The Big Bang Theory is the biggest lie in the western world

Why time does not get affected by relativity:

The following posts are not from me but from someone who has studied relativity much more thoroughly than I could ever find time for it.

Twin flight experiment....
s in Science
Twin Flight Experiment
Time dilation has apparently been ‘proved’ experimentally by running two flights with equal velocity in opposite directions, one east wards and another west wards (Hafele-Keating experiment).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

It was apparently noted that, compared to the readings of the atomic clock at the US Naval Observatory, the atomic clock in the east bound flight recorded less time (59 nanoseconds less) and that in the west bound flight recorded more time (273 nanoseconds more). This was apparently because, from the reference frame of an observer at the Earth’s centre (God only knows why we have to bring this fellow into the scene!), the clock in the east bound flight was moving at the highest velocity (=earth’s rotational velocity+ flight velocity), the clock in the west bound flight was moving at the lowest velocity (earths rotational velocity – flight velocity) while the clock at the observatory was moving at the same velocity as the earth’s rotational velocity. We know that according to special relativity, the faster a clock moves, the slower the clock ticks. So the time readings from the three sets of clocks appeared to support the predictions of special relativity.

(We have mentioned at the beginning that both flights ran at equal velocity but in the opposite directions. So one may be wondering why the velocity of the east bound flight is considered more than the west bound flight while predicting the time dilation. The reason is that the flight velocities are taken from the reference frame of the centre of earth observer. Because Earth rotates in the east ward direction, this rotational velocity gets added to the east bound flight making its relative velocity more than the west bound flight which runs opposite to the direction of the earth’s spin. Little tricky to understand but not stupid unlike the relativity theory itself!)

Why Twin Flight Experiment doesn’t prove Relativity
“Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip—” (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html)

Even if we believe in the clock readings ‘observed’ by the experimenters, that would still not prove special relativity despite the swearing by the physicists. Imagine that the stationary clock at the observatory ticked 100sec while the clock in the east bound flight ticked 90sec and the clock in the west bound flight ticked 110sec (just to keep the numbers simple). Though these readings might appear to be consistent with the predictions of special relativity from the perspective of the centre of earth observer, the same is not the case from the perspective other observers. For example from the perspective of the observer on the earth, both flights were moving at equal velocity and hence both must have experienced time dilation by the same factor and should have read the same time. But this was not the case.

And, from the perspective of an observer in the east bound flight, it was actually the west bound flight which was travelling at a very high velocity. So according to him, the west bound flight should have experienced the maximum time dilation and ticked the slowest if SR were to be true. Also the observatory clock should have experienced some amount of time dilation and hence ticked slower than his ‘stationary’ clock. Similarly the clock readings would go against the predictions of SR when viewed from the perspective of the west bound flight.

What it implies? The readings of the clocks (believing that the data was not ‘massaged’ by the ‘phychicists’ having got mesmerised by the stupid religion!) appear to obey the formula of SR only when looked from the reference frame of the centre of earth observer. (Same is the case with GPS clocks)

The only conclusion a sane mind can draw from the twin flight experiment is that the functioning of atomic clocks get affected by motion and gravity. It also suggest that motion is not relative, in other words there seems to be an absolute reference frame. But why the atomic clocks get affected as ‘exactly’ predicted by the mathematics of SR? Surely it is not because of time dilation effect. If it was Time that dilates, then all processes should get slowed down by the same factor in a given scenario. And that should include the physical process underlying the pendulum clock also. Unfortunately for the relativists, this is not the case.

But why the atomic clocks got affected as ‘exactly’ predicted by the mathematics of GR and SR? Well, they actually didn’t, I'll explain in the next post:


‘Twin flight experiment disproves the delusion of ‘Time dilation’ and constant SOL

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We can straight away discard the idea of constant speed of light using the same twin flight experiment. Imagine that a beam of light with velocity ‘C’ is shone towards the west. According to the law of constant speed of light, all the observers (the flights and the earth) must agree upon the speed of light as C. For the west bound flight in the above illustration to measure the light beam’s velocity as ‘C’, it will have to experience time dilation. Similarly for the east bound flight to measure the same light beam’s velocity as ‘C’ it will have to experience time contraction. But this is not what the clock readings from the twin flight experiment suggested.

Well, it is not even possible to measure the difference, according to a specialist in atomic clocks: Louis Essen:

“One aspect of this subject which you have not dealt with is the accuracy and reliability of the experiments claimed to support the theory. The effects are on the border line of what can be measured. The authors tend to get the result required by the manipulation and selection of results. This was so with Eddington’s eclipse experiment, and also in the more resent results of Hafele and Keating with atomic clocks. This result was published in Nature, so I submitted a criticism to them. In spite of the fact that I had more experience with atomic clocks than anyone else, my criticism was rejected. It was later
published in the Creation Research Quarterly, vol. 14, 1977, p. 46 ff”

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/rickeressen.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I must confess that I haven’t so far explained why the atomic clocks behaved as per the weird formula of relativity. The links given by Galacar does give some reasons why the readings ‘exactly’ matched the predictions.
Even if we believe that there wasn’t any selection bias or any kind of subconscious manipulation of the data by the experimenters, as I have explained above, the clock readings wouldn’t actually obey the stupid formulae of the relativity religion either from the perspective of the earth bound observer or from the perspective of the on flight observers.
So, in their desperate attempt to ‘fit’ in their calculations, relativists have introduced ‘proper time’ and the ‘centre of earth observer’. Actually there isn’t anything like ‘proper time’ in the original version or the ‘old testament’ of relativity religion!

But even from the perspective of ‘centre of Earth’, I don’t think that the atomic clocks that were carried on the flights ticked exactly as per the stupid formulas of relativity. If they really did, there wouldn’t have been any need to rely upon the ‘magical’ statistics to support their religious predictions. Let me explain that.

Apparently, in the twin flight experiment, the experimenters carried four atomic clocks on each flight. As all the clocks were synchronised before the take off, and because the clocks in each flight were subjected to same velocity and gravity and acceleration, we would expect that all the four clocks on each flight would show exactly the same reading (as dictated by the relativity demon) even after going around the earth several times.

But that didn’t happen. For example, if we look at the data from the twin flight experiment, we can see that the east bound clocks differed from the ground clock by 59ns plus minus 10ns (where 10 is the standard deviation). In other words if one east bound clock differed by 69ns, another east bound clock differed by 49ns with the ground clock. So there was a difference of at least 20ns between the clocks on the east bound flight (In fact that would be much more than 20ns if we look at the actual readings of the clocks. See the relationship between range and standard deviation http://statistics.about.com/od/Descriptive-Statistics/a/Range-Rule-For-Standard-Deviation.htm).

That is each of the four clocks had ticked differently despite being synchronised at the beginning and travelling at the same velocity/ acceleration/ gravity. How to explain this difference? Shall we blame it was the Time which ran differently for each clock on the east bound flight and hence the incongruence? But that would be stupid even as per the standards of the stupid religion of relativity.

The fact that all the clocks in the east bound flight didn’t show the same reading just proves that even atomic clocks are prone to errors like any other clocks. Errors obviously occur from some unknown internal or external influences. It would be stupid to accept standard errors (however small it may be) in the analysis here. Accepting standard errors mean accepting the influence of some hidden/unknown variables on the functioning of the atomic clocks. When unknown influences could affect the functioning of atomic clocks, then why not motion and gravity affect them in a similar way? So how can we swear upon those ‘errors’ in the atomic clocks’ readings caused by differences in motion and gravity as proof of time dilation?

So we can only make one of the two following conclusions out of the twin flight experiment:
1) Either we have to accept that even atomic clocks get affected by various factors (known and unknown) like other clocks and hence the observed differences in the clock readings (that makes time dilation a myth)

2) Or if we have to interpret the different readings of the atomic clocks as proof of Time dilation, then we must accept that relativity theory utterly failed to predict/ explain the Time dilation experienced by each atomic clock (despite all the fudging and ‘inventing’ mythical concepts like ‘proper time’).

Coming to our original question that “why the atomic clocks get affected as ‘exactly’ predicted by the mathematics of GR and SR?”, the clocks didn’t actually get affected as exactly predicted by relativity.

Rather the observed variations in the behaviour/ticking of the atomic clocks can be better explained by the spinning Ether model that I have proposed to explain the gravity. Actually, atomic clocks don’t get slowed with faster motion and stronger gravity unlike what the deluded physicists imagine. And they don’t behave differently from the pendulum clocks.
The tension in a string varies depending upon whether the string is at rest or whether it is moving with respect to the surrounding the medium. And so is its frequency of oscillation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it really is all lies:

Abstract. The original test results were not published by Hafele & Keating, in their famous 1972 paper; they published figures that were radically different from the actual test results which are here published for the first time. An analysis of the real data shows that no credence can be given to the conclusions of Hafele & Keating.”

http://www.anti-relativity.com/hafelekeatingdebunk.htm



Einstein’s special relativity (SR) was built upon the assumption that speed of light ‘c’ is constant to all observers irrespective of their relative motion.

Despite no logical or experimental basis, Einstein had convinced the scientific crowd that this constancy of speed of light (SOL) is a law of nature and not just his assumption. I will explain later where and how Einstein had gone wrong and arrived at such a weird conclusion and how the mesmerised scientific crowd carried on with the same.

To get a gist of how weird is this assumption of ‘constant SOL’ – let’s take an example of a train moving at 100kmph towards east.

1. A stationary observer standing on the platform measures the train’s velocity as 100kmph.
2. An observer moving in the same direction as the train (i.e. east) at 50kmph will measure the train’s velocity as only 50kmph with respect to him.
3. An observer moving at 50kmph towards west (in the opposite direction) will measure the velocity of train as 150kmph.
4. An observer inside the train will measure the train’s velocity as zero i.e. with respect to him, the train is at rest.

This is what common sense tells us- different observers measure different velocities for the same moving body (whether it is a train or a ball) depending upon the state of motion of the observer.

