tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post6537194059993761660..comments2023-12-27T00:49:31.972-08:00Comments on Aether Wave Theory: Inconsistency of general relativityZephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-1611788625940998592015-09-20T13:24:13.251-07:002015-09-20T13:24:13.251-07:00Does Gravity Gravitate?<a href="https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/does-gravity-gravitate/?quarkcolor=mauve" rel="nofollow">Does Gravity Gravitate?</a>Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-9956526048057656672015-07-10T02:55:51.110-07:002015-07-10T02:55:51.110-07:00Simple Proof that Black Holes Have no Basis in Gen...<a href="http://vixra.org/abs/1405.0287" rel="nofollow">Simple Proof that Black Holes Have no Basis in General Relativity</a> The black hole is allegedly predicted by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. However, by comparison of the Einstein field equations for Schwarzschild spacetime and de Sitter spacetime it is plainly evident that matter is allegedly present and absent by the very same mathematical constraint: Tμν = 0. Since this is impossible, and since de Sitter’s empty universe contains no matter by virtue of Tμν = 0, Schwarzschild spacetime also contains no matter. Consequently, the black hole has no basis in General Relativity <a href="http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/astronomy/blackhole/bh_collapse.gif" rel="nofollow">Black hole collapse</a> <br />Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-3270775701333655612014-01-30T11:14:34.176-08:002014-01-30T11:14:34.176-08:00General Relativity – A Theory in Crisis (from Step...<a href="http://vixra.org/abs/1207.0018" rel="nofollow">General Relativity – A Theory in Crisis</a> (from <a href="http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html" rel="nofollow">Stephen J. Crothers web</a>)<br />Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-9125346247872571542014-01-22T08:28:06.750-08:002014-01-22T08:28:06.750-08:00The violations of relativity are rather easy to fi...The violations of relativity are rather easy to find, if you know <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/january/nasas-fermi-makes-first-gamma-ray-study-of-a-gravitational-lens" title="http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/january/nasas-fermi-makes-first-gamma-ray-study-of-a-gravitational-lens" rel="nofollow">where to look for it</a>:<br /><i>Intriguingly, the gamma-ray delay is about a day longer than radio observations report for this system. And while the flares and their playback show similar gamma-ray brightness, in radio wavelengths one blazar image is about four times brighter than the other</i><br />Both phenomena are predicted with dispersive model of light: the shortwavelength waves penetrate particle environment slower and they're more scattered during it.<br />Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-87810198692549063522014-01-22T08:25:59.113-08:002014-01-22T08:25:59.113-08:00The Bad math of Einstein<a href="http://www.gsjournal.net/old/weuro/anderton78.pdf" rel="nofollow">The Bad math of Einstein</a><br />Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-39697762758518809702013-02-16T20:03:08.651-08:002013-02-16T20:03:08.651-08:00Stephen J. Crothers: Black Holes: Five proofs, fou...<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsWKlNfQwJU" rel="nofollow">Stephen J. Crothers: Black Holes</a>: Five proofs, four of which each prove that General Relativity <a href="http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0010" rel="nofollow">does not predict the black hole</a>, <a href="http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Hooft.pdf" rel="nofollow">letter to t'Hooft</a><br />Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-9726041896922987162012-11-08T04:55:43.515-08:002012-11-08T04:55:43.515-08:00Further Communications on the Black Hole Controver...<a href="http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4325" rel="nofollow">Further Communications on the Black Hole Controversy</a> (<a href="http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications-Relativity%20Theory/Download/4325" rel="nofollow">PDF</a>)Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-68425393129583243002012-11-07T15:22:27.792-08:002012-11-07T15:22:27.792-08:00Conflict Between the Uncertainty Principle and Gen...<a href="http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/string.html" rel="nofollow">Conflict Between the Uncertainty Principle and General Relativity</a>Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-39145086480743093172012-10-13T01:28:53.983-07:002012-10-13T01:28:53.983-07:00Another counterexamples to relativity at conservap...<a href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity" rel="nofollow">Another counterexamples to relativity at conservapedia</a>Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-71373595173633945422012-10-13T01:27:29.845-07:002012-10-13T01:27:29.845-07:00Peter Hayes: The clock paradox illustrates how rel...Peter Hayes: <a href="http://philpapers.org/rec/HAYTIO-2" rel="nofollow">The clock paradox illustrates</a> how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. Actually this is an inherent property of <a rel="nofollow" href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.cz/2009/01/awt-and-definition-of-observable.html">whatever formal theory</a> (do you remember the Goedel theorems?): it must be based on inconsistent postulate set for to be able to predict at least something. You cannot extrapolate line trough two coinciding points in causal space. Every theory must be inconsistent at least a bit for to remain predictable and as such falsifiable. Which implies, every theory has its limited validity scope.<br /><br />Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-52259957613261551552012-10-05T13:51:38.351-07:002012-10-05T13:51:38.351-07:00Einstein identified the existence of gravity with ...Einstein identified the existence of gravity with the inertial motion of accelerating bodies (i.e. bodies in free-fall) whereas contemporary physicists identify the existence of gravity with space-time curvature (i.e. tidal forces). The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044" rel="nofollow">did not agree with</a>.