Relativity Theory, Einstein: Another False Religion

Very good wrap-up in this video. Michelson-Morley didn’t have a Null result; the usual phenomena that relativity theory explains can be explained classically; the clock paradox destroys the notion of no preferred reference frame; the sources Einstein plundered.
Einstein: The Relativity Fraud

Bonus: All motion is relative! Except rotation! That’s ABSOLUTE! Say relativists! Because that’s what we find after fumbling with our equations! (Wait doesn’t this mean that your own maths shows that there’s no relativity? Nevermind!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect#Reference_frames

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “Relativity Theory, Einstein: Another False Religion”

  1. Interesting one, thanks, however… relativity may be wrong and was fascinating to learn the Michelson-Morley experiment was non-zero – not as is mentioned in Wikipedia:
    The result was negative, in that the expected difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles, was found not to exist;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
    however Wikipedia mentions a series of further experiments:
    Michelson–Morley type experiments have been repeated many times with steadily increasing sensitivity. These include experiments from 1902 to 1905, and a series of experiments in the 1920s. More recent optical resonator experiments confirmed the absence of any aether wind at the 10−17 level.
    Furthermore the expected result 30 km/s would have been wrong as the Earth moves together with the sun:
    the Sun appears to be cruising along at 200 kilometers per second and it takes 240 million years to complete the grand circuit around the Galaxy. This speed is an absolute speed.
    OK, but besides these, if relativity is wrong, it does not mean the Earth was created for 6000 years at a time calculated by a monk that added the years from the old testament which we suspect is the persian median royal house line:
    ” Further, there is amazing duplication of the genealogy of the patriarchs and the Persian-Median royal house, the most striking of which exist between the figures of Moses and King Xerxes”

    For the speed of gravity I think van Flanders was on the right path:
    http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/
    There is also a reference there to Dingle’s question (the 2 clocks question)

    Dingle’s Question:
    University of London Professor Herbert Dingle showed why special relativity will always conflict with logic, no matter when we first learn it. According to the theory, if two observers are equipped with clocks, and one moves in relation to the other, the moving clock runs slower than the non-moving clock. But the relativity principle itself (an integral part of the theory) makes the claim that if one thing is moving in a straight line in relation to another, either one is entitled to be regarded as moving. It follows that if there are two clocks, A and B, and one of them is moved, clock A runs slower than B, and clock B runs slower than A. Which is absurd.

    Like

    1. For the Einstein explanation of gravity being space-time curvature, it always bothered me that this explanation implies a force that ‘pushes everything down’. If that force disappears what then?
      In all examples done with a surface and some round balls rolling on it, all were done under gravity on earth. Yes, here if a surface has a point pushed down, balls will roll around it.
      If one repeats the experiment on the ISS or on those flying planes that fall for 40 seconds, the balls will not move in circles even if the surface is deformed.
      It means gravity is explained by … gravity?

      Like

      1. Yes. Also: Into which dimension is space curved? Into time? What?

        As to 6000 years: The Hebrews were impressed by the Greek philosophy and Plato so they strove to get on par with it with their Old Testament.

        Plato though gives a precise date for the flooding of Atlantis, 12000 BC, which is in sync with Younger Dryas / Meltwater Pulse 1 A. Rather good evidence that the 6000 years is wrong.

        And before the Flood there must have been the Atlantean Global civilisation, and survivors, trying to rebuild it by teaching primitive men to build pyramids etc. Graham Hancock goes in that direction. Goebekli Tepe is about 12 k years old allegedly.

        I don’t believe the claims that certain Earth strata are say 65 million years old -because I don’t think models of constant sedimentation speed etc hold up- but I think the dating back to several 10k years is more or less accurate where it can be done.

        Like

      2. Hmm, I wonder what a logistic curve (that this curve fits many processes in our world is not, I think, widely known) for sedimentation rates would do to dating methods.