But apparently, that is not the case with light photons. Relativity preaches that light always travels at the same speed ‘c’ irrespective of the state of motion of the observer. Imagine that we throw a beam of light towards the Moon. Imagine that the light beam travels at speed ‘c’ with respect to us standing on the Earth. Apparently the light beam travels at the same speed ‘c’ even with respect to an observer in a spaceship moving towards the Moon at 100,000m/sec. Also the light photons will apparently be seen to be travelling at the same speed ‘c’ by someone travelling at 100,000m/sec in the opposite direction i.e. from the Moon towards the Earth.

But why did Einstein come out with a such weird proposition? What made the scientific minds fall prey to his wild theory? Read the following:

Special relativity-how it all began:
Why did Einstein propose something that is totally counterintuitive?

How did he convince the scientific crowd that his weird, complex mathematical model is better than commonsense?

No doubt that Einstein was a great scientist and mathematician but he must have been a great magician as well. Otherwise it is difficult to believe how the scientific crowd have adorned such a weird ridiculous theory for so long, deliberately ignoring their own consciousness and logic.

For people not affected by this scientific pseudo mania, it is not difficult to realise where and how things went wrong.

When Maxwell’s’ equations predicted that light travels at 3×108m/sec, scientists wondered what was the reference point/frame to which the above speed refers.

As light was thought to travel via Ether medium, it was proposed that the predicted SOL was with reference to this Ether medium (which was thought to represent the state of absolute rest).

But as Michelson and Morley’s experiment ‘disproved’ the existence of the long believed Ether medium, some scientists thought that the SOL predicted by Maxwell’s equations must be with reference to the source (Emitter theory). Apparently this was also disproved by an experiment (neutral pion decay experiment)

As both the Ether theory and the Emitter theory were ‘disproved’, scientific masses got attracted to the special theory of relativity (SR), which said that the calculated speed of light (SOL) must be with reference to the observer.

If so, then any observer in any inertial reference frame would measure the same speed of light because SOL (3×108m/sec) is a derived value from Maxwell’s equations and hence must be the same in any reference frame.

And Einstein had shown the supporting maths which mesmerised the scientific masses. (Of course a mathematical model can be woven around any ridiculous idea!)

As SR proposed that SOL must be the same to any observer, this has lead to further counterintuitive notions like time dilation and length contraction. Relativists claim that all these weird notions were proven to be correct by many experiments like muon decay and twin flight experiments etc.

Though the chronology was not exactly the same, the above description gives the gist of how the weird theory of relativity came in and got accepted amongst the most intelligent section of the population.



Time dilation/ Space contraction

To support the above ‘weird behavior’ of light, another weird thing was theorized (one had to, obviously!) i.e time dilatation. To keep the speed of light constant, Einstein made the time as relative.

Apparently different observers/clocks measure different times for the same ‘duration’ in the space, depending on their relative motion. Clocks apparently run slower or in other words time dilates as one moves faster, and hence the speed of light remains constant.

Also time apparently runs slower or time dilates near massive objects.

Another absurdity which came out of the general relativity is that there is no such thing as gravitational force or attraction. Heavy objects like stars apparently ‘curve’ or warp the space-time around them and this warping of space-time is responsible for the perceived gravitational effects.

Apparently planets do not go around the sun or the apples do not fall to the ground, instead all these travel in straight lines in the curved space-time. This curved space time gives us the illusion of planets going around the sun and apples falling to the earth.

(I doubt if we ‘really’ go to the office or to the market, it is probably the space-time that is curved around us which gives us the illusion that we move or do anything!)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The famous equation of E=mc2 and the principle of mass-energy equivalence can’t be correct because

1) They are born out of a weird theory which is built upon a weird assumption

2) Mass is a scalar quantity while energy is a vector quantity (of course most physicists aren’t intelligent enough to grasp this point). When a force acts upon a body, the body moves in the direction of the force. That is to say that work (and energy) has the same direction as that of the force.

3) From what the mass-energy equivalence principle preaches, I would imagine that when the mass of a substance disappears, it releases an equivalent amount of energy as per the weird formula of E=mc2. But energy in what form? As far as we know the most fundamental form of energy is electromagnetic radiation, in other words light photons. So let us presume that 1gm mass of a substance ‘vanishes’ to release ‘X’ joules of energy in the form of photons. But if we manage to add the mass of all the individual photons that are released, that would probably add up to the original mass of the substance which released them. Of course relativists have another superstitious belief to their rescue- they believe that photons are massless. But how can a particle have no mass but still possess momentum. Obviously only relativity maniacs can accept such weird notions. There are some sane physicists who believe that photons do possess some mass albeit very small. So it is sensible to believe that 1gm mass of the above substance just got transformed into 1gm mass of photons. So the mass as such is still there and hasn’t disappeared from the world. But from where does the energy come? We can have a separate discussion on this issue.

4) Energy of a body is relative while its mass is not. The mass of an object is measured by its inertia which has nothing to do with the motion of the observer – this is what people with commonsense would think. But again relativists have a delusional belief that an object’s mass increases with its velocity relative to the observer. They believe that a fast moving object will have more mass (relativistic mass) than when the same is at rest (rest mass). If the mass of a body were to vary with its velocity, it would imply that its value would vary in different directions because velocity is a vector quantity whose value varies depending upon in which direction we measure it. It would imply that mass is a vector quantity which is obviously ridiculous. And if mass were to be a vector quantity, then what is the direction of the rest mass of an object? Like this we can go on talking about the weird religion of relativity forever. And the more we dig into the delusional theory of relativity, the more stupid it becomes. And that is the reason why one can never win arguing against relativists – as the argument proceeds, they turn more and more stupid.

In my view, mass and energy are opposite entities and are not interconvertable. While mass gives inertia to a body and opposes motion, it is energy which makes the body overcome that inertia and sets that body into motion. Energy always manifests itself in the form a moving body. And without mass and without motion there can be no energy. Let me remind you here that potential energy is not a manifest energy. It just indicates the potential of a body to acquire the said quantity of energy when it is set free or not restrained.

Finally let me suggest you that you don’t blindly believe in everything that is portrayed as science or is preached by the great scientists, otherwise you would become a religious follower and not a real scientific person.

The weakness with SR is that SR is just a calculation – it is not an explanation, for SR does not explain what mass is, nor what light is. So statements such as E=mc2 don’t reveal much.

“SR is based on two postulates. The first is nothing more than newtonian relativity, i.e.,
(1) We can’t determine absolute motion of inertial reference frames.
(2) The second is that the speed of light is constant.”
My issue with (1) is that SR takes our inability to determine a reference for absolute motion as proof that motion has no absolute reference. That does not necessarily follow.
My issue with (2) is that SR takes our inability to measure any change in our relative speed to that of light, as proof that when we change our motion, that our motion relative to that of light has not changed. Again, that does not necessarily follow.

Mere consistency of results with a mathematical model is not same as proof of that model.
About the alternative explanations, if you abandon the assumption that speed of light is constant (which you yourself have rightly confessed that it is an assumption), you will immediately realise the existence of alternative explanations for the observations on cosmic ray muons. The cosmic ray muons could probably be living longer than their laboratory counterparts or they could be travelling faster than what we thought of them. In case you are under any misconception, an explanation need not be a complex theory that distorts our reality, it could also be very simple. And things at the most basic level don’t require any explanation at all. For example
2 is greater than 1
1+1=2
Only relativists demand for explanations to such fundamental statements (of course they do that only when their superstition is under threat)
There is no set logic for relativity religion, so one can never get their logic. Otherwise I would have loved to learn logic from them. The only thing that remains unchanging for them is speed of light. Everything else changes, warps, dilates, contracts etc as and when needed to keep that divine constant for them.

 

Cosmic ray muons or high energy muons are produced at about 16000 meters above the ground as cosmic radiation from outer space collides with the atoms of the Earth’s atmosphere. Apparently scientists have observed that significant numbers of these cosmic ray muons (which are produced in the upper crust of the Earth’s atmosphere) survive to reach to the ground level. In other words a significant proportion of cosmic muons are able to travel a distance of 16000 meters in their life span.

But scientists from their experiments on laboratory muons, swear that muons live for only about 2 microseconds and travel at a speed of 0.9c. So according to them, a muon can only travel about 600 meters in its life time. Then how could the cosmic ray muons, produced in the upper crust of the earth’s atmosphere, are able to travel a distance of 16000 meters and reach the ground?

The only possible explanation for this scenario according to the weird relativists is time dilation and length contraction.

But only science maniacs and relativity extremists will swear upon the above ‘facts’ on muon’s life span and speed and propose these highly counterintuitive notions like time dilation. Scientists have only noted the life span and speed of low energy muons produced in particle accelerators. How can the same be considered true for the high energy cosmic ray muons?

In fact, in the light of the above new findings why can’t we propose that muons can travel faster or live longer than what we knew of them?

Imagine that we have seen a boy traveling a distance of 100 meters in 10 seconds. We calculate his speed as 10 meters/sec. Now if we see his twin brother traveling 200 meters in 10 seconds, we wouldn’t say that the second boy has experienced time dilation or space contraction. Rather we would simply say that the second boy has run faster than the first boy. Or else we have to suspect that our measurement of time was not correct in one or the both scenarios. And same must be the case with the muons.

Relativists propose time dilation as if our knowledge about the life span and the speed of all muons is perfect and absolute. Under certain conditions (gravity, energy state, environment etc) why not a muon travel faster or live longer before it decays into the smaller particles. We know that electrons can travel at different velocities. Then why do scientists insist that all muons travel at the same speed, and introduce absurd notions like time dilation/ space contraction when they see cosmic muons traveling a much longer distance than the laboratory muons in their lifetime?

Muon’s time dilation is what one would propose in the given scenario if the theory of relativity was correct. Relativists resort to circular logic here i.e. they believe that relativity is true, so they imagine time dilation as really happening for the cosmic muons and then they claim their imagination of time dilation as proof of relativity. Thus relativity stands proven for them. Like this, relativity believers keep going in circles in every scenario that they claim as proof of relativity.

