Relativity Revised Part 2 of 1, Part 1 is here Extracts from the Book Flight, Light and Spin Jonathan Ainsley Bain - 29 March 2014 Version 2 updated - 30 May 2015
 Relativity is most easily proven wrong in this question: The photons p1 & p2 are emitted from a light bulb in opposite directions at the velocity of light. What is the velocity of p1 in relation to p2 according to relativity? Well relativity suggests that no object can be moving away from another object at faster than the velocity of light. So if we know that p2 is moving away from the light bulb at the velocity of light, and relativity tells us that p2 is moving away from p1 at the velocity of light, then relativity results in the contradiction that p1 is not moving away from the light bulb. The number of contradictions within Relativity are endless. Almost every time that I reevaluate this chapter, I discover another contradiction. It would be tedious to document them all.

 10 WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WAVE AND A PARTICLE? We all have a good intuitive sense as to what a particle is. A particle has solidity to it. There are gaps between particles, and the forces which hold particles together do give groups of particles the appearance of being a single solid particle; but nonetheless we all know what is meant by ‘the appearance of being solid’ well enough to grasp the meaning of what ‘solid’ means. A sand-castle is not entirely solid, but when it behaves as a solid entity, it has all the properties of a particle. The terms ‘entity’ and ‘object’ are here synonymous with ‘particle’. But what is a wave? And of course, what is that horrid chimera: ‘Wavicle’? Well this is the point where I have to cry ‘foul’, as the term ‘wavicle’ is a contradiction in terms. This is because a wave is a relationship between particles. A wave is also a relationship that a particle has with itself over time. Thus a wave is a mathematical construct and has no physical object status and cannot in any way be a particle. A typical wave in the ocean is just water molecules arranged in the mathematical shape we call a wave. This wave itself has existence only as a mathematical relationship between the particles of water. We have already seen earlier when describing the spin of air molecules in the ‘principles of flight’ chapter how a rotation and a wave exhibit the same mathematical structure. They are both termed: sinusoidal. The mathematical essences of waves and circles are both that of the Sine curve. And the Sine curve, being a mathematical relationship between points can also describe a rotation. (This is why we use the Sine and Arcsine function in calculating rotating angles). Thus a wave has a frequency, which is the time taken for the pattern to repeat itself. Anything which oscillates or rotates has such a frequency over time, which is thus a relationship that an object has with itself. So when we say that a photon exhibits an increase in frequency, what do we mean? An increase in frequency is always an increase in energy, and it seems clear to me that such an increase in the frequency of a photon can only be an increase in the rotation of the photon. Or at least, if a photon consists of a number of smaller quanta, (in a ‘packet’) then those quanta are each rotating faster when the frequency increases. It is a misconception to think that light moves up and down like a wave in the ocean, for light moves in a straight line. So what can the frequency of the photon actually measure other than its rotation?

 11 WHY DID THE RELATIVISTS THINK MASS INCREASED WITH ADDED VELOCITY? … to preserve the conservation of momentum. As Feynman tells us:
 A certain force must result in a particular momentum. As long as we preserve the velocity of light as an impenetrable barrier, and as long as we preserve the principle of the conservation of momentum, we have no choice but to increase the mass. Or so it seems. But appearances can be deceptive…

 12 WHY DID THEY THINK THAT TIME SLOWS DOWN? … because of Muons. It would be very easy to get lost in the sub-atomic world at this point. But a brief outline is in order. There are a vast many weird entities that inhabit the sub-atomic world which we commonly think only to consist of protons neutrons, electrons and photons. Most of the other entities are unstable and only exist for a tiny portion of time, whereas the well-known entities are stable and seem to persist forever (unless somebody throws a Hadron-Collider at them.) Essentially a Muon is similar to an electron but 200 times heavier, As Feynman tells us (p. 62):
 I have already expressed my reservations about the notion that time slows down. Simply put, any slowing of time can only be measured in terms of time that does not slow down, and a reduction in velocity can give the same mathematical measurement without time slowing down. A slowing of time and a slowing of added velocity are essentially the same calculation done twice. The formula for one is derived from the other (Feynman, p. 80-81). A simpler example: We can describe the formula A = B + C as C = A – B. But using one formula or the other is not the same as using the one and the other. (Because then we get A = 2B - 2C). When I program the computer I can use either formula in a real-time computation and get the same result, but if I use both, the answer is quite different. And I see no reason to assume that the Muon cannot simply last longer for any number of reasons. Let me give an analogy. A stone skimming across a river appears to last longer with added velocity. The stone’s interaction with its medium (the water) preserves its apparent ‘existence’. Consider two stones skimming across a river, one which bounces once and disappears a yard away from me, and another that bounces repeatedly and reaches the other side. I could do a calculation which ‘distorts time’ in much the same manner as the Muon, showing that from an external viewpoint, time appears to have slowed for the stone that reaches the other side. They would both exist for the same amount of time from their own viewpoints. Another analogy would be to roll a coin across a table, but viewed at a distance from the side so that once it falls over on its side, it cannot be seen. The faster I role the coin the longer it persists due to its interaction with its medium (the table). Once more I could do a calculation showing that from the perspective of the coin, time was the same for both the fast and slow coin, but for the person viewing it, the faster coin had a local dimension of time which slowed down. In all examples ‘slowed time’ for the stones, coins, or Muons can yield the same result. Apparently various clocks have been perceived to slow down at large velocities. But any clock-like mechanism requires pressure to build up before it ticks over. When a clock accelerates, it does so under force. So a clock’s mechanism will work differently when accelerating. I read no details which take this factor into account at all. Even the atoms in an ‘atomic cock’ are subject to pressure as the atoms themselves are subject to pressure.

