|
ANNOUNCEMENTS &
NEW ITEMS:
(Most recent at top of column)
(2024 July 12): Press Release:
Remarkable convergence of gravity theory and empirical evidence has revealed
the cosmic-scale geometry of the Universe.
The DSSU research article "Natural
Cosmic-Scale Geometry of Our Universe" has now been published. Links
are posted here. □
Meanwhile, the war on civilization escalates:
● See the reports at Big Sky Free Press –Beyond the Headlines
(http://www.bsfreepress.net/)
● Assassination attempt on President Donald Trump (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozCQwPyVKlE).
(2024 June 21): After some now-familiar rounds of fake reviews and
rejections, the latest DSSU research article —entitled Natural
Cosmic-Scale Geometry of Our Universe— has been accepted for
publication. It is an outstanding work, outstanding in the sense that
the underlying theory agrees wonderfully with the empirical evidence —the
abundant and incontrovertible astronomical observations. This is science of
the highest standard. And yet, one reviewer flatly asserted, “It is
completely unscientific,” and recommended rejecting the article
(prompting the editor of the Journal of High Energy Physics, Gravitation
and Cosmology to decline its publication). What!? Thirty-eight
supporting references is not science!? And what about the text and
diagrammatic content being as clear as a cloudless day? … Yes, that
journal, and two others, recognized a serious threat to their sacred
Worldview. □
Meanwhile the decline of civilization and the loss of freedom
continues.
There is an ongoing reinstitution of the ancient practice of
slavery. "During this revival of servitude and oppression, the systems of
enslavement have been greatly upgraded and enhanced, for the purpose of
effectively enslaving the entire human race."
"One of the true motivations behind the DNA altering vaccines, that
are being imposed on all of humanity, is to genetically engineer mankind
with a view to create a new model of human that will perfectly obey
their modern masters."
–Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, Corona Investigative Committee, Grand
Jury Summary (
www.StopWorldControl.com )
(2024 March 8): The Cosmic Geometry paper is currently being
peer-reviewed.
Meanwhile: “The disintegration of Western civilization is
proceeding so rapidly that I cannot keep up with it even as a full time job.
… It is happening right in front of our eyes.” –PaulCraigRoberts.org
(2024 February): New research paper, focusing on the large-scale geometry
of the Cosmos, is currently being readied for publication. It details
the arrangement of gravity cells and how the rhombic dodecahedron is
embedded within a superoctahedron.
Meanwhile: Reflect on the mega-crime of the last century —Dresden
Hellstorm (February 13-15, 1945). It is appalling to think its
perpetrators were actually hailed as war heroes!
● The
Blood of Dresden by Kurt Vonnegut
●
Dresden 1945: The Devil’s Tinderbox by Charles Lutton
(2023 October): The
Gerhard Herzberg Award, 2023: Canada's most prestigious prize for
science and engineering went to Yoshua Bengio, a scientist who
helped make the AI revolution possible. As the scientific director of the
Montreal Institute for Learning Algorithms and professor at the University
of Montreal, he is both excited and cautious about the future of the
technology he helped create. Congratulations.
(2023 October 12): George Orwell Free Speech Award, 2023:
Congratulations to Jurgen Neumann who was presented with the award
“For outstanding courage in challenging censorship and defending freedom in
pursuit of the truth and for outstanding talent as a freedom communicator &
videographer …”
(2023 September): Newly posted:
Question regarding The Fermi Paradox.
Where are other advanced civilizations?
Meanwhile, history continues to repeat itself and teach essential
lessons:
“As is becoming increasingly more obvious, even to historical novices,
mainstream academia, mass media and what passes for journalism these days is
agenda driven, not truth driven. Certain narratives and ideas that
advance particular agendas are elevated and promoted, while dissenting or
alternative perspectives and viewpoints are hysterically dismissed or
censored.” –The Barnes
Review Vol.29, No.5 (Sept/Oct 2023, p69)
(2023 August):
Important UPDATE to the so-call discovery/detection of gravity
waves (the ones predicted by Einstein’s geometric gravity theory). Turns
out no gravity waves were detected! Just as I had suspected and reported
years ago. … What the LIGO and VIRGO teams actually found was a match-up
between measured signal noise and preprogrammed idealized wave
patterns (i.e., computer stored preexisting general-relativity gravity
waves). It was simply the result of a computerized search to obtain a very
approximate and partial fit between measured signal and simulated “chirps.”
…What was presented to the ever-credulous public was not the actual recorded
waves, but rather the pre-stored-in-computer-memory idealized wave patterns!
Such are the findings of a collaboration of four researchers. [Abstract
& link to full article in the International Astronomy and
Astrophysics Research Journal]
Meanwhile, the collapse continues:
“The United States is falling apart in real time.” –The Barnes Review (July/Aug 2023,
p30)
Suppressed is the essence of the spirit needed to resist the accompanying
enslavement: “That traditional suspicion and disdain of an overreaching
centralized government; that ambitious, fearless, risk-taking outlook; that
love of individual liberty and personal freedom; that hardworking,
productive, can-do attitude —these and similar characteristics are the
essence of the true American spirit.” –The Barnes Review (July/Aug 2023,
p22)
(2023 July 28):
Author’s Curriculum Vitae has been updated to include the discovery
of meta-thermodynamics processes.
(2023 July 21): The revolution in cosmology continues. The first
documentation of Nature’s entropy-lowering mechanism —involving a
structure encompassing two separate and independent processes— has been
published. The latest DSSU article presents a discussion of how cosmic-scale
entropy neutrality is maintained —how two processes prevent the Universe
from ever running down. Press
Release.
Meanwhile: The Great Enslavement continues. The ongoing
implementation measures and events —including real and imagined crises— are
too numerous for the average person to keep track of, let alone deal with.
Sometimes too covert to recognize. Oftentimes seemingly benevolent, like the
pending implementation of digital currency. And always propagandized.
(2023 July 1): The report on Nature’s Entropy-Lowering
Processes has been accepted for publication. Five of five
journal-appointed Reviewers deemed the research article to be
"scientifically correct." ... Details to follow.
(2023 March 24 ... April 15): Latest research paper Nature’s Entropy-Lowering
Processes is currently under review.
Meanwhile: Tyranny in Canada! The persecution of Pastor Artur
Pawlowski. Listen to the incredible first-hand account: Just Right Program
#802 (2023-3-16)
(2023 February): DSSU research article currently being prepared deals with
entropy ... with a focus on Nature's remarkable entropy-lowering
mechanism.
(2023 January 16): Who would believe it! An American official holiday for
communism and its foremost promoter. Clearly the lessons of history have
been ignored … all the while the repression, and enslavement, continues.
(2023 January): DSSU Cosmology is now into its 22nd year
on the Internet —the revolution continues.
ANNOUNCEMENTS & comments from
earlier years are available HERE.
|
(2022 December 28): Now PUBLISHED !
“Laws of Physics Twentieth-Century Scientists
Overlooked”
Available on AMAZON.com
and on
amazon.ca
The Nature of Gravitational Collapse
Subtitle: How the photon, the particle of light, is responsible for mass,
gravity, superneutron stars, and supermassive black holes
—Reveals the truth about stellar and supermassive black holes.
This work contains 311+ pages, 67 illustrations, references, and
index. …
Second printing details (2017 November)
First printing details (Lambert Academic
Publishing, 2017 July)
Guide to the Construction of the Natural Universe
Participate in a unique exploration of the Cosmos: venture into the
sub-atomic realm, even into the sub-quantum realm where the roots of reality
reside, and into the domain of cosmic-scale cell-structure and beyond to
infinity. Along the way, discover the cause of mass, the cause of
gravitation, and rediscover Einstein’s “nonponderable” aether and Heraclitus’
harmony-of-opposites principle. … The book represents the ultimate
vindication for all the skeptics who resisted the "preposterous" Big Bang
mythology and who refused to join the exploding-cosmos religion.
The book contains 317 pages, 61 illustrations, references, and
index …
Available from
C-FAR Books.
Or use this
mail-in Order Form.
(Also available at
Niagara Falls Public Library)
POPULAR RESEARCH PAPERS:
Mass-to-Energy Conversion,
the Astrophysical Mechanism –Published in Journal of High Energy
Physics, Gravitation and Cosmology, Vol.5, No.2 (2019).
HTML version.
Nature’s Supreme Mechanism
for Energy Extraction from Nonmaterial Aether –Published in
Infinite Energy
Magazine Vol.24,
Issue#144 (2019 March/April)
The Nature of Gravity –How One Factor Unifies Gravity’s Convergent,
Divergent, Vortex, and Wave Effects –Published in the International
Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol.6,
No.5, 2018.
-------------------------
Natural Mechanism for the Generation and Emission of Extreme
Energy Particles –Published in Physics Essays
Vol.31, No.3, p358 (2018). (Reprint)
-------------------------
Sachs-Wolfe Effect Disproof –Published in the International
Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol.6, No.1, 2018. (
Abstract & Links.)
"The Nature of Gravitational Collapse"
–Published in American Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics. (
Abstract and Links.)
