Axiomatic
Euclid

The ground work of Newton and Galileo in developing the scientific method of Descartes changed the world. Their philosophical foundation was Euclidean geometry which originated in ancient Greece. Before Einstein it was considered that Euclidean geometry was infallible and thus axiomatic. In the light of this computer algorithm: orbit-gravity-sim-12.exe (OGS12), and the subsequent analysis of those results that categorically prove that Relativity is a failed paradigm for numerous reasons - it can only be concluded that the majority of persons in academia have assumed that the discoveries of other persons from previous centuries have granted them with a position of intellectual entitlement. The institution of Science is not the method of science. These two entities are certainly moving further away from one another at ever greater amounts! But at least Descartes, Newton, Euclid and Pythagoras have been shown to be far better philosophers and geometers than almost all the prominent ‘Scientists’ of the 20th century. The very word ‘science’ is becoming synonymous with sophistry; instead the honest philosopher and astute geometer should reclaim the phrase ‘logical positivism’. This is a method, and hopefully well never be an institution of blind dogma that science has degenerated into. It has been widely claimed that Gravitational lensing was predicted by Relativity – but not really. Laplace (Ohanian, p. 440, Section E4) predicted this 100 years before Einstein. Newton deeply considered the possibility that gravity was not instant. So Einstein had only one of two options to choose on the issues of both Gravitational lensing and a velocity for gravity – he was not the original theorist on either account. So are we to discard all of Relativity? – Perhaps not. The limit on velocity of light could still be non-relativistic and thus absolute. I have shown that the concept of Einstein’s Relativity causes contradictions in the way that two observers will see two different inward spirals if they observe an orbit from different external vantage points with different velocities. A formula which enforces a limit at the velocity of light is clearly incorrect when taken from any reference point. There is an outside chance that this formula might still work if an objective reference point can be found. So that formula still requires a radical revision – if it is indeed even at best – grossly inaccurate. If we decide that the Earth cannot be moving inwards towards the Sun at 100m per year – or we do not like the idea of Mercury being a Moon of Venus just 30 million years ago – then we have not concluded that there is no limit at the velocity of light. But we must then abandon Feynman’s interpretation of that limit. We can still apply the limit at the velocity of light in a similar way to how Miles Mathis suggests – the Special Relativity formula would then be reversible – so that when the object decelerates, it regains all its lost velocity. Then we have to view with extreme scepticism any claim that Special Relativity has been verified through esoteric experiments – and we do this on the basis of pure logic. The notion of the velocity of light being constant in all reference frames – regardless of the movement of the reference frames themselves – is just painfully awful geometry. It makes a mockery of the very concept of logic. I realize that the die-hard Relativists cannot tolerate giving up their idols, regardless of how illogical those concepts are. But what more can be said of those who insist that the emperor has very beautiful clothes, when he is dressed only in underwear that is full of holes? Big black holes that give off gravity that moves at the velocity of light, when these black-holes supposedly cannot give off anything that moves at the velocity of light! Euclidean
geometry is certainly axiomatic. It is almost the intrinsic self-evident
aspect of all logic. The only idea more resilient than this is the
Laputan nature of contemporary academia. If measurements of the
interior angles of a triangle add up to greater than 180 degrees,
then this is certainly reason to propose that our notion of space
requires another dimension. But once we include a fourth dimension
of space, then the Euclidean principle is preserved. (Again, see
previous chapter XXVII for more on this.) |
||

This is an extract summary of Chapter XXX of the book: Flight Light
and SpinDownload page for relativity simulation: algorithm orbit-gravity-sim-12.exe The full chapter can be downloaded here: Sum-Theory.pdf (5.5 mb, 57 pages, this pdf file is too big for chrome, use firefox) List of: abbreviated short articles . . |
|||||