The focus of "The Unified Force and the Laws of Everything" was to convey the overall general workings of the ether, motion and the atom. All of those together provide an understanding of how the universe really works. In this "Analysis" section, there are specific topics that are covered in greater detail. Some topics explain the workings of important concepts of energy transfer, such as waves, magnetism, the unified nature of the four components of existence, and sub atomic motion. Other topics specifically deal with the flaws in the Theory of Relativity and in its associated theories. Links for the different topics are listed below.
THE ENERGY OF MOTION
COPYRIGHT © 2018, By Jonathan P. Volkel
In the introduction to "The Unified Force and the Laws of Everything", the energy of motion was discussed briefly. What follows is a more in-depth analysis of it. If you've already read all the previous topics, then you now know that the one and only energy that exists in the universe is the energy of motion. But what is "energy"? What is it "made of"? Where does it come from and where does it go? Assuredly there are many who think that they already have a clear understanding of this topic. However, the same people who think that they already understand energy also accept Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Relativity gives both gravity and light attributes that defy the known scientific laws, and it is not scientifically reasonable to accept both the Relativity concepts and the laws of motion at the same time. In order to accept one of them, you must disregard the other.
What will follow is, essentially, a closer look at Newton's first law of motion. "An object moves with constant velocity and direction unless acted upon by an external force." An analysis of this law seems unnecessary. Its behavior in the real world is overly apparent. Why bother going over this simple concept?
Look again at Newton's first law. The underlined words seem to have been ignored by the Theory of Relativity and associated scientific theories. "An object moves with constant velocity and direction unless acted upon by an external force". According to Einstein, gravity is not a force, and yet, it is able to cause a change in the direction and velocity of objects. This is a clear violation of a clearly stated law of motion that we otherwise believe is simple and obvious. How could such a conflict come into being and remain unchallenged for so long?
Gravity is supposedly a “field” and not a “force”. Then logically, since science defines it as a “field”, gravity should not be able to cause an alteration of the speed or direction of an object. The Law does not allow for substitutions of force. Gravity’s supposed ability to bend space is not an acceptable explanation for why an object changes speed or direction. If anything results in a change in speed or direction of something, then the application of an external force is required to account for that change (according to the first LAW of motion).
The law of conservation of energy also demands that a force is required. If space bent in such a way as to cause an object to go "downhill" and thereby increase speed, then the increased speed results in increased energy within that object. If this extra energy did not transfer into the object from an external source, then it would mean that the total of energy in the universe had magically increased. This situation would be a blatant violation of the law of conservation of energy. That makes scientific acceptance of such a situation impossible.
Where would this extra energy come from? It could not have just appeared out of thin air. It had to have come from somewhere. Did the non-force of gravity impart it? Not according to Einstein. He said that gravity has no effect on matter. It only affects space. Does an object that is affected by gravity somehow draw this energy from within the "fabric" of space? No part of Einstein's theory ever claimed that space had that capability. The entire concept of gravity bending space violates the laws.
Acceptance of the Theory of Relativity obviously defies scientific common sense. Based solely upon this major conflict, science should have immediately rejected Einstein's theory. They did not. In addition to the conflicts that were created with the known laws of science by Einstein's theories on gravity, he created another conflict as well. He noticed that light had particles associated with its nature. He decided that those particles had no mass. This is yet another concept that defies the laws of motion. It challenges the concept on what an "object" is.
All the laws which determine motion require the need for an object to have mass in order to apply the formula, complete the calculation and derive a total force. How can something be an object, and yet have no mass? Apparently, science thinks that it can. Hence, the need for a refresher on what motion really is. If you believe in the Theory of Relativity, then you need to read what follows.
The above picture depicts electricity arcing through space. Is that what energy really is? Are we looking at disembodied, mass-less bolts of energy travelling through space as they journey on their search to find a new piece of matter to inhabit? If you've read about the Unified Force, then you know that the answer is no.
"Energy" is the energy of motion causing atomic and sub-atomic particles (matter) to move at different speeds. It is the different speeds and patterns of motion of multiple objects (frequencies) of that moving matter that our senses detect. Different bodily organs are attuned to different frequencies of objects in motion. Those organs send the information of that motion to our brains, which translates the different speeds and patterns of various quantities of moving matter as different effects, such as light and sound. The medium through which the energy propagates determines the overall way in which the energy manifests. High frequency waves propagating through atoms manifest as electricity. That same high frequency wave propagating through the photons within the ether manifests as light. "The Unified Force and the Laws of Everything" explains all of this.
"Energy" does only one thing: it causes the motion of matter. When we perceive energy, in any of its possible manifestations, we are perceiving matter in motion. Let's look a bit closer at the energy that causes that motion and the laws of science that relate to it. Some of what follows is going to seem overly obvious. In fact, the workings of “motion” are something we experience every day. It is so much a part of our lives, that we don’t even give it a second thought. But perhaps it is this familiarity and confidence that causes us to overlook the obvious. Motion does not happen unless the energy of motion makes it happen. Science’s acceptance of Einstein’s theory indicates that something has gone wrong with science’s understanding of energy. Before pressing on to other topics, let’s make sure we have a clear understanding of that energy, how it moves, and where it exists.
Science has divided particles into different categories. Fermions are considered to be “matter particles”. That is, they have physical substance. Bosons are theorized to be “force particles”. It is obvious that, since they are placed into a category that is different than “matter particles”, then they must be particles that are comprised purely of energy and possess no physical substance at all. Is such a thing possible? Does the concept of a particle with no mass make any scientific sense at all?
The concept of a particle with no mass is completely impossible. These “force particles” are considered to be the “glue” that holds an atom together. These particles supposedly exist within the substance of an atom, and they reach out with their force and pull together all the pieces of elementary matter that make up an atom.
How is that even supposed to work? How does this force move in one direction outward so as to enter into a particle of matter, then somehow “grab” hold of it, then reverse direction and cause the particles to move directly towards other particles of matter and then form them into an atom? How many times can one particle of “force” just suddenly violate all the rules of motion, and change direction, and do different things and possess different abilities that come into play at just the right time in order to get the theoretical job done, without any apparent cause and effect to account for this? Such magical behavior was placed into the definition of the “force particle” abilities in order to make it seem like the theory works.
There is a simple and easy way to see how this all violates the laws. Consider this: What would happen to a physical particle of matter when it comes into contact with a theoretical “force particle”? Whether the force is very strong, resulting in a violent reaction, or very weak, resulting in a mild reaction, the end result is the same. The particle of matter will experience a change in its state of motion.
Newton’s first law of motion tells us that an object (a matter particle) cannot change its existing state of motion without being acted upon by an external force. Perhaps that is why scientists refer to the theoretical boson particles as “force particles”. It is science's weak attempt to make it appear as if the theory is complying with the laws of motion. However, in doing so, they actually violate the law even more so.
Newton’s second law of motion defines what a force (F) actually is: F = ma. That is, a force is defined as being a mass in motion. When combining this fact with the first law of motion, the end result is an understanding that the only way one object (a particle made of matter) can experience a change in its motion is if that object collides with another object (a particle made of matter). By defining a “force particle” as being something other than a “matter particle”, science has violated the second law of motion and attempted to redefine the concept of what an “object” actually is. The entire concept is wrong and is not supported by facts. The undeniable fact about how things actually do work is easily verified by simple observation, common sense and the application of everyday life experience.
Imagine floating in space. Imagine that the space you are in is a true vacuum, such that there are no other particles or masses of any kind in your local vicinity. You take a ball out of your pocket and place it in the space in front of you. After placing the ball, imagine that it is perfectly inert and devoid of any and all motion. There it “floats”, perfectly still.
The first law of motion tells us that the ball will sit there forever and NEVER move unless an external force acts upon it. This is not a theory. It is a known and provable fact, which is why it is considered as being a law. We already know in what form the external force must manifest in order to get that ball to move. That is, another object that has mass must collide with it.
Imagine that you decide that you want the ball to move, so you swing your arm and slap the ball with your hand. As your arm swings, its speed is accelerating. However, at any given instantaneous snapshot of time, your arm can be described as having a certain velocity heading in a certain direction. At the moment that your hand comes into contact with the ball, it has an instantaneous finite velocity and direction. That velocity is instantly transferred into the ball, and it flies away from you at the speed and direction indicated by your hand.
The first law of motion tells us that the ball will fly through space at that speed in that direction forever. Its speed and course will NEVER change unless an external force acts upon it. We know what that external force must be in order to change the speed and direction of the ball. Another object with mass must collide with it.
Think about what all of those previously described changes in the motion of the ball really means in terms of the energy of motion. In the previous examples, the energy of motion was solely at work while occupying an object of matter (your arm and then the ball). But, is there anything in our experience that indicates that it might somehow be possible that the energy of motion could be at work outside of an object? Is it possible that the energy of motion can become a mass-less “force particle” or wave that can be completely disconnected from matter? Can it detach itself from matter, fly through space as some sort of ghost-like, mass-less thing, and then re-connect with matter at some other location? Can this type of phenomenon account for the increase in energy that occurs within an object that is accelerating due to gravity? Let's imagine that energy could disconnect from matter and travel through space as a mass-less object. Let's imagine what the universe would be like if it could.
First of all, it is important to understand that, if the energy of motion were to disconnect from objects and move through space as a mass-less particle or wave, then it would have to move at infinite speed. The laws of science prove that, as the mass of a moving object approaches zero, its velocity approaches infinity. Einstein tells us that, even though a particle can have no mass, it still has a speed limit: the speed of light. He re-wrote the laws of science in order to make his faulty theory appear to be true.
The energy of motion has no mass. Therefore, it cannot be inserted into a velocity or acceleration formula as some sort of a value for "m". Doing so would ultimately require division by zero, which always results in the solution of "undefined". Mass-less objects would require their own formula and no such law exists, only theories. Herein, the theoretical formulas and beliefs will be ignored and only the actual known and proven laws of science will be used. Since there is no law concerning mass-less objects, one can logically conclude that, as the value of a mass APPROACHES zero (but can never reach zero), its speed approaches infinity (or at least, far above the speed of light). Thus, only by logic can it be concluded that, if a mass-less wave or particle of the energy of motion actually did exist, it would have to have infinite speed.
It is important to understand that “energy” is “motion”. What happens to any object that receives an input of energy? It makes no difference what one thinks energy is, or what “type” of energy they imagine it to be. The end result is that an object (something made of matter) that receives an input of energy increases its motion. That is because that is all that “energy” really does; it affects the speeds of various quantities of matter. The details of the nature of energy are discussed in greater detail in the Analysis topic “TIME, SPACE, MATTER and ENERGY”. In chapter 5, “The Electron and Light”, a list of various types of energy was provided. In all cases, energy is always defined as some quantity of matter in motion. Energy has never been documented in any way, shape, or form as being independent, alone and apart from matter. Energy always and only exists within matter.
Imagine again your ball floating motionless in space. If the energy of motion were able to disconnect from objects and travel through space, then, at any random time and from any random direction, it could encounter your ball and cause it to start moving. From your perspective, it would appear that the ball started to move for no apparent reason. Not only that, but once it was in motion, the energy of motion could strike it again from a different source and from a different direction. The ball would suddenly change speed and direction for no apparent reason. In fact, if such a thing were possible, then the energy of motion would be disconnecting from objects all throughout the universe and travelling in all directions at all times at infinite speed. Space would be filled with the energy of motion travelling every which way all at once. The ball would be bouncing around erratically and unpredictably. It might seem to you that the ball was haunted!
Clearly, such things do not happen in the real world. Every observation and instinct we have confirms what the proven laws tell us: that the energy of motion exists only within objects that have mass and that it only relocates when two objects with mass collide. To further confirm this, let's look again at the ball. We already examined it while it was sitting still. Now let's examine it while it is in motion.
Imagine your ball flying through space after you hit it. The laws of science tell us that it will move at that speed and direction forever. But, what if the energy of motion could disconnect from objects? The law of conservation of energy tells us that the total energy of the universe remains constant. So, when your ball was sitting still, it could not simply generate the energy of motion out of nothingness and start moving on its own (thereby increasing the total energy of the universe). In order to move, it had to receive the energy of motion from an external source. Likewise, if the energy of motion does exist in the universe as a mass-less particle or wave, then it would have had to detach itself from some other object that was already in motion. Thus, the energy of motion would divide; some of it going into the newly formed mass-less particle or wave and departing, and the rest remaining in the object.
If energy could detach itself from objects that were in motion, then your ball that is flying through space would suddenly slow down for no reason apparent to us. It would be as if your ball was some sort of battery that was erratically draining away its power. Obviously, that does not happen. Such a thing NEVER happens. The laws of science and our instincts tell us that the only way for the ball to slow down is by coming into contact with something else that has mass.
How could motion spontaneously detach itself from a moving object only to then occupy empty space? Why would it? What scientific principle or phenomenon would cause that to happen? If motion was somehow "forced" to detach from an object, then why would it "decide" to re-attach itself to a different object?
The deeper one thinks on the topic of the possible interactions that could occur between multiple mass-less particles or waves of energy, and how or why they might affect one another, the more confusing and unimaginable things become. One would start to find oneself coming into constant conflicts with the known and provable law of science and plain old common sense and logic. One would have to start creating crazy theories to explain how it could work. If someone were a good enough mathematician, he could even create formulas to try and describe it. That's what Einstein did. He was wrong. There is no such thing as a mass-less particle or wave of energy that can travel through space, disembodied and disconnected from matter. The reality is, energy only exists, and resides within matter and can never escape it.
Thanks to the conservation of energy, it is obvious that the total energy of motion within an object remains constant, but it can change "residence" by colliding with another object. However, in order for a concept like bent space to be true, then the only way that the bent space could cause a change in an object's speed or direction, would be if the energy of motion transferred from space into the object. That is the only possibility, since Einstein claimed that gravity has no effect upon matter. If energy did not transfer into the object from the fabric of space, then the increase in the object’s motion would increase the total energy of the universe. The energy would have to either magically appear or disappear, depending upon whether the bent space caused acceleration or a deceleration of the object. And if space did and could transfer an increase of energy into an object, then where did space get this energy from? Isn't it obvious then, that the supply of energy possessed by space must have initially come from gravity? It would have had to, since gravity is the thing that causes space to bend in such a way as to alter its effect on objects.
Newton's third law of motion tells us that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means that, in order for gravity to deliver the energy of motion into space, space must take an equal amount of energy from gravity. And yet, not only is gravity defined as not being a force, but its movement is also not affected by the very space that it supposedly bends. Does the non-force of gravity cause energy to be created within space from nothing as a result of space becoming bent? Wouldn't this again cause an increase in the total energy of the universe? The whole concept of gravity not being a force, and yet having the ability to bend space, is completely contradicted by the laws of science and the known behavior of nature. This, in and of itself, invalidates the Theory of Relativity. As you will see as you read other topics under analysis, this particular example of the invalidation of Relativity is only the tip of the iceberg.