Why not the muons produced in the laboratory experience the same time dilation and length contraction if their speed was same as that of the cosmic ray muons? And if they did, why haven’t we seen the laboratory muons travel the same 16000 meters as their cosmic counter parts? And if they travelled 16000 meters distance in their life span of 2 microseconds, what would be their speed?

So it is just rubbish all the way down, not even tortoises! The tortoise model of the universe is much better than relativity.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Particles travelling in Storage Ring Accelerators
Apparently when muons were made to travel at a very high speed (0.99c) in a large diameter ring accelerator at Brookhaven, they apparently experienced time dilation as exactly predicted by special relativity. And recently, scientists have apparently observed the same thing happening with lithium ions travelling in storage ring accelerators. http://www.nature.com/news/special-relativity-aces-time-trial-1.15970

But muons travelling in circular orbits are actually in accelerated motion and not in uniform motion. We know that according to the religion of relativity, SR applies to particles in uniform motion and GR for particles in accelerated motion. (In fact, some physics prophets use circular motion to ‘illustrate’ the effects of GR: The Elegant Universe by Brain Greene). So if the stupid theory of relativity were to be correct, the particles travelling in ring accelerators must have experienced time dilation as predicted by the general relativity but not special relativity.

 

There’s a website called alternativephysics.org where the author gives an alternative explanation for the muon time dilation issue. He basically argues that its possible that the muons traveling down to earth are actually traveling much faster than the speed of light (SOL). He was kind enough to email me an explanation.
He also points out that the reason that experiments never seem to calculate particles moving faster than SOL is because they use the relativity equations in their calculations. Such equations start with the assumption that SOL is the maximum possible speed, and therefore its impossible to get numbers higher than SOL using those equations. Perhaps scientists have actually observed higher than SOL particles several times, but they just didn’t know it…

The observations on cosmic ray muons can be explained either by assuming that they live longer than what we know of them or by assuming that they travel faster than the ‘SOL’.
Yes, the formulae of relativity are built upon the stupid assumption that light always travels at speed ‘c’ relative to every observer (including the ‘muon observer’ irrespective of its velocity). So the question of muons travelling faster than light doesn’t make sense to the insane relativists. Their weird maths doesn’t simply allow that. But of course, the muons are given the option of experiencing time dilation and space contraction as a consolation! And these magical phenomena allow the muons travel longer distance than light in the ‘same time’. That may make you wonder what the definition of velocity is. The stupidity of relativity is so straightforward but at the same time so difficult to convey, simply because it is so vast.

Actually I don’t believe that ‘c’ represents the velocity of photons. Basically, whether it is photons or muons or other particles, I don’t buy the idea that particles travel at specific/fixed velocities. In our everyday world, we know that the rate of motion of a particle or body depends upon the sum total of all the forces acting upon it. Depending upon its mass, the energy imparted to it and the environment (Ether/ air/ water etc), the same particle or body may travel slower or faster.
And the same thing applies to photons and muons. A muon may travel faster than ‘c’. A photon may also travel faster than ‘c’. But if everything else remains the same, it is unlikely that a muon can travel faster than a photon for the simple reason that it is more massive than the photon. (Of course I don’t believe in the scientific superstition that photons are massless particles).

Also I don’t believe that waves propagate at specific velocities. If you ever have closely observed the water waves or tides in a sea, you would have noticed that all of them don’t travel with the same velocity. The higher the amplitude i.e. height of the tide, the faster it will travel. So the velocity of a wave depends upon its amplitude. I know this is vastly different from what we have recited since our school days and what our great physicists have taught us for centuries. I am sure you will appreciate that once I present my work on wave mechanics. And because the amplitude of a tide decreases as it propagates or gets scattered, its velocity also decreases.

In the photon Ether model of our universe, I said that our entire universe is permeated by a sea of photons, and there isn’t anything called absolute vacuum. Any object moving though the space must move through this sea of photons and overcome the resistance offered by the Ether medium- so a moving body/ particle is ought to slow down with time in the absence of further energy input. Can you guess the consequence of this? Another great law that we have recited for centuries i.e. the law of inertia of motion falls apart.

Scientists do not claim “muons live for only about 2 microseconds and travel at a speed of 0.9c”.

Muons have a half-life of 1.5 microseconds. So out of every million muons, after 1.5 µs only half a million would remain, and after 150 µs, there might still be one muon.

You will probably say that without maths and experiments your statements don’t prove anything.

This is the usual argument posed by the educated half brains of the of relativity religion. The following should satisfy those religious half brains who don’t bother about logic but are obsessed about maths and experiments.

Maths: 2muons + 3muons = 5muons
Experiment: I have observed kites flying in the sky today. More over there are no dinosaurs.
The above maths and experimental observations prove that relativity and time dilation are wrong.

Are you satisfied now?

The moral: If one resorts to stupid reasoning, any observation/ maths can be claimed as proof of any weird theory. That is the case with your stupid religion. What matters is not maths or experiments but how sensible one is while using the maths and how logical one is while interpreting the experimental data.

Math? Math is no substitute for thinking! FAR from it!

Here is what the genius Tesla had to say about that!

Read and think!

“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

Nikola Tesla”

Just don’t follow uncritically tne ‘crowd’ !

A very good example of mis-using math is the “Work Function”::

W=F x d W=amount of Work F is Force and d=distance.

Of course this can be used and is used to calculate the amount of Work done.

No problem here.

But over the years it, subtle, changed to a Work Detector!

What is wrong with that? Well, suppose there is an object too heavy to move.

One man could give enormous amout of work and energy so the man is

exhausted after a feww hours. but the object hasn’t moved qn inch!

According to the Work Function’ the amount of work would be “0”:!

Of course that would be absurd and here we see the danger using math without

any logical thinking or relations to the ‘real world’.

Of course I have asked some would be scientists and guess what?

They all agreed there was no work done!

If that doesn’t show the stupidiy of academic science, I don’t know what does.

 

The above discussion has profound implications in cosmology. It appears that math-savvy cosmologists have hijacked the concept of infinite empty space and have endowed space with fictitious properties including the ability to expand like a balloon being inflated. Hence the currently popular theory of inflation where the universe possibly expands forever. Relativity allows us to explain illusions of observation but does not represent reality per se. Cosmologists have not reached consensus on the nature of the past, present, and future of the universe. The ultimate fate of the universe remains under investigation and I see relativity as probably hampering that investigation if we continue to treat illusions of observation as reality.

Time dilation and length contraction appear to be nothing more than an attempt to ensure that the math of relativity agrees with the theory itself and that the results of certain experiments are consistent with theory.

I’m not trying to revisit the “tired light” hypothesis of Fritz Zwicky way back in 1929. While Zwicky postulated that ancient photons have lost energy due to external influences such as collisions with molecules in space, or by moving thru gravitational fields during their long journey thru space, I suspect that an internal mechanism of photons is responsible for energy loss and our observation of redshift here on earth.

Suppose there is minute hysteresis between the magnetic and electrical components of electromechanical radiation including light. Such hysteresis would result in a slow loss of photon energy in cumulative amounts that increase with distance traveled from distant stars.. Over billions of years, the cumulative redshift due to such hysteresis loss could be greater than any redshift from Doppler effects.

If we are actually in the process of a big crunch and not in a period of cosmic expansion, we should observe a blueshift instead of a redshift. If redshift due to the above-mentioned hysteresis loss exceeds what is actually a blueshift Doppler effect, then there will be a net redshift even though we are actually approaching distant stars in our universe.

By the way, Zwycky was correct that photons lose energy when they collide with atoms in space, at least to the extent that one photon in several million loses energy when by colliding with a hydrogen atom. Hydrogen atoms are sparse in space but, when photons travel distances measured in billions of light-years, most of them are bound to collide with a hydrogen atom just the right way at some point during their long journey.

It is not just relativity, we have to rewrite almost the entire physics from the basics- including wave motion, Newton’s laws, classical mechanics. And then we will realise why the idea of tired light isn’t weird. No wave or particle can continue to travel with the same velocity for ever.

And contrary to what we have all religiously recited for ages, the velocity of a wave depends upon its amplitude. And the amplitude of any wave decreases as it propagates in space.

 

Revamping wave mechanics:
Modern physicists believe that electrons, photons etc behave like both waves as well as particles. Apparently how these particles behave at any time depends upon how we look at them. For example we can see photons behaving like particles by ‘observing’ how they collide with and eject electrons from the atoms of a metal plate (photoelectric effect). And we can see the same behaving like waves by observing the patterns of interference produced by them in the double slit experiment. So physicists preach that, depending upon how we observe things, the same will appear as a particle at one time and as a wave at other times!

Apparently, this duality of behaviour applies not only to elementary particles but also to larger ‘particles’ including atoms, molecules, baseballs and even to planets and stars.

But we will realise soon that ‘wave-particle duality’ is actually a myth that is built upon our misunderstanding of wave mechanics. At the most fundamental level, what underlies wave motion is nothing but to and fro motion of particles. And whether it is a particle that moves or a wave that advances, what ultimately happens from the perspective of a receiver or observer is energy transfer. The only difference between the two modes of energy transfer is that – in the farmer, the energy gets carried by just one particle from the source to the receiver but in the latter a ‘series’ of particles do the job. The various phenomena of wave motion (e.g. interference) can be explained purely by particle model.

A wave in its simplest version
Imagine a player hitting a golf ball that is at rest on the ground. As the golf ball receives energy from the golfer, it goes into motion. Now how this energy gets transmitted from the ball to a distant receiver depends upon the environment (Fig). For example, if there is ‘nothing’ between the ball and the receiver, the ball travels all the way to the receiver and transmits its energy in the ‘particle mode’. But if there are a series of balls in between, the original ball doesn’t travel all the way to the receiver to transmit its energy. Instead energy transmission to the receiver occurs via a series of collisions between the intervening balls i.e. in the ‘wave mode’. From the receiver’s perspective, both scenarios are identical – he receives the same impact at the same time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And same thing can be said using particles or bullets instead of balls. If nothing exists between the particle that is being hit and the observer, the particle moves all the way to the receiver to impart its energy. If there is a queue of particles in between, the same energy gets transmitted in the wave manner.

