PHYSICAL THEORY IN CRISIS

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
"Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!"
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
Einstein: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html
http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html
http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/04/13/morley
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/02/testing_times_for_einsteins_th.html

Pentcho Valev

What is your real name? You hide like a coward as you do not have a useable e-mail address to receive direct responses so that this blog is not cluttered up with the minutiae required. My apology to Sepp for having to make this long reply here.

My knowledge begins some 5000 years ago and is up to date and I have not stopped.

One should not attack any person personally as I follow my own rules of engagement. However, that does not prohibit me from pointing out flaws in your comprehension or the words you use.

There is no such thing as some AVERAGE and then calling it a constant. Even that violates the current definition in the dictionary. A variable constant is an oxymoron.

You apparently did not read my item close enough as I specifically redefined what the word constant in science means or should mean.

The speed of light only has a MAXIMUM permitted value in free space. Its speed through any other medium is slower and is hence, not a constant under ANY conditions.

Most scientists forget that what they generically call light covers all frequencies. Hence, infrared can be slowed down when passing through a medium (given another name to cause confusion) as an insulator. Its speed can be accurately measured to mm per second.

Based upon your reasoning, then when ALL experiments for all frequencies for all mediums (you were selective and nothing unusual about that) are averaged out, the speed of light would be far less than its present value.

Secondly, the speed of light is normally for a continuous beam or ray or whatever. When light is pulsed it no longer follows the normal laboratory frame of reference. It becomes relative to ABSOLUTE REST SPACE. It can also go faster than the current speed of light. Go to web: enter; L. J. Wang+light pulse+speed.

S. Marinov twice and Silvertooth both did this inside a room and measured the absolute speed and direction of the Milky Way through space. That violated the belief that no steady motion or speed could be detected. Naturally, the believers in TOR completely ignore this.

And naturally no current establishment scientist is going to duplicate any experiment that destroys his beliefs. Made no difference in the end as you will read and increase your knowledge.

In 1976 Muller et al using the CMB (old CBR) also measured it and verified Marinov and Silvertooth's results but did not acknowledge it. And that can be read in full in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN May 1978. SA made a big mistake in publishing that one, so from that point on, silence.

However, the CMB temperature can only be found when the Doppler Effect is added or deducted etc. to give the measurements back to an as if point of Absolute Rest. Simply, the frequency or wavelength measurement of the CMB at right angles to the Milky Ways‚ absolute speed and direction gives the real frequency or wavelength. Then THAT Doppler Effect correction applied to the forward direction and backward direction gives the absolute speed and direction of the Milky Way through the universe. This was kept very quiet by NASA et al. Why? Because it destroys the TOR.

However a few months ago NASA did release this information (not how they arrived at it) and it agreed with the data of Marinov and Silvertooth and those by many astronomers using other means (found in generic library books) who came up with the identical results.

I feel sure you have seen the uncorrected temperature (same thing) for the CMB that is blue green and red etc. The green is that at right angles and the blue ahead and the red behind. Pretty obvious is it not?

As to those experiments you referenced, please inform me as to how the length used was PRECISELY MEASURED and by what means. In case you do not understand this, the determined speed depends on that decreed by whatever what was a meter etc.

What was used to set the second of time?

Simply, currently a meter is defined as some number of the wavelengths of some specific light frequency. And since speed = frequency x wavelength, then the speed is dependent on how many of those wavelengths were decreed IN THE FIRST PLACE. And a second is defined as that multiple number of wavelengths (frequency) etc. A defines B to prove C to find T (time) that is defined by DECREE by A - ad nauseam.

And increase your knowledge on how the meter was first defined and then the changes made over the centuries to it. Its on the web.

So as to your claims to the measured speed etc., that no longer holds true.

I can only suggest you visit my site and read the applicable items, most are under the section SIDE PAPERS. Their title should be sufficient.

I also suggest you use a spell check in the future before releasing your responses for all to read.

