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

 

 

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”.

 

Einstein's Starting Assumptions Are Wrong

Overview

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is wrong. This is becoming easier and easier for me to demonstrate. There are so many flaws – in his starting assumptions and in his logic – the we can discredit the Theory of Relativity very easily.

One of his main wrong assumptions is about the nature of light. He also totally misunderstands the meaning of “constant speed”. These are major errors. These are errors in what he considers to be facts (which are completely false). Therefore everything based on those wrong “facts” will automatically be incorrect.

Einstein further adds to this starting error by overlooking a major flaw in logic. There is one major claim in particular he makes which is absolutely impossible.

Therefore in this article we will look at some of the major starting assumptions Einstein makes in his Theories of Relativity. We will see how these starting assumptions are completely wrong, which then undermines his entire theory.

What "Constant Speed of Light" Really Means

In the real, physical arena of electromagnetic energy, this is what the speed of light really means:

1. A photon, once emitted, never increases its speed or decreases its speed.

2. Every frequency of electromagnetic energy will travel forward at the exact same speed.

These are the two facts – the true facts – behind the statement “constant speed of light”.

You will also notice that there are two uses of the phrase “constant speed”. One phrase refers to the traveling of one photon – that it neither speeds up nor slows down. The other phrase refers to the fact that any emitted photon will travel at one particular speed value.

These are two different concepts regarding “constant speed”, and they sometimes get confused. In fact, Einstein later confuses them when he tries to use Red Shift of moving stars as part of his Theory. (The Red Shift would be moving “source”, not a moving “observer”).

For most of this article we will focus on the meaning of “constant speed” being that a photon, once emitted, never speeds up or slows down.

[In other articles I will discuss photons of any frequency emitted at the same speed, as well as articles discussing the true causes of Red Shift].

Misleading Concept of "Constant Speed for Any Observer"

The term “constant speed of light” does NOT NECESSARILY MEAN that this speed is the same for “any observer”. Einstein added that phrase, without any basis in fact. He also claimed that Maxwell said this, but he did not. Maxwell’s equations showed a constant speed, but he never included the addition “for any observer”.

This is one of the major starting flaws in Einstein’s Theory. The true fact of “constant speed of light” is not necessarily the same as the false statement “constant speed of light…for any moving observer.”

Einstein based his entire Theory on explaining this “fact”. Yet this fact is not true, and there is no evidence to support that it is true. Therefore, the entire concept of “constant speed of light…for any moving observer” is erroneous. Consequently, there is no basis for any theory which attempts to explain something that does not really exist.

Thus, the entire Theory of Relativity falls apart.

Stationary Observer versus Moving Observer

One of the confusing statements which must be clarified is the phrase “constant speed for any observer”. This phrase is repeated often – extremely often – including by Einstein himself in his articles.

Yet there is an important phrase which is missing, the word “moving”. Thus the phrase should be “constant speed for any moving observer.” This phrase is important because Einstein does not care about stationary observers, only observers who are in motion.

Differences Between Stationary and Moving Observers

You will notice that there is a difference between stationary observers and observers in motion. For stationary observers, the speed of light is indeed constant. As stated above, the photon never speeds up or slows down in front of a stationary observer. Also, just as we stated above, a photon of any frequency, emitted in front of a stationary observer, will travel at the same speed. Thus, in front of a stationary observer, the speed of a photon is constant, in both sense of the term.

However, the situation with the moving observer is different. Here we have an observer who is traveling alongside the photon. This is what the phrase “observer in motion” implies.  

The photon does not travel at constant speed – at least not in the way Einstein thinks it does. In practical terms, yes, the photon does still travel at a constant speed. That never changes. But Einstein is talking about something else: He is talking about relative motion between the observer and photon, in which case he thinks the photon both speeds up and is constant at the same time. Sound confusing and illogical? Yes it is. This another one of Einstein’s major flaws in his starting assumptions. We will expand on this below.

Relative Speed to Moving Observer: The TRUE Science

The “speed of light” must be discussed here in terms of Einstein’s meaning – and this where we really get into flawed logic.

I will explain what he is trying to say…and much simpler than he ever did. First we will explain the basic concept of observer in motion, and the “apparent” speed. I like to use the analogy of two cars on the highway.

We start with a car going 70 mph. How did we measure this speed? Because a guy sitting on the side of the road (a “stationary observer”) was measuring the speed as the car went by.

We then at a second car, this one going 50 mph. Again, we measured this speed based on a “stationary observer” sitting on the side of the road.

So far this is simple. Now suppose that we are in car number 2. We are in the car driving 50 mph (according to the guy on the side). Then suppose car number 1 is what we wish to observe. In this case WE are the observers…and we are observers in motion.

We are driving in our car, at “50 mph”. We look to the left, at the car going “70 mph”. However, we do not see a car traveling “70 mph”. We only see a difference of “20 mph”. Thus, compared to a moving observer, the measured speed will simply be the difference in the two speeds.

Of course in the real world we are used to such things, and we quickly estimate that the car is moving at “70 mph”. We don’t usually think of it as “20 mph difference”. Yet in terms of “relative motions”, that is what the physicists are talking about.

