Sunday, January 3, 2016

The Correct Explanation of the Einstein Myth With Real Solution

One sure way to be tossed into outer darkness is to disrespect Albert Einstein, so I will not be seeking positive attention with this short essay, but neither do I wish to disparage Einstein or detract from his accomplishments.  

Einstein's supreme stature as the greatest genius in world history is deeply entrenched in all levels of society. Hundreds of times daily, he is quoted with reverence to enhance a point of view with unassailable wisdom, though most of the time it is most improbable that Einstein ever said such things. The historical issues surrounding his first (special) theory of relativity  challenge the limits of human understanding, the intellectual depth far exceeding the level to which most men can plunge. Few are willing or  fool enough to attempt it. And since the PTB and the media have so completely accepted it, Einstein could only be considered nothing less than a God; therefore, his personal views on political and religious matters are often used as trump in any argument. Only those who grasp his ideas, or make a pretense of understanding them, can be considered qualified to enter the ranks of prominent scientists while those of lesser rank will hold their peace to keep their jobs.  If the theory was sound, then argument would be welcomed and there would be need for the existence of such extreme peer pressure. 

Those highly esteemed scientists like Herbert Dingle and Louis Essen who early on objected to the theory were ignored, and Essen's career was threatened despite absurdities painfully apparent to the most simple mind. Since the most succinct and authoritative refutation of the relativity mess was given by Essen and Essen was rejected, allow me to forego that and just submit my own impression when the theory was first explained by my physics professor, Dr. Denny Lee at Montana State University in 1973. I was a very serious student and ardent fan of Dr. Lee's. He was a most engaging and popular lecturer who threw open the doors to my understanding of physics. But when he got to his lecture on relativity, he fell. I could only think that he had been brainwashed with the worst batch of nonsense I'd ever heard.  In particular, I had to question how, given Einstein's 2nd postulate that motion can only be considered as relative, could it then be that clocks would slow down due to uniform motion?  In other words, if B is moving fast with respect to A, then B's clock would be running more slowly, okay says Einstein. But then B by the postulate must be considered at rest and A moving. That could only mean that either clock was simultaneously running slower than the other.  I raised my hand and asked that very question in class, to which Dr. Lee replied that this was a good question, but the answer involved highly technical issues of acceleration and deceleration. I smelled a rat right then.  This issue was central to the famous "Twin Paradox" where Einstein asserts that a twin who spends his life traveling about will age less than his stay at home brother. This is also typically tied to another absurdity, the constancy of light speed, c. 

Many years later, I discovered that this same point was a major issue in Herbert Dingle's aggressive arguments opposing Einstein that are nicely summed up in Dingle's Science at the Crossroads. The wiki article on the matter reveals the typical mainstream bias.   Dingle's criticisms were refuted by Nature, but the absurdity of the Twin Paradox and blatant contradiction to his own postulates continued to plague Einstein. Before publishing his "general" theory, he tendered a meek retraction, admitting that the difference in ages (clocks) was only due to acceleration and deceleration.  This was a good tactical move for silencing critics, but very few took notice and dozens of complicated mathematical proofs cropped up by those wishing to establish their intellectual acumen. Over a hundred years later there are yet hundreds of explanations promoting these notions without shame and still drawing near universal approval, such as this shameful youtube video

Essen's most authoritative assessment disputing the relativity myth has exceptional value because being the first to accurately measure the speed of light, he more than anyone understood the behavior of light from direct experiments. There are excellent articles by Essen and others that explain this all in simple and straightforward fashion, and you would benefit more from reading those, but I despair that this has all been done without gaining any traction from the physicists. Essen himself initially thought that the world would appreciate his unique familiarity with the issues and contribution to the truth, but his career was threatened and he probably sacrificed a Nobel prize for criticizing Einstein. He best also explained the flaws in the experiments that purported to validate relativity where results were inappropriately manipulated in order to confirm the theory.  His criticism was especially pertinent with regard to the Hafele Keating experiment with atomic clocks, being that Essen himself had invented the atomic clock (it was even later admitted that the results of this experiment had been badly misrepresented with the original data being kept secret). 