 13 WHY DID THEY THINK THAT SPACE CONTRACTS? This was just a mathematical result of what has gone before. But I know of no experiment that can prove this or even demonstrate it in strict computational terms. (The internal logic of contracted space breaks down with multiple objects, but the internal logic of contracted time is computable.) It is one thing to be able to give two objects their own event-timer objects in the computer program; but quite another to try and contract the spaces on the screen. When the space between two objects is contracted, the calculation can be computed. But the moment a third object moving differently to the other two enters the space between the first two objects, the various contractions contradict one another. So it makes no sense to confuse the relationship between the objects (their velocity) with the physical space between them. And, if we only contract the object then this causes the space around it to expand. These problems become glaringly apparent, when one considers that the contraction in space has already been accounted for in the reduction of added velocity. The formula for one is derived from the other, so they are technically the same formula.

 16 IS TIME A DIMENSION LIKE SPACE? One of the major difficulties in Cosmology is that the expansion of the universe shows us that the universe can only be in the shape of a four-dimensional sphere. It takes some practice to comprehend a four dimensional shape (within a three dimensional brain?) Of course it must have been noted that in many equations, time had most of the linear qualities of space. So the extra dimension of space required to explain the expanding universe was just conflated with time. ‘Time is the fourth dimension’ became an easier concept to grasp than a separate fourth dimension of space. Now time is unlike space in several ways. Firstly, it should be obvious that time only runs in one direction, whereas for each dimension in space we can move in two directions. Moving backwards in time also gives us obvious contradictions. As I have shown with Pandora’s machine earlier, even making predictions forwards in time can sometimes bring about contradictions. So when we observe a fourth dimension due to the expanding universe, it must be clearly stated that this dimension is not actually time (although space-time theorists may disagree). It is quite feasible that the expanding universe may contract. Even though it seems likely that it will not do so, there is nothing incomputable about the possibility. (But if it does start to contract you will see the moon go blue during the lunar eclipse. See more on why the moon turns red during the lunar eclipse here.) As I have explained in Zeno’s paradox, time cannot be divided infinitely. Time must be quantized. I cannot see any obvious reasons for space to be quantized intrinsically; although we do often quantize it for the sake of convenience computationally. So time is perhaps only quasi-dimensional. It is half a dimension at best. But how do we comprehend four dimensions of space? Why do we only observe three? In an analogy from Abbot’s Flatland, a fourth dimension of space must be present. In Abbot’s two-dimensional world we observe that his inhabitants are paper-thin in terms of a third dimension. They must be so, or they could not conceivably exist. So we must have hints of a fourth dimension in our world by the same inference. The expanding universe offers us the best way of comprehending this. And seeing as though it seems we can conceive of four dimensions ‘within’ our three dimensions of brain, it can only be concluded that the mind itself must consist of more than three dimensions. Of course we could easily propose that a being living in seven dimensions, looking down on a six-dimensional being would require such a being to have a paper-thin seventh dimension. And so on and so forth to infinity and God… This has deeply profound implications for the mind-body problem well known to students of philosophy and psychology. As Penrose aptly points out:

 But if your mind needs to be blown just one more time, click here: Latest Entothopter Videos:

 < top > < seti > < why? > < credits > < contact > < dark energy > < dark matter > < binary orbits > < the big unwind > < force of gravity > < zeno and planck > < centrifugal force > < quantum gravity > < principle of flight > < gravity simulators > < entothopter videos > < why is the sky blue? > < entothopter project > < free fractal software > < gravitational lensing > < sketchup entothopter > < ezekiel's flying machine > < the many-body problem > < philosophy of computers > < genealogy and exponents > < bin laden helicopter crash >

 < how the solar system formed > < oscillations in spiral galaxies > < gravitational waves & general relativity > < why the moon is red during a lunar eclipse > < why is the moon is receding from the earth? > < rubin's problem - rotation curves of galaxies - rubin's problem animated >