FAREWELL TO PHYSICS

ceer-physics-2.html
sedgemore_says.html
physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html
www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html
insidehighered.com/views/2006/04/13/morley
www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
testing_times_for_einsteins_th.html

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Paramahamsa Tewari (Einstein's Contribution to Physics in Understanding Nature) comments to Bert Schreiber on this article:

Dear Dr.Schreiber,

You are mostly right in your concepts and in your conclusion that many facts in current physical theories are erroneous , but through an alternative theory (Space Vortex Theory, SVT), it can be shown that there is a unit of mass, and Planck's constant is proportional to the product of elctron mass, electron radius and speed of light in and relative to the absolute vacuum. All this and much more is possible to prove theoretically for which please glance through the enclosure. Thereafter I will be specific in my writings.

Best wishes,
Paramahamsa Tewari

Bert Schreiber responds as follows:

Dear Dr. Tewari:

Thank you for your reply. You are one of the few who accepted my falsities without any questions.

In your reply you mentioned h and to see your attachment which I did. Planck's Constant was nowhere in it I could find.

IF you say it is the product of the electron's mass times its COMPTON WAVELENGTH times the speed of light you are correct. You will be the third to discover this. That was my item #10.

Now a very few brief comments on your paper.

You and I and all the rest only have a MODEL, not reality or the truth. IF your model proves more than the rest of them, it is viable. IF it dos not show anything but confirmation of that already known, it is for all purpose useless. If it does not postulate or make any new discoveries, it is useless. This is covered in my site under SIDE PAPERS item #33 and under ARTICLES item #20

You used velocity instead of the correct speed. Suggest you rewrite this paper and in all following writings use speed unless you mean vector velocity. This is item 2A: in my FALSITIES.

You used permeability that was in my FALSITIES as item 17. for the start. Then see 25. that shows it is not an entity, but an artifact and can be dispensed with. On my site under SIDE PAPERS see item #20.

As to a dielectric, on my site under SIDE PAPERS see item #21.

Your Neutron 1838 value is incorrect. It should be closer to 1823.5. You fell for the current false mass of the proton that is actually its WEIGHT instead of its energy mass that is 1822.plus ratio to the energy mass of the electron.

There are others in your works that bear scrutiny, but I do not have the time to completely critique your paper or works.

However, I do thank you again for your replying.

Respectfully,
Bert Schreiber
(Just plain Mr. but thanks for the Dr.)

To which Paramahamsa Tewari responds:

Dear Bert,

Please see my detailed comments enclosed. I am in aggreement with you in almost all the points mentioned except on the basic nature of mass, light and gravity.

Best wishes,

Paramahamsa Tewari

Hi, I'm the author of AWT (Aether Wave Theory)

For example, the mass of photon cannot be zero, because the photon has a nonzero momentum and the validity of momentum definition equation (momentum = mass x speed) was never infirmed yet.

The zero rest mass of photon is irrelevant, simply because the photon never stays at rest.

Regards, Zephir.

Concerning the 2A claim: The velocity of light is a constant.

Such claim can be easily disproven by the existence of gravitational lensing effects from the external observer perspective.

The same is valid for the invariant light speed claim, of course...

The observer definition is always important, without it such question is ambiguous.

Concerning the No 24 claim: Electromagnetic radiation has no frequency limits.

If nothing else, such limit is given by the GUT energy scale (E=hf=10E19 GeV) by Standard model.

Momentum is always related to mass by p = m v formula. Try to found some relevant argument instead of ad hominem attacks.

JUST BECAUSE I know about the way, how the SPEED and VELOCITY are relate, I can say, if the speed isn't constant, the velocity cannot be constant as well. Because the velocity is the component of speed.

The gravitational lensing effect is the result of slowing the light in gravity field, which makes the path of light rays curved. It's quite easily observable from outside like all the other refraction phenomena.

Just at the case, you're in the presence of such gravity field too, you'll observe the red shift, instead.

