A Counter-Argument to Relativity

 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.

The concept of relativity comes from the use of infinite reference frames to determine the velocity of light. A prior premise is the claim that light always has the same velocity as the receiving point. But since receiving points have infinite velocities, the velocity of light must have infinite velocities. Light could not have the definable energy that it is supposed to have if it had infinite velocities. 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. The later proofs are rationalizations, such as light bending around stars and galaxies. Light bends when it passes through matter, as lenses and prisms show.

Physicists claim that mathematics is not only evidence but proof. 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.

Relativity is now a huge subject. How could so much complexity not expose itself as wrong if it were in error? This view is what solidifies corruption everywhere in society, not just science. How could all those persons be wrong and so few of us (the critics) be right? Contrivance, corruption and fraud is the answer. In other words, the implication of relativity (or any other major complexity in science, such as global warming) being wrong is that there would have to be an underlying tendency to contrive and perpetrate fraud in society. This implication then supposedly proves the flawless perfection of science. I would say that there is a truism involved: Wherever there is power and the darkness of concealment, corruption will prevail over rationality. Rational persons need openness and accountability to prevail over corruption. Only the light of openness and accountability allows errors to be corrected. Without it, errors keep compounding infinitely, as occurred with relativity. With global warming, there is a slight amount of openness, which is gradually turning the subject around. With relativity, there is so much darkness that the corruption continuously increases.

Physicists are a bunch of contrivers. Their use of constants is an example. Physics cannot be reduced to constants due to the complexity. Using constants is a form of reductionism. Such reductionism is a good thing in engineering, where the goal is to get a specified result in the most expedient way possible. But in science, the purpose is totally different. Science continually evolves building upon previous knowledge. Any imprecision becomes an increasing error, as later work builds upon it. Scientists are supposed to be continually refining their results to keep increased knowledge on track. The use of constants block the process of improvement, because they eliminate the complexity.

The earliest example is Joule's constant, which was created in 1845. It states the relationship between kinetic energy and heat. Joule did not have the slightest ability to make such a measurement. Yet the modern measurement hardly improves upon it. Joule said it is 4.2 Newton meters per calorie; the modern number is 4.1868 N-m/calorie. Since the definition of kinetic energy is incorrect, there is no such constant. So how can it be measured? It can't. It is totally contrived.

The most recent example is a constant for determining how much heat is produced by carbon dioxide in the air. James Hansen published a three component equation in 1988 for calculating the result. I call it a fudge factor. It is functionally the same thing as a constant. It says the heat produced is 5.35 times the natural log of 2 for doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The 5.35 keeps changing with rationalizations in response to criticisms. Not the least fraud of the fudge factor/constant is that CO2 saturates at a very low level, which means it already absorbed almost all radiation available at the narrow band of frequencies which it absorbs. A closely related problem is that there is no valid mechanism for so-called greenhouse gases heating the atmosphere, because radiation which goes around them cools the planet allowing equilibrium of temperatures to occur.

Such contriving is the essence of physics due to the darkness of concealment in the complex mathematics. Physicists acquired a different concept of what science is supposed to be than biologists acquired. Physicists assume that the gnostic insights of brilliant thinkers is the reference for truth, and promoting it through hook or crook is a valuable addition to the knowledge of lesser persons. In fact, this mind-frame goes with all corruption; it just isn't so unquestionable outside physics. Creationists do the same thing in assuming God hath spoken in claiming dinosaurs drowned in a flood 10 thousand years ago.

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.

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.

One of the most important underlying points is that physicists do not have the contradictions resolved. There is no resolving them. The contradictions are infinite. Instead, physicists pretend that a purifying math produces a magical result without contradictions being explained. Again, the dispute reduces down to an overwhelming force prevailing as the test of truth versus rationality. If physicists are wrong about their view of science, then trillions of dollars have been spent on waste, fraud and abuse being called science.

(August, 2013)

Back