that they are passing by at a rate, and I'm approaching you, at v = d / 0.994987t = 0.1005 c !
While you remained stationary and will see me passing miles markers at v=d/t=0.1c. When I arrive we compare clocks and calculate that the times are correct if and ONLY if distance did not change.
An analogy of what Special Relativity does is given by the following example.
EXAMPLE
You live in town "A" and it is a known 60 miles to town "B". Your friend comes to visit and doesn't know the area. He also doesn't know that his dashboard clock is defective and is only ticking at 50% the rate of your clock and the atomic clock at the NBS.
He calls you and tells you he is leaving town "B". You both look at your clocks. He is driving precisely 60 Mph but his Speed-O-Meter is broken. However his Odometer is working correctly.
When he arrives one hour later by your clock you congratulate him on making good time having averaged 60 Mph for the trip.
He says "heck no I was going 120 Mph because it only took 30 minutes to get here and it was 60 miles".
Special Relativity wrongfully asserts that both clock standards are equal and that he accumulated less time because he traveled less distance. It is assinine and easily disproved.
We must stop comparing accumulated time and compare tick rates while in motion. If tick rates are measured dilated (with doppler compensation) then distance has not changed. If tick rates remain concurrent (in sync) with doppler compensation then distance must have changed.
ABSURD CONSEQUENCES OF ACCEPTING SPECIAL RELATIVITY
1 - If you accept Special Relativity then you must accept that given sufficient velocity when you accelerate away from something you get closer to it because Loretnz Contraction of space proceeds faster than your recesssion velocity.
2 - An observer riding a particle in a particle accelerator that goes from 0 to 0.866c in 1 milli-second causes the 4.3 lyr distance to Alpha Centuri collapse to 2.15 lyr in 0.001 seconds. There are 31,536,000 seconds per year or the particle only took 3.2E-8 years to cause the change.
In other words dimensions changed at 2.15 lyr / 3.2E-8 Yr = 67,802,400 c !!
Relativists try to obscur this fact and save Special Relativity by mathematically claiming the particle observer doesn't see the change that it is hidden behind an event horizon and isn't seen until light from 4.3 lyr arrives.
This Texas Two Step just doesn't hold up because if I continue toward Alpha Centuri I will collide with it even if it were hidden behind an optical event horizon. Dare they argue you don't arrive when distance has been reduced to zero!!!!!
Dare they argue that you cannot see something 1 meeter away for several light years just because to do so falisifies Special Relativity.
Spatial contraction is either a physical reality or it is not. You can't claim it exists then ignore the consequences.
3 - If you really believe in Special Relativity then the accelerating expansion of the universe is in fact a deceleration because at the relavistic velocities near the observable edge Lorentz Contraction has to be reversed. That is a decelerating expansion causing Lorentz Expansion from previously contracted space due to a higher velocity in the past.
VELOCITY ADDITION
Einstein would have us believe that 2 + 2 = 3 just because he can make a closed mathematical loop by ignoring physical changes created by his own theory. That is claim a clock ticks slow but then claim it has the same time standard as another clock hence space (distance) must have contracted to account for the differential in accumulated time in the same test.
The fact is there have been hundreds of objects in space measured to have
velocities that are not only greater but much greater than v = c. Relativists have worked overtime to find a means of invalidating such data.
The primary tactic has been to show that for relavistic motion in a narrow line of sight can result in measurement of change which exceeds v = c. There is a problem with that defense of Special Relativity.
They ignore the fact that only an extreme minority of such observations are
accompanied by red or blue shift, meaning they are not line of sight motions but are proper velocities of objects moving orthogonal to our line of sight.
What is likely to be the case is that v = c in the line of sight is a velocity limit of observation because objects undergo Lorentz Contraction and dimensionally cease to exist in our physical realm at or above v = c.
That is our physical universe consists of objects v< c to our unknown absolute velocity but when we move and have relative velocity to other objects in our universe we actually have different universes; albiet an overwhelming amount of the universes are common.
