top of page

     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.


                                                             ANALYSIS  DIRECTORY













                                 THE ENERGY OF MOTION

COPYRIGHT © 2018, By Jonathan P. Volkel


     The previous chapters reveal what “Energy” really is. It is an effect that only exists within Matter. Energy saturates Matter, which then causes the Matter to move through Space at a constant speed for continuous durations of Time. Even though we cannot remove Energy from within Matter, isolate it, and “put it under a microscope”, we can clearly observe how it affects Matter.

     The resultant behavior of Energy in Matter is defined by Newton’s three laws of motion. Those three laws are considered by science to be absolute. They have been classified as “Laws” because they NEVER fail. There is no such thing as a phenomenon or effect that can violate those laws. Despite that certainty, scientific theories created over the last century have blatantly violated those laws repeatedly.

     Modern science seems to think that it already has a proper understanding of energy. But, their present theoretical understanding of energy, matter, and objects, creates some severe conflicts with the proven and factual laws. It is as if they have either forgotten the meaning of the scientific application of the word “law”, or that they have completely forgotten that Newton’s laws even exist. This is evident because, the same people who think that they already properly understand energy, also accept Einstein’s Theory of Relativity as being plausible. Relativity gives both gravity and light attributes that defy the known scientific laws, and it is not scientifically reasonable to accept both the Theory of Relativity and the laws of motion at the same time. In order to accept one of them, you must disregard the other.

     Science pretends that the laws of motion and Einstein’s theory can exist together in harmony, but in reality, they cannot. In order to clarify that a conflict actually does exist between the proven laws and the unproven theories, what will follow is a closer look at Newton's three laws of motion.

Law #1 - "An object moves with a velocity that is constant in magnitude and direction unless acted upon by a nonzero net force.” (external)

Law #2 – “The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force acting on it and inversely proportional to its mass.” This law is also expressed as a mathematical formula: F = ma.

Law #3 – “If object #1 and object #2 interact, the force exerted by object #1 on object #2 is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the force exerted by object #2 on object #1.” This law can be rephrased as “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

     The first law could also be restated as “An object CANNOT change its existing state of motion unless it comes into contact with an external force.” The second law of motion clearly defines what an “external force” is: F = ma. That is, an external force is solely defined by the second law as being a mass in motion. Therefore, since all three laws are unanimous in that they are all defining the behavior and interaction of “objects”, then all three laws also make it abundantly clear that an “object” can only be something that has physical mass. There is no such definition in existence for any kind of a force existing outside of and independent from Matter.

    Another inescapable conclusion can also be drawn from the combination of all three of these proven and unfailing laws of motion, and it is this:

     The ONLY way an object (a discrete mass of Matter) can experience a change in its existing state of motion is by coming into direct physical contact with another object (a discrete mass of Matter). Both objects experience a change in their state of motion because of the contact.


     Acceptance of the Theory of Relativity not only defies scientific laws, but it defies common sense and simple observations as well. General Relativity transforms gravity into an effect called a “field” which is able to cause an object to change its existing state of motion without that object having to come into contact with a different object. Gravity supposedly causes this to happen by bending Space. Theoretically, Matter then changes speed and direction in order to navigate the bent Space. This concept violates the first law of motion. In addition to that, although gravity affects the motion of objects, the resultant interaction has no effect upon the motion of gravity. This violates the third law of motion.  Special Relativity transforms “light” into waves and particles that are objects which have zero mass (zero Matter), and yet, they somehow still have the ability to affect the motion of physical objects made of Matter. This violates the second law of motion.

      Based solely upon these major conflicts with the proven and accepted laws of motion, science should have immediately rejected Einstein's theory. They did not. Einstein’s theory not only completely defies the laws, but it also completely ignores the reality of what an “object” actually is. His theory transforms an object from being something made out of physical matter into a mass-less ghost-like wave or particle. However, Einstein was not the first to embrace the concept of mass-less objects.


     The first application of the concept of a mass-less object relevant to this analysis appeared in the Michelson-Morley experiment. It was performed in the late 1800’s and is described in Chapter 3 “The Discovery”. A closer look at their theoretical ideas also reveals a serious disregard for Newton’s laws.

     At that time, scientists knew that light was a wave, and they realized that waves were just patterns of motion that propagated through a medium. Since light travels through outer space, they theorized that a medium of propagation for light waves should fill outer space. They even named this theoretical medium: “The Lumineferous Aether” (the ether).

