Higgs Boson, Schrodinger Orbitals, and Space-Time: Proven or Not?

Here is a Trivia Question for you. Which of the following has actually been Proven:

a. Higgs Boson

b. Schrodinger Orbitals

c. Space-Time as Gravity

 

What is your guess?

The Correct Answer is “D”…. “None of the Above”!!

 

Despite what you may have been taught, despite what you may have heard through internet, NONE of those concepts have been proven true! There is no actual proof for any of them!

I have looked into each of these concepts in great detail, including the origins of each concept, and what was actually observed in relation to the concept. There is no proof, no observational evidence, for any of them.

I will expand briefly below.
 

Higgs Boson has NOT been Proven

There is no such thing as a “Higgs Boson”. It has not been observed, and even if it had, it cannot be the source of gravity.

What they actually “observed” were photons. Yes. When the Higgs Boson was “discovered”, all that was really discovered were some photons.

The Higgs supporters said that these photons were created from the decay of the Higgs Boson, and therefore these photons were proof of the Higgs Boson. However, these photons can come from many sources. They can come from many particles. The existence of these photons does not necessarily indicate the presence of a “Higgs Boson”.

Then there is the other question….which nobody seems to ask…despite their collective PhDs. This question can be posed as follows: if the Higgs Boson decays, then how can it be the source of gravity, which seems to be stable for centuries?

All of the Higgs Boson supporters will openly state that the Higgs Boson will decay quickly. Yet gravitational energy seems to be eternally stable in many locations. Therefore, anything which decays in less than a second cannot be the source of gravitational energy.

Thus, the Higgs Boson is a hoax. It does not exist. It has never been proven, cannot be the source of gravitational energy.
 

Schrodinger Orbitals have NOT been Proven

The Schrodinger Orbitals are taught a “facts” in every chemistry text book in the world, from high school to college. Yet there is no proof of these orbitals. In fact, they are incorrect.

I will cover this in much greater detail in my book “New Model of the Atom”. Here I will highlight the basic flaws in the Schrodinger Orbitals.

Let’s start with the Bohr-Somerfield Electron Orbits. Those orbits ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. (In my upcoming book, I will show details of the formation and structure of those orbits).

However, the Schrodinger Orbitals have no basis in reality.

How did this come about? First, Schrodinger came up with an equation to describe the energies and possible locations of the electrons. This equation was based on a dubious assumption: that electrons are somehow waves and not particles.

Also note that Schrodinger had no real idea of what this “wave” looked like. Heisenberg himself said that Schrodinger’s understanding of physics was weak. (Heisenberg had much stronger words actually).

From this dubious assumption, Schrodinger created an equation. However, there is no data to fit his equation. Rather he had an equation, and now the scientists had to try and figure out what that equation meant.

Then…and still today…the physical interpretation of the equation is debated. That point makes it clear that there is no physical reality behind the equation.

Then it gets worse. The most common agreed interpretation of the equation is that it is a “probability wave”. A what? Yes. That is what they say…with a completely straight face.

This means the equation is not even describing electrons as waves, but a probability of where these electrons may reside. Using some magical “probability wave” concept.

Then the scientists draw shapes on graph paper, based on the equation. The shapes are not the path of the electrons, but the probability of where the electron might be.

What we end up with then is simply this: drawing shapes on graph paper, based on an equation, which has no basis in physical reality.

The entire set up of the Schrodinger equation, and the interpretation into Schrodinger orbitals, are more flimsy than a house of cards. The drawings of Schrodinger orbitals have less basis in reality than the imaginative drawings of Dr. Seuss. The entire system of Schrodinger orbitals is complete fiction.
 

Space-Time as Gravity has NOT been Proven

Now let us turn to the concept which is almost a religious belief to many scientist: Space-Time as the Cause of Gravity.

Space-Time, as a cause of Gravitational Energy, is absolutely incorrect. There can be no doubt.

