Special Relativity creates Logical Paradoxes & Physical Impossibilities

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I also note that your definition of "scientific validity" is merely reducible to abstract numbers divorced from physical conditions that would otherwise render the theory physically impossible (e.g. A>B and A<B)
The claim is that if we construct an apparatus sufficiently accurate to take the measurements, our Teslas will objectively appear to be shorter in moving frames of reference, consistent with the Lorentz contraction. There's nothing abstract about these numbers, on the contrary they're concrete predictions about the measurements we can expect to obtain. And if there's anything impossible about the idea that different measurements could be obtained, based on one's frame of reference, I'm failing to grok it.

On to Fizeau...

So I am going to give you that link - and you can also read there their vicious and misleading replies, which also reveal that no one had ever noticed Einstein's imposture before.
Thanks for the link. I found that the poster known as KJW did a good job representing an Einsteinian perspective. I specifically agree with KJW, that Einstein is completely exonerated from accusations of fraud. Einstein accurately stated Fizeau's conclusion, and then explained why he believed his equation was identical, in sufficient detail that the missing terms are easy to supply.

Hence for high v with high w we predict experimentally, from Fizeau's equation, that light, piggy-backed by transparent media (whether fluid or solid) can indeed travel faster than c relative to its source.
Here I find that it is you, Mr. Badley, who is misinterpreting Fizeau's experimental finding. Because as KJW explained, Fizeau's experiment has not been accomplished with sufficient precision to distinguish between Fizeau's form of the equation, vs. Einstein's approximation. Therefore, your conclusions cannot be predicted based on Fizeau's experiment.

Maybe Einstein was right, that nothing can travel faster than light speed. Or maybe Dr. Spock is right, that warp drive is a "Logical" consequence of the properties of dilithium crystals.

Or maybe you're right, Mr. Claude Badley: maybe there's been some terrible mistake. Maybe "spooky action at a distance" does indeed permit faster-than light communications. Maybe length and time dilation are instrumental errors.

But you're not going to convince me, except with some experimental evidence. All the hand-waving in the universe is not going to get us to Alpha Centauri any faster.

Speaking merely for myself, I must confess, that regardless of whether Einstein was right or wrong, or cosmic wormholes and spacetime warps truly exist or not, I am guilty of gross procrastination, in not having prepared any immediate escape plan from "this miserable polluted Earth and its collapsing environment", unless ("God" forbid), I am prematurely "Raptured" (culled) by the "clothed with the Sun" Coronavirus, Indeed!
ROFL!! Fear not, Seeker, for God has given us all things that are necessary for our salvation. The truth shall set you free. Take your Vitamin D and zinc, and everything should be fine. Or at least, until it isn't.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
(I'll treat the last question in post #130 separately as it refers to the Photon-Doppler-Ensemble)
I believe this part of the thread has fallen by the wayside. Photon-Doppler-Ensemble??? I can just imagine Scotty and Spock engaged in a spirited conversation about that.
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
The Photon-Doppler-Ensemble...
I believe this part of the thread has fallen by the wayside. Photon-Doppler-Ensemble??? I can just imagine Scotty and Spock engaged in a spirited conversation about that.
...is treated in posts ##125 & 128.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
The Einsteinian Physics forum link I gave above.
Thanks for the link. I found that the poster known as KJW did a good job representing an Einsteinian perspective.
That is indeed true since he considers only the maths and NOT the physical impossibility of the results - and that's why I referred you to him and the other Einsteinians, to help out with this unfamiliar territory.:D
I specifically agree with KJW, that Einstein is completely exonerated from accusations of fraud. Einstein accurately stated Fizeau's conclusion, and then explained why he believed his equation was identical, in sufficient detail that the missing terms are easy to supply.
No he did not, rather the exact opposite is true! Can't you read, Jerry??? He claims that Fizeau proves that nothing can travel faster than light (see post #141) whereas Fizeau's equation permits faster than light travel.

... as KJW explained, Fizeau's experiment has not been accomplished with sufficient precision to distinguish between Fizeau's form of the equation, vs. Einstein's approximation.
If the section in blue is true, then Einstein should never have made the claim he did in the first place, since Fizeau's equation leads to the opposite conclusion to Einstein's! An honest person would merely retreat to agnosticism
Maybe Einstein was right, that nothing can travel faster than light speed. Or maybe Dr. Schlock is right, that warp drive is a "Logical" consequence of the properties of dilithium crystals.

Or maybe you're right, Mr. Claude Badley: maybe there's been some terrible mistake. Maybe "spooky action at a distance" does indeed permit faster-than light communications. Maybe length and time dilation are instrumental errors.
Spooky "action at a distance" i.e. faster than light motion (& thus communications) is already proven - showing Einstein to be wrong - but the Einsteinian experimenters are forever trying to explain the evidence away. So Google Nicolas Gisin, and Günter Nimtz to find proof showing faster-than-light signalling! Also "quantum entanglement communication speed" then peel away the Einstein bullshit to see that the evidence, derived from the Aspect Experiment, is solid and sure for "spooky action at a distance". Only the Einsteinians deny it - despite even Newton having to admit "spooky action at a distance" to explain how his gravitational equations work, so he took refuge in the "sensorium of God", his name for space!:rolleyes:

TD&LC are NOT instrumental errors. They are theoretical errors supported ONLY by corrupt philosophical musings based on the anti-Galilean (i.e. anti-Galileo not anti-JesusChrist:D) doctrine of the plenum (Newton, Fitzgerald, Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein) and hence misrepresent the evidence (starting with the MMX).