(Note, there is a typo in AJA&A posted version in the Fig-10
caption. It should read: … acceleration is proportional to 1/r2.)
|
Glossary of Terms
used in Cosmology and Astrophysics with particular emphasis on DSSU theory.
(Opens in separate Window or Tab)
|
GENERAL INTEREST ARTICLES:
Mysteries & Paradoxes that Plague Standard Cosmology
(Updated 2015-7)
Cosmology Crisis of 1998 (Revised 2015-5)
Critique of Conventional Cosmology ...
comments relating to the 'preposterous' expanding-universe paradigm.
Bafflement
—the remarkable admission of a physicist.
The Cosmology Debate That Never Happened
—During the 20th century there was a decades-long debate: The cataclysmic
expanding universe VS the stable expanding universe. But there has never
been a debate of the dynamic expanding universe VS the dynamic
non-expanding universe. (Posted
2011 Oct)
Models of the Universe
—Historical, Expanding, and Cellular universes. INCLUDES USEFUL TABLES FOR
COMPARING THEORIES.
The Universe Is Infinite
(Part 1)
—overcoming a "central" problem of cosmology theories.
The Universe Is Infinite
(Part 2)
—an explanation of how the universe can always have existed and will always
exist.
DSSU, The
Non-Expanding Universe: Structure, Redshift, Distance
—A long sought-after goal of astrophysicists has been a formulation of cosmic distance that is
independent of the speed of light. The goal has now been achieved. The
present Paper details the surprisingly simple distance expression and its
validating agreement with Supernova data.
Why Copernicus Did Not Need a Force of Gravity
—Explores the question of why no one, except Newton, invoked a force.
(Re-Posted February, 2014)
Gravity and Lambda —A Story of Opposites
(.htm) —A story of opposites in harmony. Key differences between the Conventional
Cosmology and the New Cosmology are presented.
Dynamic Cosmic Cell
—The Structural Component of the DSSU —Animated image and discussion
of the self-sustaining, self-balancing system.
Why
Einstein Did Not Receive the Nobel Prize for His Theory of Relativity
—“By 1922 Einstein had been nominated about fifty times —most were for his
relativity theories.”
Questions & Answers & Comments
|
COSMOLOGY ARTICLES, etc:
(2016 June) FREE DOWNLOAD details:
DSSU Validated by Redshift Theory and Structural Evidence,
Physics Essays, Vol.28, No.4, p455-473 (2015 Dec)
—Delivers the coup de grâce to the Big Bang.
Abstract & Links.
Both Reviewers enthusiastically endorsed this "well-written and incisive
article."
The Dynamic Steady State Universe.
This work brings together the main pieces of the cosmic
puzzle in a step-by-step construction of the Natural Universe.
Published in Physics
Essays Vol.27 No.2 (2014 June issue) (PDF download) "... the arguments
are well-made. The article is competent, enjoyable and readable." —Reviewer
for Physics Essays Journal
Revolutionary:
Olbers’
Paradox Resolved for the Infinite Non-Expanding Universe, American Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics
Vol.4, No.1, (2016 January).
Abstract & links.
Reprint PDF.
Excerpts:
● “The man accredited with discovering universe expansion did not believe
that the universe was expanding. Hubble was convinced that the key evidence,
the cosmic redshift, was caused by some other factor, something more
fundamental than mere expansion.”
● “With the recent discovery of a new cosmic-redshift mechanism, and its
theoretical validation, it turns out that Hubble was right.”
● Explains how “an infinite, non-expanding, perpetually regenerating
universe" is able to predict a dark night sky.
Cosmic Redshift in the Nonexpanding Cellular Universe (
Journal links
) —details the actual causal mechanism. Published in the
American Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics, Vol.2, No.5 (2014)
Abstract.
Local copy with quality images: (Reprint pdf).
HIGHLIGHTS:
• Entirely new concept for cosmic redshift mechanism;
• Retains the foundation premise of all modern cosmology;
• But does not require whole-universe expansion;
• A redshift based on the DSSU theory of unified gravity & cosmic cellular
structure;
• Remarkable agreement with independently established redshift distances.
The Cosmology Debate That Never Happened
What historians call "the greatest cosmological debate in
history” was between TWO expanding universes —two
hypothetical models that share the same, I repeat, the same
foundational property! If one is to claim some great clash of ideas (let
alone the "greatest") then surely there must exist some deep dividing
difference! (Posted 2011-10)
The Case for a Cellular Universe
—the Story of a Baffling Omission in Modern Cosmology (Rev2014)
Large-Scale Structure of the Dynamic Steady State Universe published in
the American Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol.4, No.6,
2016, pp.65-77.
Astract and Links.
Highlights:
■ Presents the first 2 of the 4 main postulates that define the DSSU.
■ Space-medium expansion and contraction are perpetually held in balance,
thus ensuring a non-expanding universe.
■ Explains how the two dynamic processes of the DSSU’s space medium sustain
the cellular structure responsible for the pattern of matter distribution in
our Universe.
Galaxy Morphology:
Ellipticity, Its Origin & Progression in Comoving Galaxies, American Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics,
AJAA, Vol.3, No.2, 2015.
Journal
Abstract and Links.
Local
high-resolution PDF.
HTML version available from AJAA here.
HIGHLIGHTS:
• Provides the first-ever natural explanation for the cause of the
elliptical shape of nonrotating galaxies
• Retains the foundation premise of all modern cosmology but rejects the
absurd concept of whole-universe expansion
• Takes full advantage of the universe’s cosmic cellular structure and
exploits the DSSU theory of unified gravity domains
• Amazingly, the mechanism that stretches galaxies turns out to be the very
same mechanism that causes the cosmic spectral redshift!
Cosmic-Redshift Distance Law Without c
Without H –Comments &
Links– Simplifying the redshift-distance formula by removing the
speed-of-light constant and the Hubble parameter —while maintaining
agreement with observational evidence.
|
DSSU Theory:
DSSU Validated by Redshift Theory and Structural Evidence,
Physics Essays, Vol.28, No.4, p455-473 (2015 Dec)
—Delivers the coup de grâce to the Big Bang.
Abstract & Links.
Both Reviewers enthusiastically endorsed this "well-written and incisive
article."
A historical tour of
universes culminating with the Natural Universe —This
essay gives a thematic tour of historical and modern universes. ... While the Universe
is endlessly speaking, forever sending signals; philosophers and scientists
listen and interpret.
Currently undergoing revision and updating: Theoretical Foundation and Pillars of the Dynamic Steady State Universe —The first complete presentation of all four
postulates of DSSU theory. A powerful paper that resolves the
cause-of-causes paradox, explains the non-independent nature of time, and
reveals the 'supreme advantage'. It includes a concise comparison with
standard cosmology focusing on real-world viability.
The Fundamental Process of Energy —A Qualitative Unification of
Energy, Mass, and Gravity. (Abstract
& Reviews & Links) … This article reveals
the secret behind photon confinement. (Contains only a bare minimum of mathematics
and mainly in one of the 14 sections.)
PART 1 published in
Infinite Energy Magazine Issue #113 (Jan/Feb 2014)
PART 2 published in
Infinite Energy Magazine Issue
#114 (Mar/Apr 2014)
Headlined as:
A "Conceptual Unification of Energy, Mass and Gravity"
Dynamic Cosmic Cell
—The Structural Component of the DSSU —Animated image and discussion
of the self-sustaining, self-balancing system.
Unified Gravitation Cells
of the DSSU —Constructing the Universe with Cosmic Gravity Cells
Aether Flow
Equations and Expansion-Contraction Rates (pdf) —This paper
explores the mathematical aspects of the two space-medium postulates of DSSU
theory —and uncovers some profound consequences.
|
ARTICLES on AETHER:
Documentary
movie footage in which Einstein states, "There exists an aether"
—High
resolution .mpg video.
—Low
resolution .wmv video.
The
Aether Experiments and the Impact on Cosmology
—Aether was detected first in 1887 and then several more times during the
20th century. Its 21st–century "rediscovery" (in 2001) led to the long-sought causal mechanism of
gravity —a discovery which has revolutionizing cosmology.
Michelson-Morley and the
Story of the Aether Theory —Richard Milton's analysis of the
historical details involving the misrepresentation, bias, and cover-up that
hampered the Aether theory.
The History of the Aether Theory
—The historic development of the
aether as a scientific theory of the universal space medium. What started as the "fifth
element" of Antiquity becomes molded by theoretical constraints and
experimental evidence into the dual-dynamic sub-quantum medium —the Essence of the Universe.
(Updated
2019-12)
Relativity of
Time in the Aether-Space of the DSSU —How intrinsic time and relative time are related.
DSSU Relativity –The Lorentz Transformations Applied to Aether-Space —Ranzan
Reprinted by permission of Physics Essays Publication,
Physics Essays Vol.23, No.3, p520. (2010).
ABSTRACT
Physical Nature of Length Contraction
—the DSSU Theory of Length Contraction Induced by Absolute Motion.
An easy to follow examination of how the mode by which matter is “conducted”
through luminiferous aether causes the matter to contract. A simple
derivation of the mathematical expression for this physical phenomenon is
presented. There is also a brief discussion of relevant historical aspects
and of nonphysical length contraction.