“But” you might say “Space-Time has been Proven! In every test ever done!” Really? I’ve heard that before, and it just isn’t true. Oh, some things were observed, but Space-Time as Cause of Gravity was NOT proven.

I have collected numerous facts and numerous arguments which disprove Space-Time as Gravity. There are also many flaws in the Space-Time Concept, which I will show. All of this will be presented in a future book: “Deconstructing Space-Time”.

Here I will present a few of the main points.

1. Space-Time is Geometry, not Physical Reality: This is the main point. The equations and model can tell you where things will be, but NOT why they will be there. Space-Time is a way to track motions, but NOT explain why things move.

2. All “Proofs” of Space-Time just Prove Gravity Exists, not Space-Time: Every one of the predictions and observations simply demonstrate that Gravitational Energy does exist, and can produce certain results. However, ANY model of gravity will work just fine to explain each of these predictions and observations.

Thus, all the “predictions and proofs” are predictions of how gravity will affect objects, and proof that gravity does affect objects in those ways. But there is no reason to say that space-time is the physical cause for that gravitational energy. Any other model of gravity will do just fine.

3. Newton can explain all of Space-Time: Every observation associated with Space-Time can be just as easily explained (in fact more easily explained) by Newtonian Mechanics than by Space-Time.

4. Einstein misunderstands Speed of Light and other Concepts:  There are numerous concepts which Einstein misunderstands, particularly the Speed of Light, and the Cause of Red Shift. He also misunderstands the concepts of Fields.

I don’t need to go into details here, just know that these misunderstandings lead to fundamental flaws and logical errors in the entire Space-Time concept. In other words, the Space-Time concept has NO FOUNDATION. Every pillar in the Space-Time concept is built on shaky ground, and this the entire thing, when exposed, will quickly fall apart.

*Note that I explain true understandings of these concepts in other books.

·      Speed of Light: explained in “Momentum Understood as Energy Strings”, in “Photons in Motion”, and “Deconstructing Space-Time”

·      Cause of Red Shift: explained in “Momentum Understood as Energy Strings” and “The True Cause of Red Shift”

·      All other related concepts will be explained properly in the book “Deconstructing Space-Time”.

 

Therefore: the Space-Time, as cause for Gravitational Energy, has NOT been proven. I

n fact, it can easily be DISPROVEN.

 

Concluding Thoughts

Let us return to the original question. Which of these have actually been proven:

a. Higgs Boson
b. Schrodinger Orbitals
c. Space-Time as Gravity

The correct answer, of course, is D, “None of the Above”. In fact, as we have seen from above, each of these can actually be Disproven as physical realities!

Remember, my Life Missions include Replacing All of Physics with a New Set of Explanations. Those three items above, are three of the major concepts which must be replaced.

Mark Fennell

6/29/2016

 

Flaw in Space-Time: Discounting Internal Energy

Overview

The concept of “Space-Time” has several fundamental flaws. One of these flaws is the discounting of internal energy.

In reality, all objects are driven by a type of Internal Energy. Scientists have always known this…except for those who work with Space-Time.

In the minds of the “Space-Time” proponents: objects are not driven forward by internal energy, but rather are driven by the warping, bending, and stretching of space.

Such a concept is absurd. Yet is repeated - constantly - in numerous books and documentaries, and by the most respected scientists.

In this article, I will show why this concept is flawed. I will then provide the more accurate explanations.

Expanding Galaxies Versus Expanding Space

The classic example of discounting internal energy of objects is the topic of “expanding universe”. Is the universe really expanding? Or is it really that the galaxies are moving further apart?

The space-time believers say that the universe is expanding. How do they know? Because, they tell us, the galaxies are moving further away! Aha! By your own admission, you telling us that your main observation for the expanding universe is that the galaxies are moving further apart!

Thus: to me it is clear that the galaxies are moving…not space stretching.

But, the space-time believers say, the galaxies are not the ones moving. In reality it is space that is stretching! The fabric of space is stretching further and further apart….