<br />Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-31379220632665260272012-07-25T13:38:39.849-07:002012-07-25T13:38:39.849-07:00On 2006, noted physicist Dr. Franklin Felber [pres...On 2006, noted physicist Dr. Franklin Felber [<a href="http://jamesmessig.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/franklin-felbers-starmark-inc-repulsive-gravity-drive-some-possible-implications-for-extreme-relativistic-gamma-factor-manned-interstellar-travel" rel="nofollow">presented his solution</a>](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505098) of Einstein's field equations to the Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF) in Albuquerque. The solution is the first that accounts for masses moving near the speed of light. According to this solution, a particle traveling faster than 0.57c gravitationally repels particles ahead of it. This solution was proposed [<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.1084" rel="nofollow">to be tested</a>](<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.1084" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.10o84</a>) at LHC (<a href="http://badphysics.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/felber/" rel="nofollow">Kavassaliss comment</a>)Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-26598878869823766852012-07-25T13:11:10.818-07:002012-07-25T13:11:10.818-07:00Two papers claim that E = m * c^2 is incorrect and...Two papers claim that E = m * c^2 is incorrect and suggests E=mbc where b = 0.624942 * 10^8 m/s. The first one <a href="http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr_22_4_14.pdf" rel="nofollow">On a Heuristic Viewpoints Concerning the Mass, Energy and Light Concepts in Quantum Physics</a> was published in 2008 and the second one <a href="http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr_26_2_01.pdf" rel="nofollow">New Concept of Mass-Energy Equivalence</a> was released in 2009.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-87149031137291332712012-05-04T14:42:44.570-07:002012-05-04T14:42:44.570-07:00Textbook Electrodynamics May Contradict Relativity...<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/404.full" rel="nofollow">Textbook Electrodynamics May Contradict Relativity</a> (<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0096" rel="nofollow">preprint</a>). This paradox could be understood with dense aether model easily.<br />The Lorentz force produces a drag, which transverse wave could never generate. Try to imagine this paradox with water surface model of dense aether theory: until its surface ripples are perfectly transverse (capillary waves), they don't have reference frame for their motion and we could say, they do follow the special relativity. But such waves cannot exert any force to the objects at the water surface - this force can be exerted only when these wave do have a longitudinal component. On the other hand, such a longitudinal component would introduce a frame drag, thus introducing an observable reference frame - which we don't observe at the vacuum.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-25628833595290529692012-04-08T02:54:39.410-07:002012-04-08T02:54:39.410-07:00Alley using the Einstein gravitational field equat...Alley using the Einstein gravitational field equation calculated the gravitational attraction between a pair of infinite slabs of matter separated by a fixed distance. Alley found that the Einstein theory predicts absolutely no gravitational attraction between the two slabs. The Einstein theory predicts absolutely no gravitational force between the two slabs. This result conflicts not only with Newton's law of gravitational attraction; it also conflicts with experimental evidence. The Yilmaz theory does not have this problem, because its gravitational field equation has a stress-energy tensor for the gravitational field. With the Yilmaz theory, the stress-energy tensor for the gravitational field is not zero in the space between the slabs, and so the Einstein curvature tensor is not zero. Consequently the Yilmaz theory predicts gravitational attraction between the two slabs.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-11995599221334114912012-04-08T02:45:56.438-07:002012-04-08T02:45:56.438-07:00The failure of the Einstein gravitational field eq...The failure of the Einstein gravitational field equation to include a tensor characterizing the gravitational field <a href="http://www.olduniverse.com/1,6%20Einstein%20Eq.%20Limits.pdf" rel="nofollow">is a severe limitation</a>.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-85485754288316258112012-03-26T15:38:51.185-07:002012-03-26T15:38:51.185-07:00Review of Roger Schlafly’s "How Einstein Ruin...<a href="http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/03/review-of-roger-schlaflys-how-einstein-ruined-physics/" rel="nofollow">Review of Roger Schlafly’s "How Einstein Ruined Physics"</a>Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-46713415592184359332012-03-24T04:20:48.978-07:002012-03-24T04:20:48.978-07:00How general relativity violates it's own equiv...<a href="http://i.imgur.com/nmFux.png" rel="nofollow">How general relativity violates it's own equivalence principle</a> (<a href="http://finbot.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/no-black-holes/" rel="nofollow">background info</a>)Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-32677551677358133522012-03-20T07:06:56.888-07:002012-03-20T07:06:56.888-07:00Where will Einstein fail? Lessons for gravity and ...<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3827" rel="nofollow">Where will Einstein fail? Lessons for gravity and cosmology</a> Niayesh Afshordi has written a very approachable summary of when we can expect general relativity to fail. He reviews suggestions that abandoning some aspects of Lorentz invariance - that is, allowing a kind of aether - solves a wide range of problems. One unexpected consequence is that what is observed as dark matter is the result of the behaviour of this geometry at the event horizon of black holes.