Yours sincerely
Claude Badley
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Dear Seeker, thank you demonstrating your independence here.
Speaking merely for myself, I must confess, that regardless of whether Einstein was right or wrong, or cosmic wormholes and spacetime warps truly exist or not, I am guilty of gross procrastination, in not having prepared any immediate escape plan from "this miserable polluted Earth and its collapsing environment", unless ("God" forbid), I am prematurely "Raptured" (culled) by the "clothed with the Sun" Coronavirus, Indeed!
Especially as coronavirus is driving us all mad due to the lockdowns - though it has increased the necessary reading and writing we humans need.

I write here to you and Richard in particular, to warn you of the connection between Einstein and Ralph Ellis. Einstein's deceit and racist hypocrisy is clear from his letter "Our Debt to Zionism", hence there is a definite Ralph Ellis connection. While I have not read all Ralph Ellis's books and his extraordinary chain-link of the Julius Caesar/Cleopatra-Ourania-Ardban (Artabanus II King of Parthia)-Abgarus of Edessa lineage (which in certain ways is very true), underneath it all he is, knowingly or not, a sinister Zionist and his plans dovetail with the Judaeo-Christian hegemony ideal of Einstein revealed above! Perhaps this is why, in the one arranged video-interview between him and Joe, Joe had to leave because of a previous engagement.

In Jesus King of Edessa chapter III 2nd paragraph, Ellis writes about Jews in Mesopotamia:
This great and influential Jewish community prevailed in that region right up until 1947, when the Jews of Iraq were forcibly exiled in a mass ethnic cleansing by the Muslims of the region. This is an ethnic cleansing the liberal intelligentsia of the modern era choose to ignore completely, while continually championing the rights of the displaced Palestinians. In truth, if Palestine belongs to the Palestinians, then Iraq belongs to the Jews.
Iraq did not belong to the Jews before 1947; they were powerful and influential but Iraq was not theirs. IOW, come what may, Ellis affirms that the Zionist Jews are to somehow rule the middle-East as part of Judaeo-Christian global hegemony.

Indeed, his own theory strongly supports this, as the lineage of King Abgarus, whose wife was Queen Helen of Adiabene, was also Jewish or became Jewish, the Jewish revolt of 67-73AD inspired by their lineage including Jesus of Gamala, and Monobasus-Izates, who, in Ellis's theory, did NOT want Jewish independence from Rome but actually wanted to take over Rome itself since these Mesopotamian Jewish 'Royals' were also descendants of Cleopatra and Julius Caesar!

When you consider Josephus and the other evidence indicating that Abgarus' kingdom straddled what is now southern Turkey (Harran and Edessa), Syria and Iraq, you can see why Israel, USA, UK and France helped ISIS and al-Nusra during the Syrian Civil War - their whole agenda stopped only by Putin's Russia which stepped in to help Assad and Syria's beleaguered Alawaites, Shia, Christians and Druze, with much of the Sunni majority waking up to the true agenda of ISIS and al-Nusra, to the vexation of Israeli expansionism.

Hence, while Ellis's views are not YET mainstream, if they become so, they will enhance and strengthen Zionist arrogance, helping to push us into WW3 as Zionist Israel expands into what is now Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Again, just personally, I will say this about Ellis, (1) I was reading his books for genealogical insights, and I did not enjoy his interjecting political views into his research, and (2) I still prefer his alternate parentage of Jesus/Izates, where he is the son of Ptolemy (Pantera) of Mauretania. Why do I prefer this alternate theory? Because it would give what is commonly known as "Berber" male line ancestry to "Jesus", and the ancient Berbers believed that they descended from the Atlanteans, hence their naming of the Atlas Mountains of North Africa after Atlas, the mythological first King of Atlantis, and of course having the Atlantic Ocean on their coastline. The late Nicholas de Vere takes this much further, though, claiming that Atlantis actually originated in proto-Scythia, with the rare elite "Anunnaki" bloodline, "the real players" of red-headed origin. This is more in line with Postflavian thought on these matters, in my own humble opinion, while at the same time I am demonstrating my "independence", for which I do sincerely Thank You for the compliment, and wish you well in your future endeavors elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Thank you Seeker...
Again, just personally, I will say this about Ellis, (1) I was reading his books for genealogical insights, and I did not enjoy his interjecting political views into his research, and (2) I still prefer his alternate parentage of Jesus/Izates, where he is the son of Ptolemy (Pantera) of Mauretania. Why do I prefer this alternate theory? Because it would give what is commonly known as "Berber" male line ancestry to "Jesus", and the ancient Berbers believed that they descended from the Atlanteans, hence their naming of the Atlas Mountains of North Africa after Atlas, the mythological first King of Atlantis, and of course having the Atlantic Ocean on their coastline. The late Nicholas de Vere takes this much further, though, claiming that Atlantis actually originated in proto-Scythia, with the rare elite "Anunnaki" bloodline, "the real players" of red-headed origin. This is more in line with Postflavian thought on these matters, in my own humble opinion, while at the same time I am demonstrating my "independence", for which I do sincerely Thank You for the compliment, and wish you well in your future endeavors elsewhere.
...especially for the information about Ptolemy (Pantera) of Mauretania, which I don't remember discussed in Ellis's JKE as well as another 'red-hair' story which of course also occurs among Maori in New Zealand and 'Kon-Tiki Viracocha' in Peru.