Reviewer's comments:
“This is amazing …” “The paper is interesting …” –Applied Physics
Research reviewer. Published in
Applied Physics Research journal
Vol.5, No.1
(2013
Feb).
Contradiction Divides Two Aether Theories
—An exploration into the three parts of the speed-of-light postulate.
Reprinted by permission of PEP, from
Physics Essays Journal
(Vol 24, No.3, Sept, 2011)
...
ABSTRACT
Basic-level mathematical and graphical exploration of dynamic aether flow:
PDF
Here is an external webpage with an extensive list of
research papers on the aether-drift experiments, and the larger question of energy in space.
|
DSSU RESEARCH PAPERS:
Sachs-Wolfe Effect Disproof (published in in the International
Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science Vol.6, No.1, 2018.)
Abstract & links.
DSSU Cosmic Redshift-Distance Relation (htm)
—Converting the cosmic redshift into distance for our Cellular Universe using
a simple and elegant equation.
Large Scale Structure of the Dynamic Steady State Universe (pdf)
How a dual-dynamic space medium sustains the cellular structure (published in AJAA in 2016).
—Presents the postulates and implications of regional space-medium expansion and contraction.
Cosmic-Scale Structural Features Explained (pdf)
(Chapter 2 of original DSSU Manuscript)
—The Spacing of Clusters
—Sheets of Galaxies
—Supernodes
—Right-angled Walls of Galaxies.
The Cosmic Background Radiation in the DSSU
—The natural explanation of the microwave background radiation applicable to
the natural Cellular Universe.
Ellipticity, Its Origin & Progression in Comoving Galaxies,
American Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics, AJAA, Vol.3, No.2, 2015.
Journal
Abstract and Links
Local
high-resolution PDF.
HTML version available from AJAA here.
HIGHLIGHTS:
• Provides the first-ever natural explanation for the cause of the
elliptical shape of nonrotating galaxies
• Retains the foundation premise of all modern cosmology but rejects the
absurd concept of whole-universe expansion
• Takes full advantage of the universe’s cosmic cellular structure and
exploits the DSSU theory of unified gravity domains
• Amazingly, the mechanism that stretches galaxies turns out to be the very
same mechanism that causes the cosmic spectral redshift!
|
GRAVITY:
The Nature of
Gravity –How One Factor Unifies Gravity’s Convergent, Divergent, Vortex, and
Wave Effects
–Published in International Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science
(IJASS),
Vol.6, No.5, 2018, pp.73-92. (Abstract and Links.)
"Revolutionary"
The Nature of Gravitational Collapse
–Published in American Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics Vol.4,
No.2, 2016, pp.15-33. (Abstract and Links.)
(Note, there is a typo in AJA&A posted version in the Fig-10
caption. It should read: … acceleration is proportional to 1/r2.)
Gravity and Dark Energy (How they
Shape the Universe) –An Introduction. Provides a preamble and overview
for a couple of earlier DSSU articles.
The Processes of Gravitation –The Cause and Mechanism of Gravitation
by C. Ranzan –A revolutionary paper on gravity published in J. Mod. Phys.
Appl. Vol.2014:3 (2014).
(Abstract & Reviews & Links.
Includes link to hi-resolution PDF)
Why Copernicus Did Not Need a Force of Gravity
—Explores the question of why no one, except Newton, invoked a force. (Rev 2011-9)
First ever, journal-published paper featuring the DSSU:
The Story of Gravity and Lambda –How the Theory of Heraclitus Solved the Dark Matter Mystery
–Ranzan
Reprinted by permission of
PEP, from
Physics Essays, Vol 23, No1, p75-87 (2010 Mar).
ABSTRACT
This is the cure for the fallacious belief in cosmic-scale Dark Matter.
The Story of Gravity and Lambda –How the Theory of Heraclitus Solved the Dark Matter Mystery
(Color version) –Ranzan
Considered "an excellent contribution to the [PE journal]" --professional reviewer
(2010).
Unified Gravitation Cells of the DSSU
—Constructing the Universe with Cosmic Gravity Cells
|
RELATIVITY ARTICLES:
Why
Einstein Did Not Receive the Nobel Prize for His Theory of Relativity
(●Abstract ●Links ●Excerpts ●Extras)
—“By 1922 Einstein had been nominated about fifty times —most were for his
relativity theories.”
Einstein’s Simple Mathematical Trick –and the Illusion of a Constant Speed
of Light
(Abridged version with links to Journal-published version. Posted 2013)
Extended Relativity –Exploiting the Loopholes in Einstein's Relativity.
A Logical extension of special relativity. Reprinted by permission of
PEP,
from
Physics Essays Vol.25, No.3 (2012).
— Abstract & Links & Reviews —
The Three Components of the Speed-of-Light Postulate.
Published in Physics Essays journal Vol.26,No.1 (2013)
Local copy:
The
Three Components of the Speed-of-Light Postulate (pdf):
Absolute vs relative. Variance vs invariance. Another instance of the Heraclitian
"Harmony of Opposites." (Reprinted by permission of PEP, from
Physics Essays, Vol.26, No.1,
2013).
Relativity of Time in the Aether
Medium of the DSSU
—Absolute Motion and Intrinsic Time
Resolving a Paradox in Special Relativity –Absolute Motion and the Unified Doppler Equation.
(Posted 2011, July). Reprinted by permission of
PEP, from
Physics Essays Vol.23, No.4, p594 (2010).
ABSTRACT
How DSSU Relativity Resolves the Speed Paradox (Introductory Discussion)
—Absolute Motion Resolves a (speed) Paradox in Einstein’s Special Relativity.
(Supplementary Discussion)
DSSU Relativity –The Lorentz Transformations Applied to Aether-Space
(Posted 2011). Reprinted by permission of Physics Essays Publication,
Physics Essays Vol.23, No.3, p520. (2010).
ABSTRACT
The Key that Extends Einstein’s Relativity (Part 1)
—Response to a reviewer critical of DSSU aether-based relativity
The Key that Extends Einstein’s Relativity (Part 2)
—How to convert abstract-space equations into aether-based equations
Restoring the Physical Meaning of Energy
Published in
Applied Physics Research journal
Vol.5, No.2
(2013).
LOCAL COPY:
Restoring the Physical Meaning of Energy —distinguishing
between the apparent energy and the real energy of moving mass.
|
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of
hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark
matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there
would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers
and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics
would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a
way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the
least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
..."
continues
...
A devastating Declaration of opposition to Big Bang cosmology
signed by more than 400 Researchers.
Full text:
CosmologyStatement.org
or alternate
site.
|
INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM:
This website is mainly concerned with revisionism in cosmology. Those of us
involved in replacing the unnatural expanding-universe paradigm are aware of
the difficulties involved.
However,
other revisionists have unimaginable difficulties. Consider the ongoing
persecution of revisionists in other fields of intellectual pursuit:
"It makes you wonder —about the immense effort being made
by State and State-sponsored organizations with budgets of tens of millions
of dollars and thousands of employees and associates to smother and punish
these few men and women. Every punishing instrument imaginable is used,
every vicious slander conceivable, every flagrant and pervasive form of
censorship that law allows, including the imprisonment of simple writers for
thought crimes against the State. ... Makes you wonder." —Bradley R. Smith (2011-1)
●
"Discussing truth is so controversial, so dangerous … In most of the world it is simply illegal.”
–
Gordon Duff, Senior Editor, Veterans Today (2011)
●
"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who
speak it." –George Orwell
● Why the suppression of free speech is so deadly dangerous:
“When you silence the man of the pen, you
must deal with the man of the sword.” –proverb
● "Free speech is the
essence of Civilization."
–Stephen Molyneux, Address at the EU Parliament (2019-1-21).
|
DEDICATION: This website is solemnly dedicated to those
individuals who have conducted research in their chosen field and have
informed others of their inquiries and suffered the consequences when
subpoenaed by the Inquisition or some variant thereof. The dedication
extends to those individuals currently imprisoned, and those facing
trial and persecution simply for exercising their basic human right of
freedom of expression supposedly granted to them under the UN Charter of
Human Rights.
"Every
year, hundreds of writers and other literary professionals around the world
are imprisoned, prosecuted, persecuted, attacked, threatened, forced into
exile or even murdered as a result of their work."
ALSO: Be aware of the continuing threat to our precious freedom of expression on the
Internet. The threat is serious and relentless. It is described as “… the formal effort to mimic Communist China’s
system of Internet censorship.” –
www.InfoWars.com
More information on threats to internet freedom: https://battleforthenet.com/
End of free speech in Britain:
A publisher of history books in Britain has reported that “due to new laws
in the UK all their books will have to be censored moving forward” to avoid
criminal penalties for “inciting racial hatred.” –The Barnes Review (2020 March/April)
p77
A hostile jury, by a hasty unanimous
verdict, decided that British Nationalist Leader Jez Turner deserves to be sent to
jail for his critical views! Report (2018-5-15).