     This was the beginning of their errors. The error was not in their belief that the ether existed. The error lied in their uncertainty about it, revealed by their belief that the ether MIGHT or SHOULD exist. If they had possessed a confidence in their understanding of waves, they would not have even considered the ether to be theoretical. They would have known that it absolutely MUST exist and did exist. That is, its existence is a non-negotiable reality. They would have realized that the fact that light was proven to be a wave was sufficient evidence that the ether actually does exist, in the same way that the presence of a sound wave is sufficient evidence that the air exists.

     Michelson’s and Morley’s apparent uncertainty about mediums of propagation caused them to theorize impossible and irrational characteristics for the ether. They imagined that the ether must be motionless, rigid and mass-less. As impossible as these attributes may seem to be, they did have their reasons for creating those theoretical traits.

     The behavior of light is unusual. It appears to move at only one speed, no matter what the speed of the object emitting the light may be. It was decided that, in order for this effect to happen, the ether must possess a constant and unchanging inertial reference. Although that conclusion was correct, for some reason it was stubbornly decided that its inertial reference must be zero. That is, the ether was considered to be “standing still” in relation to the motion of all other objects in space.

     This conclusion created an immediate conflict with the third law of motion. If the ether was going to interact with objects, then the objects must therefore also interact with the ether. Since all the objects in space are in motion, then the resultant exchanges in motion between the ether and those moving objects would cause a motionless ether to not remain motionless for long. And so, the third law of motion renders the concept of a motionless ether impossible.

     Realization of this fact required the creation of the ether’s second theorized characteristic. In order to satisfy the third law of motion and simultaneously allow for the ether to be motionless and remain motionless, it was believed that it would also have to be rigid.

     Although this theory provided an explanation for how the ether could remain perpetually motionless, it also created a new and bigger problem. An example of another medium that is (relatively) motionless and rigid would be a big block of steel. Although the block of steel is analogous to an unmoving and rigid medium, no objects can pass through it. However, all the objects in space not only move, but they move unhindered. They coast perpetually at constant speeds. This fact invalidates the theory of a motionless and rigid ether.

     In order to resolve this problem, the third characteristic for the ether was conceived. In order for it to be motionless, rigid, and also not interfere with the motion of objects, it must therefore also be mass-less. And so, equipped with this theoretical understanding of the ether, they performed their experiment. The results indicated that the ether did not exist.

     Actually, the results only proved that their theoretical ideas about the ether were incorrect. Those ideas were not only narrow minded and irrational, but they were totally impossible because they defied the laws of motion. They accidentally and unwittingly proved that the concept of an object being mass-less was impossible.

     The need to ascribe the impossible characteristic of being mass-less to the ether, in order to justify the theoretical characteristic of it being motionless, should have been proof enough that the assumption that the ether was motionless was therefore not a valid option. If they had a correct understanding of the laws of motion, they would have revised their theory before ever performing their experiment.

     Just as a block of steel is a medium of propagation, so too is the air and the water. The steel is a motionless medium, but the air and the water are mediums in motion. Simple observation demonstrates that mediums which move can simultaneously allow objects to move right along with them unhindered. In addition to that, zero motion is not the only situation that can provide a constant and unchanging inertial reference. If a medium was in motion at a constant speed, it would also possess a constant and unchanging inertial reference. It too would serve as a sufficient explanation for the constant speed of light. Had they realized this, they would have changed their entire theory and been able to completely ignore and eliminate the idea of a mass-less environment.

    Even though it would appear that the application of the concept of being mass-less was indeed an attempt to conform to the laws, it was a deceptive, partial, and faulty attempt. A correct understanding of the laws of motion proves that there is no such thing as a mass-less object, or any kind of a force that has zero mass.

     The first law of motion tells us that an object can only change its motion by coming into contact with an external force. The second law tells us that an external force is another object (a mass) in motion. Since all the objects in space are moving at constant speeds, then the obvious conclusion is that they are doing so because they are not being affected by any opposing external force. This means that they are not coming in contact with any opposing mass.

     Since the theorized motionless ether would fill the entire universe, and since the motion of the objects in space is constant, then, according to the law, a theoretically motionless ether would absolutely have to possess zero mass. The absence of tangible substance would be the only way to prevent a motionless ether from being able to exert any force upon objects moving through it, thereby allowing their motion to be completely unhindered. This is only possible because there would be no physical contact between an ether that has zero mass and the actual real mass of an object in motion.