So then, what is "energy" made of? We can observe the behavior of objects in motion. When we do, we see consistency of behavior. So much so, that we can predict, measure and calculate that behavior. Its behavior is so reliable; we can determine the laws that govern it. However, this only tells us what the energy of motion does. It does not tell us what the energy of motion is.
The energy is trapped inside of matter. We cannot remove it, get it to hold still and then examine it under a microscope. We cannot get it to become disembodied, or trapped within a portion of empty space. The exact makeup of it will, perhaps, forever remain a mystery. One thing is certain. Without it, our universe would be un-moving and completely dead. As mysterious as it is, the energy of motion is the source of all motion and therefore the source of all life. And so, science will never be able to answer the big questions. "What are we? What is life? How and why are we here?"
Just as it was with the imaginary ball floating in space, so too must it be with even the tiniest of objects, such as a neutron, proton or electron. Even the sub-atomic photon must be subject to the same laws. Things happen in the large-scale world that we can see because that is exactly the same thing that is happening in the microscopic atomic world that we can’t see. None of the atomic components can experience a change in their motion unless they come into contact with another object made of matter.
All atoms vibrate. That is, their substance is continually moving back and forth in random patterns at high rates of speed. It is absolutely impossible for this type of behavior to originate from within the atom. The inner parts of an atom cannot move in one direction, then stop and grab hold of another part, then reverse direction and drag that part along with it. The source of atomic vibration must come from an external source. And, that source must be a force: particles of matter that collide with the atom.
Imagine one object, sitting all alone in space. Once the energy of motion is inserted into it, it will retain that energy forever. That object is like a battery with a permanent charge that will never run out. The energy can transfer from that object into a different object by physical contact, but the total energy will remain the same. Now imagine that the object was actually one little photon (a particle of matter significantly smaller than even the tiny electron). Also imagine that there are also an almost infinite number of those photons, all similarly charged with the energy of motion, and all moving around in space. That is, essentially, what our universe is. A huge battery permanently charged with energy.
Now imagine that you poke one of those photons. By doing so, you add extra energy into the whole system. The energy of motion that you added by poking a photon will remain in that system forever. That poke is a disturbance which you created in the medium of photons. That poke will propagate through the medium, from one end of it to the other. The medium, when looked at as a whole, can be viewed as one giant system, called "The Ether".
Now imagine pokes occurring all over the place from all different directions. They will all propagate through the medium. However, some of those pokes will intersect the pathway of other pokes. The entire ether will become a blur of vibrating motion. Now throw a larger spinning object into the mix. The spinning object will also add more energy to the grand total of energy in this system. It will also begin to churn things up. Previously poked objects will bump into the spinning object at random. The spinning object will continuously poke back with a pattern. It creates a continuous stream of pokes, rather than just a single random poke.
Now add one more piece to this puzzle. That is, another spinning object orbiting around the first spinning object. When the larger objects get bombarded by endless collisions from all those photons, the internal substance of those larger objects will vibrate. Also, when the orbiting object gets bumped by the photons, it will bump back in a systematic, regular way that also creates a pattern of photon motion that moves away from it. However, the pattern of that continuous stream created by an orbiting object causes a different kind of pattern. The pattern created by an orbiting object takes the shape of a wave. Near the end of Chapter 10: "The Atom and Molecules", you will find a description of how to easily create and observe a wave pattern yourself.
Our universe is all about waves. Spinning and orbiting objects (atoms) cause the energy of motion to move all around and through the medium (the ether) as waves in an unimaginable amount of directions. Motion constantly relocates all throughout the system. Some areas of the ether acquire more motion than others. Thus, one area moves less while another area moves more. The area that moves more will eventually bump into the area that is moving less, and the energy of motion will divide and transfer back into the less moving area. If left undisturbed, the energy would equalize and everything would end up with the exact same amount of motion. It is this equalization of motion that enables us to say things like; "Energy 'strives' to maintain balance by equalizing potentials".
There is one major roadblock to the achievement of balance. Those darned spinning and orbiting things keep churning up the whole system. Balance can never be achieved as long as they are there. The system keeps trying to equalize the motion, and the spinning things keep messing it up. The photons acquire extra motion from the spinning things (the atoms). This interaction speeds up the photons and slows down the atoms. Eventually, a photon with a surplus of motion bumps into an atom. This interaction speeds up the atom and slows down the photon.
That is how our universe works. The energy transfers back and forth between the photons and the atoms. It is a perpetual motion machine of unimaginable size. The energy within this system is eternal. The total energy will never increase or decrease. It will just continuously move back and forth.
Understanding this process is the key to understanding everything else that is discussed. Light, gravity, magnetism, heat and, any other energy that we perceive, exists because it is a manifestation of this motion. Different speeds and wave patterns of this motion create the different effects that we have labeled as different kinds of energy. Our universe is a place of perpetual motion. And that is all that energy really is; motion.
Many theories were created to try and explain the different kinds of energy that scientists thought existed. The theories were created without the knowledge of the system just described. As a result, theories like Relativity, time dilation, length contraction, black holes, the Big Bang, relativistic mass and the existence of “force particles” (to name just a few) all came into being. They try to explain how a universe containing all different kinds of incompatible and unrelated energies works.
This is why science seeks "The Unifying Force". Their understanding of energy is completely wrong. They think the energies are all different. As a result, they believe that there is some other type of energy out there that will have something in common with all of them and be able to unify them. They don't realize that all energy is the same. They don't understand that they are all just manifestations of different patterns of motion. If they did understand this, then they wouldn’t be seeking a “unifying” force. Instead, they would realize that all energies are just variations of only one “unified” force. They would realize that they already know what that force is and that they already have the laws which define it (Newton’s laws of motion).
Without having an understanding, knowledge or awareness of the ether, and lacking an understanding of what energy really is, scientists have created theories that end up distorting the true nature of the universe. Because of this lack of understanding, all of those theories are wrong. In fact, those theories are completely backwards. Science tries to figure out what the force is within the atom that holds it together and invents theoretical fictional and magical particles that miraculously do the job. They named this law breaking phenomenon "The strong atomic force". The truth is; there is no such force within the atom at all. The force actually comes from outside of the atom; from the ether. If you can "see" the ether in your mind, you will be able to easily see the error in the theories. Once you perceive the ether, then you realize that there is no such thing as a “Unifying” force. Instead, you see just the one and only “Unified” force that manifests as all the different types of energy that we are aware of.
COPYRIGHT © 2018, By Jonathan P. Volkel
When motion was discussed in the previous analysis, the topic began with the concept of motion in just a single object. That concept was then expanded into motion in many different objects that occurs randomly. Then it was expanded further into patterned motions that traveled as a wave. Now we will look closer at those waves. We will see what they really are, and how and why they function. That understanding will then be compared that to what modern science thinks that waves are.
A wave is a patterned vibration which creates a disturbance that travels through a medium.
That is more or less, the scientific textbook definition of a wave. A good example of that patterned movement is ripples travelling through water.
"A patterned vibration" is essentially the energy of motion causing an object of matter to move in a patterned way. "Through a medium" means that the vibration strikes a body of other objects and transmits its motion through that body of objects via a chain reaction of bumps known as "propagation".
Perhaps the simplest example of this might be visualized by using dominoes. Stand a line of dominoes on end, one next to another, across the floor of a room. Poke the end domino so that it falls into the next one. A chain reaction will occur, and, one by one, the whole line will fall.
In this example, the "patterned vibration" was a simple one. It was one exertion of motion in one direction. As such, the line of dominoes falls once in one direction. Even though that initial poke caused the first domino to only move a little bit, it caused each successive domino to also only move a little bit. But, when viewed as a whole, that poke traveled across the entire room. Your finger was the initial object in motion. The patterned vibration was the poke. The medium (body of objects) was the dominoes. The ripple of them all falling in succession was the wave.
A more complex analysis of waves could be the equivalent of watching the ocean's movement from the shoreline. A thing that would help in discerning the true nature of the waves would be an object floating on the water, like some seaweed or a bottle. Focus your attention on that object as each wave passes by it. The object floats and so, of course, it rides up and down the wave. More importantly though, notice the objects horizontal movement. The wave rushes past the object and towards you, but the object moves closer to you only a little bit. Realize that the floating object is doing the same thing that the water it is floating on is doing. Just as with the dominoes, the water only moves a little bit, but the wave moves across the whole ocean.
The water is the medium through which the wave propagates. Each water molecule moves in the direction of the wave. However, because the medium (the ocean) is so crowded with water molecules, each water molecule can't move very far until it bumps into another water molecule. When it does, it transfers its energy of motion to the next molecule, and then stops. The next water molecule then moves, bumps, transfers the energy of motion and stops. This process repeats throughout the ocean, like the line of falling dominoes, until there are no more water molecules to bump into. That happens at the shoreline. Only then do the water molecules and waves move together.
That's all there is to it. It is simple to understand and easy to verify by even casual observation. That is how waves travel. That is the only way that waves travel. That is what makes a wave "A wave". If it doesn't travel that way, it is not a wave. There is a point to this excessive redundancy.
The descriptions that you just read explain how a wave moves. That aspect of waves is relatively simple. But, it does not explain what a wave is or why it has that pattern. To understand that, recall the analysis described in "The Energy of Motion". Orbiting objects move in a circular path within the ether. That orbit causes the photons to travel in a sequence that, when looked at as a whole, takes on a sinusoidal, snake like pattern that travels away from the orbiting object. We refer to that pattern as a sine wave. We define it as having two main characteristics; frequency and amplitude. All of this is discussed in Chapter 5: "The Electron and Light" and again in Chapter 10: "The Atom and Molecules". If you have not read those chapters, they will provide the details on "why" a wave looks as it does. That topic won't be covered again here.
The real focus of this analysis is to look closer at "how" waves move. They move by propagation, as demonstrated with the dominoes and the ocean's movement. The concept is relatively simple and obvious, but modern science has different ideas about how a wave moves.
If you look up the definition of a wave in a physics textbook, you will not only see that the definition initially provided at the start of this chapter is correct, but you will also see something else. The textbook will tell you that electromagnetic waves do not require a medium to propagate through. They self-propagate. Science is convinced that such a phenomenon is possible. This type of belief defies the nature and definition of a wave. Despite this conflict with the known nature of waves, they still believe it is true. This is because they also believe that energy can disconnect from matter and travel through the vacuum of space as a disembodied particle or wave. They believe this, and added that description to the definition of a wave, not because it is a fact, but because Einstein's theory required it.
In the attached paper "The Unified Force and the Laws of Everything", an overly simplistic review of the history of our understanding of light was provided. Realize that our present understanding of light evolved only after many centuries of experiments and theories. Isaac Newton believed that light was entirely composed of particles. For a long time, no one disputed that because of his scientific renown. After a while, experiments with light began to reveal that it had a wave nature to it. In particular, it had the ability to bend around corners, which a particle moving in a straight line direction can't do.
Over the years, more experiments were performed, observations were made, and theories were developed to explain the observations. It is not necessary to analyze them, because all that matters here is the end result. Today the understanding that modern science has of light is that it displays the characteristics of both a particle and a wave. The thing that is really confusing the scientists is, although we know how waves work here on Earth, light travels through empty space. How then does it get from there to here? Is it a particle, a wave, or somehow is it both at the same time?
Although the above paragraph sums up sciences opinions, questions, and reasons for those questions, it also reveals where they erred.
The question "Is 'light' a particle or is it a wave or is it both?" should have a painfully obvious answer that, for some unknown reason, science is unable to see. They don't realize that the question is the same as asking "Is 'sound' a particle or a wave or is it both?" The well-known answer is that it is particles that comprise a medium, moving in a patterned way. Because the particles (air molecules) are so close together, they are able to transmit that pattern via propagation. The transmission of that pattern is the sound wave.
This is what "sound" is and how it works, and is also exactly what "light" is and how it works. It is the transmission of a patterned vibration moving through a medium. The medium contains the particles. The propagation of the patterned energy of motion through that medium is the wave. By observing sound, we can confirm how a wave works. Why would light, which is also confirmed to be a wave, function any differently?
All of the experiments and observations about the nature of light are correct. The theories and conclusions that are derived from that data are incorrect. They are incorrect because of a flaw in an initial assumption about the situation. Yes, particles and waves are both necessary for the transmission of light. That belief is not the problem. The problem lies in the belief that "light travels through empty space".
The definition of a wave has been right there, in front of our faces the whole time (patterned motion through a medium). The evidence that light involves both particles and waves is right there in front of our faces this whole time. All one needs to do in order to correctly understand light is to simply put the two facts together. Space is not, and can not possibly be empty! There is no other intelligent conclusion that can be drawn. As described in the previous posting about energy, energy can not disconnect from matter and travel through space as a mass-less particle or wave.
Electromagnetic energy moves through space ONLY because it is propagating through a medium made up of solid particles of matter. It is those particles that have been observed to be a component of light that comprise the medium. The ether exists! If you read "The Unified Force and the Laws of Everything", then you know about the experiment that proves it exists. You know the assumption that caused them to overlook and dismiss the proof (Chapter 3 - The Discovery). The existence of the ether answers all the questions about light simply and easily. It is amazing that scientists don't realize this obvious, inescapable conclusion. The ether absolutely must exist! It is the medium which the patterned vibrations known as "light" travel through via propagation.
Einstein tried to solve the questions on light without believing in the existence of the ether. He, and all of science, ignored the way in which waves actually do travel through a medium which we can easily see, and tried to invent a new way for waves to travel without the use of a medium. And why did he do this? He did it because he could not see the medium. The evaluation of the data from the experiment that would have enabled us to recognize that medium and proven that it exists was botched. Common sense tells us that a medium MUST exist. That's why the search for the medium (the ether) existed in the first place. Science ignored common sense and gave up the search.
In order to come up with a way that waves could travel without a medium, Einstein had to re-invent reality. He had to bend the very nature of the universe. He had to bend space and time. He created theories like "time dilation" and "the gravitational bending of space". Armed with these concepts, he forced his theories to appear to be true.
His theories violate the laws of science, and nature itself. Time can't be altered and space can't be bent. Nevertheless, it is lawless theories like those that are necessary in order to eliminate the need for waves to propagate through a medium. The unavoidable need to defy nature in order to create one of those theories should be proof enough that alternate theories won't work. By process of elimination, science should realize that they have no choice but to go back and search again for the medium. If they do, perhaps they will realize that they already found it, but didn't realize it.
There is a very good reason as to why scientists got so confused in their understanding of waves. There is an old saying; “You can’t see the forest for the trees.” It means that one can’t discern the nature of the whole group because one is so focused on the individual components of that group. Science suffers from the opposite lack of perspective. They can’t see the trees for the forest. They are so intent in seeing the pattern of motion of the whole group that they cannot discern the individual components that cause it to exist as a group.