Many others have stepped forward with their own attempts to explain the glaring defects in relativity, but are invariably dismissed as crackpots. Indeed, many have been crackpots indeed, because after repeating what good men already know, they have attempted to elevate themselves by providing corrections that are even more obscure, irrational and without experimental basis.  Clearly, it is not possible to plunge into the depths of Einstein's dreamland and emerge with any rational solution. The only path to the truth would be to carefully edge past the black pit that has ensnared all before, and focus solely on a solution to a problem. All we require of the solution is a simple relationship that confirms the three experiments used to validate Einstein. Even though we know that the results of these experiments were improperly manipulated to validate Einstein, we also know that the nature of the Einstein's swindle is to twist mathematics unrelated to the question. In particular, the Lorentz equations are twisted to predict results without any logical basis. Only that they succeed by means of lame abstraction is how the critics have been silenced. It is therefore only right to suspect that the results being sought have a real but different natural origin. But how can we provide the rational and straightforward explanation that Einstein was unable to give? First, we must consider the point the experiments were meant to make. 

Only three experiments were significant in the cheat, so I am burdened only with providing a rational explanation for the results and not address the theory. This I will do here. These were the Eddington, Hafele-Keating and Pound-Rebka experiments. These three experiments comprise the three interrelated phenomena that are the essence of the Einstein riddle and also source of confusion in the scientific community.  These were specifically 1) a doubling of the deviation of starlight predicted by Soldner; 2) the slowing of clocks in a stronger gravitational field (or due to equivalent force from acceleration/deceleration); and 3) a shift in light frequency passing through a gravitational gradient (red shift leaving a large body of mass and blue shift approaching a body of mass). The contraction of length (linear dimension) is actually a consequence of clock speed, because the natural definition of length depends on the number of wavelengths of light over a given time interval. so a meter at sea level MUST be slightly shorter than a meter on top of Everest if clock speed is slower.  This is NOT to say that matter is not more compressed at sea level, because the effect is as much real as it is a matter of how units are defined, so we can suspect that matter in the center of a black hole is darned heavy.  The obscure notion of a spacetime is an inexcusable distraction from these simple facts. The relationship between these effects can be calculated using the most elementary mathematical terms within plain old three dimensional space.  Despite the mass obsession with Einstein's early theory and the foolishness of Lorentz, neither clocks nor meter sticks change with respect to uniform motion, but they do with respect to gravitational field strength. The general theory was not an extension of special theory truths, either, but only an attempt to patch up the painful holes in the special theory.   

Even if a body such as mine were to dare to provide an easy and straightforward explanation of the these physical phenomena that Einstein used to hopelessly entangle us in a cult of desperate confusion, it would surely slip past the event horizon of a black hole and become timelessly extinguished in a singularity of silence.  Attempts to do that have quickly gotten me banned from physics forums for life, but then we know we can't go there, we just want to give them a chance to hear it. So this revolutionary revelation in physics is not meant for you physics majors. I will ignore the foolishness bound up in Lorentz contractions and twin paradoxes, but go on tothe real issue. In part, I have time on my hands and partly because I've yet to find anybody else who can.  It's always amazed me that greater men, particularly Louis Essen, never put their finger on it. For some time I also thought that Einstein must have known the proper answer being his PhD was on Brownian motion, which illustrates a phenomenon similar to gravity, but on a coarser scale.  But more likely is that Einstein was as great a bungler as he was an opportunist adept at covering his tracks.  Newton's major flaw was in not having any conception of what the cause of gravity was, or he would have easily filled in the holes that Einstein later claimed credit for. 

But Einstein himself also admitted to being unable to provide a rational cause for gravity, which is  certainly essential for an easy grasp of the relationship between the gravitational strength and the variable speeds of light and the clocks being used to measure it. From that understanding, any decent mathematician of university level can readily derive the equations relating all these essential issues of linear dimension, variable clock speed and frequency shift of light. Yes, I'm more than a match for it and have done it, but I'm not talking to the mathematicians right now, just common people like you and me. Nor is my claim to be the only one able to properly explain gravitation and bless the physical phenomena pilfered by Einstein with proper mathematics, stem from any arrogance or ambition. I just do it because anybody who can should find the time to do it. Why me?  Only because I was well trained at Montana State University to juggle scientific concepts and describe them in mathematical terms, and so I can. 

So, now it's time to explain gravitation and these related issues in the simplest words, but that can be also readily translated into simple mathematics.  Ironically, I start with the subject of Einstein's PhD thesis, Brownian motion. As a teenager, I spent countless hours exploring the many secrets of pond water with a microscope. The phenomenon of Brownian motion was always present. Small particles of inert debris can be seen jerking to and fro at random. Few would argue against this being due to collisions with fast moving particles, which after Einstein's thesis everyone came to admit were unseen molecules making up water itself.  What Einstein didn't mention or appear to have observed was the fact that these tiny particles in close proximity were gradually driven towards each other to form larger clumps of debris. This should be no surprise, because the outer surfaces are more exposed to fast moving particles as the inward facing surfaces are shielded by other particles. The same idea can easily be applied to gravity and explain the inverse square law.  

