Special Relativity creates Logical Paradoxes & Physical Impossibilities

Where I write about the equivalence between hydrodynamics laws and Schrodinger's equation, you say:
At first glance, I don't have any objection to this. Lerner accepts SR and GR and works within those premises.
Lerner sidelines GR but still works with SR, impairing his understanding of the nature of light and therefore of his own experimental work in plasma-based nuclear fission-fusion involving reacting boron and hydrogen to produce helium without producing free neutrons (nuclear radiation).

Note too that Schrodinger's equation is only half the genuine maths of quantum theory - the other half, the earlier half, is Heisenberg's "matrix mechanics" which, until now, has been given no physical interpretation!
Jerry Russell said:
Yes, it seems that Einstein was mistaken when he claimed that the "spooky action at a distance" could not exist. The "spooky action at a distance" has been shown to operate at a speed at least four orders of magnitude faster than light. See:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.0614.pdf

But can it truly be said that this "spooky action" constitutes "travel", or that there is anything "moving"? Can this "spooky action" be used to transfer "information" or anything else?
Spooky huh?:D

Yes, what Einstein called "spooky action-at-a-distance" also includes instantaneous action-at-a-distance (IAAD) as an integral part of quantum theory, since even the maths does not admit signal decay over a distance, Another manifestation of IAAD is Newtonian gravity, since Newton was maddened by the idea of a "non-contact" physics, hiding the IAAD in the equations for gravitational action at a distance. Instead he invoked God as the instantaneous mediating force, referring to space backhandedly as "the sensorium of God."
Jerry Russell said:
I'm curious about the US patents that you mention, since the patent office normally only awards patents for useful, practical embodiments.
That's right - and no doubt you also want us to know how Einstein himself was once a patent examiner.;)

So while I'd like to bignote myself here and claim to have the first faster-than-light patent (US Pat. #7,135,700), I would be lying since that honor goes to one Richard Steenblik* (#6,057,541). Both patents work through quantum entanglement (QEN) which is the underlying cause of IAAD. While mine works through interference/diffraction patterns, Steenblik's works through polarized light.

To show that his patent leads to FTL information transfer, one only has to direct the light beams in opposite directions; the operations performed on the one beam will create definite changes in the other beam, this being mediated faster than light since the two light beams are being directed in opposite directions such that only a signal faster than the two beams combined could transfer the signal.

My patent in contrast came from Karl Popper's proposed experiment (Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics pp. 27-30) - which I discovered accidentally at Harvard University in 1990 when I was looking for the Cann, Stoneking and Wilson African Eve paper! Popper loves Einstein and proposed the experiment to demolish the Copenhagen Interpretation - which indeed the experiment did. But Popper wants the type A interpretation of local realism, rather than admitting that nonlocal reality (i.e. FTL interaction) is the cause of the experimental result.

Indeed my patent was first rejected for nonutility on abstract mathematicized quantum principles, but I had a clever patent attorney, Nick Johns, at Merchant & Gould in St. Louis who rewrote my reply based on my uncovering proof for IAAD in the form of an experiment to prove the quantum basis for the orbital angular momentum (OAM) of light, a peculiar phenomenon still under investigation in the early 21st century.

The paper is: Alois Mair, Alipasha Vaziri, Gregor Weihs & Anton Zeilinger, "Entanglement of the Orbital Angular Momentum States of Photons" Nature 412 (19 July 2001) 313-316. They used coincidence counters, just as Popper proposed, and showed that quantum entangled OAM photons do indeed transmit a signal (see their figure 4 and read the description carefully). :) The true irony however is that Zeilinger, the senior author, supports SR and flatly denies that information can travel faster than light!!!!:eek:

Nevertheless, that convinced the Patent examiners who withdrew their objections completely.

Yours faithfully
Claude

*He worked this out from his own genius. From another but very reliable source I was later able to establish that, unlike myself, he did NOT have an anti-Einstein position from his youth, so has NOT been looking to disprove Einstein.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I had a clever patent attorney, Nick Johns, at Merchant & Gould in St. Louis... that convinced the Patent examiners who withdrew their objections completely.
Perhaps the patent examiner didn't want to get dragged into an appeals process by your lawyer?

As far as I can trace this idea, it dates back at least to a 1982 paper by Nick Herbert:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00729622

FLASH: A Superluminal Communicator Based Upon A New Kind of Quantum Measurement

Which appears to be similar in concept to your patent?

The publication of this paper led to a flurry of controversy, and the development of a proof that the device wouldn't work, as explained here:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0205076.pdf

Asher Perez, How the No-Cloning Theorem Got its Name

Early in 1981, the editor of Foundations of Physics asked me to be a referee for a manuscript by Nick Herbert, with title “FLASH—A superluminal communicator based upon a new kind of measurement.” It was obvious to me that the paper could not be correct, because it violated the special theory of relativity. However I was sure this was also obvious to the author.... I recommended to the editor of Foundations of Physics that this paper be published [5]. I wrote that it was obviously wrong, but I expected that it would elicit considerable interest and that finding the error would lead to significant progress in our understanding of physics. Soon afterwards, Wootters and Zurek [1] and Dieks [2] published, almost simultaneously, their versions of the no-cloning theorem.