But the above depiction represents wave motion at its simplest level. At this most fundamental level of wave motion, the classical wave phenomena like interference, diffraction etc do not get manifest.

Now imagine that there is a sea of similar particles (not just a queue) in the same environment (see Fig). Obviously the energy of the original particle spreads (or gets scattered) throughout the medium and hence what the observer receives now is only a fraction of the original energy released by the source.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In this scenario, we can appreciate all the phenomena of wave motion and we can also explain the results of double slit experiment i.e. how the energy of one particle travels through two separate slits in a screen and produces interference on the other side of the screen.

‘Micro-physiology’ of wave motion
Any substance to act as a medium or to transfer energy in wave mode, it must be deformable as well as elastic. Deformability is the ability of individual particles in a medium to get displaced when external force is applied. This displacement of particles results in what may be called as ‘temporary local deformation’ in the medium – ‘local’ because only those few particles which receive the energy get displaced in the medium while the ‘medium as a whole’ remains at rest. ‘Temporary’ because elasticity of the medium soon restores these particles to their original place and corrects the local deformation. But before being restored, these particles collide and transfer their energy to the neighbouring particles. This results in displacement of the adjacent particles and the process goes on. What an outside observer notices is an ‘advancing local deformation’ in the medium i.e. a wave.

It is not difficult to understand why particles in a medium get displaced when hit by some external force. But what force drives the particles back? In other words what is that force that is responsible for the so called elasticity? And where does it come from? We will understand more about this force as we go on but for now let’s simply call this as ‘restoring force’. Depending upon its deformability and elasticity, each medium is suitable for transferring certain types of waves. But we will not go into those details.

Now imagine that we ‘hit’ a water molecule deep inside a pond of still water. Keeping in mind our above discussion on deformability and elasticity of media, let’s try describing the motion of the water molecule. To start with, the molecule is at its neutral/ equilibrium point. As it receives energy from the ‘external’ source, it moves along the direction of the force. Then it collides with its neighbours and transfers the energy to them. The elasticity of the medium then restores the molecule back to its equilibrium position. (Of course it ‘overshoots’ several times on either side before it finally settles at the equilibrium point – vide infra).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The above to and fro movement of the particle immediately reminds us of a pendulum. So each particle in a medium can be imagined as a tiny pendulum. In other words a medium can be imagined as being composed of tiny pendulums. Of course this is not something new – most science students probably are aware of this analogy between particle vibration and pendulum motion. But we are going to unleash many hitherto unknown and ground braking facts about wave mechanics from the above analogy.

End of part 1....

 

Part 2....
Learning from a Pendulum
For those who are not familiar, a pendulum is a ball like object (some call this as a ‘bob’) that hangs from a pivot via a string. When we hit a pendulum, it gets displaced in the direction of the displacing force. This ‘deformability’ or the ability to get displaced when a force acts upon it depends upon the string length. The mass (in other words the inertia) of the bob decides the pendulum’s stiffness or rigidity. The more the stiffness or inertia, the more the force required to displace the pendulum. The recoil force or the restoring force which ‘drives’ the pendulum back to its neutral position comes from gravity. So, while the ‘deformability’ of a pendulum depends upon its string length and pendulum mass, its ‘elasticity’(the force that restores ‘normalcy’) depends upon the strength of local gravity.

To understand the above described properties of a pendulum (deformability, stiffness and elasticity) even more clearly, let’s us imagine how a pendulum behaves in various scenarios. First imagine that there is no string – the pendulum can’t be displaced from the pivot point without being ‘broken’. (That means substances that are not deformable get broken when external force is applied. In other words they are fragile).

Next, it is not difficult to imagine how mass and stiffness are related – The more massive a pendulum is, the more difficult it becomes to displace it. Coming to elasticity- The stronger the local gravity, the more the ‘elasticity’ of a pendulum i.e. the faster a pendulum returns to normalcy. We can realise this by memorising the pendulum equation which describes the relationship between gravity and period of a pendulum, T=l/g (vide infra).

The ‘oscillation’ of a tuning fork can also be explained along similar lines: The length and the stiffness of the prongs decide a tuning fork’s deformability. For a pendulum, we have seen already that gravity provides the restoring force and so is responsible for its‘elasticity’. Obviously there must be some similar restoring force acting upon the prongs of a vibrating tuning fork to account for its elasticity. But what exactly is this force that is responsible for the elasticity of the prongs? In other words, what force drives a tuning fork’s prongs (or a medium’s particles or a guitar’s strings or a vibrating drum) backwards? It is obviously not gravity. We will learn about the fundamental basis of this restoring force in a separate section.

When we hit a pendulum or a tuning fork, we know that they don’t stop with just one oscillation but rather they go on oscillating for some time. With each oscillation, their amplitude goes does down (which indicates that they lose a bit of their energy with each oscillation) until they finally come to rest (i.e. settle at the neutral position). For how long a pendulum oscillates depends upon the strength of the initial stroke as well as the environment. For example it oscillates for less time in water medium than in air medium (because it loses more energy in water during each oscillation). In absolute vacuum, it may continue to oscillate for infinite length of time without losing its amplitude. (But of course there isn’t anything like absolute vacuum and my ‘Photonic Ether model’ presented elsewhere proposes that every bit of space is filled with photons).

Period of a pendulum and Frequency of a pendulum
We know that the frequency (f) of any oscillating body is the inverse of the time taken by the same to complete one oscillation (T). For example, if the pendulum takes 0.1sec for each oscillation, it implies that it
does 10 oscillations per second, so the pendulum’s frequency becomes 10Hz (i.e. 1/0.1sec). And if it takes 0.2 sec for each oscillation, it can only do 5 oscillations per sec, so its frequency becomes 5Hz (i.e. 1/0.2sec) and so on. To express the same in the form of a formula,

The frequency of a pendulum (f) =1/T.

Here ‘T’ is the time (in seconds) taken by the pendulum to complete one oscillation i.e. one to and fro motion. Physicists call this as the ‘period of pendulum’ and we have a simple formula to calculate this period

T=l/g (l- length of the string, g- gravity)

So the period of a pendulum (and hence its frequency) depends upon the string length and local gravity. A pendulum with a long string takes more time for each oscillation and hence oscillates at a lower frequency than does a pendulum with a short string. On the other hand, the stronger the gravitational pull, the faster a pendulum oscillates.

 

Part 3....
Natural frequency and stimulated frequency
As we can see from the above formula, the period of a pendulum is constant for each pendulum in any given location and doesn’t seem to depend upon the amplitude of oscillation (hence indirectly the magnitude of the impact). That means, a pendulum takes the same time to complete one oscillation whether it goes for a shorter or a longer ‘ride’. (Foot note: Of course there is another complex formula that apparently calculates the ‘T’ of a pendulum more accurately: according to this, the period of a pendulum does get prolonged slightly with an increase in the amplitude but only at the extreme limits of oscillation. We will ignore that for now).

Obviously if the period of a pendulum (T) is constant, then 1/T also becomes a constant. This implies that each pendulum can only oscillate at one specific frequency in a given location. But we know that this is not the case with particles in a medium: they can vibrate over a wide range of frequencies and can conduct waves of any frequency. Then why not the same is possible for a pendulum? Well, it is possible.

The truth is that the above frequency refers to the natural frequency of the pendulum i.e. the frequency of the pendulum when it oscillates in the ground state. We know that every substance or medium has a natural frequency at which its particles vibrate when not under the influence of other vibrating bodies or energy sources. We also know that every tuning fork vibrates at a specific frequency and which is nothing but its natural frequency. Similarly there exists a natural frequency for every pendulum.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

When a pendulum oscillates at its natural frequency, its centre of oscillation corresponds to its resting point i.e. the pendulum goes equally on either side of its resting point. We know that the resting point of a pendulum represents its lowest energy state or ground state, so we may call the natural frequency of a pendulum as its ground state frequency. But imagine that we hit the pendulum more than its natural frequency – its centre of oscillation moves away from the ‘ground point’ in the direction of the force applied. And the more the frequency of hits, the farther and higher the centre of oscillation moves from its resting or ground level. Now we can say that the pendulum is made to oscillate in the excited state (‘Stimulated frequency’). Here in the excited state, the period of pendulum ‘T’ becomes shorter and hence the pendulum is able to oscillate at the higher frequency which would otherwise be not possible in the ground state. Same explanation holds true for any vibrating body or particle.

So a pendulum can also vibrate similar to the particles of a medium over a wide range of frequencies. In the preceding paragraph we have only explained how a pendulum can oscillate at higher than its natural frequency. But can a pendulum (or a particle in a medium) oscillate at lower than its natural frequency? Obviously a pendulum can’t be made to oscillate slower than its natural frequency. And same thing must be the case with particles in any medium. But we know that media can transmit waves even at very low frequencies despite their higher natural frequencies.

So how is it possible for particles with higher natural frequency to conduct waves of lower frequency? To understand this, we have to differentiate here between ‘particle frequency’ and ‘wave frequency’. Particle frequency is the number times a particle vibrates to and fro in a second (irrespective of whether it collides with its neighbour or not). A wave’s frequency depends upon how many times a particle collides with its neighbour and transmits energy to the same each second. A particle need not collide with its neighbour during every oscillation. For example, when a particle oscillates with an amplitude shorter than the inter-particle distance, it doesn’t collide with its neighbour and hence no energy or wave gets conducted. So how many times a particle oscillates with sufficiently large amplitude and collides with its neighbouring particle in a second decides the frequency of the wave being transmitted (And this obviously depends upon the frequency of the energy source).