British Maverick Psychologist
jailed for publishing his research. … “The ambivalence of librarians
getting writers imprisoned quite defies comprehension.” –Simon Sheppard
(2013)
In repressive Germany:
Ursula Haverbeck,
89, Sentenced to 14 Months in Jail for Heresy! –2017 November
This amazing 89-year-old woman continues advocating under the dictum: "Only
the truth will set you free”.
Mrs. Haverbeck, along with her late husband, founded the education facility
Collegium Humanum in 1963, but which was banned by the Marxist thought police in
2008.
Update (2018-5-16): Ursula Haverbeck will celebrate her 90th birthday in a
German prison
cell. The sprightly grandmother is now serving a
two-year prison term without parole merely for stating a sincerely
held opinion that is supported by acclaimed academics worldwide!!
“Frau Haverbeck is now sentenced to two years in prison, merely for her
peaceful historical research” –The Barnes Review Vol.24, No.5
(Sept/Oct 2018) p71
UPDATE (2019-11):
On November 9th (2019), the very day of Ursula Haverbeck’s 91st. birthday,
hundreds of German nationalists, patriots and friends, well-wishers and
admirers rallied in her support. Report on the Rally to Celebrate
Political Prisoner Ursula Haverbeck.
Update (2020-12): This 92-year-old peaceful woman has just
been released from jail, having spent 2&1/2 years behind bars, and less than
2 weeks later was in court in Berlin for more charges ... was
again sentenced to prison!!!
INFO on Monika Schaefer's case: https://wir-sind-monika.com/
For expressing her opinion on historical events, Canadian citizen
Monika Schaefer has been arrested and imprisoned
(2018-1-3) in Germany. She had committed no crime. Author Mike Walsh warns
potential visitors to Germany to stay away from this dangerous police state.
–Merkel
Madness Grips Germany, (2018-1-7)
... Found guilty and sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment (time
served); her brother Alfred was sentenced to 38 months!! –(2018
November)
UPDATE (2019 August 10): Corruption of justice in Germany continues.
Alfred Schaefer
Receives 18 Months Additional Prison Time for Defending Himself!
Punished for simply presenting evidence for his own defense in court!
The 2022 George
Orwell Free Speech Award was presented to Alfred and Monika Schaefer,
July 30, 2022 in Vancouver.
A Response &
Appreciation of the Awards to Monika & Alfred Schaefer, by Timothy Cuish
of the Daily Rake.
The Supreme Irony:
Fellow freedom-lovers and truth-seekers, please pay
close attention. ... Chemist, historian, and author, Germar Rudolf
sums up the persecution in Germany as follows:
“Now I will summarize here the pseudo-logic hiding behind this absurd and
criminal nonsense of persecuting dissidents. This logic of those in power in
[Germany] really amounts to this:
Because in the past minorities have been persecuted, dissidents imprisoned
and books burned, one feels obliged to do everything in order to prevent a
repetition —even if that entails having to persecute minorities, imprison
dissidents and burn books. [Italics as in the original.]
Because that is exactly what is happening today! Absolutely nothing has been
learned from the past. The table is merely turned around, and for a change a
different group is now being persecuted.”
–Germar Rudolf, Resistance is Obligatory 2nd edition (Castle Hill
Publishers, Box 243, Uckfield, UK, 2016) p213
□
The Continuing Struggle for Freedom
A ray of hope in the ongoing struggle for freedom. Populist and nationalist
movements around the world are gaining ascendancy over the New World Order’s
effort to establish global governance and impose tyrannical control over
every last square meter of the Earth’s surface. –The Barnes Review
Vol.23 No.1 (2017 Jan p70)
"This
Is Very Serious" –S. Molyneux, 2018-7
(7-minute
video on the importance of freedom of speech)
The ongoing fight for freedom and truth. –Just
Right Media (2020, Sept 18, program)
● Pro-Freedom NEWS:
Vanguard News
● InfoWars NEWS: InfoWars
| AlexJones
● Freedom Force
Red Pill University
for truth-seekers.
For more on Freedom (and Objectivism),
visit:
Freedomain Radio (www.freedomainradio.com)
presented by Stefan Molyneux.
Just Right Media (www.justrightmedia.org)
|
... about the author ...
Curriculum Vitae
© Copyright 2005-2024 by
Conrad Ranzan & DSSU Research
For information regarding permission to reproduce selected material herein, please contact:
D S S U Research
Niagara Falls, Canada
23 years on the Internet.
Most recent update:
2024 Aug 30
Visits since mid-2010 :
2024-8-30
|
| |
Why Einstein Did Not Receive the Nobel Prize for His Theory of Relativity
●Abstract ●Excerpts ●Links ●Extras
A story of the perils of
ignoring absolute motion
Conrad Ranzan
Abstract
What follows is an exploration of a number of probable and
possible reasons why Einstein did not receive the Nobel Prize for his famous
theories on relativity; reasons that include a misinterpreted historic
experiment, the prior claims of others, the disturbing lack of causal
mechanisms for the phenomena being formulated, the various biases and
concerns of the Nobel selection committee, and the incompleteness of the
theories. In a most fundamental way relativity was (and is) contrary
to the evidence. Relativity is a theory that denies the presence of aether
or at least claims it is not detectable; while in the real world positive
results of its presence were repeatedly obtained in the form of measurable
aether motion. A measurable aether frame-of-reference implies the reality of
absolute motion. Einstein denied this reality. Both special and general
relativity are therefore incomplete.
The weight of evidence seems to indicate that Einstein was not awarded the
Nobel for his relativity because of the famous Miller aether-drift
experiments. American physicist Dayton Miller, over the course of many
years during the first three decades of the 20th century, had
accumulated irrefutable evidence of the flow of aether. Equations employing
motion with respect to aether-space are introduced.
Full 15-page article:
Why Einstein Did Not Receive the Nobel Prize for
His Theory of Relativity (www.cellularuniverse.org/R6NoNobelForRelativity-Ranzan.pdf) (PDF download)
Reprinted by permission of
Physics Essays
Publication, from Physics Essays Vol.22, No.4,
p564 (2009),
DOI:10.4006/1.3252983 (PDF)
|
Why Einstein
Did Not
Receive the Nobel
Prize for His
Theory of Relativity
Excerpts
Conrad Ranzan (2009)
|
That they
[relativity theories] are revolutionary there can be no doubt, in so far as
they substitute mathematical symbols as the basis of science and deny that
any concrete experience underlies these symbols, thus replacing an
objective [universe] by a subjective universe.”
–Louis Trenchard More
[1]
|
|
Ancient "Relative" Motion
Let us go back in time. Way,
way, back ... to the 5th century BC. In the Classical period there
had been physical philosophers: men such as Parmenides and Zeno, both natives of Elea, a seaport on the western coast of Italy. They had sought for the "physis"
or nature of external things, the laws and constituents of the material and
measurable world.
[2]
Parmenides tried to see the
ultimate reality behind natural phenomena —the essentials which lie behind what
is observed. But there were also “things” that were not observable, not
perceivable; things, nevertheless, that were conceivable. In his simple
classification system Parmenides was able to included both observables and
non-observables. But it was not a classification between observables and
non-observables but rather between “Being” and “non-Being.” He believed that
everything can be classified into Being (reality) and non-Being (not
reality). Being is changeless, eternal and motionless; non-Being
is change, transitoriness, and motion. According to Parmenides motion and change
are unreal and merely illusory.[3]
“In the time of Parmenides motion was explained as an
illusion: It did not exist.”
[4]
The Parmenidean philosophy
held that the universe was continuous and unchanging. Obviously Parmenides
reached conclusions quite the opposite to those of Heraclitus, to whom flux and
change were the true reality, but for a time the motion-as-illusion view exerted
a considerable influence.[5]
The great defender of the motion-as-illusion position was
Zeno, a friend and follower of Parmenides. He had devised a series of “proofs,”
in the form of paradoxes, to show that motion was quite impossible. The most
famous “proof” involves a race between Achilles and the tortoise and argues that
motion is not what it appears to be.[6]
The argument is that if Achilles and the tortoise run a
handicap race, Achilles can never overtake his competitor. Suppose the tortoise
starts a certain distance down the track, then while Achilles runs up to the
starting point of the tortoise, the latter will have moved somewhat further
ahead. While Achilles runs to this new position, the tortoise again will have
gained a point slightly further on. Every time Achilles closes in on the
tortoise’s previous position, the creature will have crawled away. Achilles does
of course come closer and closer to the tortoise, but he will never catch up
with it.[7]
(See Fig. 1)
|
|
|
|
Fig. 1. Achilles’ double handicap race. First handicap, the tortoise
is given a head start. Second handicap, Achilles is denied the use of absolute
motion. Zeno has deemed that Achilles’ motion must be relative to the tortoise
but, perversely, always and forever towards the tortoise. Every
time Achilles reaches the tortoise’s previous position the creature, as fast as
it can slowly advance, has moved out ahead. |
|
Zeno’s proof uses a peculiar form of relative motion.
Achilles’ position is relative
to some in-between point; a moving point which by the defining aspects of the
race can never reach the tortoise’s position. And since the motions are not
continuous but incremental, Zeno leads us into an infinite regression of
infinitely smaller advancements. Achilles and the in-between point, although
moving, stay on the trailing side of the tortoise. Achilles, forever finds
himself merely catching-up; forever on the losing side.