My response is two parts: First, why discount the obvious? The stars have internal energy, this internal energy drives their motions, and therefore the internal energies of these stars are driving them further apart. Why discount the simple and obvious explanation?

Second, if your space is stretching…what is the mechanism for the space to stretch? (They have no answer).

Therefore, I say that we do observe “expansion”, but it is the expansion of galaxies, not of this space fabric.

Again, let us go back to the simple and obvious answer. The primary cause is not the stretching of any “space fabric” (which is not even well defined), but rather due to the internal energies of all the stars within the galaxies. These internal energies are driving the galaxies in such a way that these galaxies are traveling away from each other.

This is the sensible explanation. And clearly shows that a big flaw in space-time is the idea that space stretches, rather than taking into account the internal energy of the objects involved. 

Cars Drive Forward Versus Expanding Roads

Let us now take the same “space-time” argument on a more modest scale, and continue to show the absurdity.

Consider a road where cars drive forward for many miles. Any normal person would know that the cars move forward by applying gas to the engine, which moving the car forward.

But space-time believers do not think “normally”. They would rearrange this situation. They would say “no, the cars do NOT move. Rather it is the road that stretches!”

Really? Seriously? The road stretches? The road…just physically stretches? Furthermore, you are saying that the cars just sit there, that there is no need for gas being applied to engine?

This does not make any logical or scientific sense. Because it is not true. The road does not stretch, the road is fixed. The cars do not just sit there, the cars must have gas and the engine to propel the car forward.

Cars Move Opposite Directions Versus Expanding Roads

Let us take the concept further. We have a two lane road, for one line of cars to travel in each direction.

As the cars pass each other, and then proceed in opposite directions, the cars travel further and further apart. This should be obvious to any child, and should be obvious to any scientist….but alas it is not.

The space-time believers would tell you that the cars are traveling further apart NOT because of the internal energies of each car, but rather because the roads, in each direction, are stretching further apart.

This concept should sound absurd. It will sound absurd to any normal person, and to any child…but not to the space-time believers.

The obvious answer is that each car has its own internal energy, and is propelling itself in a particular direction. Therefore, the cars travel further and further away from each other. The roads do not stretch, and have nothing to do with the motion of the cars.

Let us again return to the expanding universe. It is just as absurd to claim that the “space fabric” stretches as it is to claim that the “road” stretches. It is just as flawed to deny internal energy to the cause of galaxy motions, as it is flawed to deny internal energy to the cause of car motions.

Michael Jackson Dances Versus Space Warps Around Him

We can continue demonstrating this flaw in the “space-time” concept, by looking at complex motions.

For example, consider Michael Jackson dancing on stage. He does the moves himself, always perfectly. He moves his body in specific ways, at specific moments, to create a beautiful combination of motions.

Yet, if we were to take the view of the space-time believers, the explanation would be different. They would tell us that it would not be that Michael Jackson is dancing, but rather that the space around Michael is “warping”.

The space around him would bend and warp, it would twist in a variety of ways. And this warping and bending of space, they would tell us, gives the “appearance” of Michael Jackson dancing.

To normal people, this idea sounds absurd. And it is not giving due credit to Michael for his skill - or for his “energies” - that he uses to create his dancing performances.

And yet this description of Michael dancing is not far from what space-time believers state regarding objects in space. The descriptions above are actually very close to the explanations of complex motions of celestial objects that the space-time believers tell us.

Therefore, let us return to reality - and common sense. When Michael Jackson dances, he is using his own internal energy. He applies his internal energy to various parts of his body, in specific amounts, in specific directions, at specific times. The internal energies that Michael applies is what creates his complex motions. The totality of these motions, in sequence, is what causes Michael to dance.

Notice that the “space” is not warped around Michael; rather it is Michael which moves in various regions of the space.

And so it is with all objects in space. The complex motions of celestial objects - including stars, black holes, and galaxies - can be attributed to the internal energies of the objects involved.