Good to know that I can trust Richard and yourself to winkle out much of this useful information!:)

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Interesting too that regarding post #141 you don't claim that my maths is wrong (since if you did you would be laughing condescendingly at me)
But I do claim your math is wrong! Einstein's approximation x/(1+delta)~=x*(1-delta) is only true for very small delta. That is, it only works for v<<c. It is quite silly of you to expect any of these equations or computations to be accurate, or even in the same ballpark, if v is a large fraction of c. Fizeau's equation is based on experiments with fluids in a pipe: his paper discusses water at a velocity of 7 meters per second.

As per your own discussion:

The term w is usually about 90% of the speed of light (c), whereas the velocity of water (v) in Fizeau's experiments had a very small value. However, future experiments in outer space will be able to use fast moving solid materials and gases at very high speeds.

When we consider that reciprocal mass ejections from galaxies can move at >0.5c relative to the galaxy itself, we know that such speeds can be attained for moving fluids and solids. Hence not only would w be 0.9c in the equations, but v too will be extremely fast compared to laboratory conditions on earth.
Given that Fizeau was experimenting with water in a pipe, how could he possibly know anything about reciprocal mass ejections from galaxies? As for myself, I remain agnostic about what we might actually discover, if we were able to measure the speed of light coming from a source located in the midst of a reciprocal mass ejection from a galaxy. Although if I were forced to place a bet, I'd put my money on Einstein.

[Einstein] claims that Fizeau proves that nothing can travel faster than light (see post #141) whereas Fizeau's equation permits faster than light travel.
Read more carefully, Claude! Einstein's chapter about Fizeau says nothing at all about the limit in which v approaches c. All he says is that Fizeau's experiment supports the Lorentz equation to an accuracy of better than 1%, in a regime where v<<c. Even with this very small v, the experiment is sufficient to demonstrate that the prediction of classical Galilean mechanics (W=v+c) is clearly wrong.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
With respect to the Photon-Doppler Ensemble, which Claude bafflingly discussed in posts #125 and #128, leading to my question in post #130 which has indeed gone unanswered, I will now repeat the question:

So you are saying that the observed wavelength is a property of the object absorbing it? You do agree that all objects are always found to be moving at a fixed velocity |c| relative to all photons, although the direction of relative motion is variable for each photon?
And I will further note that in Claude's example from post #128: according to Einsteinian physics, the emitted photon does possess a characteristic wavelength. The wavelength upon arrival at an observer, is a function of the photon's emitted wavelength as well as the relative velocity of emitter and observer.
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
So far it is very difficult to take your 'refutations' seriously!
But I do claim your math is wrong!
The question is not the equations themselves (see post #141) , rather, it is: how far can we extrapolate from Earthly experiments to high-speed interactions in outer space? I.e. how applicable are the maths to the actual physical situation?
Einstein's approximation x/(1+delta)~=x*(1-delta) is only true for very small delta. That is, it only works for v<<c. It is quite silly of you to expect any of these equations or computations to be accurate, or even in the same ballpark, if v is a large fraction of c. Fizeau's equation is based on experiments with fluids in a pipe: his paper discusses water at a velocity of 7 meters per second.
If I accept your claim above, Jerry, it disqualifies not only Fizeau's equation but Einstein's as well - since Einstein too would then have no right to extrapolate to velocities approximating that of light.

Therefore your argument also refutes Einstein - dismissing his results too as speculative mathematical projection. Yet you then indulge in paradoxical thinking, claiming that Einstein ALONE has the right to make deductions from "very small delta". So all you are doing here is trying to defend Einstein by using self-defeating arguments; thus your argument here counts for nothing at all!:D

I note too that you are a betting man - like the Freemasonic Rudyard Kipling in his poem 'If'.
Given that Fizeau was experimenting with water in a pipe, how could he possibly know anything about reciprocal mass ejections from galaxies? As for myself, I remain agnostic about what we might actually discover, if we were able to measure the speed of light coming from a source located in the midst of a reciprocal mass ejection from a galaxy. Although if I were forced to place a bet, I'd put my money on Einstein.
Because you are hiding yet again from the implications of Fizeau's experimentally-derived equation which predicts faster-than-light motion!*

Read more carefully, Claude! Einstein's chapter about Fizeau says nothing at all about the limit in which v approaches c. All he says is that Fizeau's experiment supports the Lorentz equation to an accuracy of better than 1%, in a regime where v<<c. Even with this very small v, the experiment is sufficient to demonstrate that the prediction of classical Galilean mechanics (W=v+c) is clearly wrong.
The Galilean expression is indeed wrong for fluids - but the closest approximation to the correct moving fluid expression is an experimentally derived one - i.e. equation F), that of Armand Fizeau. It is certainly NOT the contrived theoretical equations B) and BS) of Einstein!

