Special Relativity creates Logical Paradoxes & Physical Impossibilities

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Great to receive your reply so quickly.
I confess I'm away from my desk, traveling in Los Angeles. Various other equally pressing & interesting matters have been left to wait until my return to Oregon. But to continue...

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.
Ah, but we didn't "weasel out" of the paradox, but comprehensively resolved it. And each of the two different values is perfectly objective, to all observers in that particular frame of reference.

More tomorrow...
 
Please don't rush with any reply Jerry. Having driven in LA recently I fully understand the horror of it!!!!!! So I don't want to be responsible for your having a crash!
I confess I'm away from my desk, traveling in Los Angeles. Various other equally pressing & interesting matters have been left to wait until my return to Oregon. But to continue...
Badley said:
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.
Ah, but we didn't "weasel out" of the paradox, but comprehensively resolved it. And each of the two different values is perfectly objective, to all observers in that particular frame of reference.
Tra-la-la-la-la. Everything seems fine, doesn't it - until you realize the implications.

By the words "that particular frame of reference" you are referring to a daughter universe, not to the ONE physical world in which we live. In the one physical world in which we live the distance from Earth to Planet X has a changing value ONLY due to the two planets' mutual motion, but a distance that is objective, a distance that exists independent of each observer, internal or external to the planets, and independent of any observer's motion relative to either planet. SR flatly denies this latter issue, putting forward subjectivism instead.

That is, we have twin A (Goslo) who finds the Earth to Planet X distance to be the one measured from earth. According to the implication of strict SR logic twin A lives in one universe where the Earth to Planet X distance is normal.

Then we have twin B (Speedo) who finds the Earth to Planet X distance to be contracted when speeding along to Planet X. This is twin B's universe, where the distance from Earth to Planet X is contracted while twin B is en route to and from planet X.

The motion between Earth and Planet X is relatively modest (compared to c) hence if twin B (Speedo) now on Planet X measures the distance to Earth he will find it much the same as twin A on Earth does. However once twin B sets off back to Earth, the distance to earth is meant to LC (length contract) once more, 'sproinging' back to normal distance once twin B (Speedo) arrives back on Earth. What you are serving up here in this paragraph is dualistic thinking, doublethink - trying to have your cake and eat it too by claiming whatever convenient contracted distance you like from Earth to Planet X in order to prevent the logical paradox (A > B, B > A) when the twins meet up again.

Astronomers on earth would not notice such LC of the space between Earth and Planet X while twin B was traveling en route to there, hence the claim that twin B observes such LC is not a physical occurrence but only an artificial mathematical construct designed to avoid the logical paradox. Hence one cannot even ask sensible questions about twin B's journey e.g.

How fast was twin B traveling during the constant velocity stage of the voyage (after acceleration and deceleration phases are subtracted)?
No OBJECTIVE answer is possible because - for Einsteinians - the distance to Planet X is determined by the velocity, as is the rate of passage of time aboard the spacecraft. No objective distance, no objective time therefore no objective velocity. I.e. in Einstein's relativity there is nothing different to the moving object by which a measurement can be made. Friedrich Engels saw this paradox when he refuted Eugen Duehring's stupid Big Bang model of the universe - but now it seems that all Leftists (except Gramsci) believe Einstein's BS i.e. SR-BS and GR-BS (and which is why I respect the German Physics Movement for trying to get out of Einstein's mess, which they did partly)!

* * * *
So let us now consider a very long rack of clocks - all synchronized since light signals between them are corrected for distance - called the "A clocks". Passing by the rack inertially, i.e. with NO inertia, at a constant velocity, is another long rack of synchronized clocks, the "B clocks". (Synchronization of clocks is permitted in SR due to the "synchronization procedure" he outlines, so this is not some impossibility I am conjuring).

According to SR, observers at A will see the B clocks undergo TD (i.e. they slow down) relative to A, whereas the B clocks' observers will find that the A clocks are TD'd (i.e. slowed) relative to their own B clocks. Hence the logical paradox again (A > B, B > A subject to observer motion).

(In fact, this was the reason that the Physics Forum took down over 1,000 posts - because illustrations kindly provided by the Einsteinian idiots there provided each clock with an observer and his watch. The clocks on one rack all showed one value; each watch showed a DIFFERENT value to any other watch on the rack - how I wish I had saved the images.:D:D:D)

So can you tell me which rack of clocks will be slowed relative to the other, A slower than B or B slower than A - or both, meaning that you honestly accept the daughter universes implication? (Or will you sensibly join me here and declare no difference here because there is no such thing as TD?)

Remember, now that we have abolished GR (acceleration, centrifugal force and gravity) you can't escape through that trick. Either you accept the logical paradox or retreat to the absurdity Einstein uses in his original article "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (OEMBS) which I don't want to reveal to you as yet because it is so patently stupid that you would initially tell me that I've made it up to mislead you or badley (!!!!) misinterpreted him.;)

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
I had written:
Astronomers on earth would not notice such LC of the space between Earth and Planet X while twin B was traveling en route to there, hence the claim that twin B observes such LC is not a physical occurrence but only an artificial mathematical construct designed to avoid the logical paradox. Hence one cannot even ask sensible questions about twin B's journey e.g.