This SR-consistent viewpoint was also explained in the version of the Wikipedia article on the Popper experiment, as of 2009:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popper's_experiment&oldid=317563651

Popper's experiment and faster-than-light signalling

The expected additional momentum scatter which Popper wrongly attributed to the Copenhagen interpretation can be interpreted as allowing faster-than-light communication, which is thought to be impossible, even in quantum mechanics. Indeed some authors have criticized Popper's experiment based on this impossibility of superluminal communication in quantum mechanics.[15][16] Every attempt to use quantum correlations for faster-than-light communication is known to be flawed because of the no-communication theorem in quantum mechanics. One will putatively try to signal 0 and 1 by narrowing the slit, or not narrowing it. However in order to investigate the scattering of each single qubit, one needs to have many identical copies of it. Due to unitarity in quantum mechanics, if one tries to copy a qubit they will produce an entangled "pseudo-copy" that will collapse at the very moment the original qubit is measured. So the result of Popper's experiment cannot be used for faster-than-light communication.

Apparently this is still controversial among Wikipedia editors. Several edits have taken place over the years since 2009, leaving the section as an incomprehensible muddle claiming that FLC might be possible, but flagged with a maintenance warning tag.

But apparently, working physicists are convinced this isn't going to work. The Perez paper contains many links to other sources that all agree it's not going to work.

And as far as I can find, nobody has successfully built a prototype? Claude, have you had any luck constructing an embodiment of your invention since the patent was issued in 2006?

Claude's patent may be found at this link:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US7135700B2/en
 
Very funny, Jerry! :cool::D
Jerry Russell said:
Perhaps the patent examiner didn't want to get dragged into an appeals process by your lawyer?
But what you present below is the common misperception served up by Einsteinians, including the "clone pervert" himself!
Jerry Russell said:
As far as I can trace this idea, it dates back at least to a 1982 paper by Nick Herbert:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00729622

FLASH: A Superluminal Communicator Based Upon A New Kind of Quantum Measurement

Which appears to be similar in concept to your patent?

The publication of this paper led to a flurry of controversy, and the development of a proof that the device wouldn't work, as explained here:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0205076.pdf
My patent has nothing to do with Herbert's. His required some kind of magical cloning of photons, so is not the same as quantum entanglement between two particles.

The SR-consistent viewpoint i.e. Type A and type C (Complementarity) viewpoints of quantum theory will only ever 'prove' the wrong answer.
Jerry Russell said:
This SR-consistent viewpoint was also explained in the version of the Wikipedia article on the Popper experiment, as of 2009:

Popper's experiment and faster-than-light signalling

The expected additional momentum scatter which Popper wrongly attributed to the Copenhagen interpretation can be interpreted as allowing faster-than-light communication, which is thought to be impossible, even in quantum mechanics. Indeed some authors have criticized Popper's experiment based on this impossibility of superluminal communication in quantum mechanics.[15][16] Every attempt to use quantum correlations for faster-than-light communication is known to be flawed because of the no-communication theorem in quantum mechanics. One will putatively try to signal 0 and 1 by narrowing the slit, or not narrowing it. However in order to investigate the scattering of each single qubit, one needs to have many identical copies of it. Due to unitarity in quantum mechanics, if one tries to copy a qubit they will produce an entangled "pseudo-copy" that will collapse at the very moment the original qubit is measured. So the result of Popper's experiment cannot be used for faster-than-light communication.

Apparently this is still controversial among Wikipedia editors. Several edits have taken place over the years since 2009, leaving the section as an incomprehensible muddle claiming that FLC might be possible, but flagged with a maintenance warning tag.
Just as Einstein & Co. intended it would - like promoting infantile sexuality will somehow lead to the removal of the perversions!:D:D

Hence one is led to confuse theoretical with 'working' physicists. Therefore...
Jerry Russell said:
... working physicists are convinced this isn't going to work. The Perez paper contains many links to other sources that all agree it's not going to work.

And as far as I can find, nobody has successfully built a prototype? Claude, have you had any luck constructing an embodiment of your invention since the patent was issued in 2006?

Claude's patent may be found at this link:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US7135700B2/en
No one in the USA is interested but those e.g. in China who read it will work on it since it is coming into achievability and will soon be acted upon. Meanwhile I am working on a very different physics patent; I'm stuck only because the narrow-mindedness of physics journals want to treat subatomic particles are point-particles, not vortices as Lerner sees. The patent arises secondarily from the reconceptualization of the nature of atomic nuclei that I propose.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Very funny, Jerry! :cool::D
Ah yes. My use of ellipses in "I had a clever patent attorney, Nick Johns, at Merchant & Gould in St. Louis... that convinced the Patent examiners who withdrew their objections completely" twisted your context. A more accurate & complete excerpt would be: "I had a clever patent attorney, Nick Johns, at Merchant & Gould in St. Louis... [who presented my proof of IAAD]... that convinced the Patent examiners who withdrew their objections completely." I wouldn't try to get away with such a misquote, except that you're here to check up on me.

My patent has nothing to do with Herbert's. His required some kind of magical cloning of photons, so is not the same as quantum entanglement between two particles.
I don't have access to the full text of Herbert's paper, so I'm resorting to deducing the contents from what others have said about it. However, as far as I can discern, Herbert's paper is also based on quantum entanglement between two particles. He suggested that the entangled parameter of the paired photons would be their polarization, planar vs. circular. The "cloning" part of the proposal was that the state of a single photon could be amplified by a laser. The Popper experiment suggested that the entangled parameter would be the Y axis momentum, which determines whether one of the particles passes through the slot, or not.

Your patent seems to be based on Y axis momentum also? The link I gave to Herbert's paper above, does give access to the first two pages. Those two pages are devoted to a discussion of the Popper experiment, and reasons why Herbert thinks that the setup proposed by Popper can't be used for FLC.