Notice that Zeno equates
subsequent motion to a fraction of the prior motion. He does so
recursively, repeatedly, and without end. A truly clever form of relativity.
Zeno ignores Achilles’ absolute speed, applies his peculiar relative speed,
and ends up with no motion (at least no perceptible motion).
Obviously the paradox arises
only if you ignore the fact of absolute motion. Zeno, of course, was wrong
because he ignored the absoluteness of motion.
Jumping forward in time and into the 19th
century, the concept of absolute motion was long the norm and near the end of
that century a working theory of relativity based on absolute motion had
been developed. Notably, it worked at all speeds up to the speed of light. Then,
at the beginning of the 20th century the modern physical philosopher
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) formulated a new theory of relative motion —and, in
the spirit of Parmenides and Zeno, he too ignored the absoluteness of motion.
Why Einstein Ignored Absolute Motion
In a famous 1887 experiment,
known as the Michelson and Morley aether experiment, it was reported that
the speed of the aether wind measured far less than had been expected.
Subsequently, others began referring to the Michelson and Morley null
result. The experiment was hailed as the death blow to the previously
popular aether concept.
Evidently the experiment and the contemporary reaction had
an influence on Albert Einstein.
Einstein referred several times to the interferometer
experiment, stating that he ‘had thought about the result even in his student
days’... that after 1905 he and [Hendrik] Lorentz had discussed the
Michelson-Morley experiment many times while he was working on the general
theory of relativity. –R.
S. Shankland[8]
Years later (in 1931), in a
public tribute to Michelson’s extensive contribution to science, Einstein
acknowledges the experiment’s influence to his own work:
My honored Dr. Michelson, it was you who led the
physicists into new paths, and through your marvelous experimental work paved
the way for the development of the theory of relativity.[9]
Einstein must have reasoned
that if the aether could not be detected then there could be no way to detect
absolute inertial motion. So he abandoned the idea of an absolute frame of
reference to which motion could be referenced. Motion could only be referenced
to other objects and other observers. In other words motion was relative and
nothing more.
As far as Einstein was
concerned, there was no aether substance that fills space.
It must be pointed out that a
perfectly sound explanation of the smallness of the Michelson-Morley
measurements had been developed. In 1891 the Irish physicist George F.
FitzGerald explained the ‘null’ result “on the hypothesis that the forces
binding the molecules of a solid might be modified by the motion of the solid
through the [a]ether in such a way that the dimension of the stone base of the
interferometer would be shortened in the direction of motion and that this
contraction ... neutralizes the optical effect sought in the Michelson-Morley
[aether] experiment.”
[10]
It was a brilliant hypothesis.
Essentially, FitzGerald’s
aether had the relativistic ability to contract the dimensions of any object:
contraction occurring in the direction of motion and in proportion to the speed
through the aether!
The FitzGerald-Lorentz Explanation
Historically it has been
argued that the motion through the aether shortens the arm (and base) of the
Michelson-Morley apparatus in the direction of motion. And this
shrinking, now called Lorentz contraction, is just enough to
compensate for the calculated longer light path. Consequently, the longer
light path is not longer after all and very little, if any,
interference shift should be expected.
|
Then in 1895, the Dutch
physicist, Hendrik A. Lorentz (1853-1928) developed the FitzGerald hypothesis
into a sound theory. Given that the atoms of all solids are held together by
electrical forces, then the motion of a body as a whole would, according to
Clerk Maxwell’s physics, superpose upon the electrostatic forces between the
atoms a magnetic effect due to the motion. “There would result a contraction of
the body in the direction of motion which is proportional to the square of the
ratio of the velocities of translation and of light and which would have a
magnitude such as to annul the effect of [a]ether-drift in the
Michelson-Morley interferometer.”
[11]
The validity of this
interpretation, the FitzGerald-Lorentz interpretation, was later confirmed.
Whenever the experiment was performed in a vacuum the
aether-effect on the optical interferometer was (and still is) totally annulled.
But experimental results were
only of secondary importance to Einstein. He was a theoretical physicist —a
mathematical physicist. He was a Platonic physicist to whom numbers were more
real and important than apparent reality or even objective reality. If you find
that strange, then prepare yourself.
It is stranger by far that
Einstein would actually ignore the phenomenon that his own theory predicts. His
theory of special relativity deals with the speed-of-light constancy, time
dilation, mass change, and length contraction! The
FitzGerald-Lorentz explanation was essentially a theory of aether-induced
length contraction. Einstein, who frequently communicated with Lorentz, most
certainly was aware of it. The mathematical physicist rejected the
aether-induced length contraction.
Einstein preferred to
postulate length contraction, not relative to an aether type of space, but
relative to the observer —a relatively moving observer. Now since the degree of
apparent length contraction is proportional to the relative speed (between
observer and object) it is easy to see that different observers moving with
different speeds will measure different length contraction for the same object!
I hasten to add, there is nothing wrong with this; special relativity does
give a logical explanation. However, special relativity gives no hint as to what
the actual length contraction may be. It simply can not. It cannot deal
with the absolute length contraction because it has no causal mechanism.
These concrete considerations are outside the scope of the theory. That is why
it is a theory of relatively moving frames-of-reference, and not a theory of
length contraction.
When Einstein turned his back
on the aether medium he abandoned not only the phenomenon of absolute
motion but he also abandoned all hope of attributing a cause for the length
contraction associated with an object’s motion.
What makes all this into a
fascinating multilevel puzzle is that, as we now know, Einstein and Lorentz were
both right with respect to length contraction. Special relativity can
account for apparent contraction while Lorentz’s aether theory can
account for absolute contraction.
Einstein rejected the actuality of absolute motion for two
main reasons: He misinterpreted the Michelson-Morley results, choosing to
believe that absolute motion could not be detected. He sought a purely
mathematical theory of motion.
The Aether Evidence and Detection of Absolute Motion
How Einstein Won the Nobel
(But Not for Relativity)
In 1902 Philipp Lenard,
professor at Kiel, won the Nobel award for the discovery of the
photoelectric effect. But he couldn’t explain it. In 1905 the young
Einstein gave the correct explanation, and in 1921 won his Nobel for it.[12]
The 1921 award honored
Einstein only for his light-quanta hypothesis as it explained the
photoelectric effect for which Robert Millikan’s experiments already
had provided confirmation. The citation read “for discovery of the law of
the photoelectric effect, through which quantum theory received a new
especially vigorous renewal.”
[13]
Thus, though Einstein
did not win for his renowned relativity theories, he did win the Nobel Prize
for what he considered his most revolutionary idea.[14] |
And so, believing absolute
motion could not be detected, Einstein confined his arguments to relative
motion. But it was not a blind belief; he knew that if absolute motion could be
detected then his relativity theory would be wrong.
Einstein fully realized that
his theory could not stand if the claimed discovery of aether is ever confirmed
(or equivalently, if absolute motion, that is, non-rotational absolute motion,
is ever detected). And of particular concern to Einstein were the claims then
being made by American physicist Dayton Miller.
In letters written to
colleagues he expressed his grave concern.
Einstein
stated in a letter, July 1925, to Edwin E. Slosson,
My opinion about Miller's [aether] experiments is the
following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory
of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form,
would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex.
Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they
would have to lead to a significantly different theory.[15]
In June of 1921, Einstein
wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan:
I believe that I have really found the relationship
between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are
based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses
like a house of cards.[16]
Einstein revealed (privately,
at least) the vulnerable conditional component by which his theory could be
shaken to its foundations. Centuries earlier, another intellectual giant, René
Descartes, did much the same thing when he wrote that if the speed of light
could be proved to be finite, his natural philosophy would be “shaken to its
foundations” by the findings.
As the chronicles of history record, absolute motion, and
therefore aether itself, was detected. It was detected repeatedly.
In 1902 Morley and Miller increased the sensitivity of the
Michelson optical interferometer by making the arm length 430 cm (more than
three
times the length used in the 1887 experiment). The aether drift measured
10 km/s. Their next experiment was in 1904 and saw the first use of the
Michelson interferometer mounted on a steel-girder base. Each arm was again
430 cm long. The instrument registered about 7.5 km/s. A year later, in 1905,
the same steel-girder apparatus recorded 8.7 km/s. These experiments took place
in Cleveland.
In a remarkable 1913 experiment, known as the Sagnac
Experiment, it was shown that the aether has a dramatic effect on the speed of
light. Using a rotating platform, M. G. Sagnac split light from a single
monochromatic source into cw and ccw rays that traveled identical paths in
opposite directions around the platform. He combined the returning rays to form
a visible interference pattern, and found that the fringes shifted as the speed
of rotation changed.
The procedure involved measuring the difference in the
travel time of light rays circumnavigating the rotating disk (radius of 25 cm)
in opposite directions. The circular path is achieved by the use of mirrors
mounted on the disk along the circumference. As in the Michelson-Morley
experiment, the time difference was detectable as a fringe shift of the
interference pattern of the recombined light beam. Sagnac found, in agreement
with prediction, a significant fringe shift. In fact, a rotational speed of
13 m/s produces a full fringe shift.
