draw bridge  
Science Home
  fan belt  
             

 

Relativity has no Relationship to Science.

It is Nothing but a Power Mongering Tool.

 

Lorentz

 

The starting point of relativity is not valid. The starting point is that the velocity of light is supposedly determine by the receiving point. Effect can never precede cause.

This then shifts to the next invalid point—the use of multiple reference frames to account for the multiple velocities of the receiving points. There is no validity to multiple reference frames. The gimmick is no different than multiple velocities, which it attempts to remove as a problem. A universe cannot be a universe with more than one reference frame.

A prior premise is the claim that light always has the same velocity as the receiving point. But receiving points have infinite velocities, while light can only have one velocity. Some fake rationalizing was needed to resolve this contradiction.

Light could not have the definable energy that it is supposed to have if it had more than one velocity. So the fix is to claim that the velocity is always the same, but the reference frame is infinitely variable. The receiving point is the reference frame.

It's not valid to use more than one reference frame in a universe, because all parts of a universe are supposed to have consistent relationships. In creating infinite reference frames, the emitting points all have infinite velocities, and everything else in the universe has infinite velocities, and those velocities vary with all receiving points for light, which are infinite. Messing up the whole universe to fix the receiving point of light is not science.

Einstein made no measurements. Physicists say they prove him to be correct every day through measurements. That's not what science is. Science is a method. Guessing and being proven right later is not the scientific method. How do scientists test and measure Einstein's guessing? It's a mockery of scientific methodology.

On top of that, the later proofs of Einstein's guessing are erroneous rationalizations, such as light bending around stars and galaxies. Light bends when it passes through matter, as lenses and prisms show, which has nothing to do with relativity.

Physicists claim that mathematics is not only evidence but proof. Supposedly, anything they can write a mathematical equation for is a law of the universe. I showed that claim to be wrong by mathematically proving that the definition of kinetic energy is in error. The equations balance with both the correct and erroneous definition of energy, but only the correct form of kinetic energy transforms consistently into other forms of energy. Therefore, balancing equations is not proof of correctness in physics.

equation

One of the contrivances of relativity says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. It to has no relationship to anything else in relativity or science. It's nothing but a mathematical game, where you put a negative number under a square root sign and say there is no such thing as the square root of a negative. The sort-of equation is the square root of one minus any velocity divided by the velocity of light. If any test velocity is greater than the velocity of light, a negative shows up under the square root, which is an impossibility. The equation is nothing but a contrivance.

In relativity, space-time replaces gravity. What does space-time have to do with infinite reference frames for the velocity of light? Absolutely nothing. What does it have to do with E=mc²? Absolutely nothing. What does it have to do with there being no square root of a negative? Absolutely nothing. All concepts of relativity are totally independent of each other.

Space-time is defined as the three dimensions of space put on a graph and a fourth dimension for time being added. A graph supposedly creates a relationship between space and time. But there is no way to get all four things onto a graph. If there is a second of time for one centimeter of length, how many seconds are there for one centimeter of width? It could be anything. So there are no relationships. If the time is the same for all spatial dimensions, then the graph is only two dimensional—so many seconds per meter.

Where did E=mc² come from? No place but Einstein's head. Einstein made a rough parallel to the kinetic energy equation, which says KE=½mv². I show simple and unquestionable mathematical proof that the kinetic energy equation is in error. It should be KE=mv. Velocity should not have been squared. It means Einstein paralleled a false equation. There is no science to paralleling a false equation.

Einstein's erroneous equation, E=mc², shows way too much energy, since not squaring the velocity of light (c) would produce a much smaller number. This is why fusion experiments are not showing as much energy as expected. See this article at National Geographic.

Science Home Page
Science Errors
Sociology of Corruption
Home Page
Science Errors
Sociology of Corruption