How fast was twin B traveling during the constant velocity stage of the voyage (after acceleration and deceleration phases are subtracted)?
In contrast, what I need to highlight here is the need to subtract the times when inertial forces are operating upon twin B (Speedo) and his spaceship - i.e. the times of acceleration and deceleration of twin B (Speedo). Only in this way do we obtain the pure SR-component of the alleged TD & LC of twin B, because only WITHOUT inertial forces do we have an inertial "reference frame" between the relatively moving twins A and B. But the Einsteinians don't like to discuss this, because detailed examination reveals how SR falls apart - which is why I highlight the two clock-racks in the post above!

So during this inertial period (without acceleration & deceleration) - is a mutual TD & LC between twin A and twin B occurring or is only twin B undergoing TD & LC?

This is a vital issue since during the inertial period you are claiming that ONLY twin B undergoes the LC in space towards his destination whereas Earth twin A does not! This implies absolute motion, that twin B is moving fast relative to whatever (e.g. the "universe as a whole" or "Newton's absolute space") whereas twin A is moving slowly relative to whatever. This is the fatal inconsistency in your argument since you are avoiding affirming either Galilean relative motion or Newton-Lorentz absolute motion.

You need to give an answer here in order to establish SR's credibility. According to Einstein, the answer has either to be

1) that twin A and twin B undergo mutual TD during the period of inertial travel of twin B (i.e. travel at constant speed without inertial forces operative). This is the Roger Penrose option.

2) that only B undergoes TD&LC - and therefore we must ask why, since if this is the case with SR, this implies that the Earth (with twin A) is approximately at absolute rest, while twin B is undergoing fast absolute motion. This is Vladimir Fok's "Soviet Chronogeometry" option.

So what is it gunna be to save SR, Jerry? No. 1 or No. 2 or continue evading the answer? Rest assured that each option comes with fatal complications!:p

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
So what is it gunna be to save SR, Jerry? No. 1 or No. 2 or continue evading the answer?
Hello Claude,

I'm going to go with "evading the answer" for the moment. It seems to me that the answer must lie somewhere in an analysis of the relativistic consequences of rapid acceleration & deceleration. But I'm not going to provide the analysis today.

Also, I'm merging this discussion with the earlier one. I've replied to this general train of thought before. The key point I made, was that SR was invented to explain various puzzling experimental results, including mass-energy equivalence and the Michelson-Morley experiment. And since then, time dilation has been demonstrated experimentally as well.

So, if it does turn out that SR involves some contradictions, it doesn't give us any basis to reject the theory wholesale. And it certainly doesn't give us any basis to conclude that Einstein and all other modern mainstream physicists are wicked and evil liars, intentionally leading mankind down a path to oblivion.

If indeed you've discovered any "contradictions", it probably means that the theory is incomplete, not that it's wrong. And the examples you've given so far, have been well-known for almost a hundred years, and carefully considered by mainstream physicists already.
 
Last edited:
Hello Claude,

I'm going to go with "evading the answer" for the moment. It seems to me that the answer must lie somewhere in an analysis of the relativistic consequences of rapid acceleration & deceleration. But I'm not going to provide the analysis today.
No it does not. It lies in the mutually moving clock racks issue, since only in the latter way is the SR issue cleansed of the GR complications i.e. we deal with inertial motion only.
Also, I'm merging this discussion with the earlier one. I've replied to this general train of thought before.
That's OK, so I will have to return to demonstrate the series of non-sequiturs that led to SR's adoption. Modern science, particularly physics, is a horrific dead for mankind - and SR's continued acceptance guarantees WW3 on a planet unable to sustain either energy production or the environment.
The key point I made, was that SR was invented to explain various puzzling experimental results, including mass-energy equivalence and the Michelson-Morley experiment.
As I mentioned before, it is a contrived invention, the issue of mass-energy equivalence merely parasitized onto the SR question. The MM experiment is key - because the negative MM experiment proves there is no such thing as absolute motion, therefore Galilean relativity rules, not SR. Rather, SR is "achieved" only by uncritically believing the non-sequitur chain of arguments, requiring belief in paradox-generating nonsense like time dilation (TD).
And since then, time dilation has been demonstrated experimentally as well.
That is totally false. Rather, experimental results have been misinterpreted so as to be served up as proof for TD.
So, if it does turn out that SR involves some contradictions, it doesn't give us any basis to reject the theory wholesale.
False, these are not contradictions-in-nature like positive versus negative, but logical paradox that arise when the Einstein equations are actually applied to physical situations. Genuine equations such as Galileo's do NOT lead to logical paradoxes.
And it certainly doesn't give us any basis to conclude that Einstein and all other modern mainstream physicists are wicked and evil liars, intentionally leading mankind down a path to oblivion.
False, because we are already over 100 days down this path to oblivion. Einstein is the reason, along with Niels Bohr's complementarity, that we have not been able to invent controlled nuclear fusion despite the H-bomb being invented by 1953. There is nowadays no attempt to physically model subatomic and nuclear structure, rather, only speculative mathematics. Hence physics has been great and spectacular failure of our era. The failure to invent nuclear fusion is the primary reason for our worsening environmental collapse - that CO2 continues to be poured out globally en masse, as you have already pointed out to Emma, whereas physicists turn a blind eye into useless speculation such as superstrings and the notion of repeated Big Bangs and Big Crunches etc. etc.
If indeed you've discovered any "contradictions", it probably means that the theory is incomplete, not that it's wrong.
False. Because the logical paradoxes - what you merely called "contradictions" - cannot be resolved by theoretical extensions to an incomplete theory, as could be done with ordinary scientific theories. Why? Because the theory is fundamentally flawed: notions such as LC and TD are not science but fantasy constructions that supposedly have to be "added on" to Galilean relativity.