     Although this seems to satisfy the first and second laws of motion, it completely ignores the third law. In order for a wave to be created within any medium of propagation, the patterned motion of an object transfers into the medium. It does so because there is physical contact between the object and the medium at the point where the surface of the object touches the medium. The motion then transfers throughout the entire medium, propagating through it as a wave, because the medium has continuous physical contact within itself.

     Recall again law #1. An object cannot change its motion unless it comes into contact with an external force. Recall law #2. A force is defined as being a mass in motion. Recall law #3. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So then, according to the laws, if the ether cannot affect the motion of objects because it is mass-less, then alternatively, how could an object affect the motion of the mass-less ether so as to create a wave that propagates through it? The answer is; IT COULDN’T!

     Imagine a mass-less and motionless ether that has no effect upon objects that move through it. Now imagine a reverse scenario. That is, it is the object that is motionless and it is the mass-less ether that is moving through the object. Would the ether now be able to affect the motion of the object? Of course not. It makes no difference which one is moving and which is standing still. The third law of motion reveals that if there is no action performed one way, then no action will be performed the other way. The action (or lack thereof) is equal and opposite. In other words, if a mass-less ether cannot affect the motion of an object, then the object cannot affect the motion of a mass-less ether.


     By deciding that the ether had to be mass-less in order to fit their theory, they immediately disqualified it from being a medium capable of propagation. Not only would an object be unable to make contact so as to create a wave in a mass-less medium, but the reverse concept also applies. If a motionless and mass-less ether did not affect the motion of objects, then neither would any pattern of motion that was moving through a mass-less ether suddenly have the ability to affect the motion of a stationary object. This means that any wave that might somehow exist within, and travel through, a mass-less ether would also have no effect upon objects.


     It is the realization of how utterly impossible and paradoxical the characteristic of being mass-less is, as demonstrated by the Michelson and Morley theories, that makes the errors in Einstein’s theory become more readily apparent. Einstein incorporated the concept of mass-less objects into his theory. In order to try and make the concept of a mass-less object work, he had to transform other mass-less concepts into objects. He altered the definitions of time and space, and he mutilated the definition of an object. He had to violate Newton’s laws and the very nature of reality itself to try and make his theory seem plausible.

     As previously stated, a mass-less ether in motion would have no effect upon a stationary object. What if it were possible to take just one handful of that mass-less ether and throw it at a stationary object? Would that mass-less hurled chunk have any effect upon the motion of that stationary object? Would that object begin to move? No, of course not. If the entire mass-less ether would have no effect on the motion of objects, then why would just one handful, or even one particle, suddenly be able to have an effect?

     What if it were possible to peel off one long “string” from that mass-less ether? What if that string was shaken so that it wiggled like a wave, and then it was thrown at a stationary object? Would that cause the object to suddenly start to move? No, of course not.

     It does not matter what the size, shape, speed, quantity of non-mass, or the pattern of motion a mass-less object might possess. In any and all cases, it would have zero effect upon the motion of a real object made of matter. It would be impossible for it to affect the motion of an object because it possesses no mass, which means that it possesses no force. And, only an external force can cause an object to experience a change in its state of motion. The logical conclusion revealed by the proven and undisputed laws of science is obvious:


     We know that light alters the motion of things that it comes into contact with. Those things which are affected by light get hotter, and the increased heat means increased motion. Therefore, according to the law, light must be a force. That leads to only one possible conclusion. That is, light waves incorporate mass in motion within them. This evidence is yet another proof that photons MUST have mass.

     Einstein’s theory defines light waves and particles as being mass-less. Science has embraced this belief and expanded upon it. They have created even more theories that depend upon a mass-less “something” being capable of exerting a force upon Matter, thereby causing that Matter to alter its state of motion. Einstein’s theory, and all the additional theories about mass-less forces that can affect the motion of objects, are wrong.

      A clear understanding of the laws of motion provides clear and confident understanding of Einstein’s error. His error was born of the fact that he believed Michelson’s and Morley’s declared experimental results; that the ether did not exist. But, as stated in Chapter 3 “The Discovery”, the ether most definitely exists, it is made of physical particles of Matter, and it is in constant motion.

     The concept of mass-less forces was borrowed from Einstein’s theory and then thoroughly utilized in quantum mechanics (the study of the atom). In fact, that field of study is entirely dependent upon the belief in mass-less forces. The Bohr model of the atom is the standard that scientists use to create all the existing atomic theories, and that model depicts the electrons as orbiting around the atom’s nucleus without any physical contact between them. As a result, any energy interactions between the electrons and the nucleus would totally rely and depend upon the existence of a mass-less force. The Bohr model of the atom ignores the laws of motion and is therefore completely incorrect.