Because science can only perceive the group, they come to the conclusion that a wave is actually mass-less energy that travels through space. There is also a very good reason as to why they arrived at the conclusion that a wave is mass-less. It is because a wave is not actually an “object” or a “thing” at all. A wave is just our perception of a pattern seen in a group of individual objects moving in unison. A wave is just …an idea…a concept…a point of view…an illusion of an object. It is a pattern that continually changes because of the motion of many different objects. As such, it is not an object and it has no mass. Perhaps the following illustration will help to clarify this.
Imagine you are at a sporting event in a stadium. Suddenly the spectators decide, just for fun, to do “the wave”. The first person involved stands and sits. As soon as he sits, the one next to him stands and sits. Then the one next to him does the same, and so on. Each spectator does the same, in turn, until the sequence has traveled horizontally around the whole stadium. If viewed from a distance, one can perceive the sequence of standing and sitting as a horizontally travelling wave. The speed of that wave is a function of the rate at which the spectators stood and sat.
Consider the energy of motion involved in this. If one knew the mass of an individual spectator, and the time it took for him to stand and sit, and the distance that he moved in order to stand and sit, one could calculate the total energy needed to accomplish that (F = ma). And so, theoretically, the energy needed for each individual spectator’s up and down motion could be calculated.
How much energy was required for the wave’s horizontal motion around the stadium? The answer is ZERO. Nothing traveled horizontally. No mass whatsoever moved from side to side. The only motion of mass was up and down. Then, what moved horizontally around the stadium?
The perception of the wave was merely just…an idea…a concept…a point of view…an illusion that a single larger object (the audience) was undulating. It is the perception of motion of the behavior that occurs within a group of objects, if one looks at that group as if it were a single object. But, in fact, it is not a single object. It is not even an object at all. It is just a concept. That concept has no mass. It has no energy and uses no energy. It is just a sequence of many separate individual events. Each individual event required the motion of mass and the use of energy. The pattern created by all of those objects required none.
Recall the image of a wave illustrated in Chapter 5:
The total energy of this wave is the summation of the mass of all of the particles involved and their horizontal speeds. However, when this wave is looked at as if it were a single object moving from right to left; it also appears as if that wave shaped object has up and down motion as well. However, that up and down motion isn’t actually vertical motion and has no vertical use of energy associated with it. It is the optical illusion of up and down motion.
How can an object move without using energy? There are only two possible explanations. Either the object has no mass, or, it isn’t actually a single object at all. Science has chosen to believe the first explanation. They chose incorrectly. They chose the impossible.
By choosing the impossible explanation that mass-less objects exist, science has created an incredible dilemma. They end up believing that the illusion of a thing is actually a real object. They create rules to describe the motion of these mass-less illusions. Doing so requires the complete distortion of all of reality. Space needs to become an object that can bend and move. Time needs to become flexible so that it can slow down. As a result, all of reality starts to seem like an illusion as well. And all of this leads to the creation of another theory: Quantum Entanglement.
The theory of Quantum Entanglement ultimately tells us that all of reality may actually be just a three dimensional holographic projection on the inside surface of a spherical universe. The details of this theory and how it is wrong is explained in the Analysis topic "Objects and Quantum Illusions".
The absurdity of the results achieved by Quantum Entanglement should, in and of itself, be proof enough that science has made a very serious error.
COPYRIGHT © 2018, By Jonathan P. Volkel
The content of this topic assumes that you've already read the previous two topics; "The Energy of Motion" and "Waves". After having read them, you may have been left with the feeling that some of the things discussed concerning the nature of motion and waves were extremely obvious. In fact, they may have seemed overly, painfully, childishly obvious. What was the point?
The obviousness of it was the entire point. If you found it to be so obvious that it was beginning to bore you, then imagine how much more obvious those concepts should be to someone who is not only a genius, but a scientist as well. The understanding of those basic concepts of motion and waves should be almost instinctive to such a one. Shouldn't it? As it turns out, apparently not.
Albert Einstein was a great mathematician. Since his understanding of math was so great, so too must his understanding of the universe be. At least, that's what everybody thought. But, as you will see, that is not the case at all. He made very many mistakes. Some of those mistakes were created in an attempt to validate previous mistakes. But, the foundation of his errors lies in three initial mistakes that were the source of his whole avalanche of errors that lead to the creation of Special Relativity.
Einstein knew that waves were an integral part of the composition of light. It is because of this knowledge that he decided to use slit experiments to create interference patterns that he could study. If you are unfamiliar with "slit experiments" and "interference patterns", information on them is easy to find on the internet. You can even view the interference patterns that Einstein studied.
Einstein observed that the interference patterns seemed to be forming dot by dot. He concluded that these were particles that were part of the composition of light. He also concluded that these particles traveled along with the wave of light.
Perhaps no one will ever really know what Einstein was thinking when he decided to come to this conclusion. Maybe his reasoning process was something like this: "Since it is certain that there are particles associated with waves of light, and since we know that light from distant stars reaches us across the vastness of space, and since we know that space is empty, therefore these particles must travel along with the wave of light."
Does that type of reasoning make sense? His reasoning should have gone more like this. "We know that light is a wave. We now know that there are particles associated with that wave. By the very definition of what a wave is, we know that waves travel only by propagating through a medium. Therefore, these particles must be the medium. Our previous conclusion that space is empty must be incorrect. Space must be filled with these particles and they must be composed of matter in order for the propagation of a wave of light to work. Eureka! I've just discovered and proven that the ether exists. Now all that remains is figure out a way to explain why we haven't perceived it yet."
His decision that the particles traveled along with the wave of light was a demonstration of how scientifically disrespectful he was. Didn't he know the definition of a wave? Wasn't he able to understand the simple, obvious nature of waves that is easily discerned by anyone who simply takes the time to watch? For him to decide that the particles traveled along with the wave of light was like watching dominoes fall and concluding that each domino was flying across the entire room. It is like watching waves on the ocean and concluding that the water is moving right along with the wave. The water can move with the wave, but only when there is no more water in front of the wave to propagate through. The reason why this situation does not apply here will be discussed next.
His decision that the particles moved along with the wave is the tremor that started this whole avalanche of errors. In order for him to explain how this error could actually be a reality required several more errors. These additional errors were as equally bad as the first. Although two wrongs don't make a right, apparently he felt that three wrongs do make a right. Particles that move along with a wave of light? Swing and a miss! Strike one!
He next concluded that these particles must have no mass. As such, they are particles composed entirely of energy. Really? Energy that is disconnected from matter? What is it made of? How and why does it disconnect? Just like that, Einstein decided to create a whole new meaning for the definition of an "object". Such a new concept should require an entire lifetime of testing, accumulating data, and studying that data in order to define and properly categorize this amazing new substance. That never happened. As has been previously discussed, energy can not disconnect from matter. Why, then, did Einstein come to such a conclusion?
Again, no one can know what he was really thinking when he came to this conclusion. Perhaps his thoughts went something like this. "We know that space is empty. Therefore these particles must be traveling along with the wave. Yet, this presents a problem. Distant stars are not only emitting light continuously, but also in every direction. All stars are emitting light continuously and in all directions. Each star must be shooting these particles out like machine gun fire in all directions at all times. Thus, space must be completely filled with these particles, which eliminates the concept that there are no particles in front to propagate through (the water only moves with the waves when there is no more water in front). If the particles were composed of matter, then, since they all must be moving in every direction, there would be frequent collisions between them. Collisions between them would cause deviations of trajectory that would result in light not being able to travel in a straight line. Therefore, the only way for light to avoid these collisions and travel in a straight line would be because the particles have no mass. Thus, collisions don't cause a deviation in the path of travel because the particles actually have no mass."
This is the second demonstration of how easily Einstein ignored the basics of science. Didn't he realize that the energy of motion is trapped inside of matter? Didn't he know Newton's laws of motion? First he completely ignored the laws and nature of the universe by disassociating a wave from a medium. Now he's doing it again by disassociating energy from being within matter. Another swing and a miss! Strike two!
Now he had just one more major obstacle to overcome: P = mv. This is the known and provable formula to describe momentum. Momentum = mass x velocity. Given a fixed applied amount of motion, then, as the mass associated with that motion decreases, the velocity increases. As mass approaches zero, velocity approaches infinity. Thus, simple logic and common sense tells us that a mass-less particle that is moving with any sort of applied momentum should have infinite speed. The problem here is that light does not have an infinite speed. There is a speed limit (the speed of light, approximately 186,000 miles per second). The only solution was to ignore the known laws and rewrite reality in order to make his theories work.
Didn't he know the formula for momentum? Didn't he know that this is a proven law? He should have immediately realized this and thought; "If the particles were mass-less, then they should have infinite speed. They don't. Therefore, my conclusion that they have no mass must be incorrect. If that conclusion is incorrect, then so is the conclusion that the particles are traveling along with the wave. I need to stop and re-think this whole thing."
He didn't. He just bulldozed on ahead, piling error on top of error. In order to explain why a mass-less particle would have a speed limit, he needed to bend even more of reality. He bent time, and created the theory of time dilation. He bent space, and created the concept of the gravitational bending of space. He bent more of reality with the concept of relativistic mass, believing that energy could transform into matter and vice-versa. The list goes on. All of these errors stem from the initial three, which were all born of the first one.
The fact that the concept of mass-less particles and waves did not conform to the known laws of motion should have been proof enough that the entire concept was wrong. He was wrong about the particles because they actually do have mass. He was wrong about waves because they are not actually objects and so the laws of motion do not apply to them (see the previous Analysis topic on “Waves”). Einstein decided that one’s perception of a patterned shape was equated to that shape being an entity as real as an actual “object” or a physical “thing”. The patterned shape would therefore fall into its own new category of things which could be defined as a new type of object that had no mass.
This misinterpretation of reality, combined with the concept that a mass-less particle would have a speed limit is yet another demonstration of how little Einstein cared about the rules and laws of science, nature and the universe around us. Swing and a miss! Strike three!
For some unknown reason, the scientific community did not "bench" him or toss him from the game because of his ineptitude "at the plate". Instead, they applauded him and cheered him as if he had hit a home run.
What would Einstein have to say to the world today if confronted with his errors? Perhaps it would be something like this:
COPYRIGHT © 2018, By Jonathan P. Volkel
The Theory of Relativity is the source of all sorts of misunderstandings. In the previous analysis, Einstein's misunderstanding of the behavior of light was discussed. That misunderstanding, combined with an equally as bad misunderstanding about the nature of gravity, led to the creation of the Theory of Relativity, which attempted to explain a way that would make his errors seem to work. Many have a hard time understanding Relativity, and rightfully so. The following explanation of Relativity will simplify it as much as possible.
The Theory of Relativity breaks down into two categories: Special Relativity and General Relativity. Special Relativity is Einstein's attempt to explain the unusual behavior of light. General Relativity is his attempt to explain the unusual behavior of gravity. Each category has two postulates, and all of it combined is defined by just four little sentences.
Special Relativity is based upon two postulates.
1- All the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames.
2- The speed of light has the same value in all inertial reference frames.
Postulate #1 essentially means that, you will get the same results for an experiment whether you (and the experiment) are moving or not. Assume you are sitting in an airplane that is sitting still on the runway. A stewardess passes by, pushing a beverage cart. If you perform some sort of experiment on the moving cart you will get a certain result. Now imagine the plane is in flight, and the stewardess passes by with the cart again, exactly the same as before. If you again perform the same experiment, you will still get the exact same results.
Even though your inertial reference has changed, from sitting still on the runway to moving at high speed while in flight, so has the cart's. Although your inertial reference has changed, the difference between your inertial reference and the cart's inertial reference hasn't changed, which results in getting the same results for your experiment. And so, when performing experiments, your inertial reference doesn't have to be equal with that of the experiment. It's just that the difference has to be the same every time you perform the experiment in order to get the same results every time. This fact is essentially what postulate #1 is talking about and it is absolutely correct and conforms to the known laws of science.
Postulate # 2 is where the problem comes in. It creates two major problems all wrapped up in just one postulate. The first major problem is the idea that the speed of light has the “same value” in all inertial reference frames. This essentially means that the speed of light is constant and fixed. Einstein’s conclusion that photons have no mass requires this belief. An object with no mass should have infinite speed. Since he believed that the photon had no mass, then there should be nothing that could interfere with its motion and cause it to change speed. And, since its speed is not infinite, but is instead a measurable amount, then that speed must be fixed and constant. This whole idea is incorrect and is addressed in more detail in the Analysis topic “TIME, SPACE, MATTER and ENERGY”.
The second major problem is in the idea that the speed of light has the same value “in all inertial reference frames". It assumes that the inertial reference frame that light is in is the same as yours. This implies that when your inertial reference frame changes, the wave of light should change its inertial reference frame right along with you, but for some strange reason it doesn’t. This is the incorrect observation, conclusion, and ensuing statement that are causing all the problems. The second postulate should instead read; "The speed of light doesn't change even though your inertial reference frame does change." What's the difference? The re-wording eliminates the implication that the speed of light is constant and provides the clue as to what’s really going on.
The following example will help to demonstrate the difference. Imagine you are in a boat, drifting on the ocean. Suddenly, a fish swims past you at a very fast speed. You decide to chase the fish to see just how fast it is going. You start up the boat's engines, and chase after the fish. You have to rev up the engines really high, but you finally catch up to it. As you race alongside the fish, you notice that it is traveling at a constant and steady speed. No matter how much you speed up or slow down the boat, the fish's speed remains unchanged and constant.
Based on this data, you derive a postulate: "The speed of the fish has the same value in all inertial reference frames." Although, technically, that postulate may seem to be correct, it is more correct to say "The speed of this particular fish doesn't change no matter what inertial reference frame YOU ARE IN." The phrase “…this particular fish” implies that different fish swim at different speeds. The phrase “…You are in” implies that your inertial reference has nothing to do with the fish’s inertial reference.
Einstein's wording of the postulate reveals his confusion over the situation. How could he explain this incredible, nature defying phenomenon, wherein the fish's speed doesn't change, even though yours does? You probably already know the answer to that question, but just play along for a bit. How can the fish be moving in your inertial reference frame, and yet not change speeds when you do? Perhaps the answer lies in an as yet unknown phenomenon we will call "time dilation". Thus, it's not your speed which is actually the thing that was changing, but instead, it's really the passage of time that is changing. Once you match your movement with the fish's movement, then your two "clocks" are synchronized, and time passes equally for the boat and the fish.
Of course, such an explanation is not only absurd, but it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the way things work. The actual reason that the fish's speed doesn't change, even though yours does change, is a very simple one, and it is the only possible explanation based upon all the known and provable laws of science. The fish's speed does not change even though yours does because the fish is not, and can not possibly be, in the same inertial reference frame as you. That is because the fish is not in the boat with you! This explanation is not only simple, but it is painfully obvious. It is the ONLY possible correct explanation and it completely eluded Einstein's incredible "genius".