So I can sympathize with your caution in making high-speed deductions from low v - but my point is that it was Einstein the theoretician who did that to support his own "W always less than c" agenda, not the practical experimenter Armand Fizeau himself. So in this last sense, you are opposing Einstein himself!:eek:o_O

Yours faithfully
Claude

*And this is why I referred to reciprocal ejections of matter from active galaxies, the ejecta moving at over 0.5c relative to the galaxy. See e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion

where the alleged faster-than-light motion is an extrapolation from Doppler shifts and parallax. Nevertheless we do find motion greater than 0.5c relative to the galaxy itself in these observations, which, due to the reciprocity in galactic nuclei ejecta (though deduced from the false belief of a black hole at the center of every galaxy) also means that the ejecta on one side are traveling at >c relative to the ejecta on the other side. And this should not surprise you! Just turn on a light! The light in one direction moves at c, the light in the other direction moves at c, hence they move at 2c wrt each other! Is there a spacetime warp in your room to 'prove otherwise'? So much then for the "Enlightenment" and its Einstein-&-David-Hume-affirming Enlightenment Values (see RSGT appendix 5)!:cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
The highlighted section is why I gave you a 'Love' Jerry...
With respect to the Photon-Doppler Ensemble, which Claude bafflingly discussed in posts #125 and #128, leading to my question in post #130 which has indeed gone unanswered, I will now repeat the question:
So you are saying that the observed wavelength is a property of the object absorbing it? You do agree that all objects are always found to be moving at a fixed velocity |c| relative to all photons, although the direction of relative motion is variable for each photon?
…but the ambiguity is in the first section in the attribution to Einstein.
And I will further note that in Claude's example from post #128: according to Einsteinian physics, the emitted photon does possess a characteristic wavelength.* The wavelength upon arrival at an observer, is a function of the photon's emitted wavelength as well as the relative velocity of emitter and observer.
Correct that the emitted photon possesses a characteristic wavelength at the source.

Correct too, that this wavelength will be different, depending on the relative motion of source and observer, blueshifted for approaching observers, redshifted for receding observers. All the observers will find the light to be traveling at c - the only difference being the different wavelengths.

When an observer detects a photon, the photon undergoes the quantum "collapse of the wavefunction", all the wavelengths collapsing instantaneously (i.e. IAAD: Instantaneous-Action-At-a-Distance)** - the wavelength being observed being the ONE wavelength moving at c relative to the observer.

From this you can work out the quantum structure of the photon - the different wavelengths of a photon all 'held together' by quantum entanglement.

So are we agreed?

Yours faithfully
Claude

*For Einsteinians however the wavelength is fixed. The Doppler Effect is downplayed, ignored and treated only mathematically. I.e. for Einstein & Co. the wavelength was, like movies and movie-actors in his era, merely in plain 'black and white' - and still is for his supporters!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Einstein too would then have no right to extrapolate to velocities approximating that of light.
This seems to be correct. Einstein's 1905 paper "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" introducing Special Relativity, states the issue as a "postulate" rather than offering any experimental verification. The argument is entirely based on "thought experiments", which of course aren't really experiments at all. And I can't find that Einstein gives any experimental evidence in the 1916 book, either.

Searching the Internet turned up this helpful article "Why can't anything travel faster than light?" by Roger Rassool, which explains:

In 1964, Bill Bertozzi at MIT accelerated electrons to a range of speeds. He then measured their kinetic energy and found that as their speeds approached the speed of light, the electrons became heavier and heavier – until the point they became so heavy it was impossible to make them go any faster. The maximum speed he could get the electrons to travel before they became too heavy to accelerate further? The speed of light.
So from 1905 up until 1964, the idea of a maximum speed limit was more of a postulate supported by dubious extrapolations, rather than a hard experimental fact. Or at least if there was any experimental evidence prior to 1964, I'm too clueless to find it.

When an observer detects a photon, the photon undergoes the quantum "collapse of the wavefunction", all the wavelengths collapsing instantaneously (i.e. IAAD: Instantaneous-Action-At-a-Distance)** - the wavelength being observed being the ONE wavelength moving at c relative to the observer.

From this you can work out the quantum structure of the photon - the different wavelengths of a photon all 'held together' by quantum entanglement.

So are we agreed?
I'm not sure why it's IAAD, considering that the collapse occurs at the observer's location. And the observation can't be made until the photon has had enough time to complete the trip from the source.

Other than that, I can't see anything wrong with it. If I were reading it in a textbook, I would simply think of it as one more puzzling thing that physics textbooks say.
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Extrapolating to high velocities beyond human experience is NOT easy for physicists - especially because their understanding of philosophy is very poor indeed. Conversely, Einstein's true genius was as a philosopher - and so he well knew how to exploit the physicists' philosophical naivety.
This seems to be correct. Einstein's 1905 paper "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" introducing Special Relativity, states the issue as a "postulate" rather than offering any experimental verification. The argument is entirely based on "thought experiments", which of course aren't really experiments at all. And I can't find that Einstein gives any experimental evidence in the 1916 book, either.
The ancients, notably Epicurus, realized that atoms - including the atoms of light we call photons - could not travel at an infinite speed but obeyed an ordering principle, a certain general speed. From this he asserted that falling bodies of different masses would hit the ground at the same time - contradicting Aristotle. Galileo proved Epicurus right - but could not mention Epicurus by name, due to RC condemnation of that philosopher.