Concerning the claim 38: Einstein was not first with E = mc2:

E = δ mc2 existed before Einstein’s derivation in Sep. 1905. Isaac Newton, S. Tolver Preston, Poincaré , De Pretto and F. Hasenöhrl are the philosophers and physicists who have given idea of E = δ mc2. Einstein derived existing E = δ mc2 starting with the result of relativistic variation of light energy, but finally obtained L = δ mc2 under applying classical conditions (v<<c). Max Born has expressed surprise over non-inclusion of previous references by Einstein in the derivation of E= δ mc2.

[www.wbabin.net/ajay/sharma3.htm]

I can add the another widely spreaded claim: The Michellson Morley experiment has disproved the Aether existence.

Reasoning:

A) The Maxwell's theory is based on the spreading of light in the form of tranversal light predicts and it enables to derive the constant speed independently (Lorentz 1895) from Maxwell's equation.

B) The Aether hyptohesis doesn't requires the reference frame to be observable. The capillary wave spreading on the water surface doesn't depend on the underwater motion as well.

By such way, the M-M experiment can serve as the proof of the Aether foamy structure, instead.

Concerning the claim 3: The temperature of space is – (what ever).

The reasoning is rather semantical: the space can have the only attribute: the number of dimensions.

The space can be formed by the (gradients of) inertial matter/field, which can have the other atrributes assigned (the mass/energy density or temperature gradients) - but the space as such is abstract entity without any other physical attributes.

Dear Zephir:

First I give credit where credit is due. You are one of the very few persons who know the distinction between speed and velocity. The VAST majority of ALL the rest do not. And that included Einstein and current Nobel Prize recipients et al.

It is now your turn to get in the barrel.

It is you who needs to understand or comprehend what you read, not me.

My #2. specifically said speed. My 2A. specifically said velocity. Then the note: See 13.B. So you did not apparently read 13.B.

Also you nor any of the other responders did not heed Sepp’s first line. Had you read over my web site you would have seen that I have a standing reward of $2,000.00 American in my section EASY MONEY II that speed can be scientifically interchanged with velocity. NO takers to date.

Since Pain will not answer any questions, perhaps you or any others who care to do so can take his place and respond to the questions. Should be interesting.

As to the Photon: My reply to Pain was to go read my paper THE PHOTON FACT OR FICTION? It is on the web. It is also on my web site under SIDE PAPERS.

THEN if you want to argue with me on a SPECIFIC Photon feel free to do so. Otherwise forget it.

Bert

PS: I am adding to my FALSITIES and the Photon will be one of them. Here is my draft.

54: Einstein used the word, if not coined it as many claim or imply, the word photon.
A. False. The word photon was coined by C. N. Lewis is 1926.
B. A correct dictionary will confirm.

It is therefore an impossibility that Einstein used this word prior to that and probably if he did, only much later.

Additional responses to your latest to follow.

Hi Bert, your challenge is very interesting (not just for money), but the discussion here is quite limited from technical point of view.

The opinion exchange and answering of other questions with Pain and others is difficult, because the problems disputed here aren't quite trivial and needs more space for relevant discussion, not just for authoritative claims.

Please consider, im writing a thousand of posts on the forum like the forum.physorg.com. I would recommend you to host this debate on some bigger forum.

Regards, Zeph.

Dear Zeph:

There is no need for any discussions. I quote book-chapter-line- and verse. Easily verified.

The questons will not be answered as the answers would verify my proofs.

You are like ALL the rest as I have NEVER had ONE single person (Member of NPA and attended their symposiums etc., now former as I withdrew) EVER said when I proved they were wrong, mistaken etc. said: I was wrong. Thank you for pointing out my ignorance. Einstein used photon as only one example.

As to forum.physorg.com I was banned and my posts deleted after my first three submittals. Upset the monitors et al.They didn't reply either, other than a personal attack on myself. That is a dead give-away.

If you care to go direct my e-mail is charlesbert_99@yahoo.com. That is, if you have time due to your thousand (forgot the s, surely you jest!)of posts.