However once you reach or exceed v = c to all matter that existed in your universe while inertial before your acceleration you will now exist in a completely different universe at a different absolute universal energy level.
RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY
The bottom line is that we live in a 3D world where time is an attribute of an
energetic space. Ours is a "Dynamic Present" in "Absolute Time". That is time is a measure of change of energy states of objects and is not an independant dimension or linked to space other than as a result of energy flow which forms space itself.
Pragmatically it is clear that our present consists of every event information in the universe that arrives collectively at any given instant to our ordinate point and creates the present.
For example if you live on Earth and I on the moon and we have synchronized
clocks. If I detonate a flash charge at t=0 it is part of my present but that is an event in your future dynamic present by 1.28 seconds.
If you then set off a flash charge automatically and simultaneously when you receive my flash signal then my flash and your flash are both part of your dynamuic present. But my flash is in my past by 1.28 seconds and your flash is in my future by 1.28 seconds.
It is interesting then that for our dynamic presents when we change our absolute spatial ordinate points by moving we must automatically enter both the Past and Future simultaneously relative to our original origin.
GPS FALSIFIES SPECIAL RELATIVITY
Relativists like to have it both ways. They routinely assert (brag) that GPS proves Special Relativity that clock time must employ both General Relativity and Special Relativity corrections to function,. Yet when I point out the following:
**********************GPS Calculations *********************
GPS satellites have a velocity (V1) of 3,874.5 m/s. A surface clock (at the equator) has an absolute velocity (V2) of 463.8 m/s and "0" m/s at the poles (or earth's center).
The "Relative Velocity" between the orbiting clock and a clock at the equator is V3 = (V1 - V2) = (3,874.5m/s - 463.8m/s) = 3,410.7m/s.
Using Special Relativity in GPS one gets: 3,410.7/c = 1.1369E-5, squared =
1.2925E-10. Divided by 2 = 6.4627E-11.
Time loss would be 6.4627E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 5.58378E-6 or - 5.58 micro-seconds per day.
HOWEVER: Using the absolute velocity of orbit of 3,874.5 m/s and NOT "Relative Velocity" per SRT one gets 1.2915E-5c, squared = 1.66797E-10. Divided by 2 = 8.33986E-11.
8.33986E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 7.205E-6 or 7.2 micro-seconds per day due to orbit velocity.
For the earth surface clock I calculate V2 = 463.8 m/s = 1.546E-6c. Squared = 3.29E-12. Divided by 2 = 1.195058E-12 * 24 * 3,600 = 1.0325E-7 or -0.10325 Micro-seconds per day being only about 1% in the daily time loss and may be disregarded.
It is vital to note that 7.2 micro-seconds is the correct answer and that the 5.58 micro-sceonds computed using Special Relativity is INCORRECT.
********************************************************
To which the relativists two step and claim that Special Relativity can't be used because it is a General Relativity problem due to gravity and rotational motion. That orbit is not an inertial condition because in orbit you are under constant acceleration!
At the same time free fall in a gravity field is claimed to be inertial even though observers are accelerating and orbit is also considered a form of free-fall.
So they flip flop on their definitions and applicability depending on the challenge presented.
The fact is that GPS *** DOES NOT *** use Special Relativity at all. It makes a velocity compensation but it is based on orbit velocity to a common relative rest reference. A Lorentz Relativity not Einstein's Special Relativity is used.!!!
i.e. - a locally preferred common rest frame which is prohibited by Special Relativity. It employs the center of the earth as it's reference for both surface clock velocity and the GPS satellite orbit velocity.
GPS DOES NOT employ V1 - V2 or relative velocity between clocks which is Special Relativity.!!!!
FYI the surface velocity changes with latitude; however, it just happens that the Earth is an Oblate Sphereoid and the difference in surface distance to the center of the Earth has a gravitational offset value precisely equal to the change in velocity by relavistic mathematics.
Such that is latitude has no bearing on surface clock tick rates. Altitude however does.