(Einstein's relativity theory is incomplete of course - I don't disagree on that - since GR was added to SR to extend it to gravity. Einstein intended a third part to relativity: to add his "Unified Field Theory" a.k.a. "Grand Unified Theory", which consists only of his and others' failed attempts to get readers to confuse gravitational fields with electromagnetic fields. No one has succeeded with this nor will they, because the whole construction is erected on the false base of SR such that the mental contortions that arise e.g. string theory, are too patently absurd.)
And the examples you've given so far, have been well-known for almost a hundred years, and carefully considered by mainstream physicists already.
They have not been carefully considered because "mainstream physicists" are fundamentally biased for SR, as for them, Einstein's teachings constitute a sublimated type of religion, in fact being the very mainspring and justification for modern religious bigotry after traditional beliefs were destroyed by scientific discoveries such as the moving Earth (Galileo) and evolutionary theory (Darwin). In the old days Newton's absolute space, comprising the Parmenidean-Aristotelian plenum, was the manifestation of God on Earth - space for Newton was "the sensorium of God". And thus it is notion, updated via SR & GR in the nonsensical and paradox-generating "spacetime" (or Minkowski's space-time-matter) which is the "material" substitute and support for traditional religious belief today - and particularly that of Zionism of course, of which Einstein was one.

Furthermore, Einstein's mystification of science is why religion is proving so stubbornly bigotedly intractable today - other than Protestantism which thankfully is crumbling as the global economy crumbles, since it was based on a simplistic and greedy "prosperity gospel", now defunct, hence its restriction to fanatical well-funded Evangelicals (Zionists of course).

But clearly the first thing I have to demonstrate to you is that the experimental claims for TD are false, since the "mistake" favouring Einstein in the experimental reasoning is not readily apparent.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
I will be putting the disproof of TD via subatomic particle decay on a new thread - but am quite happy if you want to return it to here.

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: In fact, to my surprise, just now I found my own posting on another website from which I was banned. As it was dumped in the alternatives category the ascended Einsteinian masters there did not even bother to delete it. As you can see by my nickname there (Tfolzo) I was rapidly banned for shaking up the prejudices. Here's the link:

http://www.thephysicsforum.com/personal-theories-alternative-hypothesis/6392-does-differential-altitudinal-muon-decay-prove-sr.html
 
Last edited:
The supposed proof for time dilation, using short-lived subatomic particles produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere is false, since it misrepresents the situation in order to claim that special relativity's claim of time dilation (TD) is an establish fact - despite the fact that reciprocal TD leads to fatal logical paradoxes, resolvable only by the nonsense of parallel and daughter universes. The demonstration of the flaw in the supposed proof comes from an old posting I had made on another website, which I have brushed up here as that posting was directed to physicists, not intelligent laymen.

That posting can be found here:
http://www.thephysicsforum.com/personal-theories-alternative-hypothesis/6392-does-differential-altitudinal-muon-decay-prove-sr.html

But I have modified and improved the text below to highlight the fundamental flaw in the presumptions and interpretations of the facts.

Subatomic particles like pions and muons (a.k.a. V-particles) are continually formed from cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, decaying over time as they pass into the lower atmosphere, hence detection rates are higher at higher altitudes. There has been an attempt to explain this phenomenon using SR, the supposed proof merely being the observed decrease flux of V-particles, secondary cosmic ray particles such as pions and muons, at lower altitudes.

According to mathematical physicists, the lower detection rates of cosmic ray particles at lower altitudes are the result of the time dilation (TD) of the faster more energetic pions and muons – a claim that also presumes that the earth, unlike the secondary cosmic rays, is moving slowly relative to absolute rest or itself constitutes absolute rest (an absolute reference frame = Newton's absolute space). Thus the relative motion of the particles to the Earth and the human observers becomes absolutized in calling the particles relative motion "fast" or "slow"; all it really means is fast or slow relative ONLY to the Earth!

The lower detection rate at lower altitudes is because only the longer-lived particles, living longer because they move faster, are more likely to reach lower altitudes.

The italicized underlined claim above is correct, but the question is the reason why this is so! The claim is simplistic, so we have to tease out the three real or potential factors that lead to only faster particles being detected at lower altitudes.

George Gamow presented the Einsteinian case in 1961 in his popular work "The Great Physicists from Galileo to Einstein" pp. 314-321.


There are three potential reasons for the short-lived particles to decay.

First, the short-lived particles are inherently decay-prone, decaying of themselves according to the half-life principle also found with radioactive isotopes; each type of particle decaying with its own distinctive half-life, muons for example being much more stable than pions, in turn more stable than most other particles (see Gamow p. 321 for example).