Epicurus and Galileo reached their deductions by denying the plenum, by asserting instead the ontological reality of the vacuum. That vacuum, i.e. space, is a being, a thing that is NOT matter. Galileo went further however as he separated the issue of fixed acceleration during falling from the more abstract notion of a finite "cosmic speed law".

This is the opposite to Aristotle who taught that the plenum (aether) would retard lighter bodies while allowing heavier bodies to fall faster.:)

Thus did Epicurus and Galileo refute the plenum. Einstein's intent is the exact opposite, he wanted to identify the plenum, the ether, with space itself, abolishing the distinction, the difference between space and matter - and time too, hence Minkowski's space-time-matter. Thus Einstein confuses the ordering principle of a general speed (c) with his notion claiming that "nothing can travel faster than light", a statement which implies that the universe itself is static, i.e. a plenum overall.:eek:

And so by abolishing the distinction between space and matter, Einstein even refuted the ancient philosopher-scientist Democritus (& Leukippus), who first proposed the ontological separation of matter and space. Democritus is often called the first true scientist, yet the physicists who extol him nevertheless seem not to realize what Einstein was up to!:oops:

The word 'Rasul' means 'divine messenger' in Arabic.
Searching the Internet turned up this helpful article "Why can't anything travel faster than light?" by Roger Rassool, which explains:

In 1964, Bill Bertozzi at MIT accelerated electrons to a range of speeds. He then measured their kinetic energy and found that as their speeds approached the speed of light, the electrons became heavier and heavier – until the point they became so heavy it was impossible to make them go any faster. The maximum speed he could get the electrons to travel before they became too heavy to accelerate further? The speed of light.
So from 1905 up until 1964, the idea of a maximum speed limit was more of a postulate supported by dubious extrapolations, rather than a hard experimental fact. Or at least if there was any experimental evidence prior to 1964, I'm too clueless to find it.
That is because our educational system forces us to be clueless by adopting and presenting idiotic analogies that lead to false deductions e.g. riding along in the direction of a light beam at increasing speed and noticing that the number of light-waves passing by are diminished, evading the Doppler Effect while ignoring the issue that the measured speed of light does not change. The idiocy of the analogy is shown by having the observer move in the opposite direction, which will speed up the number of observed waves - the argument made in black and white and confusing the teacher more than the pupils!o_O

Thus the idea of "maximal speed limit" is used by Einsteinians in conjunction with the abstract "nothing can travel faster than light" to imply that the universe is static.

In the case of Bertozzi's work and the extrapolation from electromagnetic research with cyclotrons and earlier attempts at researching high-speed electrons it is certainly true that you cannot push the electrons beyond the speed of light relative to the laboratory and the electromagnetic fields in the laboratory. This is because as the electron nears the local speed of light, the very same electromagnetic forces cannot push it faster because the electron 'feels' very little pushing force since it already so fast. This effect however is mistakenly labelled as "increase in the mass of the electron" the observed curve becoming asymptotic (i.e. infinite) at speed c, hence the mistaken application of laboratory conditions to the universe itself.

It is like an automobile - acceleration at low speeds is highly effective, with cruising velocities at 50-65 miles an hour for greatest effect balancing fuel-use with travel time. Further acceleration with more and more petrol injected into the engine does not result in efficient nor appropriately higher speeds however, since there is e.g. wind resistance and tyre-road frictional retardation, making it ever more difficult to exceed 100 miles/hour even though the engine could in theory easily reach that speed.

Thus Einstein's divine messenger (Rassool = Rasul) is yet another tool. I note too that he does not live in the Arabic world but rather in my country, though in Melbourne. So I wonder if he too bets on 'dead cert' horses in the Caulfield Cup?:D
I'm not sure why it's IAAD, considering that the collapse occurs at the observer's location. And the observation can't be made until the photon has had enough time to complete the trip from the source.
Good question, Jerry.

The photon as a Doppler Ensemble is spread out in space, projected (Ritz) from its source, the short wavelengths traveling slowly, the longer wavelengths traveling fast. These are all possible wavelengths too, not just visible light. There are wavelengths shorter than gamma rays and longer than the longest radio waves. Hence during the "collapse of the wavelength" when the photon is observed or detected, this 'collapse' is necessarily instantaneous, the wavelength observed being the one travelling at c relative to the absorber/observer. When you look at the stars at night, the photons reaching your eyes have been projected for many years and so the wavelengths stretch out for hundreds and thousands and millions of light-years - but the photon-Doppler-Ensemble collapses instantaneously when you look at the starlight - or the starlight is absorbed by the local surrounds.

This may seem unbelievable Jerry - since the "always slower than light" prejudice is hard to abolish* - but when I realized it, it demonstrated to me that instantaneous communication is possible therefore mankind will eventually travel to stars and galaxies, and faster-than-light too!:)
Other than that, I can't see anything wrong with it. If I were reading it in a textbook, I would simply think of it as one more puzzling thing that physics textbooks say.
The physics textbooks haven't caught up of course - which is no surprise since my understanding of the Photon-Doppler-Ensemble was repeatedly rejected by physics journals - and you now know why!:D

So here is Postflaviana's future - to link up Joe's work with that of Eric Lerner (author of The Big Bang Never Happened) in New Jersey where they are trying to achieve the aneutronic Boron-Hydrogen Fusion-Fission reaction to provide a new energy source to replace fossil fuels.