ALTERNATIVE
It appears that light may in fact merely be something moving faster than v = c in a vacuum. That is light is really nothing more than Cerenkov Radiation at the maximum EM velocity. It seems coincidental that Lorentz Contraction of matter also occur at v = c such that one can envision light as a form of release of dimensional binding energy.
In that perspective an observers relative motion to a source changes the time and location of photon production making it appear to be invariant when in fact each observer is observing a different photon. Every photon is being generated as a quantum energy function relative to Lorentz collapse of dimension.
That is photons do not travel or have velocity but are pertabations in the fabric of flowing space which has "0" velocity locally at an ordinate point of origin but has virtually unlimited velocity at the edge of the universe distance away.
Therefore at every ordinate point there is an unlimited range of spatial motion as a carrier of the light source pertabation. Observers see the photon being generated only on the v = c spatial carrier but the pertabation exists on all spatial flow such that every observers see the same light velocity but is not seeing the same light photon.
This may sound complex but it really isn't. If you see the origin of the universe as a Big Rip instead of a Big Bang you eliminate the requirement for an inflationary period and you eliminate the absurd singularity of the Big Bang.
The origin may be one of borrowed energy such that there has been no actual creation. We exist by ex-nihilo bifurcation of (N)othingness into (S)omethingness.
i.e. (N)----------------------> (+S) + (-S) = (+1) + (-1) = 0
UniKEF Theory of Gravity envisions the spatial flow as being the cause of gravity by attenuation of flowing space denser mass. It predicts that the apparent measured fact that we are at the center of the unverse is due to attenuation of the field within itself thereby forming an energy domain limit to our observed universe but the universe extends well beyond our observation. As we move the edge of our universe move with us retaining the domain limit in lyr.
That is space is free flowing "Unbound" energy and mass is compacted space by space curving into relavistic orbs forming particles. The compaction factor being c^2 and the origin of E = mc^2.
In this view a 2 inch diameter ball of pure mass. i.e. 2.19 pounds/inch cubed = 9.17E13 pound ball, contains the same energy as a spatial sphere of 9,470 miles in diameter. I suspect that we will find that Lorentz Contraction of space is in comperable proportion.
That is where mass may contract to zero dimension at v = c relative to the observer while space for an observer actually in motion may only decrease by current Lorenz / c. Instead of the universe collapsing to zero at v = c it will shrink by 3E-7% or 0.000000003 or 1/333,333,333.
Dan Keith McCoin
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
PRAGMATIC FAILURE
OF
SPECIAL RELATIVITY
--------------------------------
ABSTRACT
For over one hundred years persons have challenged the Special Theory of Relativity. Some due to a lack of understanding of what it actually says and others by misapplying mathematics. Many however have presented challenges with sound evidence which falsifies Special Relativity but it is ignored.
This effort avoids the complex arguements of relavistic mathematics because it indeed has high utility and is highly accurate under certain conditions and applications. An effort is made rather by pointing out what one must accept IF one subscribes to the theory as a physical reality and where a simple lack of understanding of physical reality may be the basis for the flawed concept.
FALSE PREMIS
Every theory has some basic premis or assumptions. In the case of Special Relativity the premis or assumption that may be responsible for the error is based on actual measurements:
"The velocity of light is measured the same for every observer regardless of their relative velocity to the source" An exception to that is the Sagnac affect.
Since this has been a physical measurement it has been assumed that light velocity is invariant rather than perhaps we do not understand the origin of light. More on that distinction later but for now lets consider physical aspects of Special Relativity which relativists choose to ignore.
PHYSICAL AFFECT OF SYMMETRICAL RELATIVE VELOCITY
Since the relavistic argument is that either of two inertial moving observers with a relative velocity to each other can be assumed at rest and the other having all motion, such that when "A" is at rest "B's" clock runs slow according to "A" and distance between "A" and "B" is seen foreshortened by "B".