     It is the utilization of the concept of mass-less forces that enabled science to create the “Standard Table of Elemental Particles”. It is the theoretical description of all the various particles which, when assembled, form the atomic components. There are two major categories that the theoretical particles fall into: Fermions and Bosons. Fermions are considered to be “matter particles”. Bosons are considered to be “force particles”.


    There are two incredibly huge errors that quantum mechanics embraces that allows the Standard Table of Elemental Particles to exist. The first error is their belief that the ether does not exist. The second error is their belief that mass-less forces do exist.


     Bosons are theorized to be “force particles”. It is theorized that they have no mass at all. They possess only force, and their mass-less force is somehow still able to affect the motion of matter. This concept completely and blatantly defies the second law of motion. Apparently, science doesn’t seem to care about that. This is because they needed to come up with some sort of an explanation as to what holds an atom together. The invention of the theoretical concept of bosons was the best that they could do. And so, bosons are described as being “the glue” that holds an atom together.

     Try to imagine how a mass-less force could actually function as “the glue” that holds an atom together. First, it would need to be created from within the very center of the atom. Created how and by what? Does this force explode outward, like a miniature Big Bang? Does it continuously “seep” outward? Where is the endless supply of energy for this perpetual creation come from? Of course, science has no plausible explanation for any of these questions.

     Next, this mass-less force would need to travel outward from the center of the atom until it came into contact with a particle possessing mass. It would then have to stop, grab hold of that mass, and then hold onto it in such a way as to overcome the first law of motion. Does the force just stop there and hold on? Does it reverse direction and drag the matter back to the center? Does it suddenly “let go” and then keep moving outward, past the object, while the next “piece” of force right behind it repeats the process?

      How could any of that possibly work? How can it even make contact with matter when the force particle has no mass? Why would it stop when it encounters matter? If it doesn’t stop, then how could it affect the motion of the object in a reverse manner? How does it manage to “grab” matter like “glue”? Simply calling it a “force particle” is not sufficient to satisfy the laws of motion. All the laws must be satisfied. The “force particle” concept seems to barely satisfy the first law, but in no way does it satisfy the second and third laws.

     In an attempt to justify all of these obvious problems, the Standard Table of Elemental Particles has grown to include at least a dozen different particles to try and explain all of these conflicts. Every so often, science “discovers” a new particle to add to the list in an attempt to make it seem more plausible. Each newly discovered theoretical particle is given magical law defying abilities that enable it to seem as if the theory works. If one were to research the descriptions and tables listing those particles, one would find the entire topic to be extraordinarily complicated and totally irrational. However, the real explanation as to what holds the atom together is so incredibly simple, it makes the Standard Table of Elemental Particles seem like a very complex and elaborate practical joke.

     The quick explanation for what actually holds an atom together can be summed up with four words: The ether does exist. The ether is filled with subatomic particles that are very close together, and all of those particles are in high speed motion. Every atom in the universe is “submerged” within that vast ether ocean. As such, every atom is affected in a way that is not dissimilar to the way that air is affected when it is submerged under water. The surrounding water pressure forces the submerged air to move towards the center of itself. This forces the air to take on the spherical shape of a bubble.

      Stars, planets, and even atoms all take on spherical shapes. And this is not because some force from within these objects is reaching outward and dragging all the pieces back towards the center of the object, as quantum mechanics believes. It is because the ether is “squeezing” everything from without. In other words, the force that holds atoms together does not come from inside the atom. It comes from outside of it. And, that force obeys every single law of motion.


      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. Such behavior would totally violate the laws of motion.

      The source of atomic vibration must come from an external source. And, since that external source causes the entire substance of an atom to continually and randomly change its direction of motion, then, according to the first law of motion, it must be a force (F = ma). In fact, it is the rapid application of many external forces, applied by many particles of matter moving at high speed which perpetually collide with the atom from every direction. This causes the rapid changes in motion of the atom’s substance that is referred to as “vibration”. And so, vibration within atoms is absolute proof that the particles of the ether completely surround everything, have physical mass, and are in high speed motion.

     Science expanded the concept of mass-less forces even further and applied it to an explanation for the creation of the universe. The Big Bang Theory imagines that a tiny force particle with immense power suddenly exploded. They call that mass-less force particle “The Higgs boson” and “the god particle”. As the explosion expanded, some of that immense energy transformed into matter. The matter formed into planets, stars and galaxies. Then, evolution happened, and here we are!

