Chapter 6: Other Major Errors in Physics
Relativity does not have a valid starting point, which means nothing which follows is valid. The starting point and basis for relativity is the claim that the receiving point of light supposedly determines the velocity of light, so effect precedes cause. Effect can never precede cause. Then light is given infinite velocities to correlate with the infinite velocities of receiving points. And since one velocity cannot be infinite velocities, the word velocity is changed to reference frame, which supposedly can be infinitized. It can't.
The starting point of relativity is like a gate for entering a world of too much magic, where millions of lines of equations can be produced without a flaw. Out of the magic comes fusion energy, which doesn't exist, a fabric of space-time, which replaces the force of gravity, and a childish equation for limiting any velocity to that of light. These results have no relationship to real analysis. They are concocted out of thin air using a quagmire as a pretended source.
◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
The starting points of relativity are not valid. No matter what else is supposed to exist in the infinite and unprovable scramble of relativity, it cannot be correct when the starting point is not correct. One of the starting points is to have receiving points determine the velocity of light. The velocity is supposedly determined after the light has traveled. Effect becomes cause. There is never a validity in replacing cause with effect. It defeats the purpose of science, which is to increase knowledge. Having effect replace cause is not knowledge; it is a contradiction in logic.
Related to this starting point is the use of infinite reference frames for velocity of light. The purpose in using infinite reference frames is to substitute for infinite velocities of light. Crossing out velocity and replacing it with reference frame does not fix the problem. Reference frame cannot replace velocity unless it does exactly what velocity does. Yet the substitution has the purpose of getting the velocity of light to do something it does not do, which is to have infinite variation.
The background for this rationalism is this: The velocity of light is said to be invariable, at least in the analysis of relativity. The questions raised are why and relative to what. Supposedly, an etheric medium cannot be the cause or reference for the velocity of light, because the Michelson-Morley experiment said so. Emitting points cannot be the cause or reference, because there are infinite emitting points with infinite velocities. Therefore, it must be receiving points which determine the velocity of light. But there are infinite receiving points with infinite velocities. So velocity was changed to reference frame while claiming that infinite reference frames exist to account for the infinite velocities supposedly representing the invariable velocity of light.
Relativity is more than an error in physics; it is a total contrivance so unrealistic that it has no relationship to objective reality or the rest of physics. There is not an analysis that can be applied to relativity, because it is totally devoid of rationality. Relativity is a format for making claims without scientific accountability. The counterclaims made here are therefore based on common sense, not some analysis of relativity.
The usual starting point of relativity, at least for the uninitiated, is to set up a situation with two trains moving in opposite directions. Someone moving on one train has a complex relationship to someone moving on the other. The complexities are then muddle to a point of nonsense for the purpose of insulating relativity from rationality and pretending the physicists, or relativists, are so brilliant that they can see valuable knowledge where others see nothing. Einstein set that standard by using hair-brained analogies which say nothing and pretending to extract some bit of brilliance out of them.
What does relativity have to do with E=mc²? Absolutely nothing. What does relativity have to do with nothing moving faster than the speed of light? Absolutely nothing. What does relativity have to do with space-time as a fabric which replaces gravity? Absolutely nothing. These are the three main products of relativity: 1) E=mc², 2) nothing can move faster than light and 3) space-time is a fabric which replaces gravity.
Where then did Einstein get the claim that E=mc²? He paralleled the equation for kinetic energy, which says KE=½mv². Kinetic energy is supposedly proportional to mass times velocity squared for any moving object. So Einstein claimed that matter can be converted into energy in proportion to the mass times the velocity of light squared.
The problem is, the formula for kinetic energy can be mathematically proven to be in error, as shown in chapter 1. It means Einstein paralleled an erroneous formula. How could E=mc² have anything to do with relativity when it has no relationship to anything but an erroneous equation? It shows that relativity is nothing but a format of fraudulent garbage for making preposterous claims.
One of the consequences of the erroneous claim that the energy in matter is proportional to the velocity of light squared (E=mc²) is that it creates an unrealistic expectation for the ability to derive energy out of matter. If Einstein paralleled the correct definition of energy, the velocity of light would not be squared. The equation would have been E=mc. There would be enormously less energy in matter when not squaring the velocity of light. That velocity is an extremely large number. Not squaring it reduces the amount by a factor of that large number.