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-20946081777590727202012-03-04T02:47:21.332-08:002012-03-04T02:47:21.332-08:00This comes as a surprise to most people, even thou...This comes as a surprise to most people, even though Einstein said all this:<br /><br />1911: If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates co, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = <br />coo(1 + Φ/c²).<br />1912: On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal <br />regions of constant gravitational potential.<br />1913: I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of <br />light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis.<br />1915: the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity <br />of light is to be abandoned.<br />1916: In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of <br />the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of <br />light can only take place when <i>die Ausbreitungs-geschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert</i>,<br /><br />...the phrase in German translating to <i>the speed of light varies with location</i>. Not velocity, speed, c is a speed.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-63150239977664713312010-10-23T02:28:26.092-07:002010-10-23T02:28:26.092-07:00The equivalence principle actually states that gra...The equivalence principle actually states that gravity and acceleration are locally indistinguishable, i.e., you can always choose a coordinate system in which there is no gravity at a given point. If gravity were globally indistinguishable from acceleration, i.e., you could choose a coordinate system in which gravity disappeared everywhere, then space-time would be flat.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-51536931964322321762010-08-09T13:41:25.301-07:002010-08-09T13:41:25.301-07:00Counterexamples to Relativity
The Pioneer anomaly....<a href="http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity" rel="nofollow">Counterexamples to Relativity</a><br />The <a title="Pioneer anomaly" href="http://conservapedia.com/Pioneer_anomaly" rel="nofollow">Pioneer anomaly</a>. <br />Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").<a href="http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity#cite_note-1" rel="nofollow">[2]</a> <br />Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<a href="http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity#cite_note-2" rel="nofollow">[3]</a><br /><br />The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light. <br />The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? <br />The observed lack of curvature in overall space.<a href="http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity#cite_note-3" rel="nofollow">[4]</a> <br />The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity. <br />The <a title="Action-at-a-distance" href="http://conservapedia.com/Action-at-a-distance" rel="nofollow">action-at-a-distance</a> of<br /> <a title="Quantum entanglement" href="http://conservapedia.com/Quantum_entanglement" rel="nofollow">quantum entanglement</a>.<a href="http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity#cite_note-4" rel="nofollow">[5]</a><br /><br />The <a title="Action-at-a-distance" href="http://conservapedia.com/Action-at-a-distance" rel="nofollow">action-at-a-distance</a> by Jesus, described in<br /> <a title="John 1-7 (Translated)" href="http://conservapedia.com/John_1-7_(Translated%2529" rel="nofollow">John 4:46-54</a>. <br />The failure to discover <a title="Gravitons" href="http://conservapedia.com/Gravitons" rel="nofollow">gravitons</a>, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. <br /> <br />The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. <br />The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.<a href="http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity#cite_note-5" rel="nofollow">[6]</a> <br />The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.<a href="http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity#cite_note-6" rel="nofollow">[7]</a> <br />"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."<a href="http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity#cite_note-7" rel="nofollow">[8]</a><br /><br />The theory predicts <a title="Wormholes" href="http://conservapedia.com/Wormholes" rel="nofollow">wormholes</a> just as it predicts <br /><a title="Black holes" href="http://conservapedia.com/Black_holes" rel="nofollow">black holes</a>, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.<a href="http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity#cite_note-8" rel="nofollow">[9]</a><br /><br />The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in <a title="Entropy" href="http://conservapedia.com/Entropy" rel="nofollow">entropy</a> required by the <br /><a title="Second Law of Thermodynamics" href="http://conservapedia.com/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics" rel="nofollow">Second Law of Thermodynamics</a>.<a href="http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity#cite_note-9" rel="nofollow">[10]</a>Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-50953985233088452652010-06-19T12:19:11.702-07:002010-06-19T12:19:11.702-07:00Newton theory is still used in Einstein's theo...Newton theory is still used in Einstein's theory, from inverse square law the gravitational constant got into Einstein's equations. General relativity doesn't enable to derive Newton's theory, on the contrary: Newton's theory enables to derive general relativity. Therefore it's much more exact to say, Einstein's theory is built upon Newton's theory. <br /><br />Does it sound uncomfortable for you? Then you're manipulated by mainstream physics propaganda already, that's all.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-74688173946420664662009-08-15T05:32:59.922-07:002009-08-15T05:32:59.922-07:00It's widely accepted, one of most advantages o...It's widely accepted, one of most advantages of General Relativity is, it uses only two-three quite general postulates - but IMO it's impossible to derive Einstein's equation without incorporation of Hooke-Newton gravitational law. <br /><br />This law of classical physics therefore forms another "secret" postulate of General Relativity.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com