     Imagine an explosion expanding from the center, outward in every direction. As the effect expands, each and every part of that explosion moves in a straight line away from the center. It has to. The first law of motion tells us that nothing can alter course without the application of an external force. In the Big Bang scenario, there are no other external forces in existence. The theoretical explosion was the very first release of energy and the source of all the forces that presently exist in the universe. As the energy moves outward, it is also simultaneously spreading out and moving farther and farther away from all the other explosion energy.

    Science has theorized that somehow, the energy spontaneously transformed into matter, which then magically changed direction so as to travel towards and merge with other newly formed matter in order to become atoms. Then, those atoms changed direction yet again so as to merge with other atoms and form all the various objects in space. Then, for some reason, they changed direction yet again and all of it started to spin and orbit.

     How could a scenario that initially possesses only linear motion, moving outward from a central point, suddenly transform itself into spinning motion? A belief that such a thing is possible is the opposite of science. Each and every part of this theory defies scientific laws and common sense. Science does not even care. They created the Standard Table of Elemental Particles to invent the magical objects that have the ability to defy the law. They believe that the fictional force particles and the imagined fields that those particles radiate are sufficient to overcome the requirements of the law.

     Is it any wonder then, that science unsuccessfully struggles to discover a Unified Field Theory? The fields that they have invented possess so many different magical abilities, that it is impossible to find anything in common between them, or to even provide a rational explanation for how they function. The really relevant question concerning this situation is; how long will they keep this up before they finally realize that Einstein’s theory and everything derived from it is completely wrong?

      The law of conservation of energy tells us that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It transforms from one type into another. Science does not have a clear understanding of energy, and so the transformation has resulted in the creation of misidentified types, such as; kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy, mechanical energy, electromagnetic energy.

     However, all of these energies are all one and the same thing. It is not the transformation from one type of energy into another. It is the transformation from one pattern of motion into another. The energy in all cases is exactly the same. The only difference between different manifestations of energy is their patterns of motion. If an atom spins with a certain orbital speed, it might create a wave in the ether that manifests to us as heat. If it spins faster, the pattern of motion created in the ether by that spinning atom changes. The pattern might then manifest to us as light. If the atom breaks free from whatever force is holding it in orbit, and then suddenly flies off in a linear direction, it might manifest to us as mechanical motion.

     Understanding the patterns of motion of groups of individual objects is the key to understanding everything else that is discussed. Light, gravity, magnetism, heat and, any other energy that we perceive, exist because they are all a manifestation of motion. Different speeds and patterns of motion of different quantities of mass create the different effects that we have labeled as all of the different kinds of energy that exist. And that is all that energy really is; the effect that creates the motion of Matter. Our universe is a place of objects (Matter) in perpetual motion. That motion is defined by Newton’s laws of motion. Absolutely nothing can violate those laws.



Energy of motion


COPYRIGHT © 2018, By Jonathan P. Volkel

    When motion was discussed in the previous topic, “The Energy of Motion,” the analysis of Newton’s Laws of Motion make it clear that the laws describe and apply to the movement of objects, and that only something that possesses mass can be considered as an object. There is no such thing as a mass-less object. That means that a wave is not a mass-less object. It is (and must be) something else.  This topic will look closer at those waves. It will demonstrate 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 essentially 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 move a little bit. But, when viewed as a whole, that poke traveled across the entire room. The moving 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. Carefully watch 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 the shore, but the object moves closer by 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 cannot 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 is the motion of the water unobstructed so that the water molecules and the wave can move together.


     That is 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". It is a pattern of motion that must propagate through a medium. If it does not travel that way, it is not a wave. There is a point to this excessive redundancy.

     The previous descriptions 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 behavior of atomic motion. Orbiting objects move in a circular path within the ether. That orbit causes the photons to travel away from that object in a sequence that takes on a sinusoidal, snake like pattern. We refer to that pattern as a 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".  Those chapters provide the details on "why" a wave looks as it does. That topic will not 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. 


    A physics textbook’s definition of a wave will differ in the definition provided earlier. The textbook will add to the previous definition by stating 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, scientists 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.