No one in the USA is interested but those e.g. in China who read it will work on it since it is coming into achievability and will soon be acted upon.
Indeed, it does seem that everyone wants to prove that the experiment can't work, but nobody wants to just go to the lab and try it out. And I can understand why it's difficult to get funding for such an experiment, when everyone is convinced they know how it will turn out.

Here is a paper I found interesting:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0505158.pdf

Analysis of Popper's Experiment and its Realization
Tabish Qureshi

§4. The Real Popper’s Test
The discussion in the preceding section implies that making the the correlation of the two entangled particles better, doesn’t throw any new light on the issue. However there is a way in which Popper’s test can be implemented. Popper states: (2)
“if the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, then any increase in the precision in the measurement of our mere knowledge of the particles going through slit B should increase their scatter.”
This view just says that if the (indirect) localization of particle 2 is made more precise, the momentum spread should show an increase. This could have easily been done in Kim and Shih’s experiment by gradually narrowing slit A, and observing the corresponding diffraction pattern.
An experiment which (unknowingly) implements this idea, has actually been performed, although its connection to Popper’s proposal has not been recognized. This is the so-called ghost interference experiment by Strekalovetal.20) In the single slit ghost interference experiment, a SPDC source generates entangled photons and a single slit is put in the path of one of these. There is a lone detector D1 sitting behind the single slit, and a detector D2, in the path of the second photon, is scanned along the y direction, after a certain distance. The only way in which this experiment is different from the Popper’s proposed experiment is that D1 is kept fixed, instead of being scanned along y-axis or placed in front of a collection lens as in.15) Now, the reason for doing coincident counting in Popper’s experiment was to make sure that only those particles behind slit B where counted, whose entangled partner passed through slit A. This was supposed to see the effect of localizing particle 1, on particle 2. In Strekalov’s experiment, all the particles counted by D2 are such that the other particle of their pair has passed through the single slit. There are many pairs which are not counted, whose one member has passed through the slit, but doesn’t reach the fixed D1. However as far as Popper’s experiment is concerned, this is not important. As long as the particles which are detected by D2 are those whose other partner passed through the slit, they will show the effect that Popper was looking for. Popper was inclined to predict that the test would decide against the Copenhagen interpretation.
Let us look at the result of Strekalov et al’s experiment (see Fig. 4). The points represent the width of the diffraction pattern, in Strekalov et al’s experiment, as a function of the slit width. For small slit width, the width of the diffraction pattern sharply increases as the slit is narrowed. This is in clear contradiction with Popper’s prediction. To emphasize the point, we quote Popper: (2)
“If the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, then such counters on the far side of slit B that are indicative of a wide scatter . . . should now count coincidences; counters that did not count any particles before the slit A was narrowed ...”
Strekalov et al’s experiment shows exactly that, if we replace the scanning D2 by an array of fixed detectors. So, we conclude that Popper’s test has decided in favor of Copenhagen interpretation.
404
Fig. 4. Width of the diffraction pattern, plotted against the full width of slit A. The squares represent the data of Strekalov et al’s experiment.20) The line represents the theoretical width, calculated from (3.2) for /σ = 0.04 mm, using the parameters of Strekalov et al’s experiment.
Sorry about the long quote, but my point is that Strekalov et al. have constructed the complete apparatus necessary to test whether FLC works or not. And, I believe that Popper thought that if his experiment verifies the Copenhagen interpretation, then FLC should be possible using the apparatus.

All that's necessary for a test, is to replace a fixed slit with one that's switchable, perhaps constructed with liquid crystals. And based on the above experimental results, there's no doubt in my mind that the setup could be used for communications from the slit state to the diffraction pattern detector. The only question is whether it would turn out to be faster than light, or whether some statistical or unforeseen effect would limit the communications speed?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
About that incomprehensible muddle at Wikipedia...

Just as Einstein & Co. intended it would...
I didn't mean to imply a conspiracy on the part of Einstein & Co., but merely a typical situation at Wikipedia: an unresolved conflict between inexperienced editors, in an obscure article that doesn't attract much if any attention from senior editors or admins. The resulting text is like a mysterious wave function which is a superposition of the varying views, prior to being collapsed into an observable.

The above-quoted version of the Wikipedia article from 2009, was superseded by the following version which existed on the site from 2009 through January 2012.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popper's_experiment&oldid=472683431

The expected additional momentum scatter which Popper wrongly attributed to the Copenhagen interpretation can be interpreted as allowing faster-than-light communication, which is thought to be impossible, even in quantum mechanics. Indeed some authors have criticized Popper's experiment based on this impossibility of superluminal communication in quantum mechanics.[26][27] Use of quantum correlations for faster-than-light communication is thought to be flawed because of the no-communication theorem in quantum mechanics. However the theorem is not applicable to this experiment. In this experiment, the "sender" tries to signal 0 and 1 by narrowing the slit, or widening it, thus changing the probability distribution among the "receiver's" detectors. If the no-communication theorem were applicable, then no matter if the sender widens the slit or narrows it, the receiver should see the same probability distribution among his detectors. This is true, regardless of whether the device was used for communication (i.e. sans coincidence circuit), or not (i.e. in coincidence). This is clearly not the case with this experiment. So if superluminal communication is impossible for this device, then it does not come from the so-called "no-communication theorem."
Some will argue that this is impossible on account of the no cloning theorem However, cloning of a single quantum state is unnecessary, you just run the experiment like you normally would; i.e. prepare multiple states by down-conversion and collect data on the receiver end from the large number of particles. The only difference, as alluded to above, is that you cannot use a coincidence circuit in using the device for communication. So noise will have to be filtered out somehow. One could conceivably have the receiver collect data in coincidence (or "semi-coincidence") if a three-particle Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state is used. The third particle could be sent to the receiver, and particles there collected only in coincidence. Then the only noise will not be from singles, but rather receiver-only doubles.