As we believe that particles in a medium behave like pendulums, all that what has been said about pendulums must also be applicable to a medium’s particles. So just like a pendulum, particles in a medium will oscillate at their natural frequency after an initial stroke or energy input. And we must also be able to guess the natural frequency of a substance from its properties (i.e. deformability and elasticity) as is the case with pendulums (string length and gravity).

But why is that a pendulum’s or the particles’ amplitude go down with each oscillation? In other words why do they stop vibrating ultimately? In the case of a pendulum, we can imagine that it loses energy to the environment and hence it finally comes to rest. What does it mean for the particles? We will see that soon.

Amplitude of a wave
The amount of displacement (in other words the amplitude of the pendulum) is decided upon by the strength of the displacing force i.e. the stronger the impact, the more will be the amplitude. Having said that, a stronger force doesn’t increase the amplitude of the pendulum beyond certain point because the length of the string restricts the maximum amplitude (Amax) allowed for any pendulum.The same thing should hold true for the particles as well i.e. deformability of each medium will decide the maximum allowed amplitude (Amax) for its particles.

This implies that there must also be a limit to the size of the energy quanta (Q) that any medium can handle or transfer each time. But what happens if we supply bigger ‘chunks’ or quanta of energy than the Qmax? In case of a pendulum, it is possible that the string may get stretched and thus altering the pendulum’s properties or the string may get broken releasing the pendulum from its pivot or if the string is strong, the excess energy may get reflected as the pendulum ‘over turns’ after reaching the Amax. Similarly a medium may get physically altered – temperature of the medium may rise (stretching of string), water may change into water vapour (pendulum breaking away) etc.

 

Part 4....
Velocity of a wave
Imagine the following scenario – A large number of people stand side by side in a row, 1meter distance from each other, to transfer bricks from a truck to a construction site a little far away. Imagine that each person stretches his/her hands towards the left for 0.5meter, receives a brick from the person on the left, moves the hands towards the right (for 1meter) and transfers the brick to the person on the right. The hands then move back to the left and repeat the same again and again. Please note that the hands move for 0.5meter on either side of the midpoint or neutral position, so we can consider that as the amplitude of the hands (A=0.5meter). If the hands move to and fro 10 times per second (f=10), because they cover a distance of 2meters (4xA) during each cycle, they travel a total distance of 20meters in one second. We may call this as the ‘oscillation velocity’ of the hands (V = f x 4A). Obviously the brick gets transferred at the same velocity as that of the hands i.e. 20meters/second. So the velocity of transfer of the brick depends upon the frequency of oscillation of the hands as well as the amplitude of oscillation.

Same is the case with waves. We know that a particle moves to and fro as it mediates energy transfer. Each time as the particle moves to the left it receives energy from its neighbour on its left. And as the particle moves to the right, it transfers the same to another particle. The energy quantum advances in the medium as the above process repeats between adjacent particles throughout the medium. So the velocity of a wave is equal to its frequency multiplied by four times its amplitude.

The belief that each wave propagates at a constant fixed velocity is only a scientific myth. Because the amplitude of a wave decreases as it propagates in the medium (vide infra), the velocity of the wave must also decrease correspondingly. This is not different from what we see with any moving body or particle in our everyday world – a projectile’s velocity gradually decreases because as the projectile moves, it loses energy to the ‘environment’ (i.e. to the medium) due to the frictional resistance offered by the medium. (Foot note: I have discussed in a different section why Newton’s law of inertia of motion doesn’t hold true in our material universe). If some wave were to travel at a constant velocity throughout, then its amplitude must remain the same throughout which implies that we hear the same intensity of sound and see the same intensity of light however far we may be from the source.

The next important point is that the velocity of a wave can’t be the same in all directions. So if someone teaches that a water wave travels at 20meters/sec or a sound wave travels at 330meters/sec, that makes no sense unless we specify in what direction the wave is moving and at what point of time the measurement was taken (as is the case with any projectile). And same is the case with velocity of light.

Wavelength
Despite our familiarity with wavelength, it is the most misunderstood concept in wave mechanics. If one can correctly understand wavelength, one will surely realise why relativity and quantum mechanics are wrong.

So far we haven’t come across wavelength anywhere in our discussion on wave motion, and not even while deriving the velocity equation. But we know that wavelength is so important that without wavelength we can’t talk about waves or wave motion. So where does it come in our ‘particle-pendulum’ model of wave motion?

And, since our school days we are all familiar with the wave equation ‘v=λf’ which tells us that the velocity ‘v’ of a wave is equal to the product of its wavelength ‘λ’ and frequency ‘f’. But we have just seen that the velocity of a wave = 4 x amplitude x frequency. Obviously there is major discrepancy between what we have deduced logically and what we have been taught traditionally. We will soon realise that it all stemmed from our physicists’ misunderstanding on wavelength.

We know that wavelength is the distance between two consecutive peaks or consecutive troughs of a wave. But what does it mean for an oscillating pendulum or an oscillating ‘particle pendulum’ in a medium? For any oscillating pendulum, we know what ‘amplitude’ means – it is the amount of displacement of the pendulum from the resting point during each oscillation. Similarly we know what ‘frequency’ means – it is the number times a pendulum oscillates in a second. But how can we define ‘wavelength’ for a pendulum? It may sound weird, but if we have to believe in the analogy between wave motion and pendulum motion, we will have to believe that there must be something called wavelength for pendulums also. And if we can explain that for pendulums, we can apply the same to the situation of waves. Hopefully that should help us better understand about wavelength in general.

 

Part 5....
A ‘ball wave’ vs. a ‘rod wave’
We have seen above how a steel ball or a brick gets transferred across a row of people. Each individual moves his hands to the left, receives a ball from his neighbour, moves his hands to the right and transfers the ball to the person on the right. At any point of time, only one person bears the weight of the ball. Now imagine 100 people standing in a row to transfer long heavy steel rods or cylinders from a truck to a construction site. Obviously, unlike the case with the small and light weight balls or bricks, it is difficult for individuals to bear the weight of such long and heavy cylinders single handed. So, imagine that each steel cylinder or rod is held by 5 people at any time as it gets moved over them. As the rod gets moved forward, the position of each ‘bearer’ with respect to the rod changes – first each person holds the front of the rod, then he ‘moves’ to occupy the 2nd position and then to the 3rd position, 4th position and finally to the 5thposition i.e. its rear end. As the person gets freed from the rear end of the rod, the next rod arrives for him to support. The process gets repeated until all the rods get transferred across all the people in the row. (That is what also happens in wave motion. A wave is nothing but a quantum or a pocket of energy that gets transferred via a ‘chain’ of particles. As the energy quantum moves through the medium’s particles, the position of each particle changes with respect to the energy pocket. In both the above scenarios, neither the people nor the particles move out of their original position. In the case of the ‘rod wave’, it is the mass of the rod which gets displaced and in the case of the ‘energy wave’, it is the quantum of energy that gets displaced)

How many people will bear the weight of the object at any time depends upon ‘contour’ or type of the object and the efficiency of the people. It may be that an object needs just one or two persons to bear its whole weight or it may require 10 persons. With this background in mind, we can now describe what wavelength means for the ‘cylinder wave’: How many people carry each steel cylinder at any time represents the wavelength of the ‘cylinder wave’. So wavelength is something that indicates the distribution of the object’s weight amongst the people in the row. In other words it is a measure of spread of the object’s weight in the space as it travels in the ‘medium of people’. If the weight of the object is borne by just one person at any time, its wavelength may be considered as ‘one person wide’ (e.g. brick wave). And if the weight of the object is borne by say 10 people in the row, then its wavelength becomes 10 times longer (e.g. rod wave or cylinder wave).

And same is the case with energy waves. When a large quantum of energy is delivered to a medium, instead of a single particle taking up the entire burden of energy transfer, a ‘row’ of particles ‘share’ the burden of carrying the energy quantum (just like how each log is supported and carried by 5 people at any time). Wavelength indicates the extent of spread of the energy quantum in the medium. In other words it is a measure of distribution of the energy quantum amongst the particles of the medium at any point time. So how many particles take part in carrying the energy pocket at any point of time decides the length of a wave. The more the number of particles that take up the energy quantum of a wave, the longer becomes its wavelength. On the other hand, the amount of energy carried by each particle decides the amplitude of the wave. The more the quantity of energy carried or ‘held’ by each particle in the group, the more becomes the amplitude of the wave.

So while transferring heavy objects, rather than one individual, a group of individuals bear the weight of the object at any point of time and each individual in the group bears only a bit of the total weight of the object. Obviously the sum of the weights borne by all the individuals in the group must be equal to the total weight of the object. Depending upon how the weight is delivered i.e. whether it is in the form of a solid steel ball of 10kg or in the form of a long wooden log of 10kg, and the efficiency of the people, the same weight may be borne by just few individuals or a large number of individuals. That is to say, the wavelength of a travelling object depends not only upon the weight of the body but also on how the weight is delivered to the crowd. And the velocity of transfer of the wooden log doesn’t depend upon its length, it just depends upon the to and fro motion of the individuals (i.e. frequency and amplitude).

Wavelength of a pendulum wave: Imagine a row of pendulums, arranged at a little distance from one another. We can initiate a pendulum wave by hitting the first pendulum and the wave travels along the row of pendulums. The number of pendulums that come in contact with each other as the wave travels along the row of pendulums gives the wavelength of the pendulum wave. So obviously wavelength doesn’t make sense to an isolated pendulum or a particle, it only exists for a wave travelling in a medium (of pendulums or particles).