For example, one kilogram times the velocity of light squared would be 1kg x (300,000,000m/s)² = 9 x 1016 kg-m²/s², while not squaring the velocity of light yields 1kg x 300,000,000m/s = 3 x 108 kg-m/s. The unsquared number is 1/300,000,000 times smaller.
Those two results are not exactly comparable, because one is in units of m²/s², while the other is m/s. Those differences do not resolve. There are certain things that are not valid with exponents, and physicists have never accepted this fact. It's not valid to represent something real with mathematics which do not represent something reallike squaring velocity, when nothing can move at velocity squared.
Squaring produces a two dimensional result. Light cannot be two dimensional. For example, if a five pound object moves at a velocity of one foot per second, the combination is five foot-pounds per seconds. If the velocity is squared, the result is five foot-pounds squared per second squared. Squaring the one still equals one, but it is a two dimensional one. There has to be a difference between a squared number and a nonsquared number. For the number one, the change in dimension is the only difference. If the number three were squared, the result would be ninebut that means nine blocks, while each side is still three. This shows that squaring adds a dimension.
Kinetic energy cannot be two dimensional, because mass cannot move in two directions simultaneously. Light moves in three dimensions as it expands, but not two dimensions. If Einstein would have cubed the velocity of light, he would have had even more problems. Actually, light consists of multiple hollow shells which can't be represented with a simple exponent. At any rate, paralleling the equation for kinetic energy would not be appropriate for light, because it equates the one dimensional motion of matter with the three dimensional complexity of light.
The absurdly large number resulting from squaring the velocity of light shows that physicists have no real knowledge of matter being converted into energy, and such a conversion is probably not possible at all. If physicists were observing matter being converted into energy, they could not have gotten the quantity so ridiculously wrong. It means physicists have not observed matter being converted into energy. They contrived the concept out of Einstein's fraudulent equation and nothing else.
Einstein's erroneous equation, E=mc², results in a problem in the attempt to create energy out of hydrogen fusion. There is no significant energy in hydrogen fusion. After decades of attempting to create hydrogen fusion and failing, the most recent attempt was completed a few months ago using 192 lasers to ignite the process. Everything worked flawlessly, except no significant energy was yielded (1).
Physicists expect a lot of energy to result from hydrogen fusion because of Einstein's equation, E=mc². If the equation were to parallel the correct definition of kinetic energy and stated as E=mc, there would be 1/300,000,000 as much energy (though defined differently) as physicists expect. But in fact, there is no credible evidence that hydrogen fusion will even produce that small of an amount, as the phenomenon has never been produced or observed in laboratory testing. Physicists claim the sun gets its energy from hydrogen fusion, but their theory would be wrong, as there is no credible science to anything related to the subject of fusion energy. The sun probably gets its energy from fission reactions instead of fusion. When there is uranium and similar materials in the earth, there would also be such materials in the sun. To claim it is hydrogen that does it all is nothing but contrived garbage.
The important thing about this whole subject is that the erroneous definition of energy corrupts the whole subject of energy. The elaborate rationalizations of physicists are dependent upon every element being correct and precise to minute detail. With ninety percent of it corrupted by the erroneous definition of energy, they have nothing but contrivance. If they were describing anything real, the errors would show up as contradictions. It's nonfalsifiable due to total contrivance.
Hydrogen bombs have the same problem. All indications are that there is no such thing as a hydrogen bomb. A fission reaction is used to start a hydrogen bomb, while there is no credible indication that a fusion reaction actually occurs. The Wikipedia entry for thermonuclear weapon states that most of the energy is in fission reactions. (Wikipedia: "While it is colloquially referred to as a hydrogen bomb or H-bomb because it employs hydrogen fusion, in most applications most of its destructive energy comes from uranium fission rather than fusion.") Most could only mean all. If a minor element were fusion, why bother. If fusion is supposed to be the end-all for bombs, why so trivial of a result? Why not more energy from the fusion? Once it gets started, why not add enough to produce the main effect?
It's not credible that a fusion reaction even gets started in a hydrogen bomb, because physicists have never achieved the result under laboratory conditions, where every element can be controlled. A bomb is extremely random and chaotic. To claim they got the random chaos of a bomb down to spotless perfection, while they can't do it under laboratory conditions is not credible.
