Overview
Recently I discovered another flaw in Einstein’s logic. His
General Theory of Relativity is flawed in many ways, some of which I have
discussed elsewhere. This is yet another way that it is flawed.
There are actually two flaws here. One flaw is regarding the
structure of the photon. The second flaw is his inconsistent logic regarding
energy versus mass for objects at high speed.
Einstein’s Flaws in Brief
In brief, the flaws of Einstein’s logic are as follows:
1. Photons: Mass or No Mass
Einstein says photons have no mass. However, if photons
have no mass, they would have no gravitational energy. And therefore the
photons could not be gravitationally affected by stars. Processes such as
Gravitational Bending of Light and Black Holes would not exist. Thus, in
contrast to Einstein’s belief, all photons MUST have mass.
2. Speed of Light and Energy versus Mass: Inconsistent
Logic
Einstein says that photons are pure energy, and that this
is the cause for the speed of light. However, he also says that no other object
can travel the speed of light because…it will never have enough energy.
In his view, adding more energy to any other object, at
those high speeds, will not remain as energy, but be converted into mass. Yet
the photon, traveling at that speed, is pure energy.
Einstein wants it both ways. He wants the photon’s energy
to remain as energy at those speeds, yet he wants the energy of any other
object at those speeds to turn into mass. This is inconsistent. You can’t have it
both ways.
(FYI, the true answers are presented in my books “Introduction
to Gravity Strings” and “Photons in Motion”.
Photons: Mass or No Mass
Einstein says that a photon has no mass. He believes the
photon is pure energy only.
Here Einstein is partially right. The speed of the photon
is indeed due to the immense amount of pure energy involved. However, I have
discovered the true structure of the photon, and it does indeed have mass.
(Details and illustrations are in various books I have written).
Furthermore, supposing I hadn’t discovered the structure of
the photon. We would still find flaws in the idea that the photon has no mass.
We know that gravitational energy is associated with the
mass of the object. We also know that photons can be affected by gravity –
including the process of gravitational bending of light. (This is the process
which supposedly “proved” Einstein’s General Relativity). Therefore, the photon
could only be affected by gravitational energy if the photon has mass. For this
reason alone, the photon must have mass; it cannot exist as “no mass”.
Note that I demonstrate in detail how photons have mass,
and gravitational energy, in my book “Introduction to Gravity Strings”. This
will be further illustrated and presented in the book “Photons in Motion”.
Energy Versus Mass, Approaching the Speed of
Light
The other flaw in Einstein’s logic is far more substantial,
and far more damaging, to the credibility of his Relativity Theories. This
inconsistent logic is how he applies Energy versus Mass as objects approach the
speed of light.
Einstein famously said that no object can travel faster
than the speed of light. His reasoning (flawed) is that no other objects will
be able to have enough energy to travel that fast. And this is not a matter of
mechanics or engineering. Einstein says that as the object approaches the speed
of light, any additional energy you add will be converted into mass, and not stay as energy. Therefore (conveniently
to his logic) the object gets more and more massive, but will never actually “have”
enough energy to go the speed of light.
His basic idea is that for most processes we add energy,
and we get energy. The energy remains as energy. But, as we approach the speed
of light, the energy (for some mysterious reason) would turn into mass.
The first red flag already appears. Why would additional
energy turn into mass only at those highest speeds? Yet this is a minor flaw;
the other flaws are more significant.
(Note that I have developed a mechanism for Energy to
Convert into Mass, as well as for Mass to Convert into Energy. These mechanisms
are illustrated in my book Photons in Motion).
Let’s pick Einstein’s arguments apart. And notice that he
wants the physical processes to go two ways, which is inconsistent, and which
can’t be done.
He says the photon has a lot of energy, at that very high
speed. Yet for any other object, he won’t allow that object to have such great
amount of energy….only because some of that additional energy has converted
into mass. How can one object keep all its energy as energy, yet another object
not be allowed to keep this energy? This is the basic flaw in the argument.
Let me use my own analogy. Think of our objects like two
cars we fill up with fuel. Suppose they are similar size. Both hold a maximum
of 20 gallons. We fill up the first car all the way with 20 gallons of fuel. In
the second car we also add 20 gallons of fuel, but in the second car we only
get 18 gallons of that fuel. The other 2 gallons are converted into mass. This
seems inconsistent to me. Why would the process happen for one car, but not the
other. This is the basic flaw in Einstein’s logic here.
Now let us extend to a photon and another object like a
quark. The first object is our photon. The second object is…any other object,
from a quark to a space ship. The fuel we use is “energy”.
We starting “filling” each object with energy. In both
cases, the additional energy makes the objects go faster. But, as the objects have
enough energy to get close to “the speed of light”, adding energy becomes
something different. (Again, this is Einstein’s view, not mine). For the
photon, adding energy will simply…add more energy. Makes sense. But he then
says that adding energy to the other object will NOT remain as energy. Instead,
it will convert into Mass.
This is inconsistent logic. It does not make sense.
According to Einstein only the photon’s energy will be allowed to remain as
energy, and yet the energy for every other object will not be allowed to remain
as energy. This cannot be. The process must work the same for both. Even if we
are talking about processes that work only at high speeds, the processes must
be consistent for the photon as well as for any other object.
Therefore, this aspect of Einstein’s logic is flawed.
FYI, I have a detailed understanding of the processes. They
are not complex, but they are completely different from the way Einstein and
other physicists look at them. The real physical processes involve the
structures of the particles themselves, as well as the nature of the energy
strings contained within each particle. (All of this is illustrated in my book
Photons in Motion).
Relativistic Mass
Einstein also has a concept he calls “relativistic mass”. I
do not believe that any such thing exists. The concept is that when any object
reaches a certain speed, any additional energy will not remain as energy, but
instantly be converted into mass. This new total mass is the “relativistic mass”.
For me, such as concept does not make sense. The speed of
the object has nothing to do with it. I believe there is always a percentage of
energy and a percentage of mass. Then it is only in the structure of the object
which will determine what the percentage of energy versus percentage of mass is
for that particle. Structure, not speed, will determine both the energy versus
mass percentages.
(Again, these are discussed in my books, particularly
Photons in Motion)
Speed of Light is NOT necessarily Limiting
This brings up a related question. Is the speed of light
truly the limits of speed in the universe? There are two answers: theoretically,
no. But practically, yes.
Einstein wanted a reason to state why speed of light was so
fast. Yet in so doing he overstepped the territory of his discussion, and
claimed that nothing could go faster than the speed of light, only because of
this selective energy to mass conversion.
Really? We have just shown the inconsistent logic he
applied. We have shown that the conversion of energy to mass, occurring only for
some objects and not others, and only at high speeds, is a weak physics
argument. It is a flimsy rationale.
Until a better set of arguments comes along, I am ready to
discard the notion of “relativistic mass”. I am ready to discard the idea that
the only reason objects don’t travel as fast as light is because of this energy
to mass conversion.
However, as a practical concept, I am not sure that other objects
can travel faster than the speed of light. This has nothing to do with “relativity”
or any “limiting law”, but rather to the mechanics of objects as compared to
the photon. Thus, the photon may still be the fastest object in the universe,
but for different reasons than Einstein stated.
Concluding Thoughts
Einstein does have flaws in his logic. I find it from time
to time. These are a few more cases where his logic is inconsistent.
For Einstein, these arguments, though flawed, got him to
reach some new ideas. Some of those ideas are insightful and correct. However,
many of those ideas are wrong, particularly General Relativity, and anything to
do with the “constant speed of light”.
No comments:
Post a Comment