Background medium and Energy loss
By hitting a particle (or a pendulum), we are simply giving it some energy and because of this energy the particle moves. Obviously the particle loses some of its energy as it moves and hence, by the time it hits the neighbouring particle, it possesses only a portion of the original energy quantum that it receives from the source. So the sooner it collides with its neighbouring particle, the lesser the energy loss during the ‘transit’ and the more the energy it can impart or transfer. In other words, the closer the medium’s particles, the more efficient the medium becomes in terms of energy transfer. Conversely, the farther away the particles are from each other, the greater the ‘energy loss in transit’ and the lesser the energy that gets ultimately transferred from particle to particle. (Of course there probably are other things that affect the efficiency of energy conduction but we will not go into them)

But where does this ‘lost’ energy go? We know that energy can’t be destroyed or created. It can only be transferred between particles or bodies. So as the particle or the pendulum moves it must be transferring its energy to something in the background – we may call this as the ‘interstitium’ which in other words is the ‘intervening environment’ between particles. We have noted elsewhere that our entire universe is permeated by a sea of photons or Ether. So the interstitium of all the substances or media may be imagined as being filled with Ether. But by means we can consider this Ether as the most fundamental stuff – it is very likely that an even more fundamental stuff fills the space between the Ether particles and so on. For description purpose, let’s introduce here two terms – ‘reference medium (RM)’ and ‘background medium (BM)’. The particles of the reference medium lie suspended in the background medium. These terms are obviously relative.

So during wave motion, not all the energy gets transmitted via the reference medium – part of that gets dissipated to the background medium and travels in a more fundamental form in the background medium. It is likely that energy travels much faster in the background medium than in the reference medium. For example, when a tuning fork vibrates, its energy gets transmitted via air particles in the form of sound waves. But during the to and fro motion, part of the air particles’ energy dissipates into the background Ether medium, and travels in the form of the so called electromagnetic waves (it makes more sense to call them as Ether waves).

Because of the energy loss in transit or the energy dissipation into the background, the energy quantum of a wave slowly decreases as a wave advances (and so is its amplitude). Of course the loss of amplitude of a wave probably occurs more due to energy spread in the reference medium (scattering effect) than the loss into the background medium.

Obviously, the amplitude of a vibrating particle must be more than the inter-particle distance for effective wave motion or transfer of energy via the reference medium. But what happens if we hit a particle with only a tiny force and make the particle vibrate with an amplitude shorter than the inter-particle distance? Obviously the particle loses all its energy to the background medium, of course only a tiny bit during each oscillation, and this energy gets conducted in the background medium.

 

Part 6....
Transverse waves and Longitudinal waves
Though we describe two types of waves traditionally i.e. transverse and longitudinal, in reality all waves are longitudinal waves and there is nothing called a transverse wave. And unlike what we have been taught in physics classes, the particles in a medium always vibrate parallel to the direction of propagation of the wave and never in the ‘transverse’ direction , though they ‘vibrate’ in a spiral fashion near the surface of the medium for reasons explained elsewhere.

By moving a paddle to and fro deep inside a pond, we actually produce longitudinal waves under the water surface. The same thing happens when a tuning fork vibrates under water. As these waves get conducted to water surface, they appear as transverse waves. So what we observe as transverse waves is only a surface manifestation of the underlying longitudinal waves.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So the ripples or the so called water waves that we observe on the surface of a pond or a sea do not actually represent a complete wave. A wave is better described as a propagating 3 dimensional phenomenon in a medium. A spherical point source produces a wave that looks something like a convex mirror at the beginning. As the wave propagates/ expands, it elongates more along its axis and becomes more like a conical mirror. And on the receding side, the mirror tries to close on itself.

 

What does Michelson’s Experiment actually prove?
Michelson-Morley experiment was devised on the premise that as Earth moved through the stationary Ether medium, it would result in ‘Ether wind’. And it was proposed that light beams passed in different directions i.e. one beam passed perpendicular to the direction of the Ether wind and another beam passed along the direction of the Ether wind would take different times to travel the same distance.

Michelson apparently used swimmers analogy to illustrate the logic behind the above premise – When two swimmers with equal competence are asked to swim to and fro for equal distance in a flowing river, the swimmer who swims across the river apparently will take a shorter time for the round trip than the one who swims first down the stream and then up the stream. So it was predicted that the light beam which travels perpendicular to the Ether wind would take shorter time than the beam which travels down the Ether wind in the first half and then against the wind in the second half of its journey. So scientists predicted that the two returning beams would be out of phase when they meet finally and hence would result in interference on the detector screen. Further they thought that the time delay and hence the degree of interference would vary depending upon the orientation of the interferometer arms with respect to the direction of the Ether wind.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As can be seen, the setup consists of a monochromatic light source, a half silvered mirror, two reflecting mirrors, and a light detector. All these are fixed on a rotatable frame. A beam of monochromatic light from the source impinges upon the half silvered mirror at 45 degrees angle. While part of the beam goes unhindered through the mirror straight, part of it gets reflected by the half silvered mirror and travels in the perpendicular direction. In other words, the half silvered mirror splits the original beam of light into two beams and sends them in two perpendicular directions. These two beams get reflected back by the two mirrors placed at equidistance from the half silvered mirror. The returning beams join each other at the half silvered mirror and reach the detector screen as shown. The experimenters then study the interference pattern produced on the detector. The experiment is then repeated after rotating the whole setup so as to alter the relative velocity of Ether wind with respect to the two light beams. And each time the pattern of interference produced on the detector screen is studied.

To the astonishment of the scientific minds, the experiment yielded no interference between the returning beams. It implied that both the returning beams have arrived at the half silvered mirror at the same time contrary to their expectation that the ‘perpendicular beam’ would take longer for the return trip than the ‘parallel beam’.

To the scientists, the null result i.e. the lack interference between the two beams implied two possibilities:

1) Either there wasn’t anything called Ether

2) or the Earth must be dragging a ‘blob’ of Ether around it in which case there wouldn’t be any Ether wind to detect.

Apparently evidence from other observations (aberration of star light, Fizeau exp, Sagnac effect etc) has disproved the possibility of Ether drag, and so the scientific community is left with the first possibility. Thus scientists have interpreted the null result in MM experiment as disproof of existence of Ether medium.

But relativists are extremely good at (or more correctly, extremely vulnerable to) misinterpreting experimental data and claiming every observation as highly supportive of their stupid religion of relativity even when the observation in fact proves the opposite. And Michelson’s experiment is not an exception to their distorted thinking.

Understanding Ether wind and Ether drag
To understand why MMX is based upon a wrong premise and hence incapable of drawing any valid conclusions about Ether, first we will have to answer two important questions.

1) What is actually the basis of the so called Ether wind?

2) What is the relation between Ether wind and Ether drag? Is it really true that Ether wind wouldn’t exist when Ether gets dragged?

We all know that, even when the climate is calm and the air is motionless, we experience air winds if we go on a bike ride. Similarly a ball moving inside a pond of still water also experiences what may be called as water wind. But how do we explain this phenomenon of wind? In other words what is the physical basis of this experience of wind?

Whether the wind effect is because of air currents or our own motion in still weather, it is ultimately collisions that our body receives from the air particles which makes us experience the so called air wind. And same is the case with the ball. As the ball moves through the still water, it receives collisions from the water particles and it is these collisions which make the ball feel the ‘water wind’. And what happens to the water particles? As the water particles get hit by the ball, they obviously move in the direction of the force. In other words the water particles which collide with the ball get dragged by the same. And, the ball drags not only the particles which collide directly with it, but also the farther away particles by way of ‘indirect’ collisions.

In summary, whenever a body moves through a stationary fluid medium, the body drags the surrounding fluid particles with it. So the scenario of a body (Earth) experiencing a fluid wind (e.g. Ether wind) but not dragging the fluid doesn’t simply exist. And so is the scenario of a body dragging the fluid medium but not experience the fluid wind. The wind effect and the drag effect are inseparable because they result from the same fundamental mechanism i.e. collisions between the body and the medium’s particles. It may be true to say that while it is the moving body which experiences the wind effect; the medium’s particles ‘experience’ the drag effect.

So if someone blames Ether drag for his experiment’s failure to detect Ether wind, that only exposes one’s poor logic because the experimenter must have already realised and incorporated the drag effect while devising the experiment to detect the Ether wind.

And if one looks for Ether drag to explain the lack of Ether wind, that obviously shows one’s lack of understanding about both Ether drag and Ether wind.

If that someone, who doesn’t have any idea about how and why Ether drag occurs and who wrongly believes that Ether drag could abolish Ether wind, claims to disprove the phenomenon of Ether drag and there by disproves the existence of Ether altogether, we can imagine how much reliance we can place on those claims.

 

What does Michelson’s experiment actually prove?
Despite the fact that physicists hail MMX as highly supportive of relativity, the experiment actually proves that the motion of a light beam gets affected by that of its source and thus destroys the superstitious theory of relativity. From commonsense we know that the direction of travel of a projectile gets affected by the motion of its source. For example imagine a bullet being shot towards the north from a stationary train. And now compare the same with the scenario when the bullet gets fired while the train moves towards the west. In the first scenario, obviously the bullet travels straight north and in the second scenario, it travels in the northwest direction, according to a stationary observer.

And same is the case with waves. As I have discussed elsewhere, at the most fundamental level, what underlies wave motion is nothing but to and fro motion of particles and the various phenomena of wave motion (e.g. interference, scattering) can be explained purely by particle model. So why should we expect waves to behave differently from particles? Imagine a stationary ‘oscillator’ generating water waves which propagate towards the North. Now imagine the oscillator moving in the westward direction. The water waves that it generates now propagate mainly in the north-west direction instead of travelling straight north.

Similarly, as Michelson’s interferometer moves westward, the perpendicular light beam (which would travel northward if the earth/ interferometer were to be at rest in the Ether Ocean) travels along the northwest direction as it reaches towards the opposite mirror, and travels along the southwest direction during its return journey to reach the first mirror.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

When the mirrors are stationary, the photon travels with velocity ‘c’ straight towards the north during the first half and then straight towards south during the second half of its flight.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

‘Trajectory’ of the light photon when the mirrors move westward: the photon, as it gets fired from the first mirror, moves northward with velocity ‘c’ and westward with velocity ‘v’. Obviously the photon’s velocity in the northwest direction would be √v²+c².