Second, these particles interact with the media through which they travel – the atmosphere in this case. We know this to be true because such particle-medium interactions are so commonly observed in particle detectors, i.e. cloud chambers, spark chambers and bubble chambers, all well-established physics, even at the time Gamow wrote.

Third, Einstein's relativistic time dilation (TD). According to Einsteinians, this is the explanation for only the faster particles reaching lower latitudes.

The question now is: are the observed decays of short live subatomic particles completely explicable by the First and Second explanations, or is the Third (TD) a necessary conclusion once the first two explanations have been excluded? Or in other words: can we explain observed particle decay solely by the First and Second explanations?

Since the decay rates of particles are dependent on the type of particle, the first factor, inherent decay-proneness of these particles, is unquestionably true.

The second factor is also true so has to be corrected for since it is obvious that a slow-moving particle - particularly charged particles as were tested for here - would be more likely to interact with the atmospheric medium than a faster moving one. It is natural to think this because there is so much physical evidence for this phenomenon e.g. slower moving electrons are more easily deflected by electric and magnetic fields in a cathode-ray tube.

The mathematical physicists ‘prove’ the case for the third factor (TD) by referring to an experimental comparison of high-altitude and low-altitude particle detection; such separation being achievable due to the ready availability of high mountains in which to place detectors! A common altitude differential is about two kilometres (or a mile in Gamow's case).

In order to correct for the mass of the atmosphere that lies between the two altitudes, the high-altitude measurements were carried out under a suitable thickness of iron plates or equivalent mass-thickness of water (Echo Lake in Gamow's example). This material, water or iron, comprises a 'substitute' for the matter comprising the atmosphere. In the case of iron plates this ‘atmosphere substitute material’ separates the detector from the atmosphere by a few centimeters, by less than a meter of water in the other case. The theory here is that the equivalent mass of iron plates or water will induce particle decay immediately above the high-altitude detector to the same degree as that caused by the intervening atmosphere for the low-altitude detector – a reasonable assumption since we know the second factor of intervening matter does indeed absorb such subatomic particles.

When the experiment is carried out, the high-altitude detector still detects a higher particle rate than the detector at low altitude. Then the Einsteinians jump to premature conclusions with their interpretations.

"We have proven that the particle-medium interaction does not explain the lower detection rate at lower altitude (the second factor is compensated for), thus the difference must be due to time dilation (TD) since this is the only other possible explanation!"

This claim however is false as a crude bias has been introduced into the experimental interpretation – its crudeness ignored only because the mathematical physicists are so obsessed with their narrow agenda.

The crude bias consists in ignoring the first factor - the fact that these subatomic particles spontaneously decay over time.

It resides in the fact that the high-altitude detector has a shorter path from the upper atmosphere generation site of the subatomic particles than does the low-altitude detector. In other words, the first factor, the particles’ spontaneous tendency to decay, has more time to occur with the low-altitude detector than with the high-altitude detector – and this extra time and extra path-length is decisive since the particles themselves are formed by cosmic rays striking the earth’s atmosphere only a few kilometers further up!

Hence the experimental procedure of counteracting the effect of the atmosphere actually biases the testing by correcting ONLY for the second factor, interaction with matter, whether gas, liquid or solid.

The Einsteinian 'explanation' only 'works' by ignoring the length of the detection path, and in consequence the first factor viz. the spontaneous tendency of these particles to decay AND the time available in which to decay. Hence the difference between the high-altitude and low-altitude detectors is explained not by time dilation but by the first factor – the longer path for the low-altitude detector allows more time for the particles to decay.

That is, the Einsteinians orgiastic joy in demonstrating the negation the second factor is merely is to hide the bias introduced concerning the first factor - if indeed they are aware of the issue at all!

Rather, for an unbiased experiment, the ‘high-altitude’ detectors should not only be covered by material equal in mass to that of the atmosphere between high-altitude and low-altitude detectors, but have to have the detectors at equivalent altitudes in order for the path lengths to be the same. Since the particles are so short-lived anyway it is essential that path-lengths be equal so that the particles for both detectors are provided with equal time to decay, ruling out the first factor.

Needless to say, this has not been done - from the technical difficulties as much as the Einsteinian blindness. This is because to have the high-altitude and low-altitude detectors at the same altitude in order to rule out the first factor altogether, you would have to hollow out a mountain cavern and have a complete vacuum in said cavern in order to equilibrate the two path-lengths.

That is, the two detectors have to be at equal altitudes in order to allow for spontaneous particle decay. This means that the ‘high altitude’ detector should be placed at low altitude, separated from the iron plates or water by roughly two kilometers of vacuum – i.e. the detector at the bottom of a suitably long vacuum path within the hollowed-out mountain! Such large vacuums have not been created beneath mountains – hence an unbiased experiment compensating for both the first and second factors so as to demonstrate adequately the third, i.e. TD, has not been performed.

When you realize this however, you can see that the first two factors account quite satisfactorily for the observed particle decay pattern. The invocation of TD & thus SR is at best an unnecessary and superfluous complication.

Clear too is the fact that the differential decay of fast and slow-moving subatomic particles no more demonstrates time dilation than the longer survival time of faster-running rabbits in a fox-infested field demonstrates time dilation in rabbits - though perhaps not for suggestible Wylie Coyote-level intellects!