So it is with light. It is a wave which travels through the ether. It is analogous to the fish. We are analogous to the boat drifting on the ocean. The wave of light propagates through the fluid-like ether which is made up of sub-atomic particles known as photons. Their mass is the smallest distinct mass in the universe, perhaps thousands of times smaller and lighter than a single electron. We are composed of atoms. Countless neutrons, protons and electrons, all connected together, with a combined mass so much greater than the photon's, which causes us to travel much slower. Both we and light are traveling in the same ocean; the ether. But, we are not in the same boat!
If light had the same inertial reference as us, then its speed would definitely have to change when ours did. The fact that its speed doesn't change when ours does change proves (according to all the known and factual laws of science that exist) that it can not be, and is not, in the same inertial reference frame as us. To invent a new theory to explain what's going on which defies the known laws (time dilation) is irrational. What difference does it make if it's in our inertial reference frame or not? Here is another analogy to help visualize what's really going on.
Imagine a submarine under water. What goes on inside the submarine and outside it are kept separate by the walls of the submarine. When it moves, everything inside it also moves. In fact, everything inside also moves because the submarine moves. The sub and everything that is in direct physical contact with it on the inside are all in the same inertial reference frame. Besides creating some turbulence, its actions have very little effect on the water surrounding it. This type of behavior is familiar, commonplace, and easily understood by us. But, let's stretch our imaginations a bit further.
Now imagine a different kind of submarine. Imagine if it were possible to create a working submarine made entirely out of chain link fence. Such a submarine would be filled with water, and the water would flow right through it with little resistance.
Now imagine a tiny little fish that swam at a constant speed of 100 mph (for example). If your sub was moving at 20 mph., and the fish swam up from behind, it would enter your sub between the links from behind, swim right through your sub, and then out the front in between the gaps there. From your perspective inside the sub, the fish would be swimming at a constant speed of only 80 mph.
No matter how fast or slow your sub was moving, or changing speed, the fish's actual speed would not change. The only thing that would change is your perception of its speed. That's because the fish isn't a part of your sub and, technically, isn't actually swimming through your sub. It is swimming through the water, which also happens to be occupying the area enclosed by your sub. It's just a coincidence that your sub is encompassing the same space that has the water which the fish is swimming through. Other than some minor turbulence, the movement of your sub has little effect on the water and the movement of the fish. That's because the fish is not in direct contact with your sub. It only has indirect contact with it through the water. The two of you have completely different inertial frames of reference.
Realize, then, that the atoms that compose the world around us have large gaps between them. Those gaps are sort of like the gaps in the chain link fence submarine. And, just as the water flowed freely through the chain link submarine, the ether flows freely around and between the atoms that make up our world. Light traveling through the ether is sort of like that fish that swam between the links of the chain link sub. Its inertial reference is not the same as ours. The atoms that we are made of can change speed and, except for some turbulence, will have little effect on the ether around them. As such, when the atoms change speed (the chain link submarine), the speed of light (the tiny fish) is barely affected.
Imagine stirring a bucket of water with a spoon. It doesn't take long to create a whirlpool. Now imagine the spoon is full of holes. You can still create the whirlpool, but it takes a lot more stirring. Planets and stars in space have been constantly spinning and stirring the ether for a long time. Despite the gaps that exist between the atoms that make up these celestial bodies, they have created ether whirlpools within them. But, when we pass by a spot once, we only create the very slightest turbulence in the ether, and it is not enough to affect the travel of light.
Without awareness or knowledge of the ether, the ability to explain why light behaves as it does relies on far-fetched theories that need to bend and break reality in order to make them work. Those theories are wrong. Scientists are convinced those theories are right because of certain observed anomalies, such as when atomic clocks that move at different speeds do not remain synchronized.
People could create any theory they want to explain the discrepancy. They could say that little mischievous, invisible gremlins alter atomic clocks for spite. Then, when the clocks do not keep proper time, they could say "See, this proves the gremlin theory is correct." Realize then, that the gremlin theory is as plausible as the time dilation theory.
The real reason why the atomic clocks experience differences is because they rely on the frequency of light to determine the passage of time. It is assumed by scientists that all clocks, no matter the environment, all have the same inertial reference as light does. Because of this assumption, the only way they can attempt to explain the differences in time keeping is with the theory of time dilation. Scientists don't realize that changes in ether currents, combined with the clock's rate of travel, affect the final outcome. The details of how this works are explained in Chapter 4 - "The Ether: A Broad Look". The topic is also discussed again in the Analysis topic; "Time Dilation".
There is one other MAJOR problem with Special Relativity. It concerns science’s basic understanding of light. It has to do with the mindset revealed by the question “Is light a particle, or a wave, or both?” In attempting to answer that question, Einstein concluded that mass-less particles and mass-less waves were both involved in the nature of light. This conclusion was wrong for two different reasons.
The first error was the belief that the particles associated with light were mass-less. That conclusion was incorrect. The existence of the ether reveals the truth about the sub atomic particles that fill it. They are made of matter which allows the propagation of any and all motion to happen. This concept was explained repeatedly throughout this paper.
The second error was the conclusion that the wave itself was also mass-less. That concept was covered in the Analysis topic “Waves”, and again briefly in the Analysis topic “Light Waves.” It is a very important concept and so will be explained again here. However, before explaining why the conclusion that light is also a mass-less wave was such a major problem, it is necessary to first take a little “test”.
What will follow are six images. Each image is composed of fifteen colorful marbles in different arrangements. Here’s the challenge. Look at the six images and decide; WHAT OBJECTS DO YOU SEE? Be advised. This is a tricky question.
Perhaps your answers were similar to this: #1 was just fifteen marbles. #2 was the number “three”. #3 was the letter “M”. #4 was the letter “S”. #5 was a triangle. #6 was a wave.
If your answers were similar to those listed above, then realize that only one of your answers was correct. Why? You were misled because you were looking at the “forest” and not the “trees”. Look again at the question. It was not “What shapes and patterns do you see?” The question was; “WHAT OBJECTS DO YOU SEE?” The only “objects” in these pictures are the marbles. And so, the correct answer for each and every image is “Fifteen marbles”.
Images #2 through #6 are patterns created by a particular arrangement of the fifteen marbles. Consider image #2. It looks like a “3”. But what is a “3”? It is not an object or a “thing” of any kind. It is a concept. It is an agreed upon shape that represents a certain numerical quantity. Images #3 and #4 are patterns that represent letters of the alphabet. As such, those letters are also intangible ideas and not actual objects. They are merely shapes that represent concepts which are associated with certain sounds and can be arranged to create words. In fact, image #4 could be interpreted in another way. One person might perceive it as the letter “S” while another might perceive it as just a vertically oriented “wave”. Image #5 represents a geometric shape. “Triangle” is the name that we give to that particular symmetrical pattern. Image #6 is no different than the others. It is just a shape, and this particular shape resembles something that we call “a wave”. As such, it is not an object at all. It is merely the perception of a distinct and specific pattern created by a group of individual things, and only those individual things can actually be classified as “objects”.
Although referring to a wave as being “mass-less” can, technically, be considered as being correct, then terms such as “square”, or “8”, or “a straight line” could also be considered as being mass-less. They are mass-less because they are not actual, physical things. Using the term “mass-less” in that context reveals a major misconception about the nature of a wave. It reveals that a wave is being interpreted as being an individual object that just so happens to have an unusual ghost-like substance which is different than that of solid matter. In actuality, it is really just an intangible pattern which is created by multiple objects that move in a specific sequential formation.
Recall Newton’s first law of motion; “An OBJECT will continue in its velocity and direction unless acted upon by an external force.” By classifying a wave as an object then, logically, its behavior would have to comply with the rules dictated by the first law of motion. However, light does not obey that law. Mass-less waves behave in a way that violates the laws of nature. How does one explain this behavioral anomaly?
This entire violation of nature only came into existence because Einstein caused it to come into existence. He did so by redefining the concept of an “object”. He decided that it is possible that something can have no mass and still be considered as being an object. This inevitably led to the conclusion that the first law of motion must therefore be applied to waves. Since attempting to do so didn’t work, he then created rules and formulas to explain the law breaking behavior of a mass-less object. He did this because he couldn’t see the individual objects whose pattern of motion manifested as a wave shape. That is, he couldn’t see the “trees”. He could only discern the “forest”.
He missed the obvious conclusion. He did so because he failed to realize that the law can never be broken by anything. Of course a wave is mass-less! That’s because it isn’t even an object at all. It is not a physical thing. It is merely a pattern created by many individual objects moving in unison. A thing can only be considered as an “object” if it is made of matter and has mass.
The solution that science came up with to resolve the problems created by their improper classification of patterns as “objects” is one that they readily apply to anything they don’t understand. They call this phenomenon a “field”. Thus, a field is an effect in nature that allows things to exist and move without needing to obey the laws of motion. A field becomes a miraculous thing that is able to travel outward from an energy source, and then for no apparent reason, cease its outward movement and exist as a mass-less object at a fixed distance from the energy source. This type of understanding applies to magnetic fields. When it comes to “light”, it is an electromagnetic wave that consists of an electric field and a magnetic field that move together and have the magical ability to defy the laws of motion via self-propagation. When it comes to gravity, a field now manifests the ability to bend space without experiencing any reciprocal reaction from space, and simultaneously is able to travel unaffected by the curvature of the space that it bends.
The concept of a “field” has become science’s “license to kill” the law of motion. A field is a magical chameleon, able to change its form and abilities and be reshaped to fit whatever theory science wants to create in order to try and explain the things they do not understand. And all of this is because scientists can’t tell the difference between an intangible concept and pattern, and an actual real "object".
Of course a mass-less wave violates the laws of motion! That’s because the laws of motion do not even apply to it. They only apply to real and tangible objects made of matter. When a wave-like arrangement of tiny objects (photons) moves from right to left (for example), its pattern creates the simultaneous optical illusion of up and down motion. Attempting to apply the law to an optical illusion is an exercise in futility. As such, it is an effort doomed to failure.
Attempting to apply the laws of motion to a shape or pattern is like asking; “How fast is a ‘4’?” or “How much energy is required to move a ‘circle’?” or “What is the mass of a ‘Z’?” or “What is the rate of acceleration of ‘plaid’?” These are ridiculous and unanswerable questions because these things are not “objects”. They are just shapes and patterns. So too is a “wave”. Einstein attempted to tell us how fast a “wave” was, and created formulas to justify it. His theory is tremendously impossible and totally wrong.
Einstein’s theory is an attempt to apply the laws of motion to optical illusions, shapes and patterns. However, those are not actually tangible physical things. As a result, his theory does not apply to, or comply with, the real physical world that we live in. It only applies to the imaginations within his mind. This is why his theory is named “The Theory of Relativity”. That name means that reality is RELATIVE to what you perceive. It is this same type of reasoning that attempts to justify time dilation by using the concept of “What the observer sees” to validate it. Einstein’s mind was not grounded in reality. Modern science does not realize this and is, to this day, still chasing his theory down the twisted maze of his confused imagination.
The fact that energy manifests to us as waves undeniably proves two things. First, it proves that all atoms are spinning and orbiting. That is the only kind of motion that creates a disturbance in a medium which would result in the propagation of motion that acquires the shape of wave-like patterns.
Second, it proves that the ether exists and that the particles that comprise it are made of matter. That is, that the photons that make up the ether are “objects” and the laws of motion do apply to them. They are the medium through which the patterned vibrations of atoms propagate in the shape of waves.
Special Relativity deals with things moving at a steady speed. General Relativity deals with things that are accelerating (changing speed). General Relativity is also based upon just two postulates.
1- All the laws of nature have the same form for observers in any frame of reference, whether accelerated or not.
2- A gravitational field is equivalent to an accelerated frame of reference without a gravitational field.
Postulate #1 in General Relativity is essentially the same as postulate #1 in Special Relativity. The only difference is that Special Relativity is dealing with things that move at a steady speed. Postulate #1 of General Relativity is almost identical, with the only difference being the added word “accelerating”.
Postulate #1 of Special Relativity tells us that all the rules of physics hold true no matter if you and your experiment are standing still, or if you and your experiment are moving (coasting) at the same speed. Restating Special Relativity postulate #1 and applying it to General Relativity seems redundant and unnecessary. Why would the rules of physics suddenly fail if you and your experiment are accelerating at the same speed instead of just coasting at the same speed? Of course, they wouldn't. So then, why bother stating the obvious and then call it a new postulate? Postulate #1 of General Relativity is not some sort of great insight into the workings of the universe. It is common sense, just as is postulate #1 of Special Relativity is also common sense.
Everyone already is aware of this behavior just by experiencing everyday life. Nobody who is driving their car and decides to take a sip out of their cup of coffee ever thinks; "Uh-oh. I'm moving at 50 miles per hour. If I sip my coffee, it will fly back into my throat at 50 miles per hour and choke me. I'd better sip this VERY carefully!" We all instinctively know that the coffee is moving at the same speed that we are, and so will behave the same as when we were both standing still.
We all also know that when we slam on the brakes and decelerate, we can feel that we jerk forward because we still have motion and need to decelerate too. We also know that this also applies to the cup of coffee, and we immediately grab the cup and tilt it so that the coffee doesn't slosh out. We all already know that the coffee will behave the same in the moving car (whether coasting, accelerating or decelerating) as everything else behaves which is within the same environment. We just never bothered to think about it, write it down, and call it a postulate.
For some reason, Einstein decided to write it down. Perhaps the reason as to why someone would go to the trouble of writing it down and calling it a postulate is because of the way that he perceived the nature of light and gravity. Postulate #1 of Special and General Relativity both state the obvious. To Einstein's mind, light and gravity both defied the common and expected applications of postulates #1. Thus, he wrote them down in order to help point out and emphasize the unnatural behavior of both light and gravity which he described in postulates #2. He should have realized that it wasn't light and gravity that conflicted with the first postulates. Instead, it was Einstein's incorrect understanding of light and gravity that was the source of the conflict. The fact that he perceived light and gravity as being in conflict with postulates #1 should have revealed to him that his perception of them was wrong.
Modern scientists seems to be ...asleep, and in need of a good splash of cold water in their faces to wake them up. The basics of both Special Relativity and General Relativity postulates #1, although accurate, are by no means worthy of such extremely high esteem as was given to Einstein. Postulate #2, in both Special Relativity and General Relativity are both almost correct. He worded postulate #2 of Special Relativity incorrectly, as was explained before. He worded postulate #2 of General Relativity incorrectly, as will be explained next. Einstein's faulty interpretation, understanding and application of the behavior and nature of light and gravity caused him to write postulates #2 incorrectly. His ensuing theories are completely wrong and worthy of zero esteem.
Postulate #2 of General Relativity does contain a remarkable and amazing hidden truth that could reveal the secret to a long sought mystery. No one sees the truth and the secret remains hidden because science is bogged down in preconceived assumptions and theories. They focus on Einstein's bad wording of the postulate and that causes them to not see the truth. It simply boils down to the fact that they trusted Einstein instead of Newton. Keep reading, and see if you can figure out the revelation of the hidden truth for yourself. Don't feel bad if you can't figure it out. Einstein couldn't figure it out either, and apparently, neither has anyone else during the entire century since it was written. What follows will lead you to that revelation, step by step.