     Realize that science’s 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. It had the ability to bend around corners, which a particle moving in a straight-line direction cannot 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 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 do not 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 can 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 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. Outer space is not, and cannot possibly be empty! There is no other intelligent conclusion that can be drawn. As described in the previous posting about energy, energy cannot 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 experimentally observed to be a component of light that comprise the medium. The ether exists! Chapter 3 – “The Discovery” shows the experiment which attempted to find the ether, how they messed up the experiment, and what the results really mean. The ether exists, and its existence answers all the questions about light simply and easily. It is amazing that scientists do not realize this obvious, inescapable conclusion. The ether absolutely must exist! It is the medium which the patterned vibrations known as "light" travel through via mechanical 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 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 is why the search for the medium (the ether) happened 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 cannot be altered and space cannot 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 will not 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 did not 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 cannot 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 cannot 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 conclude that a wave is mass-less energy that travels through space. There is also a very good reason as to why they concluded that a wave is massless. 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 being 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 travelled 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 travelled 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 those objects required none.

     Recall the image of a wave illustrated in Chapter 5:

close up wave.png


     The total energy of this wave is the summation of the mass of all 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 is not 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 is not 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 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 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.



Light waves

                                                LIGHT WAVES

COPYRIGHT © 2018, By Jonathan P. Volkel

     Some of the content of the previous chapter, "Waves," may have seemed simple, rudimentary, and redundant. After having read it, a feeling might have existed 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 it seemed so obvious that it was beginning to become boring, 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 is what everybody thought. But, as will be seen, that is not the case at all. He made very many mistakes. Some of those mistakes were created 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. Information on "slit experiments" and "interference patterns" is easy to find on the internet. Even the interference patterns that Einstein studied can be viewed.  

     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 outer space is empty must be incorrect. Outer space must be filled with these particles and they must be composed of matter for the propagation of a wave of light to work. Eureka! I have 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. For him to explain how this error could be a reality required several more errors. Rather than challenge the results of Michelson and Morley, he chose instead to repeatedly violate the nature of the universe. These additional errors were as equally bad as the first. Although two wrongs do not 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 cannot 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 always shooting these particles out like machine gun fire in all directions. Thus, space must be 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 the stars would constantly and rapidly lose mass and shrink. Not only that, but since all these particles 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, stars do not shrink and collisions do not 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 is 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 do not. 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 did not. 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 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 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

      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, 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 has not changed, which results in getting the same results for your experiment.  And so, when performing experiments, your inertial reference does not have to be equal with that of the experiment. It is just that the difference must 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 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 does not. 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 is the difference? The re-wording eliminates the implication that the speed of light is constant and provides the clue as to what is really going on.


     The following example will help to demonstrate the difference. Imagine being in a boat, drifting on the ocean. Suddenly, a fish swims past 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 need to rev up the engines, 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 does not change, even though yours does? Even though the answer to that question might be obvious, 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 a yet unknown phenomenon we will call "time dilation". Thus, it is not your speed which is the thing that was changing, but instead, it is 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 does not 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 cannot 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 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, 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 have to change when ours did. The fact that its speed does not change when ours does change proves (according to all the known and factual laws of science that exist) that it cannot be, and is not, in the same inertial reference frame as us. To invent a new theory to explain what is going on which defies the known laws (time dilation) is irrational. What difference does it make if it is in our inertial reference frame or not? Here is another analogy to help visualize what is really going on.


     Imagine a submarine under water. What goes on inside the submarine and outside it is 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 us 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 the sub was moving at 20 mph., and the fish swam up from behind, it would enter the sub between the links from behind, swim right through the sub, and then out the front in between the gaps there. From the 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 the perception of its speed. That is because the fish is not a part of the sub and, technically, is not actually swimming through the sub. It is swimming through the water, which also happens to be occupying the area enclosed by the sub. It is just a coincidence that the sub is encompassing the same space that has the water which the fish is swimming through. Other than some minor turbulence, the movement of the sub has little effect on the water and the movement of the fish. That is because the fish is not in direct contact with the sub. It only has indirect contact with it through the water. The two 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 does not take long to create a whirlpool. Now imagine the spoon is full of holes. The whirlpool can still be created, 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 atomic objects pass by a spot once, they 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 do not realize that changes in ether currents, combined with the clock's rate of travel, affect the 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 2.”  

     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 a part of 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 mechanical propagation of all atomic 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 is 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 like 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 like 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 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 symmetrical pattern. Image #6 is no different than the others. It is just a shape, and this 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 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. It is 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 did not work, he then created rules and formulas to explain the law-breaking behavior of a mass-less object. He did this because he could not see the individual objects whose pattern of motion manifested as a wave shape. That is, he could not 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 is because it is not 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 do not 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 can travel unaffected by the curvature of the space that it bends.

