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.

 Now! It is one thing to happily destroy a ‘Special’ theory which has been idol-worshipped for the better part of a century. It is quite another to find out precisely where the theorist went wrong, what parts of the theory still hold true, and to rebuild the theory into a logical structure which improves our understanding. I shall make what seems to be a fair theoretical attempt at this. I am not sure what to call this theory, so for now it shall be termed: Sum Theory. It is a return to the reliability of Newton, but summed together with some ideas salvaged from Einstein’s Era. In doing this, I had to carefully consider why it is that misconceptions were taken as true. There must have been good reasons to make the errors, and the primary method used in finding the new theory was to ask such a question as ‘why did they think mass increased as added velocity decreased?’ This has been a far more arduous task than simply realizing that Relativity does not add up. So, to the reader that is precocious enough to find flaws in what I have said: You had better be careful! You will need to give a better answer than this if you can find such flaws. I shall explain Sum Theory by asking a series of questions and then answering them, in such a manner as to build up a clearer picture of the Universe devoid of those contradictory and counter-intuitive notions within Relativity. Some of these questions were offered earlier, so I am hoping the reader has some idea as to how to begin answering them. The questions run as follows: 10) What is the difference between a wave and a particle? 11) Why did the relativists think mass increased with added velocity? 12) Why did they think that time slows? 13) Why did they think that space contracts? 14) Can we reduce added momentum whilst conserving momentum? 15) How can the Michelson-Morley experiment be explained? 16) Is time a dimension like space? You may want to spend some time pondering those questions as a unified set of questions before continuing. After answering them, I will make an attempt at answering some other nastier questions in a more theoretical manner. Consider: 17) What is a magnetic field? 18) A relationship between the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the EPR paradox? 19) Why are some objects invisible? (True invisibility theory) 20) Wherefore spin?

 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.

 15 HOW CAN THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT BE EXPLAINED? First I need to describe this experiment before I re-explain it. In order to try and do this in the simplest possible terms, I have devised a similar experiment which for all intents and purposes is logically and empirically the same; that is, it will offer the same result. Although my version of this experiment is simpler to understand than the original, it is not quite the same. There are plenty of websites that describe the original. The question they were trying to answer is to find where zero velocity is. If velocity is not relative, then all velocity must be calculated according to a fixed point in space. So if the laboratory they are measuring from is at a fixed point in space at midday, then it must be moving away from that point at midnight. This is because the Earth’s rotation will now be in the other direction to what it was at midday. The velocity of light will then reflect the difference between those measurements. And fixed space would then be calculated. If the centre of the Earth is unluckily at the fixed point in space during this reading, then it will not be so in six months time. This is because the velocity of the Earth’s orbit itself will run in the opposite direction and the difference in velocity of light should then be noticed by the two readings. Fixed space could then be ascertained. The term ‘ether’ was used to describe ‘fixed space’ and any changes to the velocity of light were to be termed ‘ether wind’. So the velocity of light should be marginally different at these different positions in space if light was moving according to a fixed point in space. And yet, the ‘ether wind’ could not be detected. The velocity of light was rigidly unmoved. And so the theory of Relativity was seen to be the only way to explain these experiments. Light just had to be constant in all reference frames as that was how it was measured empirically. Now let me re-explain this using a simple analogy. Assume that some dubious alien scientists on a world less advanced than ours are in disagreement. Some believe that air does not exist, and others say that air is an invisible substance. These alien scientists then do a similar but simpler experiment to Michelson-Morley. They had already measured the velocity of sound. They then deduced that if such a measurement of the velocity of sound was taken between two moving hot-air balloons then the velocity of sound would be different to the measurement between two fixed points; if air exists. The velocity of sound they measured remained mostly the same between the two hot-air balloons as it does between two fixed points. Thus they conclude that air does not exist. ‘The velocity of sound must be universally constant’ they proclaim excitedly! Of course the alien scientists have neglected to realize that the air is moving with the balloons. And the sound is moving with the air. Well those alien scientists are not particularly bright, and this is merely an analogy to demonstrate a point in purely metaphoric terms. But if you dared propose a thesis to that alien university that points out all the other experiments they could make, they will just reject your thesis and sneer that you are a ‘troublemaker’. If air exists, they claim, then surely there should be an ‘equatorial wind’. They have measured that the equator of their planet is moving at 1000 miles per hour. But let us not get side-tracked by the analogy. What I am saying is that light is moving through an invisible substance which itself moves with the Earth. This invisible substance moves with the rotation of the Earth, and also with its orbit. This invisible substance is the medium through which light moves, and light can only move in relation to it. Much like the atmosphere moves with the Earth and sound waves can only move in relation to the air, so this invisible substance moves with the Earth, and light can only move within it. This is entirely computable. There is one major difference between what I am suggesting and what pre-Relativity theorists believed. Let me use the term ‘Ether’ (ee-thir) for their idea and the term ‘Etha’ (e-thah) for my idea. Ether was said to be fixed space, whereas Etha is a substance independent of fixed space. The Etha is itself a substance that is moving relative to fixed space. The velocity of light is only constant measured against the Etha, but it can go faster than C when light is measured against fixed space. Some may ask: ‘How can I prove that Etha exists?’ The answer being that I have done just that. This is the only answer that can explain the Michelson-Morley experiment seeing as though Relativity requires us to swallow the notion that the universe does not obey the principles of logic and mathematics. But, it would be nice to verify the existence of Etha through something independent of this treatise. After all, dual-processing does try to reach the same answer through at least two separate processes. But then the validity of the Michelson-Morley experiment itself cannot be ascertained in a positivist manner. Anyone who has observed a mirage will see that the atmosphere certainly affects light enough for the fluctuations to be visible. So it is quite probable that the very air itself is capable of carrying light with it in a similar way to which it carries sound. Nonetheless, the only way all the empirical claims can be validated computationally is by realizing that the medium through which light is propagated moves with the Earth and therefore must exist independently of fixed space. Of course the knee-jerk psychological reaction to this is: ‘why did nobody realize this before?’ The other day I read in the newspaper how two man-made satellites were expected to collide according to conventional understanding of gravity. And yet they missed each other by 10 kilometers. Being able to throw a glider does not mean that the science of that glider has been understood. Being able to put satellites into orbit does not mean that the physics of such has been all that accurate. There were countless failed attempts to put satellites into orbit before it was achieved.