Postulate #2 of General Relativity is where his next error comes in. "A gravitational field is equivalent to an accelerated frame of reference without a gravitational field." (Hint: there is one word in this postulate that reveals the secret! The funny thing about this is: How can it actually be a secret when it's sitting right in front of our faces?)
This postulate is based upon two known and proven laws of science. These laws were discovered by Isaac Newton and they hold true every time to this day. That is why they are accepted as "Laws". The problem here isn't with Newton's laws. The problem is with Einstein's interpretation of what the combination of those two laws is really revealing. As usual, Einstein completely missed the correct implication and inferred the totally wrong conclusion. Just as he had misunderstood the nature of light, and so incorrectly applied postulate #2 of Special Relativity to the observed data, so too is he doing here. His complete lack of understanding of what gravity really is and how it really works causes him to come to wrong conclusions.
What postulate #2 is essentially trying to say is, the acceleration of a moving object when a gravitational force is applied to it, and the acceleration of a moving object when an inertia force is applied to it are equivalent. This is absolutely true. Did you spot how the above sentence conflicts with General Relativity postulate #2? The above re-wording of the postulate is correct. The original postulate, as written by Einstein, is not. It uses the word "field". That was corrected here and the word "force" was used instead. You will see why that was done in a moment. The following will show you those two laws that led to the creation of this postulate, how they relate to one another, and how they prove the re-wording of the postulate to be correct. These two laws, when compared to each other and correctly understood, reveal the hidden truth that no one has yet been able to see.
The first law that was referred to is Newton's second law of motion, which states: "The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force acting on it and is inversely proportional to its mass". This can be expressed by the following formula:
F = ma
Where "F" is the force acting on the object, "m" is the object's mass, and "a" is the acceleration of the object. This is essentially the same as p = mv. The difference is that "v" refers to a constant "coasting" speed, whereas "a" refers to an acceleration of speed.
The second law that relates here is Newton's law of universal gravitation. It states: "Every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them." This can be expressed by the following formula:
Where "F" is the gravitational force, "m1"is the mass of the first particle, "m2" is the mass of the second particle, and r squared is the distance between the particles multiplied by itself. The product of the masses is divided by the distance between them squared, which results in a certain value. You may have noticed the extra symbol, "G" in the equation, which is then multiplied by the previous derived value to determine the net force. What is "G"? It's not mentioned in the verbal description of the equation.
"G" is known as the "gravitational constant". Its actual value is shown as follows.
Some write the gravitational formula using "d" instead of "r". Both "d" and "r" refer to the distance between the two masses. They're the same thing. We also encounter yet another new variable in this equation. It is "N". What does "N" mean? It is the "Newton", which is a unit of force. If 1 Newton of force acts on a mass of 1 kilogram, it causes that mass to accelerate at the rate of 1 meter per second, per second (that is, one meter per (second squared)). 1N = 1 (kg) (m)/ (s)(s).
"G" is also known as the "constant of proportionality". It relates to the fact that the resultant force from the mass in the inertia formula and the mass from the gravitational formula is always proportional, no matter what their values may be.
It is important to note that Newton’s second law of motion applies to “objects”. Therefore anything that is considered to be an “object” or is treated as if it were an “object” must be subject to this law. Obviously, the equation
(F = ma) will not work if the “object” in question is considered to have a mass of “zero”. That is, it will not work for a mass-less particle or wave. Likewise, Newton’s law of gravitation applies specifically to “EVERY particle in the universe”. The formula for gravitation will not work if the particle has no mass. The problem here does not lie with Newton’s proven laws. The problem lies with Einstein’s conclusions that particles can be mass-less and that waves are mass-less. The laws are irrefutable fact. Einstein’s theories are just that: unprovable, illogical and nature defying THEORIES.
Now we can finally get to the interesting part! Notice what the inertial formula for acceleration (the first formula) and the formula for the acceleration of gravity (the second formula) have in common on the right side of the equal sign. That is: MASS. In fact, scientists calculate that inertial mass and gravitational mass may indeed be exactly equal.
Einstein saw this fact of their equality as a remarkable coincidence. The two forces (inertia acceleration and gravity acceleration) are so identical, that no experiment can tell the difference between those two forces. They are both quantified with the exact same units of measurement: the Newton. Because Einstein followed the clues held within Newton's laws, he created the second postulate in General Relativity: "A gravitational field is equivalent to an accelerated frame of reference without a gravitational field." In other words, "The acceleration of an object that is caused by the force of gravity is exactly the same as the acceleration of the same object that is caused solely by the force of inertia." (Again, it was corrected and the word 'field' was replaced with 'force'.)
Perhaps you can see for yourself the very first blunder that Einstein made in his creation of postulate #2. If you go back and re-read the verbal descriptions and look at the formulas of the two previously cited laws discovered by Newton, you may spot the problem. In both of those laws, inertia and gravity are defined as forces (F). In writing postulate #2, somehow Einstein decided to transform the "F" in the gravity formula from a "force" into a "field". He failed to realize that the entire reason that the equality exists in the first place is because they are both forces. By changing gravity into a "field", he immediately nullified the equality which the laws of science prove to be a reality.
Perhaps the reason he felt that it was necessary to change the “force” of gravity into a “field" was because of the unusual motion that gravity creates in objects. Newton’s second law tells us that when a force is applied to an object, its resultant motion is inversely related to its mass. That is, the more mass it has, the slower it will move. However, gravity causes all objects to move at the same rate, no matter how much mass it may have. Clearly, objects that are moving because of gravity are not moving in accordance to Newton’s second law of motion. And so, even though Newton’s law of gravitation indicates that gravity is a force, Einstein decided to apply the magical chameleon qualities of a "field" to gravity in order to try and explain the unusual phenomenon of how it causes all masses to move at the same rate.
How could he possibly think that doing this was acceptable? How could he not realize that changing the nature of what gravity was would nullify the equality and have consequences? Perhaps he felt that this was an acceptable thing to do because Einstein perceived this remarkable revelation of that equality as merely being a coincidence! Although the postulate is essentially correct, his misunderstanding of gravity as being a "field" led to the tremendous errors of his explanations of the nature of time, space and our universe. In order to explain the "coincidence" that the "field" of gravity and the force of inertia are identical, he decided that gravity bends space exactly enough to create a curvature in space-time which then causes matter to accelerate along that curvature at exactly the rate needed to create the equal acceleration of inertia. Perhaps he did this because of another initial assumption that was completely wrong. That assumption was the initial belief, which was held by all of science, that the force of inertia and the force of gravity were two completely unrelated energies and forces. Perhaps this idea is why he so readily transformed gravity from a force into a field. By changing the factual "force" of gravity into a fictional "field", he had to create all kinds of other fictional phenomenon in order to try and re-establish the equality.
In 1979, theoretical physicist John Wheeler described the meaning of General Relativity as: "Mass one tells space-time how to curve, curved space-time tells mass two how to move". This, of course, overlooks some obvious things. Wouldn't mass two also simultaneously cause a curvature of space-time? How do these two curvatures interact? Why isn't the motion of a single mass affected by its own curvature that it is creating? Perhaps the theorists would say that it is indeed affected by its own curvature, but the curvature is like a hill, and the bottom of the hill ends at the mass. So then, if another object approaches that mass from below, would it then be traveling...uphill? If objects approach it from all different directions, then they're ALL traveling...downhill? Then why are they all drawn to the center and not the bottom ( or top... or wherever)? In space, how can you tell which way is up? Are there "up and down" or "top and bottom" types of gravity and spacial bending? Scientists probably have some sort of explanation for this, but, in the end, it is all nonsense.
Instead of thinking that the fact that the forces of inertia and gravity were identical was merely a coincidence, Einstein should have paid closer attention to the key word in his own postulate. He should have realized the true meaning of the magic word that contained the secret. That word is "equivalent". If he had paid attention to that word, he might have then correctly thought: "The acceleration of inertia and the acceleration of gravity are equivalent forces. That can lead to only one logical conclusion. This is no mere coincidence. Gravity and inertia must be one and the same thing. Eureka! I now realize that there isn’t a “unifying” force. I've just found proof in the known laws of science of what the “unified” force is! It is inertia! Gravity is simply the inertia of objects in motion. The energies are not different, as we believed. They are equivalent because they are the same thing! Now, all I need do is to figure out what the motion is within a mass that is responsible for gravity and how that motion then travels outside the mass."
If he had followed that train of thought, then he would have realized that the atoms that compose a mass are always spinning and moving. They are the source of gravity's inertia in motion. The next step would have been to figure out how that motion exits the mass and travels to the second mass to interact with it. If he had a proper understanding of what a wave was, he would have realized that the only way that the patterned vibrating motions of the atoms could travel to another atom would be if those vibrations created a disturbance in a medium. That disturbance would then propagate through the medium as a wave pattern and transfer to the second mass. This would have led to another "eureka" moment. The existence and motion of gravity through space is proof that the ether must exist!
Instead, he ignored the true workings of a wave. He invented a new way for waves to travel without the need for propagation. This required the creation of quantum math to explain how it could work. It was the only way to re-establish the equality between the "field" of gravity and the force of inertia. His errors ended up redefining the text book definition of waves. This is why a textbook will tell you that electromagnetic waves can travel without a medium.
Once the existence of the ether is realized, the last step to figuring out how gravity really works is to figure out why the atom's motion translates into the linear movement caused by gravity. This would have led to the realization of the different effects that different frequencies of motion produce. If Einstein had followed this train of thought, then, once he realized that an atom could produce all different ranges of frequencies simultaneously, he would have re-examined the current models of the atom and realized that they couldn't produce the actual observed effects that were occurring. He would have eventually deduced that the current models of the atom were wrong. This would have led to discovering the true model of the atom (the model described in Chapter 9: "The Proton, Heat, and the Atom).
Combining the inertia motion of atoms with the non-inertia behavior of objects that move by gravity would have led to the realization of how photons can cause non-inertia propagation motion in other objects. Thus, the inertia motion of atoms generates the wave of gravity which is a force. When that wave strikes another object, it causes propagation motion in that object, which is not a force. And so, a gravity wave is a force. The motion it creates in objects that it comes into contact with is not. The details of this are fully explained in the Analysis topic “Sub-Atomic Motion”.
Perhaps saying "...he would have eventually deduced..." is not true. Einstein's mind was not anchored in this reality. To use an expression:"Einstein couldn't even see the nose on his own face if he was staring into a mirror". He was staring directly at the identity and proof of the Unified Force (gravity acceleration is equivalent to inertia acceleration), and he dismissed it as a "coincidence". He came to the wrong conclusion about almost every piece of scientific data that he had. And not only that, but the conclusions and ensuing theories that he did end up creating were in direct opposition to reality and nature, such as the bending of time and space.
Special Relativity is wrong because of an error in an initial assumption. That is, that space is empty (no ether). This led to misunderstanding all the data which related to the way that light traveled. How could he look at Special Relativity postulate #2, and know that the speed of light seemed constant no matter what inertial reference the observer is in, and not realize that the only possible explanation is because light is in a different inertial reference frame than the observer? Perhaps we'll never know.
General Relativity is wrong because of an error in two initial assumptions. The first is, again, that space is empty. The second is the assumption that the force of gravity and the force of inertia are completely unrelated. How can it be that he looked at the laws of inertia and gravitation, SAW that they were equivalent, and saw that they were both forces, and yet still couldn't figure out the truth? How could he possibly conclude that this fact was merely a coincidence? How could he just re-define the laws of nature and change gravity from a force into a field? Perhaps we'll never know.
Nevertheless, scientists are, to this day, convinced that he was right. Part of the reason for this is because certain phenomenon are not explained entirely by Newton's laws. Einstein's theories do seem to explain them. Isn't that all the proof we need?
There is something known as "The classical test of General Relativity". It is comprised of observations of three different phenomenon which don't seem to be fully explained by Newton's laws, and then testing to see if Einstein's theory of General Relativity explains them. These tests examine the effects of gravity on objects and light. His calculations do indeed provide an explanation, and everyone thinks it's because Einstein was right about space being bent and that the bending was caused by the "field" of gravity.
The first test concerns the orbit of the planet Mercury. All of the planets in our solar system orbit around the Sun with an oval shape, and one end of that oval is closer to the Sun than the other end. Each time a planet goes around the Sun at its closest point, the oval shifts position a little bit. This is because it is not just the gravity of the Sun that is affecting the motion of the planets. The gravity of all the planets affects one another and causes this shift to happen. The following illustration will convey the concept.
It seems that the closest planet to the Sun, Mercury, shifts its orbit more than can be accounted for by gravitational effects from the other planets. Every time it passes closest to the Sun (its perihelion); it picks up speed and shifts a little too much.
Newton's law of gravitation doesn't seem to explain that extra shifting in Mercury's orbit. Scientists originally thought that there might be some as yet unseen other mass out there whose gravity was causing that shift. None was found. Einstein's theory seems to account for this shift. He attributes it to the gravitational bending of space. And so, everyone accepts that his theory is correct.
Of course, space can't be bent. There HAS TO BE another explanation. There is most definitely a much simpler explanation that is based on reality. Much of the basics needed to understand what's actually going on are covered in Chapter 4 - "The Ether: A Broad Look".
Recall the second postulate of General Relativity: - A gravitational field (force) is equivalent to an accelerated frame of reference without a gravitational field (force). Einstein created this postulate by combining Newton’s second law of motion and Newton’s law of gravitation. In essence, Newton’s laws are telling us that there are two types of motion in the universe. One type of motion is caused by gravity, and the other is caused by inertia. Both types of motion are FORCES (not fields) that have identical units of measurement that define them. As such, there is no scientific test that can tell the difference between the sources of an object's motion.
When scientists observed that Mercury was accelerating around the Sun with more motion than could be accounted for by traditional gravity calculations, they looked for other masses that they could then insert into the gravity calculations and thereby account for the extra motion. When none was found, Einstein created his theory that gravity bent space, which then caused the gravity calculations to appear to be more precise. In so doing, he transformed gravity from a force into a field and thereby nullified the equality of forces that Newton’s laws proved to be a reality.
Einstein ignored his own postulate. Newton’s laws, and therefore General Relativity postulate #2, make it clear that there are only two types of motion (gravity and inertia). Einstein attempted to create a third type of motion (bent space). This happened because scientists had blinders on and were looking for explanations from only one perspective: a gravity explanation. Instead, Einstein should have looked again at his own postulate and realized the truth. The extra motion in Mercury’s orbit was not due to gravitational forces. It was due to inertia. In other words, in order to account for Mercury’s extra motion it was not necessary to look for gravitational causes or to create alterations in the gravity formulas or invent new fictional natures and properties for gravity. Instead, the source and explanation for that extra motion lied within Newton’s second law of motion.