Yours faithfully
Claude

*So remember that Newton had to accept IAAD to explain why his theory and equations of gravitational attraction worked. Einstein fouled up Newton's understanding by claiming that there was a "gravitational impulse" that traveled at c. If there were, it would distort Newton's explanation of gravity and require alteration of the equations. However, that has never happened: rather, the Einsteinians think dualistically, applying Newton's IAAD in practice to gravity calculations while fantasizing on the light-speed "gravitational impulses" and their effects - i.e. so-called gravity waves. Rather, the supposed gravity wave data is actually due to pulses of very long wavelength radio waves which can cause infinitesimal shifts in the measuring apparatus. Besides, we already know that Einstein's "speed c" gravitational impulse is BS - because centrifugal force, Mach's principle, is proportional to the cosmos itself (a finite object in the infinite universe), comprising the mass of the fixed stars moving slower than light relative to earth. So the effects of inertia, e.g. a ballerina spinning, are also instantaneous in action.

PS: Hate to let biting sarcasm, prepared in advance, go to waste:(- but so it must be since Jerry all-too-quickly showed his true integrity and perception by seeing through Einstein's baseless fleshless claims into the deadheaded kinematic basis of his relativity theories. (E.g. In this ideological Star Wars I was going to 'depose' Emperor Jerry to replace his rule over the Postflavian Empire with Einstein himself, making Jerry his General Grievous, leading his KJW-led Physics Forum army of deadheads dedicated to sorting out the Einsteinian sheep from the Galilean goats. Not far then to the next deductive step - hinting that Joe would deservedly expose him as a member of Skull & Bones!):D
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Well-Known Member
PS: Hate to let biting sarcasm, prepared in advance, go to waste:(- but so it must be since Jerry all-too-quickly showed his true integrity and perception by seeing through Einstein's baseless fleshless claims into the deadheaded kinematic basis of his relativity theories. (E.g. In this ideological Star Wars I was going to 'depose' Emperor Jerry to replace his rule over the Postflavian Empire with Einstein himself, making Jerry his General Grievous (see e.g. ), leading his KJW-led Physics Forum army of deadheads dedicated to sorting out the Einsteinian sheep from the Galilean goats. Not far then to the next deductive step - hinting that Joe would deservedly expose him as a member of Skull & Bones!):D
Please forgive my obtuseness, but you and Jerry are "light years" ahead of me on this topic, and I can only make peripheral comments: (1) does the above "PS" mean that Jerry is still our "Emperor", and (2) are you jestingly implying that Jerry is somehow a member of "Skull and Bones"? May the Farce be with you! (if we are role playing here, guess which character I wish to play):



731
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Well I can certainly guess which character you'd like to play, Seeker, so I'll explain the obscurities in the PS lest readers get the wrong idea.
Please forgive my obtuseness, but you and Jerry are "light years" ahead of me on this topic, and I can only make peripheral comments: (1) does the above "PS" mean that Jerry is still our "Emperor",
Jerry is 'emperor' only in sense that he runs the website. And yes...
and (2) are you jestingly implying that Jerry is somehow a member of "Skull and Bones"?
...it is only in jest.

The reason I can make such a sarcastic comment as the above is because Jerry has come thru with flying colors on the Einstein issue. Before I had heard of Joe Atwill in late 2013, I was on a website called Anti-Relativity where I was arguing fiercely with its defenders, and worse still, having to fight off Lorentzian Relativity defenders who were attacking Einstein along flawed lines. In that time (> 6 yrs) I never converted one person to the Photon-Doppler-Ensemble concept. Meanwhile when I had finally worked out Einstein's fraud over the Fizeau Experiment, it seemed of little interest there, especially as by this time, about 2012, the website went into decline. It collapsed about 2014, never renewed, and with references to its Forum and its participants scrubbed from the internet, including distinctive words participants used there and from which one could gain ready access using the excellent but now defunct Google search engine (replaced by the modern Google engine which can only ever find pornography quickly)! There are only oblique references to the Anti-Relativity website in The Physics Forum - where you can follow the link to the latter I gave to Jerry above. I was there in the Physics Forum under the name 'TFOLZO' and you will see me there marked as 'banned' as I began to undermine the foundation of Einstein's Relativity.
May the Farce be with you! (if we are role playing here, guess which character I wish to play):
The farce of course is with the Einsteinians - and shall be for all eternity!

This is because Jerry reacted totally differently to the denizens of the Anti-Relativity website and the pro-Einstein Physics Forum. Rather than me bullying and lecturing Jerry as to "Einstein being wrong" I merely demonstrated from Einstein's mispresentation of Fizeau (this from page 8 here). Jerry was not then very familiar with the details of Einstein's teaching -- but when I referred him to The Physics Forum he initially readily seized upon the crooked argument defending Einstein there to argue against me - but unlike them he soon saw that their crooked argument was indeed crook, not because I told him so but that he, now looking more closely, could see for himself that their pro-Einstein arguments were self-evidently BS. At that moment he woke up, hence Jerry really is "light years" ahead of modern (i.e. Einsteinian) thought, having achieved what no one among the Einsteinian relativists, Lorentzian relativists and cranks at Anti-Relativity or The Physics Forum websites ever achieved.