Never the less, I have made other posts to you that I am posting. You can respond or not.

As Harry S Truman said: If you can't stand the heat, get the Hell out of the kitchen.

Regards,
Bert

Dear Zephir:

Yours of 9-6-06 10:29 AM, max. frequency

The current maximum frequency that is a calculated value and cannot be measured is from the decay of the neutral pions pi^o and Eta. Their values are respectfully about 1.62 X 10^22 and 6.62 x 10^22 cyc/sec.

The only one left is the proton and it cannot and will not decay and it cannot and will not annihilate. Its calculated value from its ENERGY MASS, the a.m.u., IF it could, would be 2.25 x 10^23 cyc/sec and its wavelength the diameter of the proton, its Compton Wavelength and its de Broglie wavelength if v= c could be attained (impossible).

Bert

Dear Zephir:

Yours of 9-8-06 06:59 AM Einstein E = etc.

I am not gong to copy my paper and put it here. You and any others can read it on the web or on my web site. It is: EINSTEIN WAS FIRST WITH E = mc^2, Item #51 under SIDE PAPERS.

$2,000.00 to first person if I am wrong.

FYI, the website with De Prietto as proof he was first, contains inaccuracies and falsities. I wrote the author and he agreed that it was so, but he has not changed the site (retracted). Nothing unusual there.

Your date is wrong and the correct dates and references are in my paper.

Bert

PS: Ajay Sharma and I are still good friends. However, he seems extremely reluctant to change his papers and unfortunately his book BEFORE publication even after I pointed out his errors in same prior to publication.

Dear Zephir:

Yours of 9-8-06 07:18 AM, M-M Experiment

It is generally agreed by those in and outside the loop that the M-M Experiment was a NULL experiment anyway it is approached.

M-M (who did what immaterial) used the
WRONG equations to start with. They forgot Fizeau Aberration.

So to make this short, go to my site under SIDE PAPERS and READ item #11, that is if you can read it and comprehend it that most cannot do. It is ALL there in great detail.

THEN, if you care to argue with me, you can try. No one else has yet.

Then read under SIDE PAPERS item #50 as the reply to yours of 07:38 AM.

Bert

Dear Zephir:

Yours of 9-8-06 07:38 AM, SPACE

Space has some properties but NO parameters. Besides it is in the three-dimensional Cartesian Coordinates, it is cold as it has no temperature, it is dark as it has no light or emits any radiation and it extends to whatever the scientists wish it to extend to.

What you have added are speculations and why stop there? I can claim it has a smell, taste, color (named spacey), flexible while being rigid ad nauseam.

Your first line and the end of the last line says it all. But an “abstract entity” is an oxymoron. Go read a dictionary.

And one more time: Nothing can be created from nothing.

Bert

Dear Zephir et al:

For the final and last time. There is/are no FUNDAMENTAL theory or equations that can predict the speed of light.

ALL of the quoted equations inserted a known property and such verified from experiments, that used the speed of light IN THE FIRST PLACE in them. Then they claimed they had found from fundamental entities its speed. NO NO NO!

They might as well have claimed that speed = frequency x wavelength and then proved that experimentally, that was done. These are ALL EX POST FACTO.

The ratio of the e.m.u. to the e.s.u. found back in 1856 only gives the NUMERICAL VALUE or numbers associated with the speed of light. Do you even know what this e.m.u. and e.s.u. is in the first place?

Furthermore, did anyone READ item #16 in my FALSITIES on the so–called Maxwell’s Equation for the speed of light?

There is ANOTHER one from Maxwell long removed from textbooks that uses the permeability and dielectric constant that is
v = 1/ square root of permeability x dielectric constant.

But I am BACK to the second paragraph or the speed of light was “built into” the equation. Many others have done this to claim they can predict the speed of light.

By this time, it might have dawned on all respondees that I am able to back up all of my statements and some of you might actually start to realize that all you were taught, read etc. is and are not necessarily the truth.