That is the purported equivelence of relative velocity produces two distinctly different physical affects to the two observers purely as a function of each being considered at rest. That is if we consider "B" at rest then "A's" clock must run slower than "B" and "A" then see's distance to "B" as being less than "B" measures to "A".
The initial claim by Einstein about the equivelence of inertial frames and that either can be considered at rest results in the paradox generally refered to as the "Twin Paradox". That is two twins, one that stays at home on Earth and another that goes out and travels at high relative velocity in space is to be younger than his stay at home twin when he returns. But the symmetry of either being at rest means that according to the space traveler he expects his stay at home twin to be younger since according to him he has been at rest and his twin has been zooming around the galaxy riding on Earth.
The "Twin Paradox" exemplifies the fact that if you do accept that inertial motion can be assumed at rest then "A's" clock is ticking slower than "B's" clock concurrently with "B's" clock ticking slower than "A's" clock.
This conundrum is arbitrarily labled "Counter Intuitive" when it clearly should be labled "Sheer Nonsense".
ENTER FUDGE FACTOR
The truth is relativists don't really envision or treat inertial systems as equal. To resolve the untenable physical conflict of the equivelence of inertial systems Einstein published The General Relativity 15 years later and explained that only the observer that switches frames experiences relavistic change.
"Frame Switching" is just a shallow cover phrase for the physical fact that to switch frames one must accelerate. That is if I experience F=ma then I undergo v = at and have force induced motion. So only one inertial traveler can be considered to have motion and that is the one with the greatest delta velocity due to acceleration times time, the other is comparative rest.
SO we are no longer dealing with mere "Relative Velocity", we are dealing with some form of universal absolute velocity change relative to the other observer due to one having experienced F = ma.
Relativists choose to ignore the fact that they are now claiming one observer has actual motion versus another which has remained inertial and hence IS at relative rest. That mere "Relative Velocity" has never and never can cause any physical changes.
Simply put relative velocity means neither, either one or both have had changes in absolute velocity in the universe. They say there is no absolute rest reference and they are only partly correct. They assume that "Absence of Evidence" is the same as "Evidence of Absence" and that simply is not a scientific fact.
But the bottom line is when two observers are at relative inertial rest and one accelerates that observer makes changes in his absolute velocity in a universal sense even though we can only measure velocity relative to some other point. The fact is the observer that did not experience F=ma and remained at rest can have NO physical changes because there has been no physical cause.
That is not to say there cannot be measurement changes it simply means they are clearly illusions of motion and not physical reality. "Observed" time dilation is a perception or measurement issue while in motion. The only true time dilation is that recorded between clocks once those clocks are returned to a common relative rest for direct comparision.
Since time dilation affects have been precisely measured then it is a physical reality. The question then becomes what is the cause. A change in time tick rate or a change in distance? Unfortunately Einstein and relativits ignore the obvious. IF time tick rate dilation is a physical reality then Lorentz Contraction of space cannot exist.
That is because IF my clock is ticking slow i.e. - 0.5 ticks to your 1 tick, then my accumulated time for a trip is only correct if distance remained the same. If distance were infact foreshortened by 1/2 and my clocks ticked slowed to 1/2 then I would accumulate only 1/4 as many tick times for the trip. That is inconsistant with observation.
Special Relativity is only valid mathematically because it ignores physical reality and applies two sets of time standards to the same clock at the same time. They argue the moving observer experiences no change. That therefore 1 second is still 1 second. That can be true locally but it simply means he has a distorted measurement and it does not make his time standard equivelent to the resting clock standard.
Relativity switches time standards between observers to make itself consistant mathematically to then claim distance changed.
They apply a common relative velocity cause and then not only have respective observers undergo different physical affects but claim which affect depends on observer view point. These cannot be considered physical facts.
It is utter stupidity.
DISCUSSION
Since as it will be shown that Lorentz Contraction of space is problematic and never has been measured. I choose time dilation to be the actual physical reaction to motion.