And this shows why Postflaviana is a website showing superior understanding - but it will take awhile for the insights on Einstein to sink in to the members, even to Jerry, since the MM manipulation here has been so deep and so long-standing. The connection of Einstein and his supporters with the mass cultural debasement (i.e. the Frankfurt School or "Cultural Marxist Clown College" as I call it) needs to be researched further.

Thank you so much, Seeker, for allowing me to elaborate the details here, as readers could easily misunderstand what I had said, attributing a particularly manipulative secret agenda to me and a covert attack on Jerry!:cool:

Yours faithfully
Claude

* And for your own information, Seeker, if you ever handle a hard copy of Einstein's Relativity the Special and the General Theory, turn to page ii of the preface. There it shows a photo of Einstein clasping his hands - revealing that what you are to read is a philosophical-religious tract, not a scientific presentation geared to genuine understanding (which is why I cannot find it on internet pdf versions)! A clearer (though less mystical) version of that particular photo is found here:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=KbugW+LT&id=03974CECA8C1569B4CC8510D92C99A15A366EC82&thid=OIP.KbugW-LTF280dETIpXkAZAHaKH&mediaurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ax5ZIdFoW1U/SXHDRn2jHfI/AAAAAAAAI4E/Y1S2TO9G3nM/s400/Albert+Einstein-rare-pics09.jpg&exph=400&expw=293&q=einstein+photos&simid=607987641664933866&selectedIndex=100&ajaxhist=0

So what is the main difference between Einstein and the Bhagwan (Arucharya Shree Rajneesh of Orange People 'fame')? The former had more chutzpah and a Nobel Prize but the latter had more Rolls Royces, otherwise there are no fundamental differences.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hello Claude,

Jerry has come thru with flying colors on the Einstein issue.
This is flattering indeed. I am trying to be fair, as well as acknowledging the limits of my skills as a physics student.

But I didn't mean to say that the Einsteinian position is "BS". I merely acknowledge that Einstein's position that |c| is a universal speed limit, was given as a postulate or assumption. I was surprised to learn that there was no direct evidence until 1964. It might be interesting to go back to Physics Forum and ask if even they would agree that this is the case.

...it will take awhile for the insights on Einstein to sink in to the members, even to Jerry, since the MM manipulation here has been so deep and so long-standing.
I expect so. I still have questions about your position. Getting back to the earlier post:

it is certainly true that you cannot push the electrons beyond the speed of light relative to the laboratory and the electromagnetic fields in the laboratory. This is because as the electron nears the local speed of light, the very same electromagnetic forces cannot push it faster because the electron 'feels' very little pushing force since it already so fast.
Couldn't one increase the electromagnetic force, within very large limits, simply by applying more power? And isn't it remarkable that the asymptote occurs at the speed of light, rather than some other speed either faster or slower?

It is like an automobile - acceleration at low speeds is highly effective, with cruising velocities at 50-65 miles an hour for greatest effect balancing fuel-use with travel time.
This analogy doesn't work, because the automobile is encountering friction loads which increase as velocity squared. Whereas the electrons in Bertozzi's experiment are traveling through a vacuum.

The photon as a Doppler Ensemble is spread out in space, projected (Ritz) from its source, the short wavelengths traveling slowly, the longer wavelengths traveling fast.
I am OK with this, other than the suggestion that the shortest wavelengths (or any of them) would travel faster than light under any circumstances. That would be surprising, and I would expect some experimental proof for such a claim.

... my understanding of the Photon-Doppler-Ensemble was repeatedly rejected by physics journals - and you now know why!
Sadly, no, I am too much of a dunderhead to know why PDE was rejected by physics journals. Of course at a meta-level, I know that it wouldn't be easy to get them to publish something that directly contradicts special & general relativity. But I'm at a loss as to what specific objections the peer reviewers would have come up with. I bet they came up with some objections that I can hardly imagine, but might have an 'ahaha, of course!' reaction.

Perhaps if I politely offer an invitation, you can tell us what your peer reviewers said exactly?
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Dear Jerry, the proof of the Einstein pudding is in the eating - so we will have to wait for that to cook thoroughly! So I'll continue with the electron being pushed around in the laboratory.
Couldn't one increase the electromagnetic force, within very large limits, simply by applying more power? And isn't it remarkable that the asymptote occurs at the speed of light, rather than some other speed either faster or slower?
It won't work merely with more power, any more than I can make a car go at 150 miles/hr by injecting more fuel than the accelerator-to-the-floorboards permits. The electron is already moving so fast that more power has no effect - hence the improper deduction that "the electron's mass has increased asymptotically.