This edit was made by user Rwjensen78. It's a perfectly logical, coherent argument why the no-communication theorem and the no-cloning theorem are not applicable to the situation, and do not disprove the possibility of FTL communications using a Popper-style apparatus.

In 2012, Rwjensen78's text was tagged with an "Original Research" warning label, and then deleted a month later. Except that the editor who deleted the text, was some guy who didn't have a clue what this disagreement is about. So, the text was (presumably inadvertently) butchered into its current incomprehensible state, and then later flagged with a big yellow warning tag that "This section's factual accuracy is disputed".

After scanning through the articles on the no-communication theorem and the no-cloning theorem, I find myself in a most awkward situation of agreeing with Rwjensen78. The no-communication theorem seems to be based on analysis of a single event with a single particle. And the no-cloning theorem should be easily defeated by statistical approaches using a large number of particles. So I am not satisfied that these theorems disprove FTL communication.

I'm left in a state of uncertainty, whether the problem is that these theorems are transparently fraudulent, or whether the problem is that I'm too poorly educated, lazy and/or biased towards conspiracy theories, to see the flaw in Rwjensen78's argument.

At any rate -- if I were reviewing Rwjensen78's grant application, I'd award the money.

For that matter, how do we know somebody (perhaps in a CIA lab, or at Brigham Young) hasn't done this experiment already?? Maybe this result has already been well known to elite initiates since ~1982?

And furthermore: if it turns out that FTL communications is possible using this device, I disagree that SR is violated. SR says that an entity with non-zero resting mass, can't travel faster than light. It doesn't say anything about zero-mass entities.

Perhaps this experiment would tend to confirm the intuition that information can exist in a disembodied form, independent from any representation in physical artifacts with non-zero resting mass.

The great discovery from the EPR paradox was the Aspect Experiment, demonstrating faster-than-light (FTL) propagation of information, effectively disproving SR!
I just saw this entire post above. Sorry I missed it earlier.

Not So Fast, Mr. Claude Badly! Notwithstanding the above wild speculations by Rwjensen78 and myself, the Aspect Experiment in itself does not demonstrate FTL information transfer. If any such experiment has been done, it hasn't been reported in any peer reviewed journal article.
 
Last edited:
I don't have access to the full text of Herbert's paper, so I'm resorting to deducing the contents from what others have said about it. However, as far as I can discern, Herbert's paper is also based on quantum entanglement between two particles. He suggested that the entangled parameter of the paired photons would be their polarization, planar vs. circular. The "cloning" part of the proposal was that the state of a single photon could be amplified by a laser. The Popper experiment suggested that the entangled parameter would be the Y axis momentum, which determines whether one of the particles passes through the slot, or not.
Herbert the Perverted Cloner invents cloned photons to augment or even replace the hypothesized entanglement, sidelining the issue onto one of cloning - an essentially impossible process superadded to the actual situation.
Jerry Russell said:
Your patent seems to be based on Y axis momentum also? The link I gave to Herbert's paper above, does give access to the first two pages. Those two pages are devoted to a discussion of the Popper experiment, and reasons why Herbert thinks that the setup proposed by Popper can't be used for FLC.

Indeed, it does seem that everyone wants to prove that the experiment can't work, but nobody wants to just go to the lab and try it out. And I can understand why it's difficult to get funding for such an experiment, when everyone is convinced they know how it will turn out.
Exactly right, Jerry. They want to believe that FTL (faster than light) signalling is impossible so will resort to every mathematical and speculative idea to prove what is not!:D:D:D

Jerry Russell said:
Here is a paper I found interesting:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0505158.pdf

Analysis of Popper's Experiment and its Realization
Tabish Qureshi

§4. The Real Popper’s Test
**
Sorry about the long quote, but my point is that Strekalov et al. have constructed the complete apparatus necessary to test whether FLC works or not. And, I believe that Popper thought that if his experiment verifies the Copenhagen interpretation, then FLC should be possible using the apparatus.

All that's necessary for a test, is to replace a fixed slit with one that's switchable, perhaps constructed with liquid crystals. And based on the above experimental results, there's no doubt in my mind that the setup could be used for communications from the slit state to the diffraction pattern detector. The only question is whether it would turn out to be faster than light, or whether some statistical or unforeseen effect would limit the communications speed?
Your highlighted underlined section has got it right yet again, Jerry - if FLC means "faster than light communication"! All correct what you say, but why didn't he do the test??????? Even if he did however, he would interpret it as proving only type C (Copenhagen Interpretation). Nevertheless, this is a frank admission that the test would be possible, the positive test demonstrating either FTL signaling or the Copenhagen Interpretation - the choice here depending on one's underlying philosophy!