So anyone who reads through the above argument and at least thinks he/she understands it can only support TD (and therefore SR) by arrogant presumption, wilful blindness or basic stupidity! So which is it, dear readers?

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The crude bias consists in ignoring the first factor - the fact that these subatomic particles spontaneously decay over time.
Via Wikipedia, I found this technical summary of the experiment we're discussing.

https://books.google.com/books?id=93E_vYuCKHYC&pg=PA705#v=onepage&q&f=false

It says that muons at rest are known to have a mean lifetime of 2.2 microseconds. The experiment doesn't involve any other type of particle, so the first factor does seem well understood, and well controlled. Also, Wikipedia mentions that the cosmic-ray findings have been verified by experiments with particle accelerators.

So anyone who reads through the above argument and at least thinks he/she understands it can only support TD (and therefore SR) by arrogant presumption, wilful blindness or basic stupidity! So which is it, dear readers?
I'm going to go with arrogant presumption here.

Or, to view my post more charitably: I optimistically credit myself with enough basic intelligence to see the flaw in the above argument, and continue to support TD in spite of this effort to undermine the evidence.

But I confess (as I have earlier) that I don't have the educational background to do professional level work in this field. And furthermore, I haven't even located the original peer reviewed research that forms the basis of the argument. So, it's arrogant and presumptuous for me to write about this. My only justification for doing so, is that it's my blog and I've been challenged.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Einstein is the reason, along with Niels Bohr's complementarity, that we have not been able to invent controlled nuclear fusion despite the H-bomb being invented by 1953. There is nowadays no attempt to physically model subatomic and nuclear structure, rather, only speculative mathematics. Hence physics has been great and spectacular failure of our era. The failure to invent nuclear fusion is the primary reason for our worsening environmental collapse
If you're on the track of a means to create nuclear fusion, shouldn't you be spending all your time either working directly on the development, or else actively pursuing fundraising? Does it really make sense to spend time trying to persuade little ol' me that Einstein is wrong?

Not to mention the obvious fact that Einsteinian relativity and mass-energy equivalence were the discoveries that made the H-bomb possible.

But leaving our quarrels aside: please tell us more about how to create controlled nuclear fusion?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Claude, I'm assuming that you've seen my article on controlled nuclear fusion at this website:

https://postflaviana.org/haroches-cockroach-nuclear-fusion-breakthrough/

After writing this article, I seriously considered that I ought to be building a nuclear fusion reactor in my workshop here at the farm. But I ultimately decided against it. My reasoning was (1) my wife didn't want our cows and our entire neighborhood to be irradiated or eradicated in some sort of accident; and (2) if I'm on the right track, it's already been done and I would be a distant also-ran in the race. Whereas if I'm on the wrong track, it would be a colossal waste of time, and I'm an unlikely candidate to make the breakthrough.
 
It's not much of a technical summary, Jerry...
Via Wikipedia, I found this technical summary of the experiment we're discussing.

https://books.google.com/books?id=93E_vYuCKHYC&pg=PA705#v=onepage&q&f=false

It says that muons at rest are known to have a mean lifetime of 2.2 microseconds. The experiment doesn't involve any other type of particle, so the first factor does seem well understood, and well controlled. Also, Wikipedia mentions that the cosmic-ray findings have been verified by experiments with particle accelerators.
...but you are right in that charged muons are better understood than most other short-lived particles.

That the faster moving particles produced by cosmic rays are the ones predominantly found at lower altitudes is obvious from the mere fact that they move faster - and so are less prone to interact with the particles of the atmosphere. That is the simple explanation - to add in SR is superfluous. But instead
I'm going to go with arrogant presumption here.
Can't argue with that can I?o_O

But you are too right, because the official Einsteinian explanation to refute what I wrote above about the shortened path length permitted to the high altitude detectors would be excused - though I have never read such words - by claiming that the difference in distance between high altitude and low altitude detectors is offset by LC of the distance between them! I.e. the explanation given by SR is merely self-referential as it presumes one believes it in the first place! The TD justifies the LC and vice versa, a form of circular reasoning. I.e. SR (and therefore GR) is a logically closed system in the manner of Bishop Berkeley's idealism (and so you can already see why Joe would be agin' it, because Berkeley was an Irish Anglican preaching "the world is but a dream").
Or, to view my post more charitably: I optimistically credit myself with enough basic intelligence to see the flaw in the above argument, and continue to support TD in spite of this effort to undermine the evidence.
Basic intelligence and over-optimism (Schopenhauer would call you Islamic or Jewish for being optimistic) doesn't cut it here - and you of all people should know that! Joe Atwill doesn't accept SR passively or presumptuously - though he admits he hasn't really studied it - and his greater-than-basic intelligence has led him to productive interaction with Catholic forces.

Happily however, you, like Joe, remain honest and open on the question.
But I confess (as I have earlier) that I don't have the educational background to do professional level work in this field. And furthermore, I haven't even located the original peer reviewed research that forms the basis of the argument. So, it's arrogant and presumptuous for me to write about this. My only justification for doing so, is that it's my blog and I've been challenged.
I am not a professional physicist or philosopher either - but the vital issue is that Einstein's teaching fundamentally concerns space and time, accepting and applying Einsteinian conceptions of them (i.e. spacetime) leading to fundamental logical paradoxes and essential misconceptions about nature itself.