There is no space warping around these objects; rather it is the internal energies and internal motions of these objects which causes them to move in complex ways in their region of space.

Overall Motion: Internal Energy With Gravitational Energy

The overall motions of objects are due to a combination of internal energy with gravitational energy. Each type of energy affects the objects in different ways. It is the total combination of all internal energies and all gravitational energies, of the objects involved, which creates the overall motions for all objects in the system. These details are explored, for particular situations, in various books and articles.

Furthermore, in this article we are talking about the discounting of internal energy with respect to space-time. The gravitational effects in relation to space-time are explored in other books and articles.

Internal Energy Versus Negative Mass

Let us now look at another REAL EXAMPLE of things the space-time believers have said. This is the concept of “negative mass”.

A recent proposed entity by some scientists is the “negative mass”. The purpose of the “negative mass” is to counteract the gravitational energy which pulls objects together.

Does it not seem obvious that we already have an entity which counteracts gravity? This is the Internal Energy!

Again, why are scientists trying to propose an entity to explain something when we already have such an entity?

Furthermore, the concept of “negative mass” really has no meaning. It make no physical sense. (Indeed, those who have proposed it are mathematicians, using it for their equations. They have not proposed any physical description themselves!)

Finally, you will notice that they discount Internal Energy. Again we see that these scientists do not reach for internal energy. They do not think in terms of internal energy at all. For them to not even consider internal energy as their cause for countering gravity, for them to give a name to their idea which does not have the word “energy”, tells us that the concept of internal energy is nowhere in their thoughts.

Thus, again, demonstrating my point: there are many scientists today (those who believe in the space-time) who discount internal energies of objects as the primary causes for the motions of objects.

We should return to common sense, and return to reality. Internal energies are the causes of internal motions of objects. Internal energies are the entities which can counteract gravity.

Physical Realities of Internal Energy

You don’t have to know the exact physical nature of internal energy to see that internal energies are the obvious cause of many motions, not the stretching or warping of space-fabric. However, I have studied this internal energy in great detail, and therefore I know exactly what it is. I have written and illustrated the details of these energies in other books. In addition, I can provide a few summary concepts of Internal Energy at this time.

The “Internal Energy” which drives all objects is primarily electrical energy and magnetic energy. These energies reside inside the particles, pushing from the inside. Thus, these energies propel the particles forward.

These energies exist as individual energy fish, which can travel independently, or as a group. When these energy fish are grouped together, they become what we know of as an energy string.

Therefore, the electrical energy strings and the magnetic energy strings are the specific entities that are the “internal energies” of any object.

Accurate Explanation for Motion of Objects

The protons and neutrons are the engines of the atom. Therefore, when the majority of the energy strings are pushing these particles in one direction, then that is the direction which the atom will travel.

Continuing up in scale, where the majority of energy strings push of any object (from atoms to rocks to planets to stars) that is the direction the object will travel.

Of course, individual smaller objects within a larger object can have energy strings which push in different directions. This creates different directions of movements of objects - within the larger object or system of objects.

This is the basis for all of the internal motions of any object (from atoms to galaxies).

Accurate Explanation for Galaxies Expanding

Before we leave this topic, let us address the true cause for galaxies expanding. Please note that a separate article will be written just on this topic. In this section we will have brief explanation.

As discussed above, the universe is said to be expanding. Yet in reality, it is the galaxies which are expanding, not the space fabric. More specifically, the galaxies which are close together, are found to be traveling away from each other.

We begin with each galaxy having a combination of internal energy and gravitational energy. The internal energies drive the motions of the stars, including the dark star at the center of each galaxy. The gravitational energies pull the stars together, including the dark stars at the centers of each galaxy.

If the total gravitational energy is greater than the total internal energy, then the two galaxies will gradually pull themselves together. However, if the internal energies are slightly greater than the gravitational energies, then the galaxies will pull themselves apart.