So Richard, Jerry up to here is progressing remarkably by looking into the Wikipedia blurb and extracting the genuine implications!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
Dear Jerry,
Not So Fast, Mr. Claude Badly! Notwithstanding the above wild speculations by Rwjensen78 and myself, the Aspect Experiment in itself does not demonstrate FTL information transfer. If any such experiment has been done, it hasn't been reported in any peer reviewed journal article.
The Aspect Experiment results have to be explained either by:

  1. FTL information transfer (i.e. type B quantum theory) or
  2. A magical deterministic world where all such experiments give a result that appears to confirm FTL but is actually the result of an absolute predestination controlling the experimenters' (and all other humans') minds, ensuring the outcome by claiming that all is necessary and that there is no disorder/chance/contingency in nature (a.k.a. the Parmenidean 'Block Universe' of type A) or claiming that the result is inexplicable and hence causeless (type C).
As anwwers 1. & 2. are philosophical options, one indeed has a choice!;)

Though there is also the Popper option, dualistically to concede some chance or contingency in nature but treat it as incapable of scientific investigation while hankering for the magical deterministic world instead, even while admitting that it is impossible! It is this Popperian approach which also characterized the British government in early 1940, ridiculed by Churchill as "decided to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, all-powerful to be impotent etc.".:p

In complete contrast, if you look at the article: Alois Mair, Alipasha Vaziri, Gregor Weihs & Anton Zeilinger, "Entanglement of the Orbital Angular Momentum States of Photons" Nature 412 (19 July 2001) 313-316 in detail you will see how Faster-than-Light (FTL) information transfer is necessarily implied by the experiment - which however it could not achieve in reality since it required coincidence counters to weed out the predominant stray 'Dreckeffekt' photons. I don't think you live in LA but when I am there in late July I might be able to meet up with you to reimburse you for the cost of purchasing that article.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
I see that I am going to have to explain the physical significance of both the Schrodinger Equation (already done by Lerner) and Heisenberg's Matrix Mechanics (very new material from myself), but in the meantime note that I am going to promote Galileo all the more - especially against Freemason-Newton and M. Dualiste-Descartes, linking the question to Sex'n'Drugs'R&R with the help of Marcuse and Edmund Husserl (whose books are in transit to my friend in Sydney)!:eek:

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Welcome Back Claude!

I don't think you live in LA but when I am there in late July I might be able to meet up with you to reimburse you for the cost of purchasing that article.
I live in Oregon and don't travel well, owing to daily cow care chores as described in the Global Warming thread.

About the paper: when I was in grad school, everybody used the Xerox machine to manufacture copies of journal articles. If anybody asked, it was 'fair use'. But if the demonstration of FTL info transfer wasn't actually achieved in reality, there will always be Doubting Thomases.

For the sake of the conversation, I'm willing to assume that if somebody tried this FTL experiment, it would work. I'm a conspiracy theorist and cold fusion believer, so what do you expect? And furthermore, who cares what I think anyhow? I can believe seven impossible things before breakfast in this blog, and hardly anyone will even know.

As I mentioned above, my interpretation is that information is somehow massless, and thus can be transmitted FTL without violating SR. What do you say to that?
 
Last edited:
Dear Jerry,

Thank goodness somebody is still surviving by dairying - you have probably heard about the destruction of the Australian Diary Industry by middlemen.
Welcome Back Claude!

*

For the sake of the conversation, I'm willing to assume that if somebody tried this FTL experiment, it would work. I'm a conspiracy theorist and cold fusion believer, so what do you expect? And furthermore, who cares what I think anyhow? I can believe seven impossible things before breakfast in this blog, and hardly anyone will even know.

As I mentioned above, my interpretation is that information is somehow massless, and thus can be transmitted FTL without violating SR. What do you say to that?
The information is certainly massless - as it has no rest mass - so would qualify as type B interpretation, though its original proponents, Dmitri Blokhintsev and David Bohm (stripped of his US citizenship), still held to the belief SR, marring their insight. And therefore yes, the information would be transmitted FTL. This does violate SR however since it claims that not mere massive bodies but communication of any sort is forbidden to travel faster than light.

Now I can reveal to you the name Herbert Dingle; his Wikipedia page is tightly controlled by editors because he exposed the humbug of SR - in that it leads ineluctably to logical paradoxes. Dingle's name is also mentioned in Marcuse's One Dimensional Man, the quotation of Dingle's work falsely implying that the expressed viewpoint is Dingle's own viewpoint. The reference is on p. 122 of my 200 page edition.

There was also a great website called Anti-Relativity where I and others defeated the Einsteinians - hence the website was taken down. You can verify its existence through key words e.g. "cincispamistan" and "colonel clinci" but the website is nonexistent. The heroic character at this website - cincirob - finally tackled a complicated SR question with true Einsteinians on another website. In the process he revealed SR's impostures as the diagrams they drew for him revealed SR's paradoxical inconsistencies. You can access that forum's relevant part here - and see how the forum has come to a near dead stop ever since.:D:D:D

http://www.thephysicsforum.com/special-general-relativity/5577-relativistic-rolling-wheel-ii-13.html

This process finally ended when 1,000 posts were removed from the "rolling wheel" thread as cincirob had unwittingly revealed the severe impostures. Nevertheless you can access the thread here where one proponent of Einstein, VeeDee (post #1250), reveals the existence of the missing posts - along with cincirob's rightly sarcastic reply (#1252). The subsequent video certainly reveals the SR hypocrisy as a case of gender-bendering - but the author Geordieff is unknown to me. You can see me in earlier posts - called TFOLZO, I was soon banned as you can see next to my name.

Enjoy!

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: I have no problem with cold fusion.