Imagine what would happen if the light beam’s motion doesn’t get affected by the westward motion of the mirrors/ interferometer. The light beam would travel ‘straight’ northward and would ‘miss’ the opposite mirror because the mirror would have moved westward by the time the light beam reaches the opposite ‘bank’. And even if it doesn’t miss (imagining that the mirror is long enough), the light beam wouldn’t return to the same point on the first mirror from where it originally got departed because this mirror would have moved westward.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If the photon’s motion is unaffected by the westward motion of the source, it would miss the opposite mirror and hence wouldn’t comeback. Even if it doesn’t miss (imagining that the mirrors are long enough), it wouldn’t return to the original point on the first mirror.

So the observation that the perpendicularly ‘fired’ light photon comes back to the same point on the half silvered mirror suggests that its motion gets affected by the motion of its source (i.e. the interferometer or the Earth) like the case with any other projectile in our everyday world. This obviously destroys the superstition of constant speed of light and the superstition that SOL is unaffected by the motion of its source.

Basically MMX is incapable of detecting the Ether wind because, as we have noted above, the experiment was conceived and interpreted amidst a background of vast scientific ignorance. As explained elsewhere, while the wave like interference pattern produced by photons in the double slit experiment provides a clear evidence for existence of Ether, the phenomenon of gravity serves as a clear proof of differential Ether drag or ‘Whirl pooling’ of Ether around the spinning celestial bodies.

If Michelson’s experiment was really capable of detecting Ether wind, the ‘intelligent’ physicists should have devised a similar experiment with sound waves and water waves and detected air winds and water winds. In any case because the deluded physicists ‘confess’ that the lack of interference in Michelson’s experiment is compatible with Ether model if Ether drag is taken into account, we will not break our heads arguing why MMX is incapable to detecting Ether wind, instead we will look into those observations and experiments (eg. aberration of star light) which are claimed by the relativists as disproof of Ether drag.

 

The results of this experiment is disturbing. I have researched about it for a while, and I also think that Relativity is idiotic. Much evidence seems to vindicate a Braheian solar system. If you are open minded enough to admit the stupidity of much of modern physics I suggest you check out /galileowaswrong.com/

The hardest part sharing this with others is that they are unable to question the Copernican principle, drilled into them since childhood. They seem to know that the earth moves at 30 km/s even though science cannot prove it.

I think that photons are like any other particle projectiles, so their behaviour shouldn’t be different from projectiles in our everyday life. And Michelson’s experiment clearly proves this. (The whole purpose of the above discussion is to highlight that point. May be I haven’t done the job perfectly!) If light photons didn’t follow the trajectory as depicted above, they would reach a different spot on the source mirror and so when combined with the ‘parallel beam’, would result in interference.

I am not sure why you think the interferometer have to be moving at close to the ‘speed of light’. Even if invariance of SOL were to be true, you don’t need the interferometer moving so fast to prove it.

When things can be explained in simple and clear terms, why bring in the mythical ‘fields’?

first of all I don’t believe that light particles are massless. I have discussed about this in few places on this blog. Coming to the constancy of speed of light, it is so ridiculous an idea that even if there exists some experimental proof, we should just take that as proof of some inherent error in the experimental methodology and in the interpretation of data.
Not only that I disagree with SOL, I don’t even believe in what our physicists preach about speed of sound. Much of the confusion actually comes from our physicists’ misunderstanding of wave motion. If you carefully observe the tides in a sea, you will note that water waves don’t travel with a fixed velocity. Waves of high amplitude travel faster and those of low amplitude travel slowly. So it is the amplitude which determines the propagation velocity of a wave. A wave’s amplitude decreases as it propagates in the medium and so is its propagation velocity. And then, a wave doesn’t propagate with the same velocity in all directions.

Sound doesn’t actually constitute a wave but is a sensation that we perceive when our inner ear receives a specific pattern of energy stimuli via air waves, water waves, ‘bone waves’, ‘metal waves’ etc. The so called ‘sound waves’ travelling in water are nothing but water waves and those travelling in air are nothing but air waves. So there isn’t anything called a sound wave in reality. When a tuning fork vibrates in air, it produces air waves and when the same vibrates in water, it produces water waves. Both waves carry/ transmit the same patterns of energy signals and hence give the same sensation when they hit our sound sensor mechanism.

And light is a sensation that we receive when ether waves strike our photosensitive retina. So a better way (probably the only correct way) of classifying different types of waves is by basing upon the medium: ether waves (light waves or EM waves), air waves, water waves, solid matter waves etc.

And contrary to the traditional teaching, all waves are longitudinal waves and there aren’t really anything called transverse waves. What we see/perceive as a transverse wave (the ripple on the surface of a pond) is nothing but the surface manifestation of an underlying longitudinal wave.

Just like water waves and air waves, ether waves (i.e. light waves) also must be ‘capable’ of travelling at different speeds i.e. as slow as 1mm/sec and as fast as ‘c’. Probably the properties of a medium decide the maximum speed limit of its waves. And ‘c’ may well represent the maximum speed limit possible in Ether medium.

https://debunkingrelativity.com/2014/03/22/revamping-wave-mechanics/

I believe that Logic is the most powerful tool in elucidating the mysteries of creation and understanding our universe. And Mathematics represents the ‘short hand’ of logic and should not be considered beyond logic.
And it is the experimental observations which have to obey the logical predictions to prove that the experimental methodology is correct. If some observations seem to go against our known logic, there must either be a deeper logical explanation that connects the known logic with the weird observations or that there must have been some methodological /instrumental error. It should never be taken to indicate that our Nature is weird or to argue against logic. If Nature was illogical, then we could interpret any observation in any stupid manner and argue that as proof of any stupid notion!

I have allowed this comment just to expose the split mindset of the believers of the stupid religion of relativity.

While he criticized me of making ‘argument ad hominem’, all he did was exactly that in all his ‘scientific’ reply. Apart from making ‘argument ad hominem’, and crying at me for calling his crowd stupid, he never bothered to say why my arguments against his stupid religion are wrong.

When I say ‘the earth is round’ and go on to explain why, you can’t blame me as making ‘argument ad hominem’ and attacking the earth personally. Similarly when I say ‘relativists are stupid’ and go on to explain why, it doesn’t mean that I am personally attacking your crowd. It is just that I have put the hypothesis first before going to prove the same by providing with detailed rational analysis of available data.

If you want to really disprove my hypothesis and claim yourself as sane, then you must try to address each and every statement I have made against your crowd and counter each of them with rational arguments.

The fact that your religious prophets didn’t bother to comment upon what I have explained here doesn’t in any way undermine the rationality of my arguments. Better for them if they don’t comment here- doing so would destroy their religion.

For your kind information, it doesn’t require a qualification to argue against superstitious beliefs. Rather what one needs is an independent rational mind, not indoctrinated by some particular religious school. You don’t need to have a qualification in christianity from a church to argue against the superstitions in that religion. Same is the case with your physics religion!

If it is not for democracy and freedom of speech, your ‘scientific’ crowd would have been punished long ago for propagandizing your absurd religious beliefs as science! You can’t demand for double standards in democracy!

 

As expected, physicists’ understanding of polarization is as bad as their understanding of wave motion.

Basically as I have explained elsewhere, there exists only one type of waves i.e. longitudinal waves. The so called transverse waves that we see on the surface of a pond only represent the surface manifestation of the underlying longitudinal waves.

A wave proper is actually a 3-dimensional phenomenon (hemispherical or umbrella shaped in case of a point source) which moves away from its source as it propagates in the medium. We can imagine a ‘transverse wave’ as something like the horizontal section of that 3-dimensional phenomenon or wave proper. In other words, what we see as a ‘transverse wave’ or a tide on the surface of a pond merely represents the ‘cut edge’ of a much larger, submerged 3-dimensional phenomenon.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

‘Transverse waves’ being a surface manifestation, they lend themselves for direct observation and whatever we observe of the surface waves holds true for the underlying longitudinal waves because the former is nothing but the surface manifestation of the latter.

I am proposing that light waves are nothing but longitudinal waves (or ‘umbrellas’) traveling in the cosmic ocean of Ether (just like the sound waves traveling in water or air medium). And as is the case with sound waves, the ether particles oscillate to and fro as light waves propagate in the ether medium.

Now how do we explain polarization of light waves? Very simple if you understand what actually happens in polarization.

Imagine a point source that generates a continuous train of circular waves (of course, they are actually spherical waves if we take into account of the submerged ‘longitudinal’ part) in a pond of still water. As the waves propagate in the pond, they remain parallel to each other and hence don’t cross or interfere with each other. This is what happens in polarized waves: all waves lie parallel to each other and remain in harmony as they travel. The waves don’t cross each other at any point. (In 3-D space, polarized waves may be imagined as series of parallel arranged umbrellas)

Now imagine a cluster of point sources and each generating a train of waves. Obviously waves from one point source cross or interfere with those from other point sources as they propagate. And this is exactly what happens with unpolarized waves. Different waves interfere with each other in a rather random or haphazard manner.

These unpolarized water waves become polarized if we make them pass through a slit. Also, as waves propagate in the pond, they become polarized to some extent i.e. they tend to arrange themselves parallel to one another.

The above explains polarization in simple and clear terms. Of course, a lot more happens at a deeper level and I will come to that soon.

Actually the explanation provided by the physicists for light polarization is rather messy (as is always the case in physics). They first describe light waves as transverse waves with electrical and magnetic fields oscillating at right angles to each other. Then they ignore the magnetic field component and imagine light waves as having only the electric field component. Thus ‘by convention’, they depict EM waves as having only electric field component when they talk about polarization. Now it becomes easy for them to explain how the light waves with vertically oscillating electric fields pass though the vertical slits in the polaroid filter. The magnetic field which supposedly oscillates at right angles to the electric field, apparently doesn’t hinder the passage of light waves through the slits. Why? Well, our physicists decided to ignore the magnetic field, so it doesn’t exist for them! So the horizontally oscillating magnetic field can’t stop the light waves from passing trough the vertical slits! Isn’t that a great explanation?

Our physicists don’t seem to realize the difference between ‘conventional’ and ‘real’.