        Like

      3. Plato though gives a precise date for the flooding of Atlantis, 12000 BC, which is in sync with Younger Dryas / Meltwater Pulse 1 A.
        That’s a good point. I think there is more to this:
        – CO2 was thinner at the time – if we take the Antarctic records for valid
        – with 100 meter elevation difference CO2 was probably denser in the lower area => most of the civilized area was under the current sea level, if there is something from that time it must be under the sea

        Like

      4. CO2 is well mixed (the people who point to the wild fluctuations in the NASA satellite maps ignore that the scale is incredibly sensitive and actual fluctuations are only a few ppm yet represented by a full spectrum of colors).
        Local fluctuations can of course temporarily happen: a few 100 ppm more in proximity of fires or ovens; 0 ppm in the proximity of photosynthesizing C4 plants).

        As to ruins and bones in up to 100m sea depth: We should find some in the North Sea. Doggerland must have been populated (today called the Dogger bank).

        There is a pyramid like structure off the shores of Japan in shallow waters. Rectangular angels. Definitely an artificial structure like a big temple.

        There is a sunken city off the shore of Pakistan or India, connected to the legend of Krishna.

        Like

      5. CO2 is well mixed
        Sorry I did not clarify what I meant with my CO2 reference above “CO2 was thinner at the time – if we take the Antarctic records for valid”
        Looking at the Antarctic records we find values down to 180 ppm. That leads to carbon starvation of the trees or very slow development for C3 plants:
        http://www.pnas.org/content/102/3/690.full?sid=5e3bdf35-c2a6-4fe7-b336-eea3917571f2
        http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html
        Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend,
        Even with the well mixed atmosphere I wonder if there is not still more CO2 in lower areas due to 2 factors: CO2 being heavier and higher air density includes more CO2.
        These differences may be minor, but can be still important when the values are close to the limit.

        Doggerland on the other side may be too far to the north to support a thriving civilization during the ice age time?
        The Black Sea is in my view a better candidate being about 400 m under the actual sea level, a sweet water lake at the time (not sure how cold it was), as well as other areas more to the South – like south of the Indus valley in the Indian Ocean or Persian Gulf.

        Like

      6. CO2 is well mixed
        Not really.
        Is this not the reason why they invalidate so many historical measurements done at sea level which show much higher concentration of CO2 during 1850-1940?

        Like

      7. the old chemical measurements collected by Beck were made I think in Giessen and some other place but in both cases in an industrial area or downwind of it. So, affected by local combustion processes. Yes, of course there are momentary local spikes.

        Like

  2. the old chemical measurements collected by Beck were made I think in Giessen and some other place but in both cases in an industrial area or downwind of it.
    He collected a little more :
    http://www.kin152.org/climatologie/CO2.pdf
    A thoroughly review of existing literature (175 in this study) revealed in contrast to the publisched opinion
    based on the founders of modern greenhouse theory Callendar and Keeling that there exists some
    90 000 accurate measurements by chemical methods before 1957 back to 1857 with an accuracy below 3%.

    Well why, if the gas is so well mixed do we have only 1 place at high altitude that sets the measurements? It should be the same or almost the same everywhere? But the reality is: it is well mixed above a certain level, and even that is relative.

    Like

    1. The gas is and isn’t well mixed, depending on the point of view. Within your typical sampling system, both carbon dioxide and water vapor are well mixed. Both have major sources and sinks, so local concentrations will vary, and widely, depending on local conditions. We need to keep in mind that the ‘data’ released by Scripps is actually modeled and adjusted from the actual local measurements. They admit to throwing out ‘outliers’, yet I need to get my hands on the actual procedures (analytical chemistry) and algorithms to check it myself.

      Like

      1. “The gas is and isn’t well mixed, depending on the point of view.”

        Exactly.
        If you take the distribution as seen from satellite it ranges from 390 to 402 in a global distribution overview:


        This does not show the distribution in depth/per altitude – what it is at 0 m or 1000 m or 4000 m altitude ?
        I assume it may show similar variation patters with much higher variations closer to the ground where the sources and sinks are.

        If we go back to my initial argument, it is that at 180 ppm in average we have areas which get to CO2 starvation for C3 plants. As simple as that, areas with 170 or 160 ppm are a real problem for C3 plants.