PPS: I have also just seen that on the website link above they left post #1187 in place - the Dingle references:D - which is more than I can say for Wikipedia when I posted this neutral list of articles there!
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Thank goodness somebody is still surviving by dairying
Surviving by dairying? No, we have pampered pet cows. We survive by rental income.

Now I can reveal to you the name Herbert Dingle; his Wikipedia page is tightly controlled by editors because he exposed the humbug of SR - in that it leads ineluctably to logical paradoxes.
Wow, I see there are twelve pages of talk archives for the Dingle article. The controversy seems to have died down since 2009. The article looks now like a typical Wikipedia "fringe" article. It briefly describes Dingle's view, and then explains that most scientists don't agree. According to policy, this is the correct treatment. Wikipedia policies say that Wikipedia is not the place to "right great wrongs".

There was also a great website called Anti-Relativity where I and others defeated the Einsteinians - hence the website was taken down.
What I found is that the website still exists, but the forum has been deleted. I wonder if a copy might exist on archive.org? Any idea who took it down, or why? The management of the site appears to be favorable to your anti-Relativity viewpoint.

This process finally ended when 1,000 posts were removed from the "rolling wheel" thread as cincirob had unwittingly revealed the severe impostures.
But there are ~1200 posts remaining. I am not seeing any evidence that the earlier posts were deliberately deleted. Looks more like a site-wide database failure. Again, perhaps the missing data could be found on archive.org.

How many posts does it take, to explain the alleged paradox of special relativity? I'm afraid I'm too lazy to study thousands of posts.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
They forgot to wipe the stardust from off their lens.

That is, stardust entangled in the Devil's bargain:

...
By the time we got to Woodstock, we were half a million strong,
And everywhere was a song and a celebration.
And I dreamed I saw the bomber jet planes riding shotgun in the sky,
Turning into butterflies above our nation.
We are stardust, we are golden, we are caught in the devil's bargain,
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.
 
Dear Jerry,

As you can see, I'm back again - but what I will do is start a new thread to specifically draw out the paradoxical implications of Einstein's SR teaching, rather than get lost on the side issues and implications as we have here.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
I have to demonstrate to Jerry that Special Relativity (SR) leads ineluctably to logical paradoxes and physical impossibilities. Furthermore, this means that SR is not genuinely scientific because it denies objectivity - by redefining it along the lines of Karl Popper as "intersubjectivity" whose meaning will become clear as replies to this thread come in.

The best way to demonstrate the paradoxical (and therefore non-scientific) implications of SR is the "Travelled Twins" paradox. It works as follows:

We imagine two infant twins, separated at birth on Earth while barely toddlers. One twin (A) stays at home on Earth. The other twin (B) travels via spaceship very fast relative to the speed of light so that SR's postulated time dilation (TD) has an effect. To fulfil Einstein's pedantic demand for observers, we have one observer staying with twin A (Earth observer) and another traveling with twin B (Spaceship observer).

Let us imagine that the separation time of the twins, measured by Earth time, is 20 years, upon which travelled twin B returns to Earth to meet up with twin A.

Now according to Big Al - oops - Einstein, when the twins meet up again on Earth, twin A will be an adult, but twin B, having travelled fast wrt (with respect to) the speed of light, will still be a child e.g. age 6.

Up to here everything merely seems amazing - and this nonsense is served up as the paradox, which it is NOT! The conventional Einstein argument stops here, as Einsteinians do not wish to pursue the genuine paradox.
----------------
So what we see above is what is seen by the Earth observer - an old twin A and a young twin B, the difference immediately evident in their different body sizes! And this will be confirmed by the spaceship observer too, as he has returned to Earth with twin B to 'witness' this situation.

What we now have to consider is what the spaceship observer, traveling with twin B, sees when the two of them return to Earth!

According to the strictly relativistic interpretation of SR, it is the Earth, rather than the spaceship, that has undergone the rapid motion, since twin B and the spaceship observer have remained essentially stationary in the spaceship. Hence when twin B and the spaceship observer arrive back on Earth it is the spaceship twin, twin B, that will be an adult, meeting up with the young (time-dilated) twin A (aged 6) on Earth.

Hence the paradox, both the spaceship observer and the earth observer will see an old twin B and a young twin A when we consider the issue from the spaceship observer's perspective. - This being the opposite of course when we consider the issue from the Earth observer's perspective.:D:D:D

So which is correct after the spaceship returns to earth: Old twin A and young twin B, or young twin A and old twin B?

The correct answer of course is that neither Einsteinian option is correct since there is no such thing as TD!

From Einsteinian reasoning however, what we have instead are two "daughter universes" arising from the mere observation of the Einsteinian situation. What the earth observer and spaceship observer see are mutually exclusive. Indeed what we have is the "earth observer universe" whose "facts" are confirmed by the returning spaceship observer, and the "spaceship observer universe" whose "facts" are confirmed by the Earth observer.

In effect we now have two different "parallel universes" where different "facts" rule, as well as two Earth observers and two spaceship observers!

This means the abandonment of objectivity which is correctly defined as facts which are NOT, repeat NOT, subject to mere perspective nor observer motion, but exist independently thereof.

Wikipedia said:
Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination.
Note that "perception" in the Wikipedia definition must also include motion, which certainly influences perception but whose implications are not clear to the Wikipedia lords.

When you consider this situation in detail, Jerry, you will see that Einstein's SR fails as a scientific theory and thus does not explain anything in the physical world whatsoever (and in fact is a misrepresentation of the Doppler Effect, in that wavelength changes in light are misattributed to illegitimate changes in space and time).