Mercury picks up speed when it gets too close to the Sun for the same non-gravitational reason that anything else picks up speed when it gets too close to a hurricane or tornado. There is a large ether vortex that surrounds the Sun, and it pushes Mercury and causes it to accelerate more. Because gravity motion and inertia motion are identical forces, there is no way to tell the difference between those two forces. And, because science is unaware that the ether exists, they failed to take the ether's effect of adding extra inertia to objects into account. They failed to realize that when Mercury’s travel path through space brings it close to the Sun, a second inertia force is brought into play and is added to the gravitational inertia force that causes it to orbit as it does. This is why Newton’s law of gravitation does not fully account for Mercury’s motion. Newton’s second law of motion must be factored in and added to the situation in order to account for all of the observed motion.
The Earth has a circumference of about 24,000 miles. It takes 24 hours to rotate once. That means that everything on the surface near the equator is moving at about 1,000 mph. The Sun has a diameter of approximately 870,000 miles. It rotates once on its axis approximately every thirty days (720 hrs.) Its circumference is approximately 2,731,800 miles. That means that the surface of the Sun is moving at a speed close to 38,000 mph!
The ether current within a mass moves at the same speed as the mass. Therefore, the ether whirlpool within the Sun is moving at that same speed. The Sun's magnetic field also circulates around it. All of these currents combine to create a powerful ether vortex near the Sun. The strength of that vortex diminishes the further you get from the Sun.
The discrepancy in Mercury's orbit helps to give us a better idea of just how large and strong that vortex is. Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun, and it is only affected when its orbit passes closest to the Sun. It gets caught up in that vortex when it gets too close, and seems unaffected when it is further away. When Mercury gets too close to the Sun, the vortex causes it to pick up speed just enough to create the observed anomaly. It's the same kind of thing that happens to anything that gets too close to a hurricane or a tornado. The next closest planet, Venus, seems to be unaffected by the vortex. This provides a clue as to the rate at which the vortex's currents diminish.
Again, Einstein's gravity calculations didn't actually indicate the bending of the space. They really indicated the force of the ether currents in the vicinity of the Sun.
The second test of Einstein's Theory of Relativity involves the bending of light by gravitational fields. Einstein calculated that the gravity of the Sun would cause a bending of space that would cause the path of light to deviate. Photographs of space taken during a total eclipse verified that the positions in the sky of stars behind the eclipse were indeed shifted. Everyone thought this confirmed Einstein's theory.
This particular phenomenon was addressed near the end of Chapter 4. The ether vortex around the Sun is large enough in size and fast enough in speed to not only affect Mercury's orbit, but it also causes the direction of travel of the photons, through which light propagates, to deviate enough to create the illusion of the shifted position of the distant stars. Einstein thought he was calculating the bending of space. He thought that the bent space would change the pathway of a wave of light. He forgot that waves only propagate through a medium. Einstein didn't realize that his gravity formulas were calculating the inertia of objects (photons) in the vicinity of the Sun. It is those moving photons which cause the pathway of the wave of light to bend as it propagates through the moving medium.
The third test of Einstein's Theory of Relativity is the gravitational red shift of light. This relies on his theory of gravitational time dilation. Red shifting does occur, and again people believe that this confirms his theory.
This test is particularly ironic. Here we are again, observing an anomaly, and again resorting to the theory of time dilation to explain it. The difference here is that, this time, it's the acceleration of gravity and not the acceleration of inertia that's causing it. As seen in Chapter 2: "Time Dilation", and in the Analysis "Time Dilation", there is no such thing as time dilation. And yet, the red shift does happen, and it does seem that gravity is the likely culprit. So what's really going on? This is also explained in Chapter 4, and will be explained again here.
This effect is caused by a Doppler shift. The simplest way to understand it is by using sound as the example. Sound waves propagate through the medium of air. If an object that is creating sound is moving towards you, the sound waves "bunch up". That is because the object creating the sound moves towards the wave at the same time as the wave moves away from it. If an object that is creating sound waves is moving away from you, the sound waves "spread out". That is because the object that is making the sound moves away from the wave at the same time as the wave is moving away from it. Think of the coils of a moving spring as representing a frequency of sound, and that the moving object that is creating that sound is attached to one end of that coil. When it moves towards the wave (the coils), the spring gets compressed. This represents a higher frequency of sound. When the object is moving away from the sound wave (the coils), the spring gets stretched. This represents a lower frequency of sound.
Another thing that can affect sound is the wind. The wind can also cause a change in not only the way that the object sounds, but also the direction in which you hear the sound coming from. Of course, it takes a pretty strong wind to do that, and in most cases we don't experience winds strong enough to notice the difference.
Einstein was unaware of the ether, so he did not know that light and gravity all propagate through the medium of the ether in exactly the same way as sound propagates through the medium of air. The only difference is the speed of propagation. The Doppler shift of light works exactly the same as the Doppler shift of sound.
The ether vortex that surrounds the Sun is strong enough to cause a Doppler shift. The really ironic thing about all of this is that it is the exact same thing that causes moving atomic clocks to run slower than stationary ones. Lacking a better explanation, scientists end up relying on time dilation to explain it. They seem to forget postulate #2 of General Relativity. "A gravitational field is equivalent to an accelerated frame of reference without a gravitational field." In other words, the acceleration caused by gravity and the acceleration caused by inertia are identical and indistinguishable from one another. As such, if they believe that gravity is causing a red shift, then they should also realize that inertia would also equally cause a red shift in a moving atomic clock. Perhaps their inability to see this is because they don't realize that wherever postulate #2 says "field", it should instead say "force".
They don't think that the difference in the clocks is attributed to red shift. They think it is because of time dilation. But, if they stop and think about it some more, they might realize the following. "Wait a minute. If gravity causes red shift, and acceleration of gravity is the same as the acceleration of inertia, then moving clocks are experiencing red shift, just as if they were exposed to strong gravity. So then, the time keeping is off because of red shift. Then...wait...what happened to time dilation? We calculated that time dilation was responsible for the full effect. If we add red shift into the equation, then that would double the effect. Something's very wrong here!"
Perhaps they feel that red shift is time dilation in action, and by calculating time dilation you are calculating red shift. And they probably have countless experiments to confirm this. However, time dilation and Doppler shift are completely unrelated. This is evidenced by the fact that time dilation, whether attributed to gravity or inertia, has nothing to do with the Doppler shift that is associated with sound. The speeds associated with sound are far too slow to have any sort of noticeable time dilation effect upon sound, but the Doppler shift still makes significant changes in the wavelengths of sound.
The Doppler shift of light has nothing to do with time dilation (it can't, because there's no such thing as time dilation). The Doppler shift is related to ratios. It relates to a comparison between the speed of the object in relation to the speed of the wave. With sound, the speed of the wave is approximately 720 miles per hour. And so, an object traveling at 100 miles per hour would cause a 13% change in the sound wave. With light, the speed of the wave is approximately 670 million miles per hour. And so, an object traveling at 30,000 miles per hour (a satellite orbiting Earth), would cause a 0.004% change in the light wave. The Doppler shift is proportionate to the speed of the object compared to the speed of the wave.
Many various experiments were done to confirm and prove time dilation. In one, airplanes with atomic clocks on them were flown both east and west and checked to see if they achieved differences in timekeeping compared to a stationary clock on Earth's surface. The eastbound clocks lost time, while the westbound clocks gained time. That is because the "stationary" clock on the ground is not really stationary, but is actually moving at the rate of the Earth's spin (approximately 1,000 mph.). Eastbound clocks are then adding their flight speed to the Earth's speed. They are moving faster than the surface clock and are experiencing more time dilation. The westbound clocks are subtracting their flight speed from the Earth's speed. They are moving slower than the surface clock and are experiencing less time dilation.
Of course, what's really happening is that the clocks are flying with or against the ether current caused by the spinning Earth. Thus, they experience either a red shift or a blue shift in the light waves that they use to determine the passage of time in the atomic clocks. Red shift lengthens the wavelengths that are being counted and thereby slows down the clock. Blue shift shortens the wavelengths that are being counted and thereby speeds it up. They think that time dilation is real. What they really accomplished is that they actually proved that the ether exists and that it spins within the Earth.
The way the scientists see it, gravitational red shift proves the theory of the gravitational time dilation. However, it is actually just another piece of evidence that the ether exists.
There are countless experiments that were performed, of all various types, in order to prove the validity of Einstein's Theory of Relativity and the existence of time dilation. The conclusions drawn from the results all seem to indicate that the theory is valid. If someone were to write a book listing and explaining them all, he would be taking on a HUGE lifetime task. However, only one of those experiments will be used as an example here, because it serves well to demonstrate the ongoing problem that scientists are having in evaluating the data.
The experiment that will be examined is the "Mossbauer rotor experiment". Here are the facts of the experiment:
A gamma ray emitter was placed in a fixed position. Beyond it, a gamma ray counter was placed in a fixed position. Between the emitter and the counter was placed a gamma ray absorbing disk. The disk was a cylinder that surrounded the emitter and was capable of spinning around the emitter. When the absorbing disk was stationary, the number of gamma rays that passed through it and reached the counter was documented. When the absorbing disk was spinning around the emitter, the number of gamma rays that passed through it and reached the counter was again documented. The result was that more gamma rays struck the counter when the absorbing disk was moving than when it was standing still.
Those are the facts. Next you will see the conclusions that they came to, based on this observed data. If you had read all the previous chapters of this paper, follow its concepts and come to your own conclusions about this data. Then, compare those conclusions to their conclusions.
They concluded that, because the absorbing disk was moving (spinning around the emitter), it was experiencing time dilation. That means that time slowed down for it. As such, it would absorb less gamma rays in the same amount of time. Actually, it was the same amount of time for the stationary observer (the gamma ray counter), but less time had passed for the spinning absorbing disk due to time dilation. Therefore, the absorbing disk, having less time to do its thing, absorbed less gamma rays, allowing more gamma rays to pass through it and reach the counter. This analysis matches the data and thereby confirms the theory of time dilation.
Something is seriously wrong with their conclusion, simply because there is no such thing as time dilation. With just a little thought about the data, a problem can be seen with their conclusions. Actually, there was more than one problem. Can you see them?
The first problem is the inconsistency in applying the theory of time dilation correctly. The whole reason that the theory was created in the first place is because it was believed that light shared the same inertial reference as the moving object. Thus, the gamma rays (high frequency light) that passed through the moving absorbing disk would have acquired the same time dilation as the absorbing disk. As a result, there should have been no change in the quantity of gamma rays absorbed. But there was a change. The count of the gamma rays that were emitted increased when the absorbing disk was spinning.
Here is the second problem. Although the data is 100% correct, it is the assumptions and narrow mindedness of those who interpret the data that is the problem. They were looking at the results completely backwards. They were examining the data with "blinders" on themselves! They wanted the data to confirm time dilation, and so they looked at the experiment in that context only and applied their logic in that context only. They were thinking about the absorbing disk only in terms of the rate that it absorbed gamma rays. What they failed to consider was the fact that, while it was absorbing gamma rays on the inside surface at a certain rate; it was simultaneously emitting gamma rays on the opposite surface and sending them to the counter at a certain rate.
Now do you see the problem? Spinning the absorbing disk did not cause it to absorb at a slower rate. It caused it to emit at a faster rate! The increase of motion did not decrease the rate of absorption at all. The increase of motion increased the rate of emission.
Let's say you had a bowl of soup that was too hot. You decided to cool it off by dropping an ice cube into it. However, you were in a hurry and needed to speed up the cooling process (the balancing of energy between the hot soup and the cold ice). What do you do? You stick a spoon in there and stir it! This increases the quantity of soup that the ice comes into contact with and hastens the cooling process. When the ice cube is fully melted and blended with the soup, the cooling process has gone as far as it can.
The soup analogy can be used to point out the type of problem that modern science has with their mindset. If you think about the soup situation only in terms of what the ice is doing to the soup and how it is making the soup colder, you will come to a wrong conclusion because you're looking at the wrong thing. The ice is not making the soup colder. It's the hot soup that is making the ice warmer. The hot soup contains an excess of heat energy. The ice contains a shortage of heat energy. The excess heat from the soup transfers into the ice and makes it warmer. As a result, the total heat energy within the soup is diminished, and it thereby becomes cooler. If you look at what's going on within the soup from "the wrong direction", you will come to wrong conclusions about how and why energy moves. The conclusion that the scientists made about the data from the Mossbauer rotor experiment is the embodiment of this "blinders" mentality, and is proof that science is repeatedly misinterpreting the data.
In Chapter 5: "The Electron and Light", frequencies are discussed. What they mean, how they work, and how they play a big part in the ether's ability to absorb energy is explained. That topic is touched upon again near the end of Chapter 10. Those chapters help to illustrate the relationship between waves and the motions that create those waves. They also touch upon the topic of the transfer and relocation of energy.
Why do hurricanes happen? They happen when the difference between the ocean temperature and the upper atmosphere temperature becomes too great for the ether to balance at its normal rate. In order to speed up the energy relocation, the ether executes a change in the frequency of the air. The air spins in a circular motion so that it can cover the same area more frequently in a fixed time period, and so transfer more of the ocean's excess heat energy located in that spot in that same amount of fixed time.
Statements such as “In order to speed up the energy relocation, the ether executes a change in the frequency of the air”, makes it sound as if the ether is intelligent and has devised a plan of action to deal with the situation. Of course, that is not the case at all. The behavior of the ether is simply the result of cause and effect. It obeys the laws of motion, and so its behavior can be anticipated. Its “personality” is that of a “mind” which strives to always obey the law.
Remember that we are dealing with the unified force here. That is, there is only one energy; inertia. The atom is able to take inertia and transform it into all different speeds and frequencies. A hurricane is a good example of this. Why does the ether “want” to relocate the ocean’s excess heat? Why does the ether “decide” to spin in order to redistribute the energy? There is no “want” or “decide” involved in this at all. Those words are used in order to convey nature’s “personality” of being law abiding. It is actually more like the soup example. Heat will travel from a surplus location to an area that has less heat. Heat is merely just one type of motion that is occurring within a particular frequency range. When the ocean water contains more heat motion than the air, the motion transfers from the water into the air until they both have the same amount of motion.
The situation with the hurricane example is that the air molecules were stable in relation to one another prior to the heat exchange. Once they receive this extra heat energy, they contain too much energy to remain stable in that environment. Heat is the domain of the proton, and when it receives this energy it moves more. The proton is connected to all the other parts of the atom. When the proton moves more, the entire atom moves more.
This extra movement is what was being referred to in terms of the air molecules being “stable” in relation to one another. The more that a molecule moves, the greater the volume of space it needs to move in without bumping into other molecules too much. In other words, each particle of air finds itself needing more “elbow room” to move around in. At first, the extra motion caused by the infusion of heat causes the molecules to excessively bump into one another. As those bumps propagate outward, away from the air that is in contact with the surface of the ocean, the spacing between the air molecules increases. Since the molecules that make up the air are now spaced further apart, it results in there being less air per cubic foot, and air pressure drops.