The key here lies in the fact that fundamental philosophical questions in the West are either not understood or frankly misrepresented (e.g. Sir Karl Popper etc. let alone Einstein). At the deepest level it concerns the nature of the universe itself - whether it is deterministic (wholly rational) as Einstein teaches, or merely causal, where nature is fundamentally disordered, despite the existence of natural regularities. The philosophical systems of the two are radically opposed to one another, especially in the social systems that result! This is why Einstein is upheld by elite authority masquerading as objectivity in physics.

Happily, I note that after your article, you and Richard show that you appreciate some of the negative implications of believing in the Einsteinian world.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Very good point.
If you're on the track of a means to create nuclear fusion, shouldn't you be spending all your time either working directly on the development, or else actively pursuing fundraising? Does it really make sense to spend time trying to persuade little ol' me that Einstein is wrong?
Yes, because I am having trouble even in getting my papers published - due to the near-total censorship of anything critical even of derivative consequences of SR in physics journals. Hence I am now directed to the post-WW3 situation when the Judaeo-Christians have finally gotten the USA destroyed in war - particularly cities and universities - hence the Judaeo-Christian remnants will be hunted down and wiped out as people finally realize what they've been conned into.

And you too cannot yet say that the masses are flocking to Postflaviana or to Joe's podcasts to solve the grave problems mankind face - which of course they ought to be. But why not?

I point out that the German (I.e. Nazi) Physicists saw the corruption created by Einstein and very many and disproportionately Jewish physicists - and in 1946 before he died in 1947 Nobel Prizewinner Philipp Lenard rightly wrote that mankind was headed for another Dark Age due to Einstein-type thinking (this fact masked by the 30-year Golden Age from 1948, see also the Morgenthau plunder of Germany from 1945-47 as described in E Michael Jones' "Beyond the Bomb"). Even though he may not have even heard of Lenard, Joe has proven Lenard right by uncovering "The Authoritarian Personality" and "Eros and Civilization" agenda over and above what I had already realized - that this perverse form of thinking, essentially abstract, speculative and ideally mathematical, now normalized in physics, psychology, economics and social movements, is leading mankind to utter debasement and destruction since people cannot think correctly about their social and scientific debasement nor even recognize it as debasement!

I had to study that stinking novel "Catcher in the Rye" in my last high school year in 1973 - the same year they taught SR to us as part of science (though I was already familiar with the latter, having come across SR when aged 11). Until I heard Joe's podcast "Elvis was a Mind-Control Slave' late last year I had not realized that the two pieces of BS were part and parcel of the same Judaeo-Christian agenda, designed only to befuddle and disempower the dumb goyim, and Jews too, into blind obedience and fanatical bouts of rationalizing!
Not to mention the obvious fact that Einsteinian relativity and mass-energy equivalence were the discoveries that made the H-bomb possible.
Nuclear bombs not a result of SR. Mass-energy equivalence was known before Einstein. Not only did Hasenoehrl's paper predate Einstein's by 6 months, it was also evident as a logical conclusion from Ernst Mach's studies and also from the pressure of light on streams of light Lycopodium powder (and even Gamow's The Great Physicist from Galileo to Einstein pp. 186-187 admits this). So Einstein earns no credit for it. SR too is irrelevant for making nuclear weapons work. So too Einstein can be absolved of the blame here - one thing I will allow you credit for.
But leaving our quarrels aside: please tell us more about how to create controlled nuclear fusion?
Eric Lerner at Lawrenceville Plasma Physics has been working on it - Boron-Hydrogen fusion-fission which does NOT produce free neutrons.

They are working through massive technical difficulties - but I have the answer for them in nuclear structure, but they won't listen to me until I get this paper I'm writing published.

As you saw, Lerner still believes in SR - but he knows GR to be bunk. I have tried to publish the demonstration that GR is bunk, by showing that the doubled deflection of light by gravity and the anomalous perihelion shift of Mercury are explained by entirely different considerations not requiring SR or GR at all. Rather, Einstein's relativity is like Monty Python's parrot - sitting on the perch because it has been nailed there, not by flying up there through its own intellectual understanding.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
Yes, I had already seen your article - and your concerns...
Claude, I'm assuming that you've seen my article on controlled nuclear fusion at this website:

https://postflaviana.org/haroches-cockroach-nuclear-fusion-breakthrough/

After writing this article, I seriously considered that I ought to be building a nuclear fusion reactor in my workshop here at the farm. But I ultimately decided against it. My reasoning was (1) my wife didn't want our cows and our entire neighborhood to be irradiated or eradicated in some sort of accident; and (2) if I'm on the right track, it's already been done and I would be a distant also-ran in the race. Whereas if I'm on the wrong track, it would be a colossal waste of time, and I'm an unlikely candidate to make the breakthrough.
...but reviewing it again, one name there struck me.
The EPR effect predicts that after the entangled photons are separated, their quantum states would continue to be engaged, so that a resolution of the spin state of one photon would be instantaneously reflected in the state of the other — across any distance, no matter how great. This was what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance”, and he argued that the prediction couldn’t possibly be right. However, most physicists today accept the reality of the EPR effect (aside from a few stragglers still searching for “loopholes”), and Anton Zeilinger received the 2008 Isaac Newton Medal of the UK Institute of Physics for his 1997 experimental demonstration that the EPR effect could be used for teleportation of quantum states.
That of Anton Zeilinger, about whom I suspect you may not know too much.