If the speed of light were locally invariant and always
equal to c, then speeding up or slowing of the rotation rate of the
platform should not change the location of the fringes. However, the
fringes do change with speed and “we can determine a preferred
frame —in violation of the second relativity postulate and the
hypothesis of locality.”
[17]
In April of 1921 Dayton Miller’s steel-girder apparatus was
tested on Mt. Wilson, California, and measured an aether flow of 10 km/s.
In Dec of 1921 the steel base was replaced with a concrete
one to exclude any possible magnetic effects. Same result, 10 km/s.
Miller’s experiments back in Cleveland during 1922-24:
Various apparatus changes and procedural methods were extensively tested. Some
improvements were made. Tests of intentional temperature variations in “these
experiments proved that under the conditions of actual observation, the periodic
displacements could not possibly be produced by temperature effects”[18]
as is so often claimed. Throughout the many trials the optical interferometer
never failed to produce consistently positive results.
In 1924 Miller again conducted experiments on Mt. Wilson
and again measured about 10 km/s.
The years 1925-26 witnessed Miller’s definitive experiments
(on Mt. Wilson). While in previous experiments the direction of relative motion
between Earth and aether had been assumed, this series of experiments was
designed to actually measure the direction. Readings were made throughout
24-hour periods; naturally during the 24-hour rotation of the Earth on its axis
there would occur two instances when the fringe shifts became maximum thereby
indicating the approximate direction of aether drift (somewhat in the manner by
which the ocean tides indicate the direction of the moon). Then, by checking the
direction —by repeating the 24-hour test— during different seasons of the
Earth’s annual Solar orbit, the experiment establishes whether or not the main
component of the aether wind is local or cosmic in origin. A more or less
constant direction (in the celestial sphere) indicates a cosmic origin.[19]
Data were collected April 1, August 1, and September 15, 1925,
and February 8, 1926. The line of motion was established but there was some
uncertainty as to which diametrically opposite direction actually represented
the apex of the motion. Eventually Miller concluded that the cosmic direction of
motion of the Earth and the Solar System is (Right Ascension ~5h; Declination
~70°S) towards the constellation Dorado. The speed was calculated to be
208 km/s.[20]
Many years later, in a non-optical experiment (performed by
Roland DeWitte, in 1991) the Right Ascension direction of ~5h was dramatically
confirmed.
During subsequent decades of the 20th century there were
several other significant experiments giving positive results.
Then, in the year 2002 the
Michelson and Morley data —as well as Miller’s data —were re-analyzed and it
became clear for the first time why their measurements of aether drift were so
much smaller than had been predicted. The re-analysis, undertaken by Australian
Professor Reginald Cahill, actually took the Lorentz contraction into account
along with the dielectric nature of the gas (air) affecting the light paths and
found that the tangent-to-earth-orbit component of the aether wind matched the
predicted 30 km/s.[21]
Absolute motion became an established fact.
What Einstein had feared has come to pass. ... Zeno’s
Nemesis finally awoke and dutifully struck another blow against abstract
relativity.
... continues ...
No Award for General Relativity
Einstein’s general theory of relativity generalizes
special relativity to non-inertial frames of reference. It deals with events
occurring in frames of reference that are accelerating due to motion or are
accelerating due to gravitation. It is called a geometrodynamic theory.
Geometric because, having no aether-type space, it uses a mathematical space
defined by four coordinates. Dynamic because its mathematical
space curves in accordance with the presence and motion of mass particles
and bodies. And what is space curvature? Well, that is one of Einstein’s
abstractions. In fact it is an abstraction in geometry borrowed from Georg
Friedrich Riemann (1826-66) and Nikolai Lobachevski (1792-1856).
The general relativity theory
first appeared in 1915. Because it deals with gravitational acceleration it is
called a theory of gravity.
Others, including Lorentz,
Poincaré, and Le Sage, had made attempts to formulate a theory of gravitation.
They all used an aether medium to communicate the gravity effect. The idea of
using a gravitational aether has a long tradition going back to
the days of Isaac Newton himself; and even earlier to René Descartes with his
large and small vortices of aethereal dust producing what we would call
gravitational effects.
Did Einstein use a
gravitational aether? ... In 1920 Einstein compared his “gravitational ether”
with Lorentz's aether and made it clear that the aether of general
relativity has no mechanical properties.
“The ether of the general theory of relativity is a
medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but
helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events. ... the ether of the
general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through
relativization.” –A. Einstein
Relativization!? ... In
plain English, for Einstein, the aether serves no purpose; it is simply ignored,
and might as well not exist. Einstein the mathematician gives aether
four-dimensional coordinates, discards the aether medium, and retains the
coordinates. That procedure is called relativization.
The term symbolized a new
vision for a new age. Einstein’s general relativity was the dawn of the
age of the mathematical universes. The four-dimensional relativization of
the cosmos became a serious enterprise.
In 1916 and into 1917 Einstein
developed the very first model of the universe based on the new gravity theory.
It was a failure. Although it was designed as a static universe it turned out to
be unstable. The instability was pointed out by the Russian mathematician
Alexander Friedmann. Gravity and Lambda (a cosmic antigravity effect) were initially balanced but with the
slightest disturbance Einstein’s universe will either contract and ultimately
collapse into a self-made black hole or, alternately, expand to infinity.
Nevertheless, this incipient application set the trend for the science of
cosmology for the rest of the century.
Almost all the theoretical
models of the universe developed during the 20th century are based,
in one way or another, on general relativity. Einstein went on to design other
versions of this genre. In 1932 he teamed up with Willem de Sitter and
constructed an expanding universe known as the Einstein-deSitter model. It
became a textbook standard for comparative big bang models.
However, no award was ever
given for general relativity. And no one —not Einstein nor anyone else— ever
received an award for a relativized theory of our Universe. The
cofounders of the big bang theory of the universe, the Russian physicist George
Gamow and his doctoral student Ralph Alpher (publishing in 1946 and 1948
respectively), never made it onto the Nobel list.
There was no Award given for
what has been called “the discovery of the expansion of the universe” and
rightfully so; for no such discovery was ever made. Edwin Hubble (1889-1953), on
whose behalf the claim is often made, did not discover the expansion of
the universe —he discovered a redshift versus distance relationship for
distant galaxies. The greater the galaxy’s distance, the longer the wavelength
of its light. To extrapolate this variation into proof of the expansion of the
whole universe is pure speculation. (Nevertheless, when Modern Astrophysics gets
its act together, it will belatedly recognize that Edwin Hubble’s rightful claim
is for the discovery of the expansion of aether-space!)
There are far too many
problems with general relativity models to cover in this article. I will only
highlight a few relevant issues. One is that when applied to the universe
general relativity is a weak theory. Dennis Sciama describes the problem this
way:
“For instance, general relativity, ... is consistent
with an infinite number of different possibilities, or models, for the history
of the Universe. Needless to say, not more than one of these models can be
correct, so that the theory permits possibilities that are not realized in
Nature. In other words, it is too wide. We can put this in another way. In the
absence of a theory anything can happen. If we introduce a weak theory too many
things can still happen.”
There are so many problems
with such models that papers are written in an effort to keep track of them:
Legendary astronomer Allan Sandage came up with one titled “23 astronomical
problems for the next three decades” and was submitted to the conference on
Key Problems in Astronomy and Astrophysics (Sandage, 1995). The Russian
physicist Yurij V. Baryshev has published the “Conceptual Problems of Fractal
Cosmology” which includes several outright paradoxes and in which he
concludes “The roots of many of the conceptual problems of modern cosmology ...
actually lie in the gravity theory.”
And there are web articles; for example, The Top 30 Problems with the Big
Bang.
Surely the most embarrassing
problem is the inability to explain the observed large scale structure —the
network of cosmic voids surrounded by linked galaxy clusters. There is far too
much regularity. Furthermore, as plasma physicist and science writer Eric J. Lerner
points out, to form these structures by building up the needed motions through
gravitational acceleration alone would take in excess of 100 billion years.
How the original unstructured universe evolved into its
present highly structured state is a major unsolved riddle in cosmology. –Edward
Harrison
In the year 2003 Jaan Einasto reminded the astrophysics
community to take note that the big bang models neither predict the position,
nor the presence and extent of the regularity of the supercluster-void network
(the largest observed structural network in the Universe). The origin of the
pattern regularity and the physical scale are unknown.
Then there is the metaphysical
nature. General relativity converts time into a special dimension.
Time was spatialized and reduced to a timeline by the c constant.
But, as we all know, our world only has three dimensions. When you transform
time into a fourth dimension, as Einstein did, you are modeling an imaginary
mathematical universe, not any kind of real universe. You are placing your
theory outside the realm of physics and, in the context of the Nobel Prize,
outside the realm of contenders. And doubt not that Einstein constructed an
imaginary world, for in order to make time a 4th-dimension
coordinate it was necessary to multiply “time” by the factor (√-1)
thereby converting time into an imaginary number.