 

“We have measured the life-span and speed of both low-energy lab-produced muons and muons resulting from high-energy cosmic rays colliding with the upper atmosphere”

Answers:
I know that some of your science pastors delude that they have measured the speed and life span of cosmic muons directly. Unfortunately they are even more stupid than those who realise/admit that they have taken the measurements from lab muons and extrapolated the same to cosmic muons.

Let’s believe that you have measured the life span and speed of muons as 2 microsec and 0.99c respectively. Now let’s go to the ground level and start from the basics instead of going blindly by your religion’s sky logic.

When you say you have measured a particle’s life span as 2microsec, it implies that you have observed the particle live for 2 microsec as per your clock. That is, you have taken the time reading from your own clock.

Similarly, when you say you have measured the velocity of a particle as 0.9c, it implies that

-you have measured the distance travelled by the particle as per your scale
-recorded the time in your clock and then
-deduced the velocity using the formula distance/time

This is basic physics. I call it as commonsense.

So to know the velocity (v) of an object or particle with respect to us, we need to know the distance (d) travelled by the object/particle as per our scale and we need to know the time (t) elapsed in our clock. That is, both distance and time measurements must be taken as observed by us from our own reference frame and not what is ‘felt’ by the particle in its frame. And that makes sense because velocity of a particle is something that we speak from our frame of reference and not from the particle’s perspective. (From the perspective of the particle, its velocity is zero anyway. So don’t mess up things and get confused by toggling between reference frames but stick to your own frame and understand things from your own frame before you go to judge/predict what the muon or moon feels!)

Now coming to your cosmic muons:

You prophets believe that you have observed the cosmic muons travel a distance of 16000 meters. That is, from your perspective, cosmic muons travelled a distance of 16000 meters.

Now, if you insist that muon’s velocity is 0.99c with respect to you, then that implies that muons lived for 52 microsec in your frame (time=distance/velocity). Or if you are adamant that muons’ lifespan is only 2 microsec in your reference frame, then that implies that cosmic muon’s velocity must be about 25c with respect to you (because v= d/t i.e. distance measured by you/ life span as observed by you i.e. 16000meters / 0.000002sec).

The fact that this goes against the superstitious belief of constant speed of light isn’t a reason to mess up with space and time. Rather that should open up your eyes and make you abandon the religion of relativity.

Let’s believe that Rossi Hall etc experiments have verified the cosmic muon’s velocity as 0.99c. From what you preach, those muons would also travel a distance of 16000 meters in 2microsec because of time dilation phenomenon. If that was so, you should have got their velocity as 25c and not 0.99c. But how did your pastors get the figure 0.99c in the first place? Don’t you realize that your pastors are messing up things?

 

“We can consider it true for high-energy cosmic-ray muons because the energy and momentum (of ANY particle) can be calculated and measured for both cosmic-ray muons and lab-produced muons. And the results have always shown that the properties of muons are the same – – – ”.

Answers: The usual relativity style argument. If the energy and momentum of all muons remain the same, then how come you call some of them as high energy and others as low energy? Any way, great explanation. keep it up but don’t try to elaborate. That will expose more of the ‘genius’ in you and only make things things worse!

“That is a common misconception. Special Relativity can handle accelerating objects and/or accelerating reference frames just fine ———”

Answers:
Really? I know that there exist many sects in relativity religion, each having different beliefs and customs but never heard of that extreme sect. LOL.

Well, SR can be made to handle anything and explain everything if one abandons logic and allows irrational propositions. For example relativists can explain evolution, big bang, the behavior of snails, terrorism, 9/11 attacks etc etc using SR. Of course that may not be possible for the current generation of relativists but surely that will be possible in the next 50 years as you folk become more and more irrational and stupid.LOL.

For the sane minds, SR is simply stupid and can’t handle even inertial frames, leave alone accelerating frames.

Since short-lived muons are being used as evidence of time dilation at high speed, this suggests that the high speed muon experiences a rate of time (and distance that it travels) as less in order for the muon to survive and reach the earth’s surface. Relativity states that the rate of time and distance is reduced when an object is accelerated out of our current frame of reference.

So what is the explanation for time and distance returning to my rate of time and distance?

Since according to Relativity all reference frames are equivalent, so how does one act of acceleration cause a slowing down of time, and the returning deceleration cause a return back to my rate of time?

 

Time and atomic clocks:
Relativists swear upon the accuracy of atomic clocks repeatedly to prove time dilation. They think that atomic clocks do not get affected by the physical environment unlike the old type clocks and hence measure time perfectly.

So according to them, if two atomic clocks ‘ticked’ differently, it is not because one of them malfunctioned or got affected by the ‘environment’, but we must assume that the Time itself was running differently.

If an atomic clock stops showing time when it is thrown into a furnace, then the relativists assume that ‘Time’ has come to a halt in the furnace. And if the atomic clock ‘disappears’ inside the fumes of the Sun, then it must be because Time is running backwards in the Sun. We the ignorant may think that the atomic clock got spoiled (inside the furnace) or turned into fumes (in the Sun).

Even relativists (the weirdest thinkers on earth, who believe that speed of light is constant) confess that frequency of light gets affected by gravity and relative motion. So, even the most fundamental matter gets affected by gravity and motion but not the atomic clocks! May be the clocks are made of some divine matter!

My non-relativistic brain can’t digest this. It believes in ‘universality of Time’ and believes that clocks get ‘retarded’ by gravity but not the Time itself. When electromagnetic radiation can get affected by gravity, why not the atomic clocks? Clocks which are made up of matter must get affected by gravity and relative motion and hence are ought to ‘tick’ differently. After all, how can these ‘material clocks’ challenge the universality of Time?

An analogy may be drawn between weighing machines and clocks.

If some mass weighs 6kg on earth and only 1kg on moon, we wouldn’t say that the mass is ‘shrunken’ and hence mass is a relative thing. We know that weighing machines (and hence weights) get affected by gravity. It is nothing to do with the accuracy of the machine.

Likewise, if a clock measures 60 seconds on Moon, it may measure fewer seconds on Earth for the same duration of Time. It doesn’t mean that Time has actually dilated but it is due the fact the clock gets affected by gravity. Instead of tampering the absolute Time, one may introduce something like ‘timeness’ (analogous to ‘weight’) to account for the measured difference in time in different gravitational fields (and accelerated states).

Let me put the analogy in a simpler way.

Mass (Absolute thing)—-has relation with—-Weight (relative thing)—- measured by Weighing Machines and affected by Gravity

Time (absolute)— has relation with—‘Timeness’ (relative)—-measured by Clocks and affected by Gravity

So Time (like Mass) is absolute and what varies with gravity is ‘Timeness’ (like Weight).

If slowing of a clock is time dilation-
Then you may also believe a ‘stretched’ elastic measuring stick as proof of space dilation. And if the same stick is bent, you may consider that as proof of curved space.

If we throw a metal scale of 100cm into a furnace, the same scale may expand and measure 110cm, but this doesn’t mean that the space itself is dilated in the furnace. (Similarly if you try to measure the distances inside the Sun using the same scale, the scales’ particles may diffuse throughout the Sun and you may claim that the entire Sun measures just 100cm because of the phenomenon of space dilation)

Though we use a measuring stick or tape to measure space/distance, we want this scale not to get affected by the physical environment for us to consider this as a standard scale or an ideal scale.

Of course we may not find an ideal stick that accurately measures distances everywhere in the universe without getting affected by the physical environment (including gravity, temperature, stretching etc). But that is our limitation as humans and it is ridiculous to consider this stretching /lengthening of our measuring sticks as proof of space contraction or dilation.

Our limitation and ignorance can’t be described as a fundamental character of the nature (unlike what the quantum physicists claim).

We measure time by observing some physical process. This physical process can be ripening of a fruit, aging of a human being, movement of a pendulum clock or the ‘tick’ of an atomic clock. But what we want is – this physical process shouldn’t get affected by the physical environment for us to consider that as an ideal clock.

Ripening of a fruit may be a rough measure of time, as is aging of a human being but these get affected by so many other factors in the environment. So you know we can’t rely on them to measure time. Our pendulum clock is obviously much better than looking at a fruit to know the time. Atomic clocks are probably more accurate than the pendulum clocks. But there is no reason to believe slowing of the physical process underlying the atomic clock as slowing of Time itself.

If slowing of a physical process is what time dilation is, then why would the relativists draw weird conclusions out of the cosmic ray muons to prove that? One can just open a fridge and prove time dilation by looking at the food that didn’t get rotten even after a month!!! (and even publish the data for the sake of those who believe only in published evidence).

Moreover, not all clocks get affected similarly by gravity- atomic clocks tick slowly and pendulum clocks go fast with increasing gravity. Both clocks have their own underlying physical process to measure time. On whose physical process we should swear upon to prove time dilation?

So, it is ridiculous to believe slowing of clocks as fundamentally same as time dilation.

May I suggest to you, since you have embarked on a journey to reason, to also let go of the idea that “time” in some way or form “exists” or is “real” or a principle property of reality? Time is nothing but a convention, man made, a human invention. Not clock has ever “measured” time, all clocks define time, according to convention. The basis for the time convention is motion, and as you have so well pointed out in the article, motion is a process determined by many factors, all of which are “environmental” in nature. I therefore recommend to make the distinction, time = convention, motion = the fundamental process in nature (indeed the only process) clear, on every occasion when the issue of “time” is being discussed.

Thanks for the highly thought provoking proposition. And my apologies for the delayed response.
While explaining the double slit experiment, even I thought time and space can be explained in terms of energy patterns, but lately somehow I find this proposition disturbing and improbable.
As far as I can imagine, energy manifests itself as motion of mass. And what is motion? It is displacement of a body in space over time. Obviously to describe and quantify displacement, time is as essential as space. And energy patterns can’t be described or conceptualised without the’ framework’ of space and time. I think it would be beyond the capacity of material minds to describe this universe without imagining space, mass, time and energy as distinct entities. It would probably require a higher order intellectual or spiritual mind to unify them!