[Physics] About "logical errors"

[Arend Lammertink]

Hi All,

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Ilja Schmelzer
<ilja.schmelzer at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Please see my http://mb-soft.com/public4/dilation.html
>
> starts with
>
>> General Relativity Time Dilation Logical Error
>> A Major Error in Modern Physics
>
> This is already a very bad idea of starting such a thing.  If I invent
> an example of obvious nonsense, which no scientist will even start to
> read,  I use "Einstien's logical errors in Relativity".   Your title
> is already close to this.  Trust me: There are no logical errors in
> relativity.

I would argue that the error which lead to relativity, "Maxwell's
hole", explains the logical errors in relativity. And then I mean
Einsteinian GR as well as SR. Let me just quote Nikola Tesla. From an
article I wrote earlier:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/Ruins96YearsEinsteinRelativity

--::--
This logically thinking realist already wiped the floor with the
theory of relativity in 1932 and thus proved for the umpteenth time to
be far ahead of his time:

"It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space
supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but
nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be
curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might
as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only
attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only
speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the
presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to
stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to
subscribe to such a view."

Isn't it just beautiful how Tesla makes perfectly clear that the
Emperor of modern physics has no clothes with simple logic?

Think about it. Space is literally no thing, nothing. It is the
emptiness, the void, wherein physical stuff exists, but space in and
of itself is not part of anything physical. And the way we describe it
is nothing more and nothing less than an abstract definition, a mere
thought construct to track what is where at any given time. Just like
a treasure map: twenty paces north, thirty steps west. And because
space is not physical at all, it can have no physical properties.
Saying that space becomes curved by large bodies is the same as saying
that a street map becomes curved because the cities and villages that
are printed on it are so heavy. So, when your theory demands your
abstract (nonphysical) "space map" to be adjusted in order to
straighten your theory out, then something is seriously wrong with
your theory, no matter how many times you repeat it and preach it.
Tesla said it like this:

"The theory of relativity is a mass of error and deceptive ideas
violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past
and even to common sense. The theory wraps all these errors and
fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which
fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors.
The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people
take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are
metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the
relativity propositions has been proved."

Whereof deed.
--::--

And from the article linked below, July 10, 1937, for his 80-est birthday:

----::::----
"During the succeeding two years of intense concentration I was
fortunate enough to make two far-reaching discoveries. The first was a
dynamic theory of gravity, which I have worked out in all details and
hope to give to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this
force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so
satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false
conceptions, as that of curved space.
According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing
to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a
semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still
self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent
reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those
of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding
space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that
the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite
effects, straighten out the curves. Since action and reaction are
coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is
entirely impossible.

But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies
as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for
them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature
on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are also all
attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing
the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in
the phenomena."
----::::----



>> General Relativity has exactly the opposite time-rate effect from what all Physicists believe to be true.
>
> False. Too lazy to search, but even wiki level physics would tell you
> that SR and gravity effects for, say, GPS satellites act in different
> directions, thus, will at least partially cancel each other.
>
>> which means that we also constantly accelerate (radially downward),
>> so that Einstein's General Relativity also applies to us.
>
> GR is necessary because gravity plays a role.  Acceleration can be
> handled with SR too, no necessity for GR.

Interesting that you bring up the "GPS" subject. I suggest watching
some of the work of Ron Hatch. He is just about THE expert on GPS and
he says that GPS pretty much kills the whole theory. From my
background article:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNature

---:::---
Let us shortly address the issue of whether or not the aether theory
has been disproven by the Michelson-Morley experiment and the myth
that GPS would not be possible without the relativity theory. These
issues have been thoroughly addressed by William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.,
in his article "A Dissident View of Relativity Theory"(on-site copy),
amongst others referring to the work of Ronald Hatch:

--
Given that the nothingness of a perfect absolute vacuum is bestowed
with the physical properties of a permittivity, epsilon_0 of 8.854
pF/m, a permeability mu_0 of 4pi x 10-7 H/m, and a characteristic
impedance of 377 ohms, is the concept of an aether really that
outlandish?

[...]

What does one of the world’s foremost experts on GPS have to say about
relativity theory and the Global Positioning System? Ronald R. Hatch
is the Director of Navigation Systems at NavCom Technology and a
former president of the Institute of Navigation. As he describes in
his article for this issue (p. 25, IE #59), GPS simply contradicts
Einstein’s theory of relativity. His Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge
Theory (MLET) has been proposed as an alternative to Einstein’s
relativity. It agrees at first order with relativity but corrects for
certain astronomical anomalies not explained by relativity theory.
--

This same Ron Hatch recently gave a presentation about his findings:

 RON HATCH: Relativity in the Light of GPS, II
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOQweA_J4S4
---:::---

I think we can write the whole relativity idea down. The funny thing
is that, mathematically, it isn't even wrong!

Best regards,

Arend.