It means physicists are claiming to produce a hydrogen bomb, while they aren't. They lie about it, because they don't want to admit the failure, and they want to glamorize their wizardry pretending to be successful.
Another of the products of relativity is the claim that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. The basis for the claim is an equation which shows the square root of a negative, when a velocity exceeds that of light, while there is no such thing as the square root of a negative.
The all-important question is where did the equation come from. Supposedly, it has something to do with the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. The experiment was an attempt to detect an etheric medium in space for conducting light waves. Nothing was detected. Failures are common in science, but you don’t build upon them. It’s like jumping into the ocean and saying the Titanic is not there. There are any number of reasons why the experiment could have failed to detect the “aether,” even if it existed.
The result was the construction of a logic which said the constant velocity of light could not be determined by starting points, since they have numerous velocities; and since it could not be controlled by an aether, it must be controlled by the receiving points of the light. Receiving points have various velocities also and are no different from starting points in that regard. So there was no credibility in the rationalizations. But even worse, cause followed effect, while it must always precede effect. It’s like being stopped for driving 80 miles per hour in a 70 mph zone and saying the velocity won’t be determined until getting to the destination.
This logic led to the claim that the infinite velocities for receiving points are taken care of by using a different reference frame for each. In other words, light supposedly always travels at the same velocity relative to receiving points which move at different velocities because the reference frame shifts for each receiving point. It is not valid to use more than one reference frame for light, because it is the same thing as multiple velocities, and light would not have a definable energy with multiple velocities.
Look at this perversion again. The velocity of light is always the same. It is supposedly determined by receiving points, which have multiple velocities. Something with multiple velocities causes something to have only one velocity. Objects with multiple velocities cause light to have one velocity relative to unrelated observers. But it is a shifting reference frame which converts the multiple velocities to one velocity. Receiving points move at multiple velocities, and each is a reference frame. Yet light has the same velocity for each and the same velocity for unrelated observers which have different velocities. By calling the different velocities different reference frames, the infinite velocities become one velocity.
Why should anyone have respect for such perversion being called science? Why should the public pay for it? Why should no one be allowed to criticize it? How could the rest of physics be credible when produced by the same persons who operate at such a trash standard?
The whole subject of relativity is nothing but irrelevancies. How does it prove that nothing can move faster than the speed of light? Nothing does. The equation is nothing but cheap crap which an idiot could have produced. You put the velocity in question over the velocity of light and subtract it from one under the square root sign. Physicists will rationalize their claims with millions of lines of relativity equations, but it's nothing but more fraud.
Relativity has that purposeto contrive fakery which can never be proven wrong, because it has no relationship to objective reality. It's "non-falsifiable," as Popper stated of such scams. But physicists have to use starting points which defy the rest of science and rationality to get to their magical land of non-falsifiability. They first had to deny that the non-result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was a non-result. Then they had to put effect ahead of cause to get receiving points as the defining influence for the velocity of light. And then they had to use multiple reference frames for light to get the same velocity under all circumstances. Three elephants have to be ignored to get to the non-falsifiability of relativity.
The third claim of relativity is that gravity is not really a force, it is a fabric of space-time. Based on what? Based on putting space and time on different axes of a graph. And what does that do? It creates the image of a vortex with a marble rolling around it. Just because you don't see the connection doesn't mean there is none. Relativity makes those types of connections.
A vortex, at least with a fabric, is two dimensional, complex and non-uniform. Gravity is three dimensional, homogeneous and uniform.
Why do engineers use Newton's laws to evaluate gravity as a force, if it isn't? Because they just aren't up to the level of relativistic physicists. If all mass produces gravity, there should be a vortex for the marble which goes around the vortex of something else. How does a vortex go around a vortex? Why make it look like a marble which rolls, when it is a vortex?
There is one answer for all of the questions. Physicists know things that others don't know. Godliness turns contradictions into Einsteinian brilliance.
Physicists claim they prove Einstein to be correct every day. Their primary proof is that light bends around stars and galaxies, just as Einstein predicted it would. They claim space-time influences light, while Newtonian gravity does not.