There is also the perennial
problem pertaining to cause. The same problem that plagued Newton’s
gravity theory also infests Einstein’s gravity —no causal mechanism.
It may never be known for
certain whether these unreal aspects and metaphysical ambiguities influenced the
Foundation to make policy changes for certain categories. What we do know is
that after 1922 the Nobel Prize committee decided, in private, without making
the decision public, to exclude discoveries and theories in astrophysics.
Many years later an award was
made for an astrophysics finding. Arno Penzias and Robert W. Wilson shared the
Award for the “Discovery of cosmic background radiation”
—not for finding evidence of a big bang expanding universe. Their 1978 Award was
for an observational phenomenon and not for its specific cause and certainly not
for any general relativity theory of the universe.
In hindsight the selection
committee’s decision to withhold judgment, regardless of motivation, was
fortuitous indeed. All general relativity universe models —Hot Big Bang, Cold
Big Bang, Steady State, Quasi Steady State, and now the Double Dark model— all
treat the universe as a single-cell entity. Each one models the universe as a
monolithic mathematical sphere —formulated so that it is only partially visible
to us. (Formulated so that no one making a critical assessment of one of these
relativity-type models can say Oh! look way over there, one can see the edge
of the universe!)
The models of the twentieth
century were conceived as single cells. Einstein built the prototype; his legacy
to cosmology built the others. However, it turns out that the Universe is
actually multi-cellular; intrinsically so; and surprisingly regular.
The eminent physicist Max Planck, who
himself had been awarded the Nobel Prize of 1918, nominated Einstein for the
1919 prize, for general relativity, but in vain.
... continues ...
Full 15-page article:
Why Einstein Did Not Receive the Nobel Prize for
His Theory of Relativity (www.cellularuniverse.org/R6NoNobelForRelativity-Ranzan.pdf) (PDF download)
Reprinted by permission of
Physics Essays
Publication, from Physics Essays Vol.22, No.4,
p564 (2009),
DOI:10.4006/1.3252983 (PDF)
References
[1]
L. T. More, as in I. Bernard Cohen, Revolution in Science
(The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985) p414
[2]
Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy (Doubleday, Toronto,
1927) p12
[3]
Colin Ronan, Science: Its History and Development Among the World
Cultures (The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd, New York, 1982) p79
[4]
Lawrence L.
LeShan and Henry Morgenau, Einstein’s Space and Van Gogh’s
Sky (Macmillan Publishing Co. New York, 1983) p124
[5]
Colin Ronan, Science: Its History and Development Among the World
Cultures (The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd, New York, 1982) p79
[6]
Zeno’s defense of Parmenides’ theory is indirect; his argument is more an
attack on the quantization model of the Pythagoreans.
[7]
Bertrand
Russell, Wisdom of the West, Editor Paul Foulkes (Crescent Books
Inc., & Rathbone Books, London, 1978) p 42
[8]
R. S.
Shankland, Michelson-Morley Experiment, The Encyclopedia of
Physics, 3rd Edition, Edited by Robert M. Besancon (Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York) p748
[9] From a brief biography of Albert A. Michelson:
http://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/sites/jacques_charrier/tp/michelson/michelso.html
[10]
Dayton C. Miller, The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the
Absolute Motion of the Earth, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol.5
July (1933) p207
[11]
D. C. Miller, The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the
Absolute Motion of the Earth, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol.5
July (1933) p207; Miller gives reference to: H.A. Lorentz, Versuch Einer
Theorie der Electrischen und Optischen Erscheinungen in Bewegten Körpern
(E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1895); Theory of the Electron (B.G. Teubner,
Leipzig & Berlin, 1909), p195
[12]
Burton
Feldman, The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy,
and Prestige (Arcade Publishing, New York, 2000) p137
[16]
As quoted in: Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (The
World Publishing Co., NY. 1971) p328
[17]
Robert D.
Klauber, Toward a Consistent Theory of Relativistic
Rotation in Relativity in Rotating Frames (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht,
2004) (arXiv:physics/0404027
v1 6 Apr 2004) p6
[18]
D. C. Miller, The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the
Absolute Motion of the Earth (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol.5
July, 1933) p220
[19]
D. C. Miller, The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the
Absolute Motion of the Earth (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol.5
July, 1933)
[21]
Reginald T.
Cahill, 2002. Absolute Motion and Quantum Gravity.
Posted on http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index_of_papers.htm;
R. T. Cahill, The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment
and the Discovery of Absolute Motion, Progress in Physics,
Vol.3, 25 (October 2005)
-----------------------------------
www.CellularUniverse.org |
2. The Reluctant Abandonment of Aether
One must understand that practically all the leading
physicists at the time believed in the existence of aether but because of
the seeming impossibility of its detection (according to the then-popular
interpretation of the Michelson & Morley experiment) they all struggled, each in his own
way, to break away from aether —and the notion of
absolute motion with respect to it. The trend of the early 20th century was to rework existing
theories and have them based solely on relative motion.
Hence, we have Lorentz researching and defending his aether theory while
reluctantly helping to establish a principle of relativity. (With this in mind,
the reader should be better able to place Lorentz’s extended quote into proper
perspective.)
In 1921 Lorentz compared his own efforts with those of Poincaré
when he wrote:
"I have not established the principle of relativity as
rigorously and universally true. Poincaré, on the other hand, has obtained a
perfect invariance of the electro-magnetic equations, and he has formulated 'the
postulate of relativity', terms which he was the first to employ."
–Lorentz
(1921)
(Notice, Poincaré was the first, but Einstein received the credit. That's odd. ...
It seems the popular media were just as unreliable then as they are today.)
Nevertheless, Lorentz never relinquished his belief that
the aether rest frame was the preferred frame in which clocks measure "real"
time and objects possess non-contracted lengths. But if the relativity principle
is valid then it would be impossible to find the
aether frame by experiment (Lorentz, 1913).
And Poincaré’s position was just as ambivalent. In 1901 he
denied the existence of aether-type space:
“There is no absolute space, and we
only conceive of relative motion ; and yet in most cases mechanical facts are
enunciated as if there is an absolute space to which they can be referred.”
–Poincaré (1901)
Yet in 1912 in a paper called "The Quantum
Theory", Poincaré ten times referred to the aether, and described light as
"luminous vibrations of the ether."
The point is, the outcome of the M & M experiment had
powerfully influenced both sides of the debate. Aether theorists wavered in the
defense of aether theory. Most of them gradually abandoned their cherished
preferential frame of reference and so helped to misdirect the course of physics
for the following 100 years.
–CR (2012)
|
3. An Obvious Question
The aether medium has been repeatedly detected —originally in 1887,
definitively in 1925-26, unexpectedly in 1991, and more recently in 2006— but
Einstein's relativity theory has not collapsed! Was Einstein wrong in his dire
prediction that the discovery of aether would invalidate his theory? It is a
prediction that is still echoing, as in this quote from 2005: "If future
experiments were to reveal a non-zero aether drift, then Einstein's relativity
would crumble." [1]
The obvious question is why didn't Einstein's relativity crumble?
There are several reasons. First, Einstein had based his prediction on the
possibility of the discovery of the 19th-century aether. Einstein feared the
discovery of the classical aether. He knew his theory was vulnerable to the
classical aether, because if it existed it would, by definition, be
detectable (unlike the rival Lorentzian aether, which was theoretically
undetectable). However, that is NOT what the various experiments found. They
did not discover the classical aether (nor did they find the Lorentzian
aether).
Second, special relativity has proven to be a highly successful
theory for apparent situations —situations with purely relative reference
frames. And the vast majority of applications are relative ones. It is only
rarely that "absolute" situations arise (and it is only those that lead to
paradoxes).
Third, whenever practitioners of relativity theory find it necessary or
convenient, one of the key elements of the theory is simply ignored. Remember
the no-preferred-reference-frame requirement (the abolition-of-aether clause)?
... Well, it has been seriously diluted in meaning; sometimes it is just
abandoned. The various "twins" paradoxes are excellent examples. They are not
resolvable unless you break the rule and implement a preferred frame.
Fourth, the theory received the backing of the establishment, became
institutionalized, became a symbol of a new intellectual mystique, and
attracted a formidable following. It became a vested interest.
In short, Einstein's relativity survives because (i) it can easily be
extended [2] to work with an aether
frame; (ii) it does agree with many observed phenomena; (iii) it cheats on one
of its postulates; and (iv) it has tenacious defenders.
Oh yes, there is another reason. I was so buried in the technical
details that I had almost forgotten about human nature? ... In order to
make meaningful changes to relativity, and move beyond the limitations of
Einstein's version, physicists will have to admit that they and their
profession got it wrong for 101 years —the years from the historic rejection of
aether in 1905 to the third major rediscovery of aether in 2006. ... Such an
admission is unlikely to happen.
Meanwhile, the paradoxes and inconsistencies remain.
–CR (2012)
References
1. Diana Buchwald and Kip S. Thorne, The Born-Einstein
Letters (publisher, Palgrave, USA, 2005)
Preface
2. C. Ranzan, Extended
Relativity –Exploiting the
Loopholes in Einstein's Relativity, Physics Essays Vol.25, No.3,
pp327-346 (2012)
|
4. More on Zeno's Paradox
Both Zeno and Einstein applied uncompromising
logic to their respective theories of motion.