     The concept of a “field” has become science’s “license to kill” the laws 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 cannot tell the difference between an intangible concept and pattern, and an actual real “object.”

      A mass-less wave violates the laws of motion because the laws of motion do not even apply to it. The laws 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 the atomic components are spinning and orbiting. That is the only way an atom can simultaneously create so many different patterns of motion which propagate mechanically through a medium.

     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 mechanically 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 would not. 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 am 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 had 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 does not 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 was not 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 conflicting with postulates #1 should have revealed to him that his perception of them was wrong. 

     Modern scientists seem to be ...asleep, and in need of a figurative 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. Einstein could not figure it out, and apparently, neither has anyone else during the entire century since it was written. What follows will lead 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 be a secret when it is 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 is not 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 true. However, the above sentence conflicts with Einstein’s wording of 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. The following will show the 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 are 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 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.

     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'.)

     Einstein blundered in his creation of postulate #2. Re-read the verbal descriptions and look at the formulas of the two previously cited laws discovered by Newton. 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 employed the concept of a non-contact mass-less “field force” in his theory, and thought it would be the same as the force Newton described in his law of universal gravitation. He failed to realize that the entire reason that the equality exists in the first place is because they are both contact forces and that Newton had never even heard of such a thing as a mass-less “field fore.” By changing gravity into a "field", Einstein immediately nullified the equality which Newton’s laws 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 of motion 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. Would not 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 are 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 bending space?  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 is not a “unifying” force. I have just found proof in the known laws of science of what the “unified” force is! It is mass in motion! 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 could not 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 meets 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 will 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 could not 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 will 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 do not 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 is 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 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 does not seem to explain that extra shifting in Mercury's orbit. Scientists originally thought that there might be some 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 cannot 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 is 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.

     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 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 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 is 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 did not actually indicate the bending of the space. They really indicated the inertia 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 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 did not 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 is the acceleration of gravity and not the acceleration of inertia that is causing it. As seen in Chapter 2: "Time Dilation", and in the Analysis "Time Dilation 2", 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 is 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 strong wind to do that, and in most cases, we do not 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 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 the same as the Doppler shift of sound. 

     The ether vortex that surrounds the Sun is strong enough to cause a Doppler shift. The 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 do not realize that wherever postulate #2 says "field", it should instead say "force".

     They do not 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 is 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 cannot, because there is 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 stationary, but is 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 is 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 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 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. Here are the conclusions that they came to, based on this observed data.

     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. According to the theory, 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.

     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 but did not change speed when the object changed speed. 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. Since both are experiencing time dilation, then the effect cancels out. 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.

     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.


     Imagine a bowl of soup that was too hot. Dropping an ice cube into it would cool it off faster. However, to speed up the cooling process even more (the balancing of energy between the hot soup and the cold ice) the soup could be stirred. This increases the quantity of soup that the ice touches 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 the soup situation is thought of only in terms of what the ice is doing to the soup and how it is making the soup colder, any conclusions drawn about the cooling process will be wrong because it is being looked at the wrong way. The ice is not making the soup colder. It is 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, simultaneously causing the ice to melt. As a result, the total heat energy within the soup is diminished because some of it transferred into the ice. Looking at the situation from "the wrong direction" causes 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. 

     It seems that the scientists who rely upon the Mossbauer rotor experiment have completely forgotten the rudimentary laws of physics that Einstein reminded everyone of in his Special Relativity postulate #1. In simple terms, it is a reminder that you will get the same results every time for an experiment as long as the difference in motion between the components of the experiment remains unchanged. And so, if the motion of any part of the experiment changes, the results will also change.

     In the first part of the experiment, the gamma ray absorber is motionless and so is the gamma ray detector. Their difference in motion is zero. This caused a certain result in gamma rays counted. In the next part of the experiment, the absorber was put into a constant motion while the counter remained stationary. The difference in their motion was no longer zero. Without knowing anything else about the experiment, there is one thing that is absolutely certain. That is, the results of the second experiment will be different than the first.

     There is one unified force, and it is matter in motion. When the absorbing disk is spun, energy is added to it. Absorbing spinning energy leaves less room for the disc to absorb gamma ray energy. As a result, more gamma rays passed through the absorbing disc and reached the counter.     


     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. After all, the laws of physics tell us that when we change the motion within an experiment, we should expect a change in the data. Time dilation goes beyond the expected laws of physic and should cause unexpected results (no change in the data). 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 unified force is matter in motion, 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.