Now remember your point in the Corruption of Science thread where you felt disagreement on point 4.
4) Popular prejudice supports Newton's ARF-LA (Newton's absolute space & Luminiferous Aether) so the notions of length contraction (LC) and then time dilation (TD) are invented to explain away the negative MMX.
That is, popular prejudice has not looked carefully enough at the Travelled Twin Paradox to see that the fatal logical paradox is really there!

I suspect however that I will still not have convinced you - due to the application of an ARF-LA - so if/when you persist I will have to bring in that ultimate SR paradox, the Barn & Pole Paradox, to demonstrate the total loss of objectivity and hence the paradoxical fraud of SR once and for all.

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: I realize that I will subsequently also have to demonstrate to you that the claim of time dilation being demonstrated by faster moving cosmic ray particles in the upper atmosphere is based upon misrepresenting the situation. (Joe too, was not hostile to my attack on SR - and I brought that up to demonstrate to him that the elite agenda of cultural debasement was wider than he thought, just as his work on exposing MK Ultra, Salinger and Brave New World, demonstrated to me that the cultural debasement was wider than I had thought!!!!) The world is in a terrible mess indeed.

PPS: Hugh Everett's "Many Worlds Theory of Quantum Mechanics" is a misinterpretation of the above, blaming quantum theory (QT) for what actually arises from believing in and applying SR! Quantum theory is entirely innocent of Everett's charge - and you can work this out by finding the SR-based jargon hidden in the text (or hidden below).:p

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
'The idea of [the Many Worlds Interpretation] MWI originated in Everett's Princeton Ph.D. thesis "The Theory of the Universal Wavefunction", developed under his thesis advisor John Archibald Wheeler, a shorter summary of which was published in 1957 entitled "Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics" (Wheeler contributed the title "relative state"; Everett originally called his approach the "Correlation Interpretation", where "correlation" refers to quantum entanglement).'

I.e. the "Many Worlds Interpretation" is actually based upon relativity - because quantum entanglement works instantaneously, violating SR, but confirming Newtonian gravity which also acts instantaneously. In other words MWI presumes that quantum entanglement obeys SR such that its signals cannot travel faster than light. This stupid presumption by the Einstein-dominated physicists leads to the erroneous conclusion that the Many Worlds arise from quantum theory rather than Einstein's relativity.
 
Last edited:
With one exception, the scientific and philosophical dictionaries that I have do not define 'objectivity', showing how perverted or just silly their contributors were. Less silly however is one Stathis Psillios, whose Philosophy of Science A-Z (Edinburgh University Press 2007) rightly gives two definitions of objectivity.

Definition #1: The first [definition] is "intersubjectivity", understood as the 'common factor' point of view: the point of view common to all subjects.

This means that if a college of cardinals declare the earth to be motionless and Galileo to be burnt at the stake, then the 'intersubjective' decision of the cardinals becomes by definition 'objective' i.e. they decree the objective truth of the universe being that the Earth is static - and not merely the objective fact that such a collective decision was made. I.e. this first definition is NOT genuine objectivity.

Definition #2: The second sense is radical objectivity, whatever is totally subject-independent. In particular, objectivity in the second sense is understood as mind-independence or knowledge-independence. When, for instance, it is said that certain entities have objective existence, it is meant that they exist independently of being perceived, or known etc. ...

While the author goes on to corrode his definition #2, the part quoted shows what genuine objectivity really means. That an object has an existence independent of a subject perceiving it, and that the subject's motion is part of the issue of perception, so therefore has to be taken into account when assessing something objectively. Special relativity in contrast does NOT fit the criteria of genuine radical objectivity, though it certainly fits definitioin #1.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hello Claude,

Welcome back!

The textbook "Modern Physics" by Serway, Moses & Moyer provides the explanation that the fast-moving twin B is not in an inertial frame of reference, because of the acceleration & deceleration at the beginning & end of each trip. Therefore, he cannot naively apply the same formula as the stationary twin A.

If the fast-moving twin B applies the correct relativistic formulas, he will see that the distance between the earth & his destination has shrunk relative to twin A's perception. So the trip takes less time. Thus, the paradox is resolved.

Works for me.....

https://books.google.com/books?id=uTM8AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA21#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
Dear Jerry,

Great to receive your reply so quickly.
The textbook "Modern Physics" by Serway, Moses & Moyer provides the explanation that the fast-moving twin B is not in an inertial frame of reference, because of the acceleration & deceleration at the beginning & end of each trip.
As you can see from the words of the authors above, they have added in the complications of acceleration and deceleration, these complications arise because Einstein's general relativity (GR) also supposedly changes the rate of time like SR does. The supposed GR effects are actually those of gravitation, acceleration, centrifugal force and deceleration i.e. inertial forces that mean that the spaceship has NOT travelled in an inertial reference frame for the whole journey.

(An inertial reference frame is one whose objects are NOT subject to acceleration, deceleration, centrifugal force, gravity etc.)

As a result you argue, as Einstein did, that "complications" arise in that the travelled twin B (Speedo) has undergone major inertial forces, unlike twin A (Goslo). These supposed GR complications are supposed to explain away the logical paradox!
Therefore, he cannot naively apply the same formula as the stationary twin A.
What has NOT been done by the slick textbook authors is to consider the SR and GR components separately before combining them to concoct their excuse.
If the fast-moving twin B applies the correct relativistic formulas, he will see that the distance between the earth & his destination has shrunk relative to twin A's perception. So the trip takes less time. Thus, the paradox is resolved.