It is not however remarkable that the asymptote is c in the laboratory, because electromagnetic forces combine permeability with permittivity, measured by the Farad and the Henry. When during electromagnetism research Maxwell multiplied the two values of these units he always came up with the speed of light, proving to him that electromagnetism and light were fundamentally the same thing - something not proven until Hertz discovered radio waves at the end of the 19th century. Hertz died at a young age, so missing out on the Nobel Prize (which is not granted posthumously).
This analogy doesn't work, because the automobile is encountering friction loads which increase as velocity squared. Whereas the electrons in Bertozzi's experiment are traveling through a vacuum.
The electrons may be in a vacuum but the 'friction' is due to the fact that it is a laboratory process, with the electromagnetic equipment stationary, hence any object being pushed by the electromagnetic field no longer 'feels' the field if it is already approaching c relative to the laboratory, and this result is a square relation too. The 'friction' here consists of the "static origin" of the applied electromagnetic field. The electron is thus trapped in the circular process - or in the magnets of a linear accelerator which comprises "the rest frame" for applying the electromagnetic fields.

See too the concept of electromagnetic mass - though the article is tendentious, approving of Einstein as usual. Nevertheless it indicates the experiential reality of electromagnetic fields being intimately connected with c. (See the first diagram there).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass

I'll deal with the PDE (Photon-Doppler-Ensemble) in the next posting.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
With the Photon-Doppler-Ensemble (PDE), the longest wavelengths project the fastest, the shortest wavelengths much more slowly.
I am OK with this, other than the suggestion that the shortest wavelengths (or any of them) would travel faster than light under any circumstances. That would be surprising, and I would expect some experimental proof for such a claim.
The proof is the Doppler Effect itself. But the shorter wavelengths may travel very slowly indeed compared to the source.

If for example you take infrared radiation from your body (mere body heat). These photons too have a Doppler-Ensemble, but the shortest gamma-ray wavelengths move much slower than light, but they are undetectable unless an object moving at c absorbs them. If we, using purple-prose (P) imagery imagine a spaceship rushing towards Earth near speed c relative to Earth, this spaceship will receive light from Earth shifted into gamma-ray wavelengths, including infrared radiation emitted from your body. These gamma-ray wavelengths absorbed by said spaceship will nevertheless be moving at c relative to the spaceship. To work this out you just have to extrapolate from the already well documented Doppler Effect, where the blueshifting is taken to the extremes of the electromagnetic spectrum, the wavelength revealed on the photon's absorption being the result of the relative motion of source and observer (R, D, B, P etc.), all observing the light speed to be c in each case.

S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R >>>
S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D
S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> B <<<
S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P <<<<<<<<<<<<

The PDE was rejected by journals.
Sadly, no, I am too much of a dunderhead to know why PDE was rejected by physics journals. Of course at a meta-level, I know that it wouldn't be easy to get them to publish something that directly contradicts special & general relativity. But I'm at a loss as to what specific objections the peer reviewers would have come up with. I bet they came up with some objections that I can hardly imagine, but might have an 'ahaha, of course!' reaction.

Perhaps if I politely offer an invitation, you can tell us what your peer reviewers said exactly?
Of course! I bet peer reviewers would too, but I never even got that far; the editors rejected the paper the moment they saw it, since it was pretty obvious to them that I did not presume SR to be correct, irrespective of whether I stated it openly. It was never even sent to reviewers. This was so even in the case of Foundations of Physics, which usually deals with philosophical matters more than other journals. Even they complained about sending anti-Relativity papers to reviewers, saying they would normally be rejected. I even offered to pay but never received a reply! IOW the whole thing is a closed shop.o_O

So note that Einstein received the Nobel Prize for his one true contribution - explaining the Photoelectric Effect (which is essentially the explanation of why lying under a heat lamp for hours will not give you sunburn) - for which the experimental evidence was provided by none other than Einstein's fiercest opponent: Philipp Lenard! Lenard, who had earlier received the Nobel Prize for his work on Cathode Rays, wrote to the Nobel Committee rubbishing relativity as of philosophical not of scientific significance; the Nobel committee took note of that, and of Lenard's work on the photoelectric effect, so gave the Nobel to Einstein essentially for the Photoelectric Effect, this explanation firming up Quantum Theory - much to Einstein's later frustration.:D

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The electron is thus trapped in the circular process - or in the magnets of a linear accelerator which comprises "the rest frame" for applying the electromagnetic fields.
Being thus trapped, how do you propose to get the electron moving faster than light? If we try to get the laboratory moving, so as to add its velocity to the electron, we'll just cause length contraction and time dilation. So the electron will be trapped just the same. Or anyhow, thus spoke my gedanken.
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Being thus trapped, how do you propose to get the electron moving faster than light?
Exactly my point. By means of the laboratory apparatus applying ever more electromagnetic force it will NEVER push the particle faster than light relative to the laboratory. However another moving electromagnetic field - not connected to the laboratory - can sweep up the electron and carry it away. While that other relatively moving electromagnetic field cannot push the electron faster than c relative to itself, it can certainly push the electron faster than light relative to the original laboratory apparatus - i.e. by analogy to the train and the person walking in the train. And good old Galilean Relativity of course, plus Fizeau's experimental insight!:)


If we try to get the laboratory moving, so as to add its velocity to the electron, we'll just cause length contraction and time dilation.
See what I wrote above; space is empty, allowing electrons to move through it, to be entrained into other electromagnetic fields. Hence no, there is no TD&LC,, neither mutual TD&LC nor Lorentzian TD&LC.

So the electron will be trapped just the same. Or anyhow, thus spoke my gedanken.
Nor is the electron obliged to be trapped by the original electromagnetic field.


Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top