 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:
 The first stage in realizing how the mind interacts with the body is to see the brain (as we perceive it) as a three-dimensional surface of a four-dimensional object. This is why all attempts to predict and entirely control human behavior with physical means result in the mind-body problem. This is because while aspects of the physical world are apprehended by the 3d brain, the 4d mind has the capacity to override them. Penrose unfortunately follows the conventional viewpoint and simply tries to search more deeply within the ordinary physical aspects of the soggy old 3d brain. I would say that is like trying to predict what is on TV next week by opening up the TV set. We need to get away from that approach completely. It would be better to analyze the characters in the TV series. We need to look meaningfully within ourselves. We need to embrace our emotions no matter how scary that may seem. We need to ask the difficult questions within our own beings. We have to be able to weep with all the sorrow of each and every soul within the world. I started this book with a dream. And I have incredibly vivid dreams, the detail of which defies any notion of the content of such dreams being only local to my experiences in this lifetime. I have dreamt other people’s lives packaged into absurdly neat narrative storylines. (My narratives are not so neat). I can vividly recall characters from these dreams from decades back. I recall faces that are crystal clear to my memory; faces that are not recollections from this lifetime. I have relived past lives. I have visited other worlds with unique architectures and beings that are just far too amazing to come from my imagination. And I have a pretty vivid imagination. In those dreams, reality is just as real as this world is. I could just as easily say that this world is a dream emanating from any of those other worlds. I dream of the dead, and they tell me things and behave in ways which show that their consciousness is continuing and growing beyond this life. Make no mistake. I have ordinary dreams which are just a product of this life: ordinary fears, wishes, nightmares and fantasies. And some dreams which I can only describe as badly constructed scenarios which seem to have been imposed on me from outside to test me. Once I dreamt I was in a DVD shop, many centuries in the future, and I bought a DVD, plugged it into a machine which connected it to my brain, and then I woke up in this life, and it was this life of mine which was the content of that DVD. The point I am making, is that it is a huge mistake to think that just because many dreams are products of this daily psychological life, that all of them are such. In the same way, some TV programs are real, some half-real, and some are entirely fiction. Consider the primitive who sees a TV for the first time. ‘Is it real?’ he may ask, and after some time, would probably conclude it was not. But the reality is that much of TV is real. He may even try and open up the TV to understand the programs. There is no limit to the type of TV program that can be made, and there is no reason to suggest that just because most dreams you may have are reflections of this life, that all dreams must be such. I have gone off the topic of space and time, it seems, but not so. You may recall that in the dream at the beginning of this book, I was so intently focused on waking into my body in order to design the Entothopter that I neglected an opportunity to explore this world from the perspective of the dream-world. I was for a moment briefly looking into this world from what I can only describe as four-dimensional space. I have kept that dream close to my waking mind. I have followed the Sine curve all the way beyond Einstein and Relativity and found non-relative certainty. I have had exultant experiences. Three times I have spoken to John the Baptist and twice to Jesus. I was warned that in following this path, the spite of jealousy would provoke me like an evil shadow, and no doubt it has. But I know that this life is itself a shadow. I fear not death. That shall be a great discovery. To finally break free from the confines of this narrow three-dimensional world will be like a chicken hatching from an egg. But not all such hatching is for the good. Often when the shell breaks it is too soon, and the result may not always be better. But most often it is. So death is not always for the better. This is why we cannot conclude that because immortality is real, that death is always good. Even the fourth dimension of space (unlike time) has two directions. In death, we could still move either one way or another, and the consequences of this movement may be tragic or euphoric. The very notion of dreaming is mystical in the extreme. The best way to indulge in dreaming is to keep a dream diary. Upon awakening, write down the fragments of your dreams. This way you keep your consciousness close to the topic. Why do memories of our dreams fade so quickly each morning? Normally we remember last week’s events more easily than last night’s dreams. If time was the chief variable in why we remember events, then last night’s dreams would be easier to remember than those of last week. Unlike a computer, the mind recalls more complex memories more easily. For a computer the simpler information is easier to recall. We remember information by association. Songs are easier to remember than prose. Logic is easier to remember than nonsense. By keeping a dream diary, the association with that realm is stronger. The fatalists may say that this is all in my imagination, but to that I answer: how is imagination even possible if all is fated? How can new ideas become manifest in world that is entirely determined? If all we know is that which we observe then how can we imagine color when our eyes are closed and we are not observing the world? How can we do so with free will?

 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 >