What does that mean for physics? It means that universally relative velocity is symmetrical but locally it is not. That is from a persepective of absolute rest all relative motions are symmetrical and distance does not change. However, from absolute rest one can be measured to have greater velocity than another observer to which you have a relative velocity and you will have the slower time tick rate than the other.
That would appear to be counter intuitive because we have been raised to think of relative velocity in absolute terms universally. If you are driving down the road at 60 Mph and veer off the road into a parked car we claim that each vehicle has a common relative velocity of 60 Mph.
However, it appears that is only true at everyday velocities and that at relavistic velocities our locally measured velocities will differ because v = d / t. Distance remains fixed but each t is recorded differently by the respective observers.
Remember that velocity is a composite calculated result of the ratio of two physical factors. Time and Distance. What relativity does is assume a common calculation of velocity and therein cause a physical change in reality. i.e. d = v*t when in fact velocity will not be the same to each observer because we have stipulated that one clock ticks slower than the other.
Therefore if you retain this physical assertion (which conforms with measurements and observation of clocks with relative motion) then you have as an example where relative velocity is 0.866c t2 = t1/2 or t1 = 2*t2.
v1 = d /t1 and v2 = d / t2 hence v2 = 2*v1.
Lets move into space and set up a test course. First while at common rest fabricate a cable which has mile markers attached ever 5,280 feet. The cable is of a known and long length. I then fire up my rocket and stretch the cable out between us.
Now I release the cable and fire my return rockets and achieve 0.1c such that my clock now is only ticking 99.4987% as fast as yours. As I pass the mile markers I notice that they are passing by at a rate, and I'm approaching you, at v = d / 0.994987t = 0.1005 c !
While you remained stationary and will see me passing miles markers at v=d/t=0.1c. When I arrive we compare clocks and calculate that the times are correct if and ONLY if distance did not change.
An analogy of what Special Relativity does is given by the following example.
EXAMPLE
You live in town "A" and it is a known 60 miles to town "B". Your friend comes to visit and doesn't know the area. He also doesn't know that his dashboard clock is defective and is only ticking at 50% the rate of your clock and the atomic clock at the NBS.
He calls you and tells you he is leaving town "B". You both look at your clocks. He is driving precisely 60 Mph but his Speed-O-Meter is broken. However his Odometer is working correctly.
When he arrives one hour later by your clock you congratulate him on making good time having averaged 60 Mph for the trip.
He says "heck no I was going 120 Mph because it only took 30 minutes to get here and it was 60 miles".
Special Relativity wrongfully asserts that both clock standards are equal and that he accumulated less time because he traveled less distance. It is assinine and easily disproved.
We must stop comparing accumulated time and compare tick rates while in motion. If tick rates are measured dilated (with doppler compensation) then distance has not changed. If tick rates remain concurrent (in sync) with doppler compensation then distance must have changed.
ABSURD CONSEQUENCES OF ACCEPTING SPECIAL RELATIVITY
1 - If you accept Special Relativity then you must accept that given sufficient velocity when you accelerate away from something you get closer to it because Loretnz Contraction of space proceeds faster than your recesssion velocity.
2 - An observer riding a particle in a particle accelerator that goes from 0 to 0.866c in 1 milli-second causes the 4.3 lyr distance to Alpha Centuri collapse to 2.15 lyr in 0.001 seconds. There are 31,536,000 seconds per year or the particle only took 3.2E-8 years to cause the change.
In other words dimensions changed at 2.15 lyr / 3.2E-8 Yr = 67,802,400 c !!
Relativists try to obscur this fact and save Special Relativity by mathematically claiming the particle observer doesn't see the change that it is hidden behind an event horizon and isn't seen until light from 4.3 lyr arrives.
This Texas Two Step just doesn't hold up because if I continue toward Alpha Centuri I will collide with it even if it were hidden behind an optical event horizon. Dare they argue you don't arrive when distance has been reduced to zero!!!!!
Dare they argue that you cannot see something 1 meeter away for several light years just because to do so falisifies Special Relativity.