Optics is a branch of physics. It is based upon light bending as it passes through higher density matter. So light bends as it passes through gases near stars and galaxies. No one is claiming that space-time bends light in a prism. Why then should space-time bend light around stars and galaxies?
Sometimes the suggestion is made that a spacecraft could gain energy for moving through space by catching ions from the sun, sort of like a sailboat in space. Ions are made of mass with charge. The sun is constantly emitting mass. You don't see it, because it takes the form of transparent gas. But there is enough of it throughout the solar system to move objects, if they have a large enough sail. If stars are giving off mass, why wouldn't light bend while passing through the mass, as it does when passing through a prism?
The basis of the big bang theory for the origins of the universe is a red shift which is noticeable in light from distant sources. Red shift means the wavelength of light is longer than it should be. The more distant objects have more red shift, which supposedly means they are moving away faster. This arrangement looks like an explosion to physicists, so they claim it all began with an explosion. Never mind the fact that such an explosion is physically impossible. Physics is not bound by the laws of physics. When the explosion occurred, most of the matter moved from the center of the explosion to its present location in almost no time, which is called inflation. It means the universe expanded without anything moving.
Galaxies spin faster than they should. This is the primary basis for assuming dark matter exists. The speed at which orbiting objects move depends upon how close they are to the mass which they orbit. What does close mean? That depends upon the amount of mass. For a one gram object, close would be a few millimeters. For the sun, close is a few million kilometers. The difference is the mass. It means physicists can measure the mass being orbited by how fast objects rotate around it. When they do that, they find that there needs to be a lot more mass in galaxies to get stars to orbit them as fast as they are. They refer to the missing mass as dark matter.
As prisms show, light is slowed by passing through matter. Why then would not the red shift be due to matter which light passes through? If dark matter is actual matter, then it explains the red shift, and the big bang theory is not needed. Physicists don't want to contradict the big bang theory, so they won't attribute the red shift to dark energy.
Here's what physicists end up with. They apply Newton's laws to the rotation of galaxies and claim they need to have four times as much mass based on the speed of rotation. Why don't they just use Einstein's brilliance instead of Newton's laws? It seems that physicists need Newton's laws to solve problems, while space-time takes care of everything else. What is everything else? It's about 90% of physics. Some say relativity is 90% of physics. That's 90% welfare system and 10% work—Einstein's gift to physicists.
There are several major problems with the standards of physics. One is that underlying basics are not developed or reliable enough for drawing the monumental conclusions, as demonstrated by the misdefinition of kinetic energy. Secondly, physics standards are so shoddy that contradictions are ignored rather than corrected, as shown by the photon theory and wave theory of light. Thirdly, fraud is promoted rather than corrected, as shown by the invalid origins of relativity and absurdities of inflation. In that mess, physicists are contriving errors on top of errors to such an extent that nothing they say has any meaning until it is verified by something outside physics.
Physics is a mixture of Newton's laws and contradictory concepts. Newton's laws create a reliable basis for engineering based on concrete and verifiable evidence, while the rest of physics is nothing but exploited contrivance with no validity as scientific knowledge.
Physicists are forever creating constants, such as Joule's constant, Plank's constant or the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. There are very few real constants in nature. Most of the physics constants are nothing but fudge factors. Fudge factors are good in engineering, as they simplify the process. But in science, they do not produce basic knowledge. All knowledge in science is based on previous knowledge. No rounding off of concepts can be allowed without corrupting everything which follows.
Joule's constant states the relationship between heat and motion (sometimes called the mechanical equivalent of heat). It is in err, because the definition of kinetic energy is in error.
Plank's constant is an absurdity which states the amount of energy in a "packet" of radiation called a photon. Neither radiation nor energy can exist in packets, because they do not have length, width and height. Physicists admit that the photon concept contradicts the wave properties of radiation, yet they base the subject of quantum mechanics on the photon concept. Living with such extreme contradictions is not proper science. Physicists pretend that they will someday resolve the contradictions. Such extreme contradictions are not resolvable. Energy and waves can never be particles.
The Stefan-Boltzmann constant states the amount of radiant energy given off by matter at a particular temperature. In actuality, not all matter is the same for this. But adjustments are made to the result to account for differences. The correction factor is called emissivity. One problem is that the amount of correcting that should be done is not always known. This is why such non-constants should not be called constants.