Flawed Logic in the "Relative Speed" of Light

Now that we understand the basic concept of “moving observer” we can discuss Einstein’s amazingly flawed logic and rejection of reality.

In basic terms, Einstein is stating (as fact, though it is false), that “the speed of light is constant for all [moving] observers”. More specifically, he means that the speed of light seems to be the exact same value for all observers no matter how fast the observers themselves are going. This is a physical impossibility.

Replace car 1 with a photon. This photon is going at the speed of light. Car 2 will have the observers. The car will travel at various speeds, and in some cases close to the speed of light. This car 2 will then measure the “speed” of the photon. Thus, what is happening is the observers in car 2 will be measuring the speed of the photon, while at the same time the observation car itself is changing speeds. This is the basic situation that Einstein is trying to set up for us.

What happens next? There is reality, and then there is Einstein’s deviation from reality.

In some ways, trying to explain flawed logic is more difficult than explaining clear logic. Just try to follow along, and you should see Einstein’s major errors.

In reality what will happen is that the same thing will occur with the photon and our observation car that occurred with our two cars earlier.

First, in reality the photon will travel at a constant speed. This photon never speeds up, it never slows down. (Einstein believes that the photon does change speeds). This is just like our car 1 heading 70 mph, setting on cruise control. That car just travels down the freeway at constant speed. In the same way, our photon travels as fast as it does, without ever changing speeds. Regardless of the value you measure, the basic speed of the photon never changes.

Then we have our observation car. At the moment, the observation car travels at a constant speed. Thus, both the photon and our car travel at a constant speed. At this time, the photon will indeed appear to be at constant speed. Because it is.

However the “measured speed” of the photon will be the difference between the actual speed and our speed. This is exactly the same as our car example of 70 mph – 50 mph = 20 mph. But again, this is the “apparent” speed. It is not the full speed, the true speed, as related to the stationary observer on the side of the road. This is only an apparent speed, which is the difference between the actual speed of the photon and the observation car.

This is the reality. This is what really happens.

However, what Einstein says - and remember that this is as starting assumptions, not even the development of his theory - is that difference between the observation car and the photon would still be….the “constant speed of light” (186,000 miles per second).

In other words, this implies that the photon is speeding up, at the same rate in which the observer is speeding up…so that the “difference” in speeds is always the same.

This concept of Einstein’s is flawed for two major reasons:

1. The photon itself never speeds up.
The photon never, ever changes its internal speed. This is in fact one of the main principles of “constant speed of light” in the true meaning. And on a physical level, the energy of the photon never changes, and therefore the speed of the photon never changes.

2. It would be impossible to accommodate this for all moving observers.
Even if the photon itself did speed up – just to accommodate this one moving observer – and to always appear to travel at exactly 186,000 miles per second to that particular moving observer, this could not work for every moving observer.

Think of all the moving observers which are nearby. The photon cannot possibly speed up and slow down in all ways at the same time such that all nearby moving observers would see the photon at exactly the same relative speed. This would be impossible.

Just think of the cars on the road, with all the cars traveling at different speeds, and our car #1, whose speed that everyone is measuring as they travel nearby. The car #1 could increase its speed – so that it appears “70 mph” to a car going 30 mph. Thus in reality the car #1 is going 100 mph. In other words, the car #1 would be traveling at a real speed of 100 mph, just so that its apparent speed, to a car traveling 30 mph, would appear to be 70 mph. We could possibly concede this point - but for only one observer.
Yet to the observation car going 60 mph, the car #1 now has an apparent speed of 40 mph, not 70 mph. So you see, it is impossible, even the car #1 speeds up to accommodate one observation car, for our car #1 to appear the same speed to every single car on the road. This just isn’t possible.

Therefore, it is physically impossible for a photon to appear to travel at the same constant speed, for all moving observers, at the same time.

This is not only physically impossible, it has never been observed. And yet Einstein uses this as “fact”. Einstein bases his whole theory of relativity in trying to explain a phenomenon which doesn’t exist, can’t exist, and has never been observed.
Therefore the entire theory is flawed.

Einstein: Time Changes for Each Observer

At some level Einstein knew that what we discussed above is a physical impossibility. And yet he also believed it must be true. This is how Einstein came up with using "time" as something that can change.
Basically he said that "time" is something like liquid or gasses, something which can stretch or compress, something which can move forward or backward. Then he says that that "time" itself compresses or stretches, for each observer. This would change the "speed" of objects without changing their internal energies. (This is a very basic, slimmed down version of what he said, but those are the main elements).

Yet this too is flawed. First we must remember that there is no proof, no phenomena, where the apparent speeds for all observers in motion occur the way he says. Thus no theory is needed to explain something that doesn't exist.

Second, even when we set aside the truth, the idea of time stretching for each observer is odd. It would mean that "1 second" on Earth is not the same as "1 second" on Mars.

You can say that an object itself speeds up or slows down. You can say that one person is able to receive and process information faster than another. Yet you will still clock those motions and events in terms of the units of time as we have defined them. In other words, whenever there are events which seem to occur faster or slower, there are other processes which occur at those different speeds, it is not time itself which is shifting. 