Zeno applied his logic to a misconception of infinity ; Einstein
applied his to a misconception of space.
In case you are wondering about the resolution of the
famous paradox ...
The mathematical resolution involves showing that an infinite series of
numbers can add up to a finite number.
Zeno's Paradox
may be rephrased as follows. Suppose I wish to cross the room. First, of course,
I must cover half the distance. Then, I must cover half the remaining distance.
Then, I must cover half the remaining distance. Then I must cover half the
remaining distance . . . and so on forever. The consequence is that I can never
get to the other side of the room.
What
this actually does is to make all motion impossible, for before I can
cover half the distance I must cover half of half the distance, and
before I can do that I must cover half of half of half of the distance, and so
on, so that in reality I can never move any distance at all, because doing so
involves moving an infinite number of small intermediate distances first.
Now,
since motion obviously is possible, the question arises, what is wrong
with Zeno? What is the "flaw in the logic?" If you are giving the matter your
full attention, it should begin to make you squirm a bit, for on its face the
logic of the situation seems unassailable. You shouldn't be able to cross the
room, and the Tortoise should win the race! Yet we know better. Hmm.
Rather
than tackle Zeno head-on, let us pause to notice something remarkable. Suppose
we take Zeno's Paradox at face value for the moment, and agree with him that
before I can walk a mile I must first walk a half-mile. And before I can walk
the remaining half-mile I must first cover half of it, that is, a quarter-mile,
and then an eighth-mile, and then a sixteenth-mile, and then a thirty-secondth-mile,
and so on. Well, suppose I could cover all these infinite number of small
distances, how far should I have walked? One mile! In other words, ...
At first this may seem
impossible: adding up an infinite number of positive distances should give an
infinite distance for the sum. But it doesn't – in this case it gives a
finite sum; indeed, all these distances add up to 1! A little reflection will reveal
that this isn't so strange after all: if I can divide up a finite distance into
an infinite number of small distances, then adding all those distances together
should just give me back the finite distance I started with. (An infinite sum
such as the one above is known in mathematics as an infinite series, and
when such a sum adds up to a finite number we say that the series is summable.)
Now the resolution to Zeno's Paradox is easy. Obviously, it will take me some fixed
time to cross half the distance to the other side of the room, say 2 seconds.
How long will it take to cross half the remaining distance? Half as long – only
1 second. Covering half of the remaining distance (an eighth of the total) will
take only half a second. And so one. And once I have covered all the infinitely
many sub-distances and added up all the time it took to traverse them? Only 4
seconds, and here I am, on the other side of the room after all.
And poor old Achilles would have won his race.
– Source:
www.mathacademy.com (2009 July)
|
5. Historical Note on Einstein and the Nobel Award
The following, by Kevin Brown, is from a web-article at www.mathpages.com/home/kmath627/kmath627.htm
:
The story of how Einstein did not get the
Nobel prize in 1920, or in 1921, and the famous reports of Arrhenius and
Gullstrand downplaying or disparaging relativity, has been much discussed in
the literature, but I’ve never seen any discussion of the (admittedly indirect)
connection between Einstein and Guillaume, the man who was awarded the 1920
prize. Gullstrand (a member of the Nobel committee) was quoted as saying that
“Einstein must never win the Nobel prize for relativity!”, because he was
strongly opposed to what he regarded as the overly abstract and mathematical
approach to physics. Both Arrhenius and Gullstrand were obviously acquainted
with the relativity literature, especially the literature critical of the
theory, so it seems plausible that they were familiar with the “other”
Guillaume’s battle with Einstein. Is it purely coincidental that the prize, so
pointedly denied to Einstein for relativity theory, was awarded (more or less
out of the blue) to the cousin of one of the most vocal critics of relativity
theory?
…
In 1921, the year after Guillaume was awarded the Nobel
prize, Einstein was again nominated by many of the world’s leading physicists.
Eddington wrote to the committee that “Einstein stands above his contemporaries
even as Newton did.” But this is the year in which Gullstrand issued his
disparaging report, and the committee decided not to award a physics prize for
1921. The following year, however, the tide had turned. One nominator (Brillouin)
asked the committee to “imagine for a moment what the general opinion will be
fifty years from now if the name Einstein does not appear on the list of Nobel
laureates.”
So, in 1922, Einstein was retro-actively awarded the 1921
prize (and Bohr got the 1922 prize). Nevertheless, relativity theory was still
seen as too controversial – and too unconnected to the practical world – to be
the subject of a Nobel prize. Instead, the committee cited Einstein’s “services
to theoretical physics and especially his discovery of the law of the
photoelectric effect”. It’s worth noting that the award was not for the theory
of light quanta, but rather for discovering the “law” of the photoelectric
effect. This again reflects the committee’s reluctance to endorse theoretical
ideas. Years later when Einstein was asked to list the main awards he had
received during his lifetime, he omitted the Nobel prize.
The back-to-back Nobel prizes awarded to Guillaume and
Einstein exemplifies an interesting fundamental dichotomy. Guillaume’s
achievement has often been characterized as “routine” by the community of
theoretical physicists, some of whom suggested that it wasn’t deserving of the
Nobel – and yet it must be admitted that none of those theoreticians predicted
the existence of anomalous behavior (the Invar effect) in metals. [“Invar,” an abbreviation of invariable, is the trademark name
of an alloy of iron and nickel with a negligible coefficient of expansion, and
is used in the making of clocks and scientific instruments. –C.R.] It
was found only by Guillaume’s determined and practical-minded experimentation,
and the practical benefits of his discovery have been immense. On the other
hand, although Einstein and his theories of relativity were (and still are)
revered by theoretical physicists, a good case could be made, at least for
general relativity, that the direct practical benefits have been almost
non-existent. It’s true that special relativity is fundamental to all of modern
physics, to the extent that it’s hard to imagine modern physics without it, but
in historical terms the special theory was, as Einstein himself said, “ripe for
discovery in 1905”. (Needless to say, the splitting of the atom and the
production of atomic bombs was primarily a product of the study of x-rays,
radioactivity, and sub-atomic particles by people like Roentgen, Curie, and
their successors, rather than a result of special relativity.) Whether quantum
mechanics would have been hindered by the absence of the Einstein’s unique
elucidation of the principles of special relativity is impossible to say. But
it’s easy to see how his work on the photoelectric effect (which ironically was
based on the experimental work of Philipp Lenard, another Nobel prize winner and
charter member of the Anti-Relativity Company Ltd.), together with his other
work related to the light quanta, stimulated emission of radiation, and
Einstein-Bose statistics, has been profoundly influential and facilitated the
development of important technologies, including both television and the laser,
with all the associated applications. Einstein’s theoretical work on relativity
is comparable to the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, in the sense that the
Copernican model did not lead directly to any practical benefits, and yet it
stimulated and facilitated the entire scientific revolution. How then do we
measure the “utility” of such fundamental theoretical ideas? Of course, even
aside from utility, deep scientific truths possess a beauty that makes them
highly valued by anyone with an appreciation for such things, but nothing needs
to be said about that.
Oddly enough, the two Guillaume cousins seem to have
almost merged into a single individual in the scholarly literature. For
example, in A. I. Miller’s book on the emergence of special relativity he cites
“Charles Edouard Guillaume” as the author of the preface to the 1924 edition of
Poincaré’s “The New Mechanics”, in which the case is made for Poincaré’s
priority over Einstein, and for the Lorentz/Poincaré ether-based approach. I’m
fairly certain that this was actually written by Edouard Guillaume, the Swiss
patent examiner who published so many anti-relativity papers, not by his cousin
Charles Edouard Guillaume, the discoverer of Invar and winner of the Nobel
prize.
– Source: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath627/kmath627.htm
(2014-11-6)
|
6. Table-4 Erratum, and a Further Point of Interest
For Table 4 (in the Physics
Essays published version).
The correct momentum equation is:
p =
γA
γB mo (vA+
vB)
(1)
* * *
As a point of interest,
although an aether theory is used to derive the above equation, it can
easily be verified by taking the relative-to-absolute conversion expression,
,
(2)
and substituting it into the conventional
Einstein expression for relativistic momentum:
.
(3)
The result is the DSSU
relativistic
momentum:
,
(4)
which is just the expanded version
of eqn (1) above.
DSSU relativity can be thought of as an
extension of Einstein's relativity. There exists a mathematical link between
the two whereby "relativity" equations can be converted to "absolute"
(aether-referenced) equations. This means that any
relativity expression such as
eqn (3), which contains a pure relative velocity
v, can be converted to an absolute expression, eqn (4)
in this case, which contains strictly aether-referenced velocities. (Velocities vA
and vB are absolute in the sense that they are referenced to
the aether medium.)
It may not be immediately obvious, but Einstein's
eqn (3) and DSSU
eqn (4) both
give the same answer in any particular situation.
–CR
|
2015-12
Top of page
Back to DSSU Home Page
|
|