Bert

PS: forum ad nausem only permits posts that SUPPORTS the monitors own beliefs.

Hi Bert!

The forum.physorg.com allows a presentation of own theories freelly (suppose you'll follow the basic rules of netiquette, of course).

Please consider, I've sended a more then 3000 posts about my Aether Wave Theory freely with 400+ pictures and anims without single problem. The AWT is based on recursive solution of wave equation - this isn't a mainstream theory definitelly!

So, if you have own theory or some particular insights, you're welcommed on this forum, too. We can discuss the "Falsities" of you's here in details.

Regds, Zephir

Dear Zephir:

Bye-bye to you also.

Your social graces both personal and scientifically are sadly lacking. The kitchen will not miss you.

Bert

Bert Schreiber says (by email):

I recently became aware that Schwarzschild's Equation was not and never was his. In fact, his 1916 paper was AGAINST Einstein's Relativity. So to make this short:

I had to revise my Falsities in Current Theory paper that I am sending you. I would appreciate it very much if you would replace the current one.

My reply (Sepp):

I said I would not replace the old for two reasons - time constraints and transparency - but I would be happy to add the new version. So here is, for download, the latest version of Bert's challenge:

FALSITIES IN CURRENT THEORIES (#6 - February 2007)

Existence of space-time: by Aether Wave Theory the space-time is (formed by) the density gradient of Aether, therefore it exists by the same way, like the water surface exists for surface waves, for example. The time dimension is the direction normal to the flatness of the space-time.

Quoted from your recents article:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.2067

"Only 0-dimensional particles are acceptable building blocks in physics."

Maybe I'm working from kitchen, but my ideas remains valid.

Zephir,
could you be mixing up personalities here? The article on arxiv.org is from Bert Schroer and here we have Bert Schreiber...

Sepp

Dr Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr. was about to e-mail Bert Schreiber, but found out he is deceased. He is listed on the Natural Philosophy Alliance'sWorld Science Database.

I am putting Henry Dowdye's comments on the site, in the interests of proper record keeping. Henry Dowdye is also listed on the World Science Database.

This was his intended message to Bert.

Hello Bert:

I am very impressed with your list. I will send you a copy of my published book, an emission theory. "the Extinction Shift Principle". I solve ALL the basically observed phenomena in Physics and Astrophysics, without have to resort to the principles of General and Special Relativity.

I have also refereed papers and press releases on recent Significant Findings pertaining to the so-called gravitational lensing (take a look at this; I think this would definitely interest you indeed.) www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm

Also at the galactic center, there is a DIRECT VIOLATION of General Relativity going on right before our own eyes.

Take a look at the press releases, the publications and the posted presentation on the Natural Philosophy Alliance site you will encounter when you click to my web site: www.extinctionshift.com

On your list, the highlighted one in ITALIC, I believe I have already demonstrated in my book, and the published papers. (Take a look.)

I believe MOST of your list CANNOT BE PROVEN. There is already enormous observational evidence and PROOF (MY Book) they are wrong, for instance: The speed of light is a constant.

(constant, relative to what?) (relative to the primary source?) Take a look at the book. Very few scientist understand the correct usage of Galilean Transformations of Velocies!

The ones in ITALIC is demonstrated on my website and in my book. (I can prove these...)

1: There are claimed to exist the following theories: Quantum Electro Dynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Chromo Dynamics, Quantum Computing etc.

2: The speed of light is a constant. (Constant here and here on in, is not per the dictionaries that are very bad. Here it means under any conditions; fixed, unvarying etc.).

2A: The velocity of light is a constant. (relative to the most primary source, ONLY.)

3: The temperature of space is - (what ever).

4: Light, as a photon, (ALL radiation) is massless.

5: The speed of sound exists.

6: The centripetal force and acceleration and the centrifugal force exist.

7: The Coriolis Force exists.

8: The propagation speed of the gravitational field effect is at the speed of light. (relative to the most primary source.)

9: The propagation speed of the electric OR (that is not and) magnetic field are at the speed of light. (relative to the most primary source.)