Spatial contraction is either a physical reality or it is not. You can't claim it exists then ignore the consequences.
3 - If you really believe in Special Relativity then the accelerating expansion of the universe is in fact a deceleration because at the relavistic velocities near the observable edge Lorentz Contraction has to be reversed. That is a decelerating expansion causing Lorentz Expansion from previously contracted space due to a higher velocity in the past.
VELOCITY ADDITION
Einstein would have us believe that 2 + 2 = 3 just because he can make a closed mathematical loop by ignoring physical changes created by his own theory. That is claim a clock ticks slow but then claim it has the same time standard as another clock hence space (distance) must have contracted to account for the differential in accumulated time in the same test.
The fact is there have been hundreds of objects in space measured to have
velocities that are not only greater but much greater than v = c. Relativists have worked overtime to find a means of invalidating such data.
The primary tactic has been to show that for relavistic motion in a narrow line of sight can result in measurement of change which exceeds v = c. There is a problem with that defense of Special Relativity.
They ignore the fact that only an extreme minority of such observations are
accompanied by red or blue shift, meaning they are not line of sight motions but are proper velocities of objects moving orthogonal to our line of sight.
What is likely to be the case is that v = c in the line of sight is a velocity limit of observation because objects undergo Lorentz Contraction and dimensionally cease to exist in our physical realm at or above v = c.
That is our physical universe consists of objects v< c to our unknown absolute velocity but when we move and have relative velocity to other objects in our universe we actually have different universes; albiet an overwhelming amount of the universes are common.
However once you reach or exceed v = c to all matter that existed in your universe while inertial before your acceleration you will now exist in a completely different universe at a different absolute universal energy level.
RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY
The bottom line is that we live in a 3D world where time is an attribute of an
energetic space. Ours is a "Dynamic Present" in "Absolute Time". That is time is a measure of change of energy states of objects and is not an independant dimension or linked to space other than as a result of energy flow which forms space itself.
Pragmatically it is clear that our present consists of every event information in the universe that arrives collectively at any given instant to our ordinate point and creates the present.
For example if you live on Earth and I on the moon and we have synchronized
clocks. If I detonate a flash charge at t=0 it is part of my present but that is an event in your future dynamic present by 1.28 seconds.
If you then set off a flash charge automatically and simultaneously when you receive my flash signal then my flash and your flash are both part of your dynamuic present. But my flash is in my past by 1.28 seconds and your flash is in my future by 1.28 seconds.
It is interesting then that for our dynamic presents when we change our absolute spatial ordinate points by moving we must automatically enter both the Past and Future simultaneously relative to our original origin.
GPS FALSIFIES SPECIAL RELATIVITY
Relativists like to have it both ways. They routinely assert (brag) that GPS proves Special Relativity that clock time must employ both General Relativity and Special Relativity corrections to function,. Yet when I point out the following:
**********************GPS Calculations *********************
GPS satellites have a velocity (V1) of 3,874.5 m/s. A surface clock (at the equator) has an absolute velocity (V2) of 463.8 m/s and "0" m/s at the poles (or earth's center).
The "Relative Velocity" between the orbiting clock and a clock at the equator is V3 = (V1 - V2) = (3,874.5m/s - 463.8m/s) = 3,410.7m/s.
Using Special Relativity in GPS one gets: 3,410.7/c = 1.1369E-5, squared =
1.2925E-10. Divided by 2 = 6.4627E-11.
Time loss would be 6.4627E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 5.58378E-6 or - 5.58 micro-seconds per day.
HOWEVER: Using the absolute velocity of orbit of 3,874.5 m/s and NOT "Relative Velocity" per SRT one gets 1.2915E-5c, squared = 1.66797E-10. Divided by 2 = 8.33986E-11.
8.33986E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 7.205E-6 or 7.2 micro-seconds per day due to orbit velocity.