The air can’t move downwards when it spreads out because the ocean is in the way. So, the air moves horizontally outward and vertically upward. Normally, the air would move in a straight path as the area that it needs to occupy expands, sort of like inflating a balloon. However, heat is not the only force being applied to the air molecules. The Earth is also constantly spinning. This causes a rotational force to also be applied to all the air molecules. Thus, the air takes on a rotational motion as it expands outward.
The rotational motion has an added effect. It causes the top of the hurricane to come into contact with more of the ether in a fixed amount of time. As a result, the excessive heat motion from the ocean works its way upward more quickly. The extent to which the air can spread out in an upwards vertical direction is counterbalanced by gravity. The air can only go so high before gravity won’t allow it to go any higher.
The funny thing about the spinning Earth is, the further you are from the center of it, the faster you go. Whether you are on the surface of the Earth, or higher up in the atmosphere, one rotation still takes 24 hours. Yet, the higher you are, the greater the circumference of the circle that you must travel around in that one rotation, which means that you are travelling faster. And so, the air spinning in the upper atmosphere is spinning much faster than the air that is spinning near the surface. All the air molecules are connected to one another indirectly via propagation. This causes the extra speed at the top to be transmitted down to the bottom of the hurricane causing the high winds that we are all familiar with.
The “spark” that starts the whole thing is the imbalance between the ocean heat and the air heat. The spinning of the Earth is what gives the hurricane its power. And the entire thing happens because of a chain reaction of cause and effect events. All of those events are the result of motion equalizing.
How does the energy and mechanics of a hurricane relate to the Mossbauer experiment? No matter the frequency of the inertia, it can still be summed up as being a single unified force. Motion is energy, no matter what the speed. And, likewise, energy is motion which can manifest as any type of speed and frequency. Any and all motion affects the entire atom. We all know that when riding in a car, the speed of the car is imparted onto all of the objects within the car. Everything inside the car gains energy of motion in the form of linear motion. This concept also applies to the Mossbauer experiment. By forcibly spinning the absorbing disk, you add inertia to all the atoms that make up the disk. A hurricane has motion because the air received, and has, too much energy. Likewise, forcing motion onto anything forces extra energy into it. It’s all one and the same thing. Extra energy means extra motion (a hurricane). And, extra motion means extra energy (the spinning absorbing disk).
There is one major difference between the atoms in the absorbing disk and the atoms of air within a hurricane. That is, the absorbing disk is a solid. The atoms within it cannot move apart when their motion increases. Because of this, the extra motion gets transferred into the ether and propagates away from it in that way. If the ether were unable to siphon the extra energy away fast enough, then the atoms would be left with no choice but to acquire more space to move around in. When that happens, a solid transforms into a liquid. The energy levels used in the Mossbauer experiment were far below this threshold.
The absorbing disk’s atoms had previously absorbed gamma ray energy (motion) because they had a shortage of inertia. Now, thanks to the spinning motion, that shortage of energy is reduced. The absorbing disk’s atoms had enough room to accommodate the extra energy received from the spinning motion to move a little more without violating the boundaries imposed on them by being a solid. Spinning adds energy to the system, and so the atoms can no longer absorb as many gamma rays as before. In other words, there’s not enough “elbow room” left over for extra atomic movement caused by absorbing the same quantity of gamma rays. The unneeded and unwanted surplus gamma ray energy is sent away via the ether. As a result, the counter will receive and count more gamma rays when the disk is spinning then when it was at rest.
When interpreting all of this, the fact that the counter counted more gamma rays proves two things. First, if time dilation were true, then, as was at first mentioned, the count should have been the same whether the absorbing disk was spinning or not. Since the count did change, it proves that there is no such thing as time dilation. Second, since the count did increase, it proves that the ether does exist, as explained in the above paragraphs.
This is an example as to why science needs to forget the ridiculous theories. This is why it is true that the data from the experiments is correct, but the analysis of that data is incorrect. The theories poison the thinking of the analysts. The theories blind their eyes, bind their minds, and prevent them from seeing the truth. Read Chapter 2: "Time Dilation" again. Rest assured...THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TIME DILATION. Any and every experiment that science says proves time dilation or gravitational bending of space to be true can instead be explained by the ether. All one needs do is examine the data with an open mind.
COPYRIGHT © 2018, By Jonathan P. Volkel
In "The Unified Force and the Laws of Everything" the topic of time dilation was discussed in chapter 2. In that chapter, the proof that it does not and can not exist was demonstrated with the use of one particular thought experiment. Here, a few other thought experiments that seem to support time dilation will be addressed. The errors in logic and the misinterpretations of the data of those experiments will be shown. You will see that, not only does the "data" really indicate that time dilation does not exist, but also that the experiments are using inconsistent applications of the theory of time dilation in order to favorably manipulate the outcome.
The first topic discussed will be "The twin paradox". In this thought experiment, there are two brothers who are identical twins. One of them travels into space to a distant planet 20 light years away. He travels at .95 the speed of light. He then returns home at the same speed. Thus, he traveled a total distance of 40 light years at nearly the speed of light. When he returns home, he finds that his twin brother aged 42 years while he aged only 13 years. That is what the time dilation formulas calculate as to what would happen.
The paradox here is not that the twin brothers aged differently. The paradox is that, even though the brother who traveled was the one who was moving, to him it appeared as if he was standing still and that the brother who stayed at home was moving. This is the same effect that you experience if you ride on a train and look out the window as the train speeds along. To you, it feels as if you are standing still and the world is whizzing by you.
You may think "What difference does it make if I look out the train window and it appears as if it's the rest of the world that's moving? I know for a fact that, despite what I see, I am the one who is moving. How could such a thing possibly be a paradox? How could such a simple and obvious situation possibly create any sort of confusion?" You are right. The situation is obvious and shouldn’t create any sort of a problem. Ultimately, what you perceive may not matter at all. Human perception can be tricked by optical illusions.
However, the followers of the Theory of Relativity get very confused by this situation. That is because relativity deals with the concept of "what the observer sees" as defining what reality really is. This concept is essential in order to make the theory of time dilation work. Because the Theory of Relativity relies so heavily upon the belief that "what the observer sees" is what defines the actual reality, the theory itself creates its own paradox. From the perspective of each twin, their observation is that the other one is moving. Thus, according to the rules dictated by the theory, both of them should be experiencing time dilation even though only one of them is actually moving. How do they resolve this paradox?
The solution is provided by the introduction of a third party that is moving at a constant speed. The quick explanation here is that the third party can tell which twin is actually changing his inertial reference and which is not. In other words, he can tell which one is moving. This solves the paradox.
Or does it? What happened to the entire concept of "what the observer sees"? This solution to the twin paradox immediately nullifies that argument by inadvertently acknowledging that what the observer sees can be an optical illusion and NOT a relativistic reality. It acknowledges that what the observer sees is therefore irrelevant. By resolving the twin paradox in this way, they automatically disqualify every other "experiment" that supports time dilation by using the argument of "what the observer sees" to justify it.
Any theory that creates a potential paradox should immediately be recognized as an invalid theory. It should be discarded. The theory that "what the observer sees" dictates the reality that you are in is proven to be totally invalid by the twin paradox. They "resolve" it by introducing a third party who sees something quite different. Suddenly, what he sees is now the reality and the moving twins' realities are ignored.
This situation is reminiscent of the old riddle; "If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?" Likewise, if the twin paradox is occurring, and there isn't a third party available to view it, is it still a paradox? Of course it is! The boxcar experiment detailed in Chapter 2 proves that what the observer in motion sees has to be an optical illusion and is not some sort of relativistic reality. The concept of "what the observer sees" is totally invalid.
There is another problem with the twin paradox that science is pretending doesn't even exist. That is, the moving twin traveled away in one direction, and then returned home by reversing his path. Does the direction you travel affect time dilation? If traveling in one direction causes time to slow down, then, wouldn't reversing direction cause it to speed up? This would result in the forward dilation and the reverse dilation cancelling out, causing the returning twin to be the exact same age as his brother.
Not according to the theory of time dilation. Direction doesn't matter, as seen by the application of the theory in the twin paradox. The only thing that matters is the speed you travel at, no matter the direction. Thus the moving twin ages slower in both directions.
If you read the previous Analysis on "Relativity", you might be experiencing a little "itch" in your brain right now. You might be thinking; "Wait a minute. Something's not right here!" Trust your instincts. Something is very definitely not right here!
In the "Relativity" analysis, the experiment that used airplanes in flight to verify that time dilation was responsible for atomic clock discrepancies was briefly mentioned. Let's go over that experiment again.
It is a fact that atomic clocks that are in motion keep time at a different rate than a stationary atomic clock on Earth's surface. It is believed that the moving clocks are experiencing time dilation and that this is the cause of the discrepancies. In order to test and verify the time dilation theory, an atomic clock was placed on an airplane that flew eastbound, and another clock was placed on an airplane that flew westbound. Then, the time indicated by the moving clocks was compared to the time indicated by a stationary clock on the surface of the Earth.
The results of the experiment were as follows. The atomic clock on the eastbound plane ran slower than the ground based clock, and the atomic clock on the westbound plane ran faster. These results were explained by the fact that the "stationary" clock on Earth's surface is not actually stationary. The Earth is spinning from west to east at a speed of approximately 1,000 mph. Therefore the "stationary" clock on Earth's surface is also moving at that speed too.
Thus, the eastbound airplane added its flight speed to the speed of the Earth. This means that it was moving faster than the ground based atomic clock. As a result, its atomic clock experienced more time dilation, and so, ran slower. The westbound plane traveled in the opposite direction of Earth's spin. Thus, its flight speed was subtracted from the speed of the clock on Earth's surface. Therefore, its atomic clock was moving slower than the one on the Earth, and so, it experienced less time dilation than the ground based clock causing it to run faster.
Case closed. Time dilation is proven to be true. Let's move along now. Quickly! Don't look back. Don't think about it. Trust science! .... Wait. What? HOLD ON A MINUTE! Something is VERY wrong here.
Doesn't the result of this experiment prove that direction most definitely does matter? How? What if the eastbound plane kept flying at a constant speed, but decided to make a U-turn and head back to the starting point? Once it started flying westbound, it would have been traveling in the opposite direction of the Earth's spin, just like the other westbound plane. It would have had a relative speed slower than the surface clock, and so, would have experienced less time dilation during that half of the journey than the surface clock. The increased and decreased time dilation, when added together, would have cancelled out. The plane would have returned with its clock perfectly synchronized with the surface clock. The same holds true for the westbound plane. Its clock ran faster while traveling westbound, and would have run slower if it reversed course and headed eastbound. It too would have returned with its clock perfectly synchronized with the surface clock.
Then what does this mean in terms of the twin paradox? The moving twin had a positive speed while traveling outbound (relative to the stationary twin) and a negative speed when returning home. Does this mean the time dilation would cancel out and their ages would be exactly the same? Of course it does. At least, according to the proven data from the atomic clock experiment it does. So then, which is it? Does direction affect time dilation (the atomic clock experiment) or doesn't it (the twin paradox)? The theory and the thought experiments insist that direction does not matter. The data tells us that it does. The data is a fact. The theory is not.
Before some scientist attempts to hurriedly invent some sort of lame excuse to explain this double standard, let's take this to the next step. Not only is the Earth spinning on its axis at about 1,000 mph, it is also orbiting around the Sun at about 67,000 mph. What does this mean for a stationary clock on Earth's surface? It means that, as the Earth spins, half the time the clock is moving in the same direction as the Earth's orbit, and the other half of the time it is moving in the opposite direction of Earth's orbit. As such, it equally experienced more time dilation and then less time dilation. The two effects, when added together, would cancel out, resulting in zero time dilation.
What about a satellite orbiting Earth at about 30,000 mph? The same effect holds true. Half the time it will experience enhanced time dilation, and the other half of the time it will experience reverse dilation. No matter how much greater its time dilation was because of its greater speed, it will still equally cancel out again. As a result, after one complete rotation of the Earth, or one complete orbit around the Earth, neither a surface clock nor an orbiting clock would experience any sort of time dilation. Therefore, a satellite in a geosynchronous orbit around the Earth should always maintain perfect synchronization with a ground based clock.
Here's the funny thing. To prove the existence of time dilation, atomic clocks in an orbital motion would have to remain perfectly synchronized with other clocks in an orbital motion, no matter the speed of the two clocks. In other words, whether two orbiting atomic clocks are moving or not, they should maintain perfect synchronization between them. And so, if nothing unusual happens with the synchronization of the clocks, it would therefore prove that time dilation exists. How convenient. Or is it?
The fact is they don't remain synchronized. Something else is clearly going on here other than time dilation! We'll get to that in a bit with a re-examination of the topic of red shift, but first we'll continue with this concept of the direction of movement.
Not only is our Earth traveling around the Sun at around 67,000 mph, but our Sun is also traveling around the galaxy at nearly 500,000 mph! And we have no idea of how fast our entire galaxy is moving through space on its journey through the universe. So, how does one determine time dilation? Are we even sure of which direction we are actually moving towards when, to us, it feels as if we are standing still? If you travel in the same direction as your overall initial inertia, you would end up increasing your overall speed and you should experience more dilation. If you travel in the opposite direction of your overall initial inertia, you end up decreasing your overall speed and you should experience less. There is no such thing for anything in this universe as a "stationary" starting point. And so, anything that makes a round trip would return home un-dilated.
The entire theory, when combined with the observed data, yields a giant paradox. It should be obvious to anyone that pays close attention that the entire theory is horribly flawed.
According to Einstein's theory, gravity causes red shift which is also attributed to time dilation. Let's look a bit closer at that idea.
Compare a wave of red light, yellow light, blue light and even non-visible light, such as x-rays, to one another. What is the difference in speed between all these types of light? The answer is; zero. They all travel through outer space at the same speed, about 186,000 miles per second, the "speed of light".
Then what is the difference between them? The difference is in the frequency. Red light has the lowest frequency of that group. X-rays have the highest frequency. The higher the frequency of the wave, the shorter the wavelength is. The lower the frequency of the wave, the longer the wavelength is.
So then, when gravity causes a wave of light to red shift, what effect does gravity have on the speed of light? The answer is: ZERO. The speed of red light is the same as that of blue light, or any other wave of light. The only thing that changes is the frequency and wavelength.
Atomic clocks do not base their timing on the speed of light. If they did (if they even could) they would never experience a deviation in their timing. Instead, they base their timekeeping upon counting the number of waves of a predetermined wavelength that go by. A fixed quantity of waves is designated as being "one second". If you lengthen the wavelength, then "one second" will appear to take more time. That is because the waves become longer and all light waves in the same environment move at the same speed. Therefore it takes more time for one full wave to pass by (that is, measuring from the peak of one wave to the peak of the next wave). Thus, it takes more time to count the appropriate number of waves that was designated to equal one second. A clock that was experiencing red shift would find its wavelengths transformed into longer wavelengths and would run slower than when its wavelengths were in their original shorter configuration.