This is especially true for the dark stars at the center of each galaxy. Those dark stars (also known as black holes) are the primary engines of each galaxy. It is their internal energies, and their gravitational energies, which are of primary consideration. The other stars do of course have an effect, but the massive dark stars in the center are the primary entities to consider for this process.

Note also that energies are constantly transferred among objects within a galaxy. This includes energies being transferred to the dark star.

There are free energies (free floating energy strings) which will transfer from object to object, and reach the dark star. Furthermore, photons are often absorbed by the dark star - which carry their own electric and magnetic energy strings.

This is in addition to any rocks and other space objects captured by the dark star.

Therefore, as the dark star absorbs more objects and more energies, the dark star obtains not only more mass, but also more internal energy. The specifics are complex, depending on all the entities in the galaxy.

However, if the dark star absorbs enough energy strings, then the dark star’s internal energy will increase. This, combined with fusion processes, may produce enough internal energy to overcome the gravitational energy between the two galaxies.

This becomes like two large space ships which have been fueling for some time. At some point these galaxies may have enough energy to pull away from the gravitational energies holding the two galaxies together.

Thus, the galaxies slowly pull apart…from their own internal energies.

This is the process which explains the cause of galaxies traveling apart from each other, even if once closely held together by gravity.

*A further detail is the cause of “acceleration” of these galaxies. In brief, there are multiple gravity strings holding each galaxy to each other. This is similar to multiple ropes holding two ships together. Thus, as each galaxy pair breaks a string, the overall speed of the galaxy will be an increment faster. This is the very definition of “acceleration”.

This process will continue, in stages, and thus the galaxies will always “accelerate” away from each other. Only when the galaxies have no gravitational connection - and thus reach their maximum speed with respect to each other - will the acceleration stop.

Summary/Review

Let us now conclude and review what we have discussed.

The primary point is this: the concept of Space-Time is flawed in many ways. One way that “space-time” is flawed is where the scientists say that the cause of motion of celestial objects is due to the warping and stretching of the fabric of space, rather than due to the internal energy which drives all objects forward.

The simpler and more obvious cause of motions is the existence of internal energy. These motions are not caused by the stretching of space fabric, nor are these motions caused by a “negative mass”.

The overall motion of any object - or set of objects - is a combination of the internal energies and the gravitational energies. The internal energies reside within each particle, propelling the particle in whichever direction the energies push the particle. The gravitational energies pull two or more particles together.

The specific combination of energies - amounts, directions, concentrations - will determine the specific complex motions of the multiple objects in the region.

Thus: these energies, in total, cause each object in the region to move in a series of motions. Each object move through space, because of these complex interactions of energies.

It is not the case that the space warps around the objects; rather the object move themselves, on their own terms, through that region of space.

Mark Fennell

1/11/2016

 

 

Space Time Refuted with Bicycle Analogy (Speed vs Frequency)

Overview

The concept of “space-time” is fundamentally flawed. It works as mathematical equations, but not as representation of physical reality.

There are several reasons why the concept of “space-time” is flawed, and therefore several methods to disprove the concept of space-time. I will focus on one of those flaws today.

We will refute space-time today by discussing the concept of the speed of light. Einstein said that space-time must exist, and contort in various ways, in order to explain the constant speed of light. This is not true. The constant speed of light can easily be explained without the use of space-time.

Truth Explained Briefly

I will begin by offering you the concepts in brief form. I do this so you can see the flaws in space-time, and the true physical realities, at the very beginning. We will then delve into the specifics to see the details.

The main reason Einstein created the concept of “space-time” was to explain how light could travel at the same speed…regardless how fast the source of the light was traveling.

He could only imagine an answer by having space and time both being able to contort. However, this is wrong. And the actual solution is much simpler.

We must look at both the frequency of the photon as well as the speed of the photon. While it is true that the speed of the photon is always the same, the frequency of the photon will always vary. And there lies your answer.