Faster than light motion including "instantaneous action at a distance" (IAAD) is what Einstein hated and denied - since it refutes SR. Zeilinger receives a medal for showing how quantum states can transfer instantaneously - meaning that they can be used to transmit a signal.

Yet Zeilinger, ein dumpfes Kraut, supports SR and its claim of no faster-than-light signalling! This despite the fact that I used his own work to prove the viability of my US Patent #7,130,700, the article being Alois Mair, Alipasha Vaziri, Gregor Weihs & Anton Zeilinger, "Entanglement of the Orbital Angular Momentum States of Photons", Nature 412 (19 July 2001) 313-316. Just look at figure 4, where the data shows (and the deduced images would reveal) that movement of the hologram on one photon stream has an effect on the other stream of photons (the one photon stream being quantum-entangled with the other photon stream). His work flatly contradicts SR yet Herr Doofusman cannot see it!

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: I bring up the issue of IAAD specifically in view of the talk by Trump and others of a manned journey to Mars. This stuff is fanciful when one continues to believe in SR. This is because the spacecraft will at times be 20 light-minutes from Earth. This means that if complicated trouble develops, and the astronauts have to radio Earth for help, it will take 20 minutes for the signal to be received. Minus the Earth home-base trying to work out what to do to advise the astronauts, it will be another 20 minutes for the return signal with the advice to be received. By that time, the astronauts could all be dead, and Earth would never know what happened!!!!! That is why instantaneous communication is essential - the risk of a manned Mars journey without it being unacceptable (unless filled with unwanted people like.... ), as I'm sure you will agree given the slowness of light-waves on even a solar system scale.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The TD justifies the LC and vice versa, a form of circular reasoning.
In terms of the experimental design, I can understand how this could be a problem. But I feel I'd need to study the details, before I could say.

Conceptually, though, the formulation of the muon experiment seems clear enough. We're simply trying to measure the decay time of the muons. If the mean decay time stays at 2.2 microseconds, no matter how speedy or energetic the muons are, then there is no time dilation. If the mean decay time gets a lot longer, then time dilation is verified. And if you know the time of flight, and the distance traveled (as observed in stationary reference) then you can also calculate the length contraction.

I am having trouble even in getting my papers published - due to the near-total censorship of anything critical even of derivative consequences of SR in physics journals.
You could do what Robert M. Price did, and start your own journal.

Or, try to tone down the attacks on Einstein and all modern physics, and just discuss your ideas about nuclear structure & nuclear fusion. Maybe nobody will notice that your ideas are in direct contradiction to SR and GR.

Or, just send the papers direct to Eric Lerner? He seems to be something of a maverick anyhow. Why wouldn't he read with interest?

That is why instantaneous communication is essential - the risk of a manned Mars journey without it being unacceptable (unless filled with unwanted people like.... ), as I'm sure you will agree given the slowness of light-waves on even a solar system scale.
I would think the risks would be unacceptable, even if communication were instantaneous. If the astronauts are dying from cosmic rays, or from effects of zero gravity, or if any vital systems fail, or if the necessary resources for fuel synthesis aren't found on the Martian surface as expected -- what is Earth going to do about it?
 
Thank you for the clarification on 'SJ', Jerry.
SJ = Society of Jesus, aka Jesuits. From the Free (online) Dictionary, "Jesuitism or Jesuitry: 1. The doctrines, practices, etc., of the Jesuits; 2. informal offensive subtle and equivocating arguments; casuistry." And: "Casuistry: 1. Specious or excessively subtle reasoning intended to rationalize or mislead. 2. The determination of right and wrong in questions of conduct or conscience by analyzing cases that illustrate general ethical rules."

As in, "Criticising George Soros's ethics on the grounds that he accepts Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, is an egregious example of casuistry."
But by your last sentence you reveal that you have NOT read George Soros's works in that his Fallibility theory is intimately dependent on his belief in Einstein's relativity, since, unlike quantum theory, it is NOT subject to probability - and therefore fallibility. IOW Soros does not subscribe to Einstein neutrally or blindly in that he accepts it because it is popularly believed. Rather he takes Einstein's SR to be the embodiment of perfection in physics, something that should be strived for as ideal science - rather than being seen for what it is, a total fraud set up by a lifetime actor.

Einstein a lifetime actor? Just see Seeker's excellent post above.

So now I'll have to read Emma's reference, which is very good in that it reveals Einstein's manipulation of philosophy and science in such a way to serve the agenda he wants!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
While I will answer this here Emma, I know it's also off topic, so Jerry will probably add it to the relativity thread.
George Bernard Shaw said if you were not a socialist at age 20, you had no heart, but if you were one at 30 you had no brain. Hence, as Richard might tell you too, I am actually a heartless brainless Fascist:D! So having given you fair warning - here is the explanation.