GRAVITY! One would think that a similar principle underlies the "force" of gravity, that a much finer fluid of far more rapid particles would naturally give us gravity. This we could call an ether. Unfortunately, it was supposed by the masters that the "luminiferous aether" must be of a rigid character, and that motion through it would be verified by experiments such as the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment. But the MM contraption revealed no change in interference patterns no matter which direction either light beam traveled. What the masters seem to have missed was that the ether is a fluid like water, is not rigid, but so exceedingly fine that it should mostly pass right through ordinary matter and not be measurable by physical instruments.  Gravity is the weak force simply because it takes an enormous amount of mass to deflect enough ether particles to be detected.  Small objects are much reduced in weight at a cosmological equivalent distance of near zero from Earth's surface, so the effects of ether on measuring devices would be too negligent for measurement. Those few ether particles slowed by collisions that could interact with measuring devices have a velocity and random motion that is too great for any relative motion of the fluid to be detectable.  It is also a characteristic of fluids to become entrained with the objects with which they come into contact.  If less than 99.99999999% of ether particles pass through an object of mass, and those that do not become entrained with it, then there should be no detectable ether drift in a lateral direction. It would be unfortunate that the great minds are in the mood to argue, because this simple model fully accounts for any experimental results that purport to validate Einstein's relativity. It is possible, I suppose, that ether is made of the infamous neutrino!    

It is therefore expected that entrainment of a tiny number of ether particles by collision will impart a change in motion which maintains a constant average distance from the center of mass. While this idea has apparently never been considered, it would be easily verified by a variation of the Michelson-Morley experiment where the two beams being compared were not at the same elevation, but one at an even elevation and the other being straight up or down. The result is critical to the main issue here, because the assumptions require that a relatively small number of ether particles are progressively slowed and entrained towards the center of any object of mass. This means that the ether has a tiny, but distinct viscosity that is dependent on the density of atoms in proximity, thus objects, even atoms, even clocks, that move through it will move somewhat slower or faster depending only on the distance from a center of mass and the density of that mass. Also, of course, vibrations through a thicker medium will tend to bunch up. Therefore, the lower the elevation (or effect of gravity or acceleration/deceleration), the lower will be the frequency of a ray of light, and to the same degree its velocity will slow from the standpoint of any observer at a fixed gravitational potential, whether in motion or not. The reverse is true as well. This is the red and blue shift.  All of these are the logical effects of an ether with characteristics similar to Brownian motion that purport to validate the myth of relativity which denies any ether. 

Now, this is also KEY to the matter of the constancy of light speed. Light speed is not necessarily the same in all directions contrary to popular belief, nor is that the relevant issue. From the standpoint of any observer, fixed or in motion, the speed of a distant ray of light is constant as long as it travels through a uniform gravitational field (constant elevation with respect to the Earth), but its velocity will increase as its frequency decreases (redshift) as it travels into a weaker field (up from the Earth), and decrease in velocity and increase in frequency (blueshift) as it travels towards a body of mass. Bear firmly in mind, however, that if you were traveling with the beam of light in any direction or up or down, you would perceive NO change in velocity. How could that be? Well, the ONLY possible answer is that the clock by which you measure velocity would slow to the same degree going down or speed up while going up. Keep in mind that a meter stick must shrink or expand to the same degree, this being also how a meter is defined. Granted, it takes some thought until these matters gel into your thinking, but this very simple idea, unlike Einstein's awkward frames of reference, explains both the cause of gravity and all of the effects in physical measurements that Einstein's relativity pretends to predict.
  
As Essen claimed, relativity is indeed a swindle. Perhaps if he had been able to give a perfect explanation for where and when and why we can predict changes in clock speed, light frequency, and linear dimensions, and deflection of starlight, then people would have been enlightened instead of deceived. Oh, yes, I forgot the matter of Eddington and starlight deflection. Soldner first calculated the deflection of starlight as caused by a gravitational field which was later duplicated in a paper by Einstein. but he did not realize that there was an ether medium through which light also traveled in space. Newton explained very well how both the angle and direction of light was changed when moving through a medium of higher density such as glass.  If Newton or Soldner had known that ether was a medium of variable density in a gravitational field, then they would have realized that it would deflect light in the same way as glass. They then would have done exactly as Einstein had done just prior to the Eddington expedition and Solder, anyway, would have doubled his predictions for the deviation of starlight just as Einstein did.  Odd, isn't it, that Einstein never gave a good reason for having abruptly doubled his own prediction, and no less odd that he got a ticker tape parade in New York for having called it right, especially when Eddington's results were still subject to dispute?

No comments:

Post a Comment