The energy of the source (such as star) will be applied to the emitted photon. However, the energy goes into the frequency rather than the speed. Thus: the speed is left alone, while the frequency is directly related to the energy from the star.

Stated another way: A faster star will emit photons of faster frequency. A slower star will emit photons of a slower frequency. Energy is indeed transferred from the star to the photon, and in proportional amounts but only the frequency. Meanwhile, the speed of the photon itself is unaffected by the speed of the star.

 

Truth Explained in Greater Detail

Now we will take the story and expand the details.

The speed of light is constant. This phrase has several different meanings depending on the context. The context we are interested in is the fact that light emitted will travel at the same speed, though emitted from stars traveling at different speeds.

At first this seems contradictory to experience. If you throw a ball from a train, the speed of the ball will be the total of: the speed from your arm plus the speed of the train. And a faster train will therefore result in a faster ball being thrown. These facts are absolutely true.

Yet we don’t see the same with light. The speed of the star which emits the light is irrelevant; the speed of the emitted photon is always the same.

How can this be? Einstein used space-time to explain it. (In fact, he created space-time primarily to explain this observation). And therefore Einstein gives us space contracting, space expanding, time slowing down, and various other effects.

This is neat circus trick; but is absolutely wrong. And is totally unnecessary.

What Einstein failed to take into account was the frequency of the light. Although the speed of the emitted light remains constant, the frequency of the emitted light will vary.

Furthermore, the frequency of the emitted light will vary directly in relation to the speed of the emitting star. And there is your true answer.

So now we have the truth for why the speed of light is constant - regardless of the speed of the emitting star: The varying amounts of energy from the star in motion will be transferred to the frequency of the emitted light, not the speed of the emitted light.

And thus we can return to classical (Newtonian) physics.

1. The star has a certain amount of inherent energy, which we observe in the speed of the star.

2. This energy is indeed passed onto the photon when it is emitted.

3. However, the energy passed along will only go into the frequency of the emitted photon, never in the speed of the emitted photon.

4. Therefore the frequency of the emitted photon is directly related to the amount of energy transferred from star to the photon; and this energy is directly related to the speed of the emitting star.

5. This means that a star which travels slower will transfer less energy to the photon - and the frequency will be slower. Similarly, a star which travels faster will transfer more energy to the photon - and the frequency of the photon will be faster.

6. The result is a photon which a) travels at the same speed regardless of the star; and b) has a frequency which is directly related to the speed of the star.

In brief: a faster star will emit photons of faster frequency. Slower star will emit photons of slower frequency. Energy is indeed transferred in proportional amounts. However, the speed of the photon itself is unaffected by the speed of the star.

All of this is simple Newtonian mechanics.

It is also now very similar to the classic analogy of throwing the ball from the train. The only difference for the photon (vs the ball on the train) is that the energy goes into the frequency rather than the speed.

Therefore: we can explain the concepts of constant speed of light and red shift of faster moving stars using classical mechanics. There is no need for space-time.

Analogy of the Bicycle

An analogy I like to use to show how this works, and how space-time is not necessary, is to talk about air in the tires of a bicycle.

We have a bicycle, with two tires. Both tires are filled with air. However, the first tire remains untouched. It doesn’t matter what we do, or don’t do, the amount of the air in the first tire will remain the same. In fact, the tire is sealed, without any openings. There is no way to open the tire to adjust the air even if we wanted to.

The second tire is the only tire which will vary. It is only the second tire which will be able to inflate or deflate to different amounts.

This is the situation we have before us. Now when we send in air to the “bicycle” the air will only go into the second tire. Why? Because only the second tire will allow additional air. The first tire is sealed, and no air can come in.

Thus, if we add air, in general, to the bicycle as a whole, what we really are doing is adding air to the second tire only.

Further, the amount of air we add will result in the second tire being inflated to different amounts. If we add more air to the second tire, then the tire will be inflated to a larger size. If we add less air to the tire, then the tire will be inflated to a smaller size.

