Re: Relativity Revised

by PavhftltstE Tue Jun 09, 2015 8:10 pm

I've yet to read "The Emperor's New Mind". I tried a free download but the writing was too tiny to read. Have you read it?

I'm not well read in metaphysics but I do "get" the concept of ch'i.

by Jonathan Ainsley Bain Tue Jun 09, 2015 3:30 pm

Relativity is the most extreme example of
'The emperors new clothes'.

Or as Roger Penrose may have meant:
'The emperors new mind'

by Jonathan Ainsley Bain Tue Jun 09, 2015 3:28 pm

Sounds interesting.
I reckon the relevancy of relativity, revolves around the question
'what makes something science?'
A question which is by definition : metaphysics.

And yet the term 'metaphysics' some people take to mean 'not science'.

Its astonishing how many people take the answer as to what constitutes science
to be more about what is generally accepted as within the category of 'science'
by those who have a beurocratic title 'scientist'.

In philosophy, this fallacy is termed 'appeal to authority'.

Whereas the notion of empiricism is lost in the notion
of that which the 'authority' labels 'empirical'.

When the physics of Newton & Galileo predicted the existence of
the outer planets, it was hailed as the best example of the scientific method.

And yet for the last 100 years the fundamentally illogical and un-empirical
theories of the relativists have turned the word science into the very
sophist dogma it was meant to replace: IE medieval philosophy.

'The big wheel, keeps on turning'.

by PavhftltstE Sat Jun 06, 2015 4:49 pm

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:This sort of thing does take a few readings.
Nobody can be expected to grasp any such ideas at once.
First get a general idea, then a second time to flesh out the details.

Hi Jonathan - I didn't mean that I was not enjoying or understanding the subject matter, it just got late is all Smile

, so I ran out of steam.

It can be a bit strange sometimes communicating about physics with people who also have alternate theories because of any points that may be at cross purposes to the others ideas... it can be a bit like talking to people who are stuck on GR... Lol! I just try to find points where I agree and talk about them and I like to explore other peoples ideas and why they have them.
It's all relevant.

Perhaps we can all share a new fanged theory that we can name "Relevancy", whatcha reckon? Smile

by Jonathan Ainsley Bain Sat Jun 06, 2015 8:26 am

This sort of thing does take a few readings.
Nobody can be expected to grasp any such ideas at once.
First get a general idea, then a second time to flesh out the details.

by PavhftltstE Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:19 pm

It wouldn't post the link... It's magicshoolbookrelativity.

by PavhftltstE Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:18 pm

Hi Jonathan. I've been looking at your website and your commentary on relativity. This is a link to another computer dude who makes a similar journey for the same reasons. I like his diagrams that show how rockets do not time mesh properly under the remit of relativity.

With regards to your ideas, I particularly identify with your notions on spin and momentum velocity. Very good! I had viewed light as being "compressed" into higher frequency, I like your take better as I am looking for this compression to produce higher levels of energy in my model.

I'll admit that I ran out of reading steam a bit guiltily after the " mind" bit, also interesting stuff, but scrolling downwards my guilt evaporated pronto!!! Mate, that is one volumous website... Lol! I'll delve back for another round at some point.

Nice to meet ya...

by Jonathan Ainsley Bain Sun May 31, 2015 5:51 pm

I have already constructed numerous algorithms according to
normal Newtonian gravity:

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/gravity-simulators.htm

This all entails first solving the many-body-problem
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/many-body-problem.htm
which is the philosophy of how to calculate 3 or more interacting gravity fields simultaneously.

In order to achieve this, one has to first solve Zeno's Paradox,
by using the principle of quantum time:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/zeno-and-planck.htm

Please feel free to comment
;-j

by Jonathan Ainsley Bain Sun May 31, 2015 5:45 pm

Relativity causes endless contradictions
when trying to program 3 or more bodies in a real-time
computer algorithm according to its formulae.
It therefore became necessary to reconstruct the paradigm entirely:

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity-revised-summary.htm

The web-pages are abbreviated summaries of:
Chapter xxvii: Light and Spin

Here is the entire chapter in .pdf format:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/Light%20and%20Spin%20-%20Chapter%20xxvii.pdf

It is probably a good idea to print out the 36 pages,
and read it away from the distraction of having part of
your mind preoccupied by the computer.

by Jonathan Ainsley Bain Sun May 31, 2015 5:32 pm

THE RELATIVE POSITION CONTRADICTION

by Jonathan Ainsley Bain Sun May 31, 2015 5:26 pm

For those who may be familiar with this article, I have
recently updated it to include 2 new critiques which
are simpler to understand:

THE DILATION OF TIME DILEMMA:

This scenario is perhaps simplest to compute.

A and B are small bodies accelerating away from each other due to
the force of gravity which is the result of the much larger yellow and blue stars.

What is the time dilation that A and B experience under the effects of Relativity?

From the perspective of A, the body B is accelerating away.
Thus B should experience a time dilation relative to A.
So, time for B is expected to slow down relative to A.

And yet from the perspective of B, it is A that should experience time dilation!
Clearly if both experience the time dilation, then time will be the same for both,
and the result is that there is no time dilation.

This is quite a problem. Both A and B cannot be suffering from the same degree
of time dilation without there being no effective time dilation between them.
Of course if we take the point of reference to be C, it looks like we solve the problem.

But both A and B are still accelerating away from each other without any effective time dilation.

As we shall see later, the formula for time dilation is derived from the formula for space contraction
and the formula for velocity reduction. So if we consider that there simply cannot be a time dilation
between A and B, then how can there be a velocity reduction between them?
The formulae for both time dilation and velocity reduction have the same mathematical origin.
The tragic result of this is that without a velocity reduction, there can be no limit between them
as regards the velocity of light!

Of course it can be insisted that all the calculations regarding Relativity must be made according
to the center point C. But this is in total violation of the principle at the core of Relativity:
There is supposed to be no absolute fixed point of reference at all!

This shows that the Special Theory of Relativity is, at the least, incomplete;
and at the worst, fundamentally flawed.

by Jonathan Ainsley Bain Sun May 31, 2015 5:20 pm

This is quite a lengthy article, so before I begin I would first like to make the two points that are the easiest to grasp:

{A} Relativity proposes that space contracts as an object approaches the velocity of light.
Such a contraction has never been observed.
In fact many years after Relativity was first published,
it was observed that space is expanding evenly in all directions.

{B} The Michelson-Morley experiment can be explained by realizing that
the medium through which light is moving, is itself simply moving with the Earth.

{A} proves Relativity to be unempirical. {B} is the explanation that replaces Relativity.

Perhaps before continuing, the reader may want to spend some time pondering these points carefully and methodically.
It may be unwise to carry on reading until the reader fully grasps the implications of these two points.

by Jonathan Ainsley Bain Sun May 31, 2015 5:19 pm

The central method I am employing in this chapter is simply to test for internal logical consistency.
The process whereby this ensues is to attempt to construct a real-time data-model of Relativity in Visual Basic 6.
This is where most of the inconsistencies in Relativity become apparent.

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity-revised.htm

by Sponsored content