Discrepancies in atomic clocks do not indicate the existence of time dilation. They indicate a Doppler shift is occurring. Doppler shift changes the wavelengths of light, not the speed of light! Based upon the theories and conclusions achieved by scientists because of their understanding of "light", "time" and "timekeeping", it's uncertain if they really understand the subject at all. Here's why.
Imagine if you decided to determine what time it was with your ears instead of your eyes. So, you build a big clock tower with a loud chime on it that can be heard for miles. When the clock strikes one, it sounds one loud chime. If you are standing right next to the clock, you will hear the chime almost at the instant that it sounds the chime. But, what if you are one mile away from the clock? It takes sound approximately five seconds to travel one mile. Thus, when you do finally hear the chime, it's not actually one o'clock. The actual time, as indicated by the clock, at the clock, is one o'clock plus the five seconds travel time of sound. Does this mean that time dilation has occurred? Of course not!
What if you are moving away from the clock as the sound of its chime reaches you? It would then take even longer for the sound to reach you. Does this mean that the increased discrepancy between the actual time and the perceived time was caused by time dilation? No. Of course not! Besides the fact that the sound wave would take longer to reach you because you moved to a position farther away from the clock, the only other thing that will change is the way that the chime sounds. That is because a Doppler shift will change the wavelength of the sound wave because you are moving away from it while it is moving towards you.
It is no different than if the clock had no sound and was visual, and you had a messenger who stood by the clock, read it, and then ran from it to you to tell you what time it is. If he could run a mile in four minutes, then, by the time he gets to you and tells you what time it is, the time indicated by the clock is actually four minutes later. If you walk away from him as he runs towards you, it might take him six minutes to reach you and tell you what time it is because he has to travel farther in order to catch up to you. Does this mean that time dilation is happening because you are moving? Of course not! If you ran away from the messenger at the same speed that he ran towards you, then he would never catch up to you to tell you what time it is. Does this mean that time dilation has caused time to stand still for you? Of course not! In these examples there is one very important concept that you must remember. At no time does the messenger ever tell you what the actual time is. He can only tell you what time it WAS when he left the clock and began to run towards you.
Using light to tell time is no different than the previous example. Light is just the messenger that we arbitrarily use to convey the message of "what time is it" to us. If we move away from that messenger as it moves towards us, we will receive that message later. If we move towards it while it moves towards us, we will receive the message sooner. Does this indicate time dilation? Of course not! Not only does time dilation not happen, but if we move away from a "light messenger" as it moves towards us, we will affect the way that the light appears when it arrives. We will have caused a Doppler shift towards the red to occur.
When we move away from a chiming clock, we create a Doppler shift that changes the frequency of the sound wave, which not only results in the sound wave taking more time to reach us, but it also changes the way the chime sounds because of the different frequency. When we move away from a beam of light, not only does it take more time for the light to reach us, but we also create a Doppler shift that changes the frequency of the light wave, which changes the way the light looks. If we decide to keep time solely according to the way the light looks (counting a predefined number of wavelengths), then moving the clock changes the way that it keeps time. This is exactly what is going on with the moving atomic clocks.
The inability to determine what speed and direction this planet is actually moving at through space creates more problems than simply trying to figure out time dilation. It also causes problems when we look at distant stars. It causes incorrect interpretation of the observed data. When combining the speeds and directions of the Earth, the Sun, the galaxy, and possibly even the whole universe, how can we possibly know our overall speed and direction, much less that of a distant star or galaxy? How can we possibly make correct interpretations of time, distance or composition based upon what we see through a telescope without knowing the speed and direction of ourselves and the object we're looking at? We can't! That is because "what we see" is actually the act of using light as a messenger.
When we use light as the "measuring stick" to evaluate something, we can run into serious problems. When we use light as the messenger to tell time (or any other type of messenger for that matter), the information that we receive has no bearing on what time it really is. The actual time that it "really is" is: the time information conveyed to us by the messenger, plus, the time that it took for the messenger to reach us with that information.
Light travels approximately 10 feet in one billionth of a second. It is the fastest messenger that we can utilize, and so visual timekeeping is the fastest method we can use to attain some sort of accuracy. In order to have the time that you see correspond to what time it actually is, you would need to place your eye right next to the clock. Even then, it still takes a minuscule amount of time for the light to travel from the clock face to your eye. As such, when carried to its extreme implication, we can never know what time it really is. That is because, as long as we rely upon external devices to tell us the time, we will never know the true time. The only way to know it is to "be the clock".
Have you ever heard of Einstein's "magic bus"? When he worked in the patent office in Bern, Switzerland, he would ride the bus home every day. At one point in the trip, he could see the city's large clock tower out of the back window of the bus. He imagined: "If this bus was magical, and it could go faster and faster until it reached the speed of light, what would I see?" He imagined that he would see the hands of the clock moving slower and slower. Once at the speed of light, he would see the hands of the clock standing still. It is from these thoughts that he concluded that the reason for what he would see was because time dilation was occurring. These thoughts played a big part in his creation of the Theory of Relativity and the theory of time dilation.
What he imagined that he would see was absolutely correct. However, thinking that what he "saw" had anything to do with what time it actually was, or that it related to the actual passage of time is a demonstration of his complete inability to correctly interpret data. How can such a comment be true? The following will help to demonstrate.
Think of light as an endless series of messengers, all lined up in a row, and all traveling at the speed of light. Each messenger carries one image. That image is a visual image of the clock face. It is a "snapshot" taken of the clock at the moment the messenger departed from the clock and traveled outward.
If you were sitting still, and the clock was sitting still, then the "light messengers" would pass by you, showing their image to you as they went by. The images would pass by you at a rate corresponding to rate of timekeeping by the clock. However, not one of those images is showing you what time it is. They are showing you what time it was when they left the clock.
If you started moving away from those images as they traveled towards you, they would pass by you less frequently. If you traveled at the exact same speed as them, then they wouldn't be able to pass by you at all. You would continually be looking at just one image from one messenger. If you traveled faster than them, then you would catch up to images that traveled away from the clock before you even started moving. This does not mean that you have traveled backwards in time. It just means that you are looking at old, outdated snapshots of the clock. None of what you saw has anything to do with the rate at which time is passing for you. It only relates to the rate at which the images of the clock pass by you. And, those images have nothing to do with what the time actually is right now. They only relate to what time it was when the image began traveling away from the clock.
How could Einstein not know this? How could he, a scientist, possibly think that the time he would see on the clock had anything to do with what time it actually was right now? Einstein did a pretty good job of collecting data. Yet, here is an excellent example of how poorly he interpreted the data and applied that data to a way in which reality really functions. Perhaps it was this sort of dysfunctional reasoning that lead to the idea that “what the observer sees” dictates what reality actually is. The REALLY troubling thing about all of this is: it's been over 100 years since Einstein rode that bus and came to his erroneous conclusion. In all of that time, science has not realized this problem and criticized him for it. Instead, they teach it in school to the children.
Keeping time, or "telling time", is an arbitrary process. Whether you use the passage of the Sun to do so, or grains of sand that fall through a narrow opening, or a spring loaded mechanical device, or wavelengths of light, you will experience inaccuracies in your results. This is because, no matter how perfectly you design your time keeping device, its operation will not only always be affected and altered by outside influences, but there will always be a delay between the actual time and the moment when the information of "what time is it" finally reaches you.
The outside influences that affect timekeeping devices are motions. Motion is inertia and it is always happening everywhere. The "butterfly effect" is indeed, to some extent, a reality. In fact, just the process of looking at the clock to see what time it is introduces a disruption of energies (motion) that affects the operation of the clock. No matter how well you try to insulate your clock from the effects of outside variable forces, you will never be successful. The ether exists within and all around your clock and it transmits all of the motions occurring in the vicinity right into your clock.
There is one more topic that will be covered here that relates directly to time dilation, and that is the theory of "Length Contraction".
Let's use again the information from the twin paradox. Imagine that you travel a total distance of 40 light years at a constant speed of .95 the speed of light. Thanks to time dilation, only 13 years would pass for you during the trip. However, traveling for 13 years at .95 the speed of light would mean that you would only be able to travel a total distance of 12.35 light years in that amount of time. How could you do that and still arrive at the destination 40 light years away?
Well, actually, you couldn't. Right there is the proof that time dilation is utter nonsense. But wait. Science has come up with an explanation for this. It's another theory called "Length contraction". According to this theory, your actual length is measured only according to an observer at rest. When an object is moving, its length is always less than its proper length. Length contraction takes place only along the direction of motion. Problem solved. Time dilation is again proven to be real.
This theory sounds like some sort of April fool's prank. Your length shortens in the direction of your travel? Really? So then, if you are standing on a spaceship, facing the direction your ship is traveling in, you would then become flatter from front to back? You could also become flatter from front to back if you were in one of those traps where the walls close in around you. And, when they finally do close in and you do become flatter, you die. With length contraction, there are no walls, but you still become flatter. How come you don't die? How does the spaceship continue to function? If you suddenly lay down with your feet pointing in the direction of travel, you become shorter instead?
Or perhaps, your length only seems to change, but it doesn't actually change? Well, if that's true, then perhaps your time only seems to change by time dilation, but it doesn't actually change. How could your length seem to change, but not actually change, and yet still shorten the distance? This theory is too ridiculous to even bother debating. The funny thing is, without it, time dilation is proven to be false. That's why they needed to come up with this theory in the first place!
Consider this. Imagine you have a ruler, and you move it across the room at a fixed speed for a fixed amount of time. At the end of the allotted time, you find that the ruler did not reach the other side of the room. How can you get it to reach there in the fixed amount of time, but you are not allowed to change the speed of the ruler or the width of the room? Use the length contraction theory! If you shorten the ruler, then it will get there faster.
Does this make sense? Not at all! Length contraction does not affect the space in front of you or behind you. It only affects your length. So then, how does the contraction of your length enable you to travel the full distance in less time? It doesn't. Science has to try and trick you into thinking that it does in order to make time dilation a reality.
Take this theory to the next level. The Earth is already moving through space as described earlier. Does this mean that our present physical dimensions are already flattened? What would happen if we flew in a space ship in a direction opposite the Earth's movement? Would we become really thick? After all, direction does matter with time dilation, so then the same must apply to length contraction. Or does it? Does direction matter? It appears that it does or doesn't, depending upon the theory they're trying to prove.
You can watch on-line videos that use animation to demonstrate length contraction. It is with the use of such videos that they try and trick us into thinking that our length somehow has an effect on the total distance traveled. One such video involves the use of two space ships. One of those ships is sitting still in space. The other is traveling at half the speed of light. It approaches the stationary ship from behind and passes right by it. At the moment the two ships are next to each other, they both fire their laser beams forward, in the same direction as the travel path of the moving ship. The laser beams travel at the speed of light. After 12 seconds of time, the distance that the two laser beams traveled is measured. The distance from the nose of the stationary ship to the end of its laser beam is 12 light seconds of distance. The distance from the nose of the moving ship to the end of its laser beam is only 6 light seconds of distance. See? The distance is shorter! This proves that time dilation and length contraction are real! Ta-DA!!!
Wait? What? This is a joke, right? They can't possibly be serious. Oh yes they are! They have to say this because, if they don't, then time dilation is false.
If your intention was to measure the total distance that the moving ship's laser beam had traveled, then why would you measure from the nose of the moving ship? That is not how one measures the length of something. You would need to measure from one end to the other, not from some point in the middle. You would need to start your measurement from where the beam was fired from. That is, you would need to start your measurement right next to the stationary ship.
Imagine that you wanted to measure the width of a room, and you had a helper with you. You attach a tape measure against one wall, and you hold the end of the tape. You tell your helper to read out the distance indicated by the tape. So, you grab the tape and start to walk to the other side of the room, pulling the tape as you go. The helper follows you, walking at half the speed that you walk. When you reach the far wall, you stop walking, and so does the helper. He looks down at the tape and calls out the measurement; "5 feet".
Think about that result. Is the room actually 5 feet wide? Perhaps the room shrank because of length contraction? Perhaps the tape measure shrank? What would you say to such a helper? Did he miss the day in elementary school where they taught the children how to measure things? Perhaps he needs to read an instruction manual on how to use a tape measure? The tape measure is like the laser beam. Why would you measure its distance from some point in the middle and think that it had anything to do with the total length? Apparently, modern scientists think that this is the correct way to measure the length of something.
The believers in the Theory of Relativity have no choice but to believe that it does, because the theory relies heavily on the concept of "what the observer sees". The observers in the moving ship no longer see the point where the beam was fired from. They only see it from the midway point and beyond. The theory requires them to measure from the nose of the moving ship. That's because their perspective is a relativistic reality. In other words, reality is determined by "what the observer sees". The whole thing falls apart if someone on the moving ship looked out the rear window. Can you not only see how ridiculous this is, but also the inconsistent application of the theory?
Think back to the twin paradox. What the two twins saw created a paradox that refuted time dilation. The only solution was to introduce a third observer and rely upon what he saw to resolve the paradox. Obviously, the viewpoint of a third observer is an acceptable and valid thing to do. So then, what if we bring in that third observer here to resolve this spaceship debate? What will he see as the total length traveled by the laser beam fired from the moving ship? Of course, from his perspective in a third ship, whether he is moving or not, he will see that the moving ship's laser beam also traveled a total of 12 light seconds of distance, just as the stationary ship's did. His observation proves that the theory of length contraction is false. And, if length contraction is false, then so is time dilation. And, because these theories are proven false, Einstein's entire Theory of Relativity goes tumbling down.
Now, put all of that together. "What the observer sees" is an idea that attempts to prove the existence of time dilation, and thereby the Theory of Relativity. It is used in the boxcar experiment that was referred to in Chapter 2. Then, along comes realization of the twin paradox. Suddenly, "what the observer sees" causes time dilation to be proven false. So, they introduce a third observer, which conveniently negates the observations of the other two observers. Doing this saves the day, and time dilation again appears to be true. Then it is realized that actual distance traveled does not equal the time dilated distance traveled. Time dilation is again proven wrong. It turns out that the only way to validate time dilation is to invent another theory to try and explain it: the theory of length contraction. However, in order to validate length contraction, we must again apply the concept of "what the observer sees" in order to make it work. As soon as we do, time dilation is again validated. But then, when we apply the same concept that saved time dilation in the twin paradox (the third observer who nullifies what the observers see) to the length contraction explanation, we again invalidate what the observer sees, but this time it causes the whole thing to be proven false. And around and around we go. When will science finally acknowledge the truth? There is no such thing as time dilation!
The data, arguments and applications of the rules relating to time dilation are so impossible, contradictory, and inconsistently applied, that one might end up believing that this whole thing is some kind of scam, purposefully designed to fool those who aren't paying attention. It is difficult to conceive of how anyone with a scientific education could actually believe in these theories. But then, why would anyone intentionally perpetrate such a ruse upon all of humanity? THAT is a very good question.