        The chemical measurements show frequent 310 ppm at a date when we accepted 270-280 or less as the average which underlines my point, this is why I meant, lower areas at -100m might have been better for C3 plants during the glaciation. Also I assume CO2 starvation was one of the reasons why we had increased savannah areas in the last million years, with reduced number of forests.

        Like

    2. “Well why, if the gas is so well mixed do we have only 1 place at high altitude that sets the measurements? ”

      We do have the satellite measurements of IR radiation. And as with the UAH satellite temperature measurements, we have the disadvantage that some computer tomography algorithm has to re-model conditions, but the advantage that only a few sensors are needed to give a good scan of most of the Earth’s atmosphere. Like with UAH, I trust these measurements. Animations also show a stronger seasonal fluctuation in the NH than in the SH, and the expected weak exchange over the equator. This looks like expected so I don’t doubt it.

      What SHOULD be argued about is , following Salby’s argument: Is it really humans who cause the rise; for instance, you can’t find global recessions in the derivation of the Mauna Loa curve. But you do see a strong correlation with SST.

      Like

      1. I do not argue the average values.
        I do argue the CO2 effect on plants during glaciation period and the significance of it to various local areas. the question is which areas were most impacted by CO2 starvation and which less?
        In my view the C3 plants CO2 starvation is not enough understood and practically unknown by the masses.

        From the above linked article:

        “The climate of the late Pleistocene involved a series of pronounced glacial/interglacial cycles, with glacial periods characterized by low temperatures and reduced atmospheric CO2 concentration ([CO2]) (1). During the last glacial period, minimum [CO2] occurred between 18 and 15 thousand years (kyr) B.P. (radiocarbon age) at values of 180–220 ppm, and modeling efforts suggest that such glacial values were among the lowest that occurred during the evolution of higher land plants (2). Modern plants with the C3 photosynthetic pathway exhibit major reductions in photosynthesis [by 50–75% (3)] and growth [by 52–92% (4, 5)] at glacial versus modern [CO2], and may fail to reproduce as a result of carbon limitations (6).”

        Like

      2. Well C4 is less efficient under conditions of high CO2, but survives low CO2; so obviously the ubiquity of grasses (C4) indicates that such a C3 starvation happened.

        I don’t think you can assume that CO2 sinks because it is a heavier molecule. Too much convection, wind, turbulences caused by precipitation.
        You only get that separation when the air is still, in a closed room.

        And, photosynthesizing plants would consume it at the surface.

        Like

      3. All sources and sinks are at the surface, therefore here we have the variations.
        This is still a modelling thing, but one can see some differences for altitude:


        Notice how the 0 altitude line is missing

        Figure 3:2 Amplitude and phase shift of seasonal variations in atmospheric CO2
        at different altitudes, calculated from direct observations by harmonic analysis
        (Bolin and Bischof, 1970. Reproduced by permission of the Swedish Geophysical Society.)

        Here data effectively measured in one station on the ground with variations depending on the wind speed:

        Like

      4. Again, corresponds to Salby’s argument but this time, it’s simply the rain that moves the CO2 into the sea.
        Thanks, point taken.
        It is not the ‘heavy’ CO2 molecules that create the differences, but the proximity to sources and sinks. The differences are there, especially close to the surface. Carbon cycle is incompletely known and it seems the quantity moving in and out of the atmosphere is significant ie more then currently estimated.

        Re Japan. I’ve seen also some video’s with the underwater structure:
        Dirkh says:
        There is a pyramid like structure off the shores of Japan in shallow waters. Rectangular angels. Definitely an artificial structure like a big temple.
        There is a sunken city off the shore of Pakistan or India, connected to the legend of Krishna.

        Exactly, and I hope we will find much more in the moment when underwater drones will become more available these could revolutionise the underwater archeology.

        Like

  3. You don’t get separation, aka gravitational fractionization, at all, except at the top. At room conditions, all of the constituent atoms and molecules are moving at around 1 km/sec. Only if there are local chemical reactions can you get that, and even then, the pressure gradient will diffuse it until the partial pressures are isotopic.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s