Robert Sungenis' article follows a common trend in attributing to Einstein what was actually established by other people - in this case Galileo.

It was Galileo, not Einstein, who established that the earth moved. The Galilean Relativity Principle is the result - all motion is relative.

Now while Galilean Relativity (GalRel) is correct, it does need supplementing when we consider acceleration and deceleration, including gravitational effects. If I am in a stationary car, talking to you standing on the road outside the car - and then I accelerate the car and move away from you - one could say, very clumsily, that we have "mutually accelerated" in that I have accelerated away from you or that you have accelerated away from me, but such phrases are NOT truly reciprocal.

This is because my body has felt the force of accelerating the car but yours has not. The question then is: what is the origin of acceleration. Relative to what is the inertia created by the acceleration? In the case of a body falling in gravity we can say it is the gravitating body (e.g. the Earth) but in the case of acceleration, it is not merely the Earth that I have accelerated relative to! Einstein utilizes popular confusion here to create General Relativity.

With the Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment, Michelson et al. hoped to show absolute motion, that the Earth moved through a stagnant ether, a thin soup of matter equivalent to or stationary with Newton's absolute space. The notion of "absolute motion" is an anti-Galilean one. There is no such thing as absolute motion - hence we would predict that the MM experiment is negative. This is what Michelson discovered!

However, because he believed in the stagnant ether (= absolute space), Michelson expected the MM experiment to be positive, since, given that the Earth moves around the Sun, it could not be that Earth was absolutely motionless. Michelson did not discover that the Earth was motionless; rather, that is a mistaken inference from believing in absolute space (= stagnant ether).

Hence Sungenis sets up a false opposition (= fake dichotomy) re the meaning of the negative MM experiment:

1) “This result directly contradicts the explanation... which presupposes that the Earth moves" - by which he actually means that the Earth has no absolute motion rather than considering GalRel.

2) "his colleagues, including Einstein, were die-hard Copernicans who didn't want to believe that Michelson had discovered a motionless Earth... thus Michelson's apparatus only made it appear as if it wasn't moving." I.e. he means that the Earth only appears not to be absolutely moving. (The petitio principi).

The opposition between the two claims is a false dichotomy. The negative MM experiment merely demonstrates GalRel, but the scientists wanted to believe in Newton's absolute space (= stagnant ether), so the Three Stooges stepped in with the answer to explain away the negative MM experiment (nMMX).

  1. Moe (George) Fitzgerald invented Length Contraction (LC) to claim that objects shortened in the direction of absolute motion.
  2. Larry (Hendrik) Lorentz mathematicised the LC according to the Voigt Doppler Equation, inventing Lorentzian Relativity which presumes that the universe is static and that the Earth undergoes absolute motion through the static (= stagnant) ether without revealing a positive MM experiment.
  3. Curly (Henri) Poincare looked at Lorentz's equations and claimed that the LC should be substituted by a parallel equation applied to time - i.e. time dilation (TD), leading to the notion that in Lorentzian relativity, objects moving faster relative to the universe as a whole (Newton's absolute space = stagnant ether) slowed down proportionately in their rate of time. Objects traveling at the speed of light relative to the universe would then not undergo time-change at all, such a clock standing still and not ticking.
This stooge-stuff along with absolute motion led to the belief in TD & LC, which notions create logical paradoxes when applied physically.

Einstein then seized upon the TD & LC to create his own theory - different from Lorentz's - the one we call special relativity (SR).

Whereas Lorentz believed that the universe was static as a whole (i.e. the reference frame the universe itself), Einstein's formulation avoided postulating the question as to whether the universe was static (Newton's absolute space) or dynamic (as with GalRel). Instead, in Einstein's SR conception, the reference frame for motion was not universal but rather subjective, every individual moving relative to any other individual constituting the reference frame for motion. We might construe Einstein's invitation to metastatic egoism here as: "Nothing can travel faster than light relative to the supreme ego, me!"

Such are Einstein's "relative frames of reference", these nonsensical subjectivist "frames" used today and substituting for the common sense of GalRel. So remember that mankind went to the Moon on Galilean-Newtonian physics, not Einstein's SR-BS.

This Einsteinian invention of subjective reference frames led to logical paradoxes, because it confuses questions of perspective with presumed and hypothesized physical changes, these being TD & LC of course. Hence the mess of our present day where instead of developing GalRel, mankind has gone off at a tangent in useless speculation, involving black holes, superstrings, magnetic monopoles, quarks, the expanding universe, the Big Bang and plenty more such rubbish.

This was Einstein's achievement, to get hypothetical notions like TD & LC, used to explain away the negative result from another theory (stagnant ether = Newton's absolute space = Lorentzian relativity) to be accepted as the core of a new theory, a theory NOT based on physical reality but mathematical pretence (= chutzpah).

This is why physics is such a sensationalist, useless and degraded branch of science today.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
While I will answer this here Emma, I know it's also off topic, so Jerry will probably add it to the relativity thread.
Yes, this long response is off topic, and I don't have sufficient permissions to move it. But there is one way to deal with this and reply on a proper thread and then briefly link to it. Emma can also post new matters on other appropriate or new threads.
 
Top