Why Einstein's relativity theory is plain wrong

[forelle]

Hi all
Here is an Article where Einstein himself refutes the SRT(special relativity theory)without an aehter he introduced 1905.
1920 he came up with the ART (general relativity theory) aether included.But at that time nobody accept it.
It Includes:
-speed of light is not an absolut constant
-gravitation from our fixed stars in our gallaxy goes through the whole space to our earth surface,wherby no place is left for the supposed gravitational free inertialsystems in the SRT
-space should be curved
-inflexible structures are declared as fiction
-timemeasuring is reduced to arbitrary running watches and the possibility of syncronising excluded
For more information click this link(only german):

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/buch.pdf

[lamare]

i formulated a new aether theory, based on Maxwel/Stowe's:

Tuks Unsorted KieknWatTWordt Stuff - On Space Time And The Fabric Of Nature

Simulating an aether model of EM using OpenFoam? -- CFD Online Discussion Forums

Have fun!

[Joit]

Einstein (Fraud,Thief) Is WRONG, Infinity Is Flawed (Michio Kaku) - YouTube

[stivep]

Transformer by Alexander Kugushov part#2.swf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxDVbj_IfpU*

More information is covered in this video, much more.
Plus my comments


Wesley

[Ktulu]

Hi!
Inexpert here:
O.K.! So, let's just try and imagine putting it in practice.
2 frame references: the spaceship with one twin launches and flies away (well, accelerates away ), and the Earth that remains behind, with the other twin on it.
Well, yes! You now have two different frame references.
Then WHY NOT think the other way around? Namely, the Earth accelerating away from the spaceship, so the twin on Earth ages slower.
Anyway, I know the equation is complex, however, I can't get it why it couldn't be the other way around.
So, when we will ultimately put it in practice, I'm guessing... nothing will happen.
Take Proxima Centauri, for ex. It emits light that takes 4.5 years to reach us. So, the light itself travels 4.5 years to us. The day it arrives, do they actually think a lot less have passed on the "rocket" that brought the light here?! If so, then why did they even think of trasmitting the message out into the unknown back in the 70s, when they already knew that light-speed alters matter?! Because, ultimately it does. I don't think I could travel at light-speed, without my cells and DNA being altered in some way (in order to age slower than the observer).
So, what would the 1970s outgoing message sound like, the moment it arrived at the destination... ?

[nueview]

thank you Lamare
for making a very concise point about energy and matter and the relation to the speed of light truly an inspired statement.
Martin

[lamare]

Heaviside Vol II, Page 533

I'm afraid it is not that easy to establish whether or not bodies can travel faster than the speed of light. All bodies consist of atoms, electrons and such, which are known to be some kind of localized electro-magnetic wave structure.

While it is clear that a solid body can move at speeds greater than that of sound trough the air, or with speed greater than the propagation speed of waves trough water, that does not mean a body can move faster than the (local) speed of light just like that.

I mean, we are talking about bodies, "things", made up of waves. "Things" that cannot be considered "solid" with respect to the aether just like that.

Now I'm not saying it's impossible for particles to travel faster than the local speed of light, but I think you would need to establish a situation whereby the aether that is flowing around within the body is much more stiff than the "background"/"surrounding" aether the body moves trough. You would sort of need an "ice-like" aether body moving trough a fluid-like aether medium.

So, it would be very interesting to know whether or not the aether has different phases and some kind of temperature. Paul Stowe's work suggests that may very well be the case:

Tuks DrippingPedia : Stowe The Cause Of Gravity EM And QM

Since we can treat the vortices as quasi-particles, given a sufficient density, this system can also be consider a complex form of standard kinetic theory, as modified to account for interactive forces extending from the vortices. Thus this system will also have a form of pressure, density, temperature and fundamental action.

[kitcar]

If you do not accept Einstein's theory of relativity then physicists from a hundred years ago knew more than you do.

So choosing between your "Theory of Anti-Relativity" article and thousands of scientists with hundreds of experiments. I think I'll go with Einstein.

I think Ill go with Tesla the physicist from 100 years ago that really built his thoughts to working machinery instead of just putting them on paper like Einstein, with lots of mathematical tricks to get the errors out.

as to quote this from Tesla in line with Lamare's article:
"The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories.
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly.
One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Today's scientists (*today= now 100years ago) have substituted mathematics for experiments and they wander off through equation after equation
and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

[t-rex]

Poison for the Relativists

Heaviside Vol II, Page 533

Electricity is just a term used to describe a process. The process of negative ions losing electrons to positive ions.