Works for me.....
:eek:The paradox is NOT resolved, because you are applying SR to get out of the paradox by claiming that space contracts for the moving twin, and ONLY the moving twin, implying that the distance to planet X - in the example Serway, Moses & Moyer use - has two different values, one for twin A and one for twin B:D:D. This is the loss of objectivity that applying SR and GR creates! I.e. SR is a perverted theory that creates dualistic non-objective situations. If we have another twin, C, traveling towards planet X at a slower rate than twin B, then twin C will, according to SR, find yet another value for the Earth-planet X distance. I.e. the whole thing becomes entirely subjective, subject to motion, with the distance between Earth & Planet X determined entirely by the relative motion of external observers, an utterly absurd situation denying objectivity altogether.

In other words, you (following Einstein) are applying SR at your convenience to weasel out of the logical paradox since you now claim that space is contracted for the moving twin (B) but not for the stationary twin (A). Hence even your own excuse disqualifies SR as genuine science because SR created two different, two non-objective values for the distance between Earth and Planet X at the start of the voyage.

I come down on you hard here because there is NO physical evidence whatsoever for length contraction (LC) - although there is contrived proof that misrepresents data to demonstrate time dilation (TD).

***

In essence, what you are saying in Lorentzian terms is that the Earth twin is NOT moving relative to the universe as a whole whereas the spaceship is moving fast relative to the universe as a whole - then hiding this in turn by claiming that Einstein's curved spacetime renders the discussion of a universal reference frame for motion (Absolute Reference Frame - ARF) illegitimate.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
So now for the barn & pole paradox of SR.

It is imagined that a barn and pole are of equal length when at rest. The barn has two doors at either end through which the pole can pass.

The pole now accelerates very fast and passes through the barn's two doors. What is seen by the barn-based observer and pole-based observer are now recorded.

The barn observer will see that the pole is now shortened by LC, therefore the pole can pass thru the back door into the barn completely before exiting from the front. In other words, both doors can be closed briefly while the whole LC pole is passing thru the barn.

The pole observer will see that the barn is shortened by LC, hence the pole observer will see the barn doors open on both sides, with the front and back of the pole projecting from them.

The two situations are mutually exclusive, hence SR and its claim of LC is bunk - or you have to accept that there are two separate daughter universes which mutually exclusive "facts". So where's your Skidway, Moses & Messiah now, Flanders?

What Einsteinians do then is to try to divide up the situation into non-objective sections, saying e.g. that the time at the front of the pole is not the same as the time at the back of the pole etc. etc. leading to mere confusion by using Loedel and Minkowski diagrams (lightcones etc.) to demonstrate what is clearly physically false to be abstractly mathematically true. (Just like by following the textbook BS-claim that space contracts in front of the moving observer B/Speedo leading to two different values for the Planet X-Earth distance so as to claim that travel-twin aging is for real). The believer is thus led into utter confusion and passivity - which is what the Einsteinians, including Judaeo-Christians, want the masses to be, and why this website is not chock full of posts and contributors. Hence the modern propaganda offensives in favour of the Big Bang, Black Holes and other such speculative nonsense.

I.e. the Einsteinian procedures are just a dirty mathematical trick to lure you away from objectivity into mathematical speculative structures.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
Skidway, Moses & Messiah, on p. 22, claim that moving clocks run slower - this being a combination of SR and GR.

In the case of SR, i.e. that mere physical inertial motion (i.e. without other forces) between two objects induces time dilation is both objects relative to one another, is simply absurd, because there is NO objective difference between them other than their mutual motion. If we have two mutually moving objects, A & B, moving relatively to one another, SR claims mutual time dilation such that A>B (i.e. B's clock is slowed in time relative to A) and B>X (A's clock is slowed in time relative to B). The logical paradox cannot be avoided or resolved by introducing GR complications. Rather, the Einsteinians try to ignore the situation, claiming that there is not really any inertial reference frame since outside forces can never really be removed.

This is an evasion on the Einsteinians part - but some Einsteinians like Roger Penrose, frankly admit the paradoxical implications.
Even with slow relative velocities, significant differences in time-ordering will occur for events at great distances. Imagine two people walking slowly past each other in the street. The events on Andromeda Galaxy (the closest large galaxy to our own Milky Way [2,300,000 lightyears distant]) judged by the two people to be simultaneous with the moment that they pass one another could amount to a difference of several days. For one of the people, the space fleet launched [from Andromeda] with the intent to wipe out life on the planet Earth is already on the way; while for the other, the very decision about whether or not to launch that fleet has not yet even been made (Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind, Vintage, London (1990) pp. 260-261).
Once again, it is a loss of objectivity. For someone flying in a jet aircraft at the moment Penrose describes, perhaps the space fleet left a thousand years ago.

In other words, all Einstein's teaching does is erode the boundary between science and fantasy - leading to idiotic beliefs that mankind will be saved by time machines transporting us safely to 'planets' or realms in distant times (and spaces).

Clocks subjected to forces (i.e. supposedly GR effects) behave differently. In a lower gravitational field atomic clocks speed up, but pendulum clocks slow down - both physical effects and do NOT imply that time is slowing down or speeding up. Newtonian time, shared by Galileo, is the only correct time. The time dilation (TD) of Poincare and Einstein is lies and deceit, propagated by the same people that gave us WW1 - i.e. Henri Poincare who invented TD was a cousin of Raymond Poincare, leader of France in 1914, working hard to start the war! Why would you believe anything people like this said??????

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
Top