For the earth surface clock I calculate V2 = 463.8 m/s = 1.546E-6c. Squared = 3.29E-12. Divided by 2 = 1.195058E-12 * 24 * 3,600 = 1.0325E-7 or -0.10325 Micro-seconds per day being only about 1% in the daily time loss and may be disregarded.
It is vital to note that 7.2 micro-seconds is the correct answer and that the 5.58 micro-sceonds computed using Special Relativity is INCORRECT.
********************************************************
To which the relativists two step and claim that Special Relativity can't be used because it is a General Relativity problem due to gravity and rotational motion. That orbit is not an inertial condition because in orbit you are under constant acceleration!
At the same time free fall in a gravity field is claimed to be inertial even though observers are accelerating and orbit is also considered a form of free-fall.
So they flip flop on their definitions and applicability depending on the challenge presented.
The fact is that GPS *** DOES NOT *** use Special Relativity at all. It makes a velocity compensation but it is based on orbit velocity to a common relative rest reference. A Lorentz Relativity not Einstein's Special Relativity is used.!!!
i.e. - a locally preferred common rest frame which is prohibited by Special Relativity. It employs the center of the earth as it's reference for both surface clock velocity and the GPS satellite orbit velocity.
GPS DOES NOT employ V1 - V2 or relative velocity between clocks which is Special Relativity.!!!!
FYI the surface velocity changes with latitude; however, it just happens that the Earth is an Oblate Sphereoid and the difference in surface distance to the center of the Earth has a gravitational offset value precisely equal to the change in velocity by relavistic mathematics.
Such that is latitude has no bearing on surface clock tick rates. Altitude however does.
ALTERNATIVE
It appears that light may in fact merely be something moving faster than v = c in a vacuum. That is light is really nothing more than Cerenkov Radiation at the maximum EM velocity. It seems coincidental that Lorentz Contraction of matter also occur at v = c such that one can envision light as a form of release of dimensional binding energy.
In that perspective an observers relative motion to a source changes the time and location of photon production making it appear to be invariant when in fact each observer is observing a different photon. Every photon is being generated as a quantum energy function relative to Lorentz collapse of dimension.
That is photons do not travel or have velocity but are pertabations in the fabric of flowing space which has "0" velocity locally at an ordinate point of origin but has virtually unlimited velocity at the edge of the universe distance away.
Therefore at every ordinate point there is an unlimited range of spatial motion as a carrier of the light source pertabation. Observers see the photon being generated only on the v = c spatial carrier but the pertabation exists on all spatial flow such that every observers see the same light velocity but is not seeing the same light photon.
This may sound complex but it really isn't. If you see the origin of the universe as a Big Rip instead of a Big Bang you eliminate the requirement for an inflationary period and you eliminate the absurd singularity of the Big Bang.
The origin may be one of borrowed energy such that there has been no actual creation. We exist by ex-nihilo bifurcation of (N)othingness into (S)omethingness.
i.e. (N)----------------------> (+S) + (-S) = (+1) + (-1) = 0
UniKEF Theory of Gravity envisions the spatial flow as being the cause of gravity by attenuation of flowing space denser mass. It predicts that the apparent measured fact that we are at the center of the unverse is due to attenuation of the field within itself thereby forming an energy domain limit to our observed universe but the universe extends well beyond our observation. As we move the edge of our universe move with us retaining the domain limit in lyr.
That is space is free flowing "Unbound" energy and mass is compacted space by space curving into relavistic orbs forming particles. The compaction factor being c^2 and the origin of E = mc^2.
In this view a 2 inch diameter ball of pure mass. i.e. 2.19 pounds/inch cubed = 9.17E13 pound ball, contains the same energy as a spatial sphere of 9,470 miles in diameter. I suspect that we will find that Lorentz Contraction of space is in comperable proportion.
That is where mass may contract to zero dimension at v = c relative to the observer while space for an observer actually in motion may only decrease by current Lorenz / c. Instead of the universe collapsing to zero at v = c it will shrink by 3E-7% or 0.000000003 or 1/333,333,333.
Dan Keith McCoin