Devotion to the Ether Leads to Odd Theories of Motion

If this basic assumption is so wrong, then where did Einstein get it? He got it from what I call his “religious devotion” to the ether concept.

Despite being a scientist, Einstein sometimes went into areas which were more of a religious nature, and by that I mean being devoted to a concept even though it has been disproven.

Einstein will say in some of his articles (and even then only briefly) that the work of Michelson shows that light will travel at a constant speed for any observer. Okay, well what did Michelson do? Michelson tried to prove the existence of the ether…except that he couldn’t prove that it existed.

Some people, like myself, would say that if the experiments are good, and you still can’t find the evidence, then perhaps there is no ether. Yet Einstein and others went the opposite route: there must be ether, we just can’t detect it.

Pause here to notice that this is an assumption…that ether exists, despite any experiments which can’t find it. Therefore, from this “belief”, some scientists came up with an alternate explanation. This explanation is complex, convoluted, and defies reality in many ways. Part of that “explanation” for why we couldn’t detect ether had to do with the relative speeds of objects…behaving in complex and illogical ways as Einstein tried to have us believe.

The "Two Headed Frog" of "Constant for Any Observer"

I like to compare this to a “two headed frog”. Imagine some biologists going out into nature, convinced that two headed frogs are common. Not only that, they must be everywhere. But, though the biologists look and look and look, they cannot find any two headed frogs.

Some scientists would say “that must mean two headed frogs don’t exist.” Yet these biologists believe these frogs must exist – yet without having actually seen one themselves.

So they come up with an explanation: “All frogs are in fact two headed frogs. They just appear as a frog with one head, because of the way they move. They move their heads so fast, relative to our eyes, that the two headed frog appears to have one head. Aha! Thus, not only do two headed frogs exist, but in fact all frogs we see actually have two heads! It is simply their head motion, relative to our eyes, that makes them appear to have only one head.” This is the type of rationale the physicists like Einstein and Lorentz used in explaining the existence of the ether.

As for me, I don’t believe that all frogs are two headed frogs, and I don’t believe that space is filled with ether. There is no proof. Similarly, I don’t believe that any one headed frog we see is simply a two headed frog that moves his heads in a particular way (making it appear as one head), nor do I believe that photons move in particular ways just to appear the same speed to all observers, at the same time, regardless of their speed.

Review and Conclusion

The more I read of Einstein’s works and the background history the easier it is for me to discredit the entire Theory of Relativity.

One of the easiest ways to discredit the Theory of Relativity is to go to Einstein’s assumptions. We are not talking about his “explanations” or his ideas of how space operates. We are talking about the basic “facts” which are very much untrue, and yet he uses these false facts to build his case.

Yet, because the starting facts are untrue, then there is no need to explain a set of phenomena that doesn’t actually exist. The theory is based on nothing, and the whole theory falls apart.

The main wrong facts are based on his misunderstanding of the “constant speed of light”; and the wrong insertion of the concept “for any moving observer”.

The true facts regarding the photon are:

1. Every frequency of photon will be emitted, and travel, at the same constant speed.

2. The internal energy of a photon is constant. Energy is never added, energy never leaves.

3. Because the internal energy of the photon never changes, the speed of the photon never changes. The photon, once it is emitted, will never speed up or slow down.

4. The speed of the photon can be considered almost universal because we can reference the speed of photons to fixed stars. (Although the stars to move, from our distance, the stars move very little, and are essentially a constant backdrop).

5. When an object moves parallel to a photon, the photon will still be observed to move at a constant speed. That is, the photon will neither speed up nor slow down).

6. When an object moves parallel to a photon, the “apparent” speed may be slightly less, being the difference between the speed of the photon and the speed of the observer. However, the photon travels so much faster than any other object that the difference in value is minimal.

 

The flaws in Einstein’s understanding and logic of the basic facts about light include the following:

1. Einstein misunderstands the physical meaning behind “constant speed of light”.

2. Einstein adds the erroneous concept of “relative to any moving observer”.

3. There is no evidence which supports the false fact that photons can appear to travel at the same speed for any observer.

4. Einstein believes that the photon can change speeds, when in fact the photon never speeds up.

5. Einstein believes that the photon can appear to be the same speed to all moving observers, even when these observers are moving at various speeds. This is a physical impossibility.

6. Einstein confuses the concepts of constant internal energy and inherent speed, with the variations involved in measuring a speed relative to other objects.

7. Einstein also confuses the constant speed for photons emitted from a source in motion, with the (false idea) of constant speed of photons as seen by observers in motion.

 

These are just some of the starting points for Einstein. They are the assumptions, the concepts he takes as facts. Yet because he starts with wrong facts, then the theory has no foundation. And because he begins with multiple wrong facts, the theory is that much more flawed.

Remember that when the facts you are trying to explain are not a real facts, then you are really attempting to explain a set of phenomena which does not exist. Therefore, these numerous wrong assumptions, compounded with flaws in logic, do indeed undermine the entire Theory of Relativity.

MF

8/25/2014