10: Planck's Constant, symbol h, can only be found by or from experiment. (true today, but tommorow???)

11: Zero-point Energy exists.

12: - virtual - anything physical (existence) is real. (everything physical exists and is real..)

13: That mass increases with speed. (only the EFFECTIVE mass increases with speed.)

14: Ernst Mach postulated Mach's Principle.

15: Accelerating masses (as one source of) radiate/produce electromagnetic radiation (light).

16: That electromagnetic radiation is an electric-magnetic field per Maxwell's Equations - for electromagnetism etc. (as in current textbooks and not of a historical nature)

17: The Maxwell Equation (implied or is specifically so stated) for the speed of light is:

18: Light (ALL EM radiation) is an electromagnetic wave.

19: Light (once produced understood) can be effected in a linear direction by a gravitational field.

20: Light waves can cancel and reinforce one another.

21: Light and mass have a dual nature and as normally written mass OR waves.

22: That orbiting electrons fall(ing) from higher energy to a lower energy, lose energy resulting in the production of light.

23: In the gcs system (then), the ratio of the electro magnetic unit (e.m.u.) to the electro static unit (e.s.u.) as was found from an experiment by Weber and Kohlrausch in 1856 was the numerical value (within experimental error) for the speed of light.

24: Electromagnetic radiation has no frequency limits.

25: The Newtonian Constant of Gravitation (G) and the permeability (symbol ) and permittivity (symbol ) of vacuum (P and P of V) are entities, i.e., exist.

26: (17: and 23: continued) The MKSA can easily be converted back to the cgs singular system equivalent. This singular e.m.u./e.s.u ratio to digits shown, is then in MKSA:

27: That the effect for gravity can be a push force.

28: The electron ejection delay time (from light hitting to ejection of electron from target into space, varies even for close frequencies from different sources and even for one single frequency) can be accounted for under current Photoelectric Theory, e.g., from any current ACCEPTED establishment light theory effect.

29: Excluding the surface, whatever that is, of charged particles or ionized elements etc., there is a positively charged surface on a physical area, i.e., on say a pith ball or whatever.

30: The one (standard) kilogram is a mass.

31: Black Holes were postulated/derived (implied) from the Theory of Relativity, i.e., Einstein indirectly gets the credit for the bending of light by a mass.

31A: A Black Hole has a Surface Horizon.

31B: When a mass is too large it will cause a gravitational collapse and form a Black Hole.

32: Mass has no scalar limits.

33: The Schrödinger psi ( ) waves are waves per se.

34: Cold Fusion does not exist.

35: Newton's Third Law of motion cannot be violated.

36: Heisenberg based his Uncertainty Principle on a microscope.

36A: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has a direct connection to Planck's Constant.

37: From the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that the orbiting electrons are in "clouds", i.e., probability positions.

38: Einstein was not first with E = mc2.

38A: E = mc2 was in a 1905 paper by Einstein.

39: There is the Lorentz Transformation Equation.

40: The reciprocal of Avogadro's number is purely a coincidence that of the a.m.u. and vice versa.

41: There is a Binary Number System.

42: The axioms of arithmetic lay the foundation for the manipulation of numbers to perform ALL (needed) arithmetical operations.

43: The Traveling Salesman Problem requires the multiplication of the number of cities visited in descending sequence to find all of the solutions to the shortest length, i.e., for 100 cities it then takes; 100 x 99 x 98 x 97 etc. calculations. For 100 cities it is about 9.3332621 > x 10157. Even for 30 cities it is about 2.65 > x 1032.

44: The multi-body problem for gravity follows the Traveling Salesman Problem

Regards,

EHDowdye

Here is the current update of trans dimensional unified field theory. You can access it on the internet at
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8424853/Trans-Dimensional-Unified-Field-Theory-82009

I also have a physics group at

http://www.linkedin.com/groupInvitation?groupID=1931832&sharedKey=1141AE749569

Thank you.

George James Ducas