Time dilation

                                               TIME DILATION 2

COPYRIGHT © 2018, By Jonathan P. Volkel

Time dilation 1.jpg


     The topic of time dilation was discussed earlier 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 the 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, it is completely impossible to travel that same distance at the same speed in less time. That in itself is the proof that time dilation is utter nonsense. But wait. Science has come up with an explanation for this. It's yet another theory called "Length contraction".  According to the physics textbook definition of this theory, “The proper length of an object is the length of the object as measured by an observer at rest relative to the object. The length of an object measured in a reference frame that is moving with respect to the object is always less than the proper length. This effect is known as length contraction.” Length contraction takes place only along the direction of motion. Thus, the distance through space becomes shorter because you are moving. Problem solved. Time dilation is again “proven” to be real.

    This theory sounds like some sort of April fool’s prank. So then, if I am travelling through space, the length of the space I am travelling through gets shorter because I am moving? How does this happen? How does “motion” interact with space causing the space to shrink? Clearly only the space that I occupy must be shrinking. How could the space in front of me shrink before I ever got there to apply motion to it? Even if the space I occupy shrinks, I still must travel through the entire distance of normal space in order to get to it and shrink it with my motion. Does the shrinking of the space I occupy cause me to shrink as well? Does it have no effect on me at all, resulting in making me look longer than I actually am?

     Note the previous definition for length contraction closely. It states that the length of an OBJECT becomes less as measured by someone in motion.  Science uses this to try and explain why, even though time dilation reduces travel time, the entire journey can still be completed. It is because the distance through space simultaneously becomes shorter. Isn’t it obvious then, that science is classifying “space” as an object which has a substance and dimensions that can be altered?

      Newton’s irrefutable laws of motion define the behavior of objects, and clearly “space” can not be applied to those laws at all. All of Newton’s laws require that an object have mass. Space does not have mass, and so cannot possible be an object. Defining space as an object is science’s confession that the laws must be abandoned in order to try and make Einstein’s theory work.


     Take the length contraction theory to the next level. The Earth is already moving through space as described in the time dilation analysis. Does this mean that the space we presently occupy is already shorter? What would happen if we flew in a space ship in a direction opposite the Earth's movement? Doing so would reduce our overall rate of travel. Would it cause space to stretch back out? After all, direction does matter with time dilation (even though science claims that it doesn’t), so then the same concepts must also 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.


     Our Sun is orbiting the galaxy at close to 500,000 mph. If we fly in a rocket ship in the same direction that the Sun is travelling in, then the rockets speed will add to the Sun’s speed. This should result in increased time dilation and a corresponding increase in length contraction, thus decreasing the distance we travel.

     However, if we fly the rocket ship in the opposite direction that the Sun is travelling in, then the rocket’s speed will subtract from the Sun’s speed. This should result in a decrease in time dilation and a decrease in length contraction, thereby resulting in an increase in the distance we travel. At least, that is what SHOULD happen according to the definitions of what motion supposedly does to the passage of time and the dimensions of space. However, all of the textbook explanations and theoretical examples of length contraction and time dilation indicate that these effects happen no matter the direction of travel. The theory severely conflicts with the facts and plain old common sense.

     In reality, no alterations to time and space occur at all during motion. If you are in an airplane which is moving at high speed, it takes just as much time to walk from the center of the plane to the front as it does to walk from the center to the rear. And, the total distance that the plane travels is the same no matter if I measure that distance from within the plane, or if I slowly walk the journey from the plane’s departure and arrival points and measure that distance, or if I measure it from a satellite in space.  Scientists might argue that the alterations in elapsed time and distance traveled are only measurable if motion occurred at near light speeds. Since we can never achieve those speeds, we can never prove the theory false. How convenient.

     Even Einstein’s first postulate of Special Relativity refutes length contraction. It states “All the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames.” Isn’t that funny. In order to try and validate Einstein’s theory, science must simultaneously twist and mutilate the laws of physics and the meaning of the very same theory they are trying to validate.

     There are 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 the length of space somehow shortens because we are moving through it. 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 the intention was to measure the total distance that the moving ship's laser beam had traveled, then why would it be measured from the nose of the moving ship at some time long after it had already moved? That is not how one measures the length of something. It would need to be measured from one end to the other, not from some point in the middle. The measurement must be started at where the beam was fired from. That is, start the 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 looks out the rear window. Isn’t it obvious that, not only is the theory completely ridiculous, but that inconsistent applications of the theory are being used?

     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 laser beam 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 by ignoring what the moving observer sees, 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!   



bottom of page