And again…none of the air we add to the “bicycle” gets into the first tire. The amount of air in that tire is fixed and cannot be changed.

This situation is identical to our photons when emitted from any source. In our photons, we also have two regions of energy and how that energy is used: 1) in the speed of the photon, and 2) in the frequency of the photon. The first (speed of the photon) remains untouched. The second (frequency) can vary depending on how much energy we add.

Expanding on the Bicycle Analogy to Explain Speed vs Frequency of Light

The bicycle above is very similar to the reality of the emitted photons. Comparing the analogy of the bicycle to the reality of emitted photons:

A. The photon system has two locations of energy

Just as the bicycle has two tires, each completely independent of the other, the photon has two energy systems, each completely independent of the other. (The specifics are described and illustrated in my book “Photons in Motion”)

B. The speed of the photon remains constant

The energy for the speed of the photon remains constant. Just as the amount of air in the first tire remains constant, the amount of energy used for the speed of the photon remains constant…and therefore the basic speed of the photon remains constant.

C. The frequency of the photon varies

The frequency of the photon can vary. In fact, scientists know well that the electromagnetic energy is a spectrum of frequencies. I have shown in my book “Photons in Motion” that the frequency is based on amount of energy used in a particular location. When we add more energy to this location, we get a faster frequency; when we add less energy to this location we get a slower frequency. This is very similar to our bicycle having a specific tire (tire #2) which we can fill with varying amounts of air.

As you can see, all of this is based on classical mechanics, and there is no need for space-time to be created to explain any aspects of this.

 

Technical Note: Atoms vs. Star, and Placement

The explanations of Red Shift (for stars moving away from observer) and Blue Shift (for stars moving closer to observer) are a bit more complex and subtle. These details will be explained and illustrated in future books and articles.

However, I would like to mention a few technical points as related to this article on constant speed versus varying frequency. Everything we said above still applies, however we are really looking at the speed of individual atoms rather than the speed of the star as a whole.

Thus, instead of saying “a faster star will emit faster frequency photon”, we should more specifically state “a faster atom will emit a faster frequency photon”.

The subtlety is important when looking at Red Shift vs Average Frequency vs Blue Shift. Every star has numerous atoms, traveling at their own speeds. The atoms which travel the fastest will emit photons which are then shifted to a slightly higher frequency. Conversely, the atoms which are slowest, will emit photons that are shifted to a slightly lower frequency.

Generally: the faster atoms will be on the side which the star is traveling. If the star is moving to the right, then this is because the atoms of the star are faster on the right side. This will result in faster frequency photons emitted on the right side. Conversely, the slower atoms will be on the opposite side of the star from direction of travel; in this example they would be on the left side.

The “frequency shift” we see will then depend on which side of the star we are on. Using the example above, if we are facing the right side of the star, we will see photons emitted at higher frequencies (Blue Shifted). Conversely, if we are the left side of this star, we will see photons emitted that have lower frequencies (Red Shifted).

Again, these concepts will be explained and illustrated in great detail in future publications. I merely wanted to add some technical points for those readers who desire to know more at this time.

 

Conclusion: Space-Time Refuted as Cause of Constant Speed of Light

Einstein created the concept of “space-time” primarily to explain the constant speed of light…when emitted from a source (such as a star) at any speed.

However, this space-time is merely a circus trick. It is complex in its maneuvers, and yet totally unnecessary.

Both the constant speed of light and the variation in frequency can be explained using classical physics. In fact, it is because the frequency varies for photons emitted that we have our answer for why the speed of light remains constant.

That is: the energy from the light source will always go into the frequency of the emitted photon, and never into the speed of the photon.

Therefore, we have refuted the primary reason for the creation of space-time. We have also provided a more accurate and simpler explanation for the observations.

Mark Fennell

10/16/2015

Einstein Flaws in Logic Regarding Photon Energy vs Relativistic Mass of Other Objects

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”.