Another problem is that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant shows about twenty times too much radiation for normal temperature matter. This is because the curve for it has an exponent of four in one of the components, and this puts a sharp bend in the curve at normal temperatures. Powers of four are extremely unusual in nature—probably never existing beyond the geometry of shapes. One of the results is that the large amount of radiation at normal temperatures is used to rationalize global warming.
For example, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant indicates that in a dark basement, a concrete wall at 59°F (the global average temperature) would emit 390 watts per square meter of radiation. That's 49% as much radiation emitted from a dark, cold basement as falls on a black surface at the equator. It isn't happening. What physicists say is that emission equals absorption so there is no difference, and you don't notice the large amount of energy. One problem with that explanation is that biological materials would do a lot with that energy besides re-emitting it. Skin cells would be destroyed in the process. It isn't happening. Night vision equipment shows that there is very little infrared radiation given off by normal temperature matter.
The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is applied to the atmosphere by climatologists, even though there is no surface in the atmosphere, and a gas will emit much more readily than a solid. Climatologists say the earth is being cooled from a zone several kilometers up, because the temperature is -19°C, which will supposedly emit the 235 W/m² which is needed. How thick should the zone be? No explanation. What keeps radiation from leaving at other heights in the atmosphere? No explanation.
The most significant problem with physics is dissociated reality. Every point in physics is insulated from every other point. A universe cannot be unified with separateness. All points must have consistent relationships for unified reality. You might think that all of the points get connected someplace. Where? They are all in conflict with each other, as shown by quantum mechanics, where physicists admit that the particle form of light is in conflict with the wave form of light. The contradictions are never resolved.
Worse than the pieces not fitting together is that the methodology is not valid. There is only one methodology in physics: Write complex math for a point until it is accepted by all relevant physicists, and then call it a law of the universe.
This method of proceeding is a throw-back to the scholasticism of the twelfth century, where dialectic argument was used as a method of justification. It was the wood stove that started all of this. Actually, it wasn't quite a stove but a method of heating buildings by burning wood on the side of the building and running the flue gases through porcelain channels which strung through the rooms. Before that time, buildings could not be heated, because a fireplace had to send all of its heat out the chimney, because the heat was mixed with the noxious smoke. So cold air coming in through a window would cool the building, while the heat went out the chimney. Important persons would spend their time outdoors on horses, which was warmer than in buildings.
With twelfth century ceramics heating a building, intellectuals got together indoors to discuss subjects. Theologians needed something new to discuss, so they combined Greek logic with Christian theology and produced scholasticism. The result which prevailed through a dialectic process was called Christian truth. Physicists now do the same thing with mathematics.
Could a person write a mathematical equation for a horse jumping over a fence? There are too many things changing to encompass everything in one equation. The same is true of everything physicists apply their math to. Everything in the universe is influenced by complexities which do not fit into one math equation. Sometimes, the analysis can be broken into pieces, but this requires extreme simplicity. The motion of planets is an example. Nothing physicists do now days is simple enough to be broken into pieces. Engineering breaks into pieces, but it applies to human constructions which are made in pieces. Technology differs from nature in the ability to break it down into small pieces.
But physicists pretend that they can break every analysis down into isolated components, because they cannot apply mathematics to the subject until they do. They are driven to use nothing but math in physics, because they cannot add rationality to the abstract complexities through analysis. If they can't evaluate through rational analysis, they can't add valid math either.
There has not been an iota of correct physics produced since Newton's laws in 1687. With about 90% of physics being corrupted by the incorrect definition of energy, all of relativity being invalid and all of quantum mechanics being invalid, there is nothing left but Newton's laws and engineering. If someone did a correct measurement through physics, such as the roundness of the earth, would that not be an exception? It would not be an exception, because no physicists are going to leave out their trademark exploits developed through the rest of physics. It doesn't happen. If subatomic particles actually exist, as quarks etc., is that not correct physics? Again, even if the particles exist, no physicist is going to describe them without endless amounts of physics which has been developed with erroneous concepts embedded within it. A measurement without such corruptions would not be called physics.
1. Hydrogen Fusion. Tim Folger. Fusion Energy Quest Faces Boundaries of Budget, Science. July 26, 2013, National Geographic. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/07/130726-fusion-national-ignition-facility-budget/