Thank you for sharing with us your complete lack of understanding of electricity, it is rather remarkable. Your "definition" of electricity perfectly describes an electrical fire on a bus bar insulator in a substation. We try to avoid YOUR "electricity" the best we can. The electricity that pushes the busbars apart through vacous space is what we work with. What Mercury, or satellites, or stars do have no application here in the substationand that is why we have a locked gate, so you do not get blasted and then sue us!

73 DE N6KPH

(P.S. can someone find Tom Brown so he can tell us why we can't see the stars in outer space, and how he came to that understanding. This would be helpful.

[lamare]

If you do not accept Einstein's theory of relativity then physicists from a hundred years ago knew more than you do. The mathematics for experiments line up perfectly with the experiments carried out. So it's not just all math backing up the theory of relativity. We see real effects of time dilation in the planet mercury, our satellites, particle accelerators, and many many other experiments carried out ALL support the theory of relativity.

So choosing between your "Theory of Anti-Relativity" article and thousands of scientists with hundreds of experiments. I think I'll go with Einstein.

Einstein's relativity theory is based on a misunderstanding of the electro-magnetic fields. A fundamental thinking error has been made in the formulation of the Maxwell equations. See my article on the matter with all the references you can dream of:

Tuks DrippingPedia : Ruins 96 Years Einstein Relativity

[lamare]

ok i know this does not probably belong here but then were would i put it?

i had a strainge dream last night and when i woke this morning two things kept going around in my head i think i must have heard about this at some time in math but can't seem to remember maybe it was part of the dream.

so here goes if a fine glass buble is made and all the air evacuated will it float in the air such as a bubble of hydrogen will?

the other was pure math problem if 1^2=1 and 2^2=4 the difference is always 1+2=3 look again 8^2=64 and 9^2=81 8+9=17 81-64=17 what is this about i have played with this all day and it works with any number i choose.

but why the question about the bubble?

any thoughts would be appreciated.
Martin

@nueview : I think you want to check out Randy Powell's vids. This is exactly what he explains in this vid:

Randy Powell - Advanced Vortex Math - Part 1 - YouTube

Randy Powell explains vortex math and the ABHA Torus from the beginning.

Expanding on the work of Marko Rodin. Contact Randy directly at [email protected] or visit his website at http://www.theabhakingdom.com

theabhakingdom's Channel - YouTube

Theorum

I only watched the first vid I posted above and still have to watch the other ones. Very interesting material...

[Aaron]

@replaced

I don't need to look at the references because I know that it's just a bunch of false gibberish. No equations are supplied in your references. I also know for a fact that overunity of anything cannot be achieved. Not even in a billion years from now.

Your opinion has been noted. Therefore, this forum serves no purpose for you and you contribute nothing to it. There is no point to you posting anymore because posting your opinion again will not increase the proof that you do not believe this - nor will it sway anyone's opinion that do believe.

You're welcome to post your own opinions in your own threads discussing your opinion on why you don't believe any of this but stay out of threads that you disagree with.

[replaced]

You are constantly given references that you choose not to follow up, which shows your true agenda. The above 4 links have references in them with clear explanations that even a layman could understand. At the bottom of each of those pages is a link to a .doc that has all the notes typed out. It is not just an "article" and it has references that I believe are freely available at archive.org.

I don't need to look at the references because I know that it's just a bunch of false gibberish. No equations are supplied in your references. I also know for a fact that overunity of anything cannot be achieved. Not even in a billion years from now.

[t-rex]

Miss Replaced

Miss Replace,
Electrical Engineers are not *****s to "Physics". We HAVE to make something work. You don't even know how to make a crystal radio.

[Aaron]

The Theory of Anti-Relativity

So choosing between your "Theory of Anti-Relativity" article and thousands of scientists with hundreds of experiments. I think I'll go with Einstein.

[The Theory of Anti-Relativity, Chapter 1]
[The Theory of Anti-Relativity, Chapter 2]
[The Theory of Anti-Relativity, Chapter 3]
[The Theory of Anti-Relativity, Chapter 4]
You are constantly given references that you choose not to follow up, which shows your true agenda. The above 4 links have references in them with clear explanations that even a layman could understand. At the bottom of each of those pages is a link to a .doc that has all the notes typed out. It is not just an "article" and it has references that I believe are freely available at archive.org.