Proof Einstein Was Wrong

Proof Einstein Was Wrong

By
Brian Carlisle

Abstract

These essays prove two of Einstein’s theories wrong. In the first essay, his special theory of relativity is applied to the expanding universe and shown to be unsalvageable. Secondly, the gravitational deflection of light is examined proving general relativity wrong.

Time in Distant Galaxies

Introduction

Among other ideas, the special theory of relativity contains a method for converting time in a moving spaceship, , to time for an observer on Earth, , is to use what is called the Lorenz coefficient so that

This idea refers to many measures of time equally, according to Max Born. Atomic vibrations, gravitational mechanics and cellular processes are all to be effected equally. This means that an astronaut approaching the speed of light could look out his back window and see that the earth is spinning much faster than usual as it races around the sun with an orbital period of just small moments, not one year. Of course, the present velocities of rockets are too small for this to be experienced. Let the astronaut be the twin of a man on Earth, he would be aging more slowly; this is called the twin paradox. It must be stated that both men agree; the Earth is at rest and the astronaut has been accelerated. For the purpose of this essay, we will assume the twin paradox is true.

The use of the Lorenz coefficient takes priority over the rhetoric and/or principles in the theory, because, at least in that, we can be objective. The special theory of relativity was invented amidst the belief that the universe was neither expanding nor contracting. We should examine the consequences of using this theory in an expanding universe.

Body

Accelerating a space ship to great velocities would eventually result in ship velocities that are similar to those of distant galaxies. By the twin paradox, time for the pilot of the ship is slower than it is for observers here on Earth. When the ship approaches the velocities of distant galaxies, it will be at rest with respect to the reference frames of those galaxies. We must decide if the observer on Earth will then find time in such galaxies passing more slowly than it does here. If not, at least one measure of time (time in distant galaxies) does not obey the special theory of relativity. Alternatively, if time does pass more slowly in some galaxies than it does in others, the special theory of relativity must be altered. In accordance with the twin paradox, all galaxies would be in agreement as to in which of them time passes most quickly. Now, whether or not pilots are to gain or lose time depends on which galaxy they are traveling along with and which galaxy from. This would require that the special theory of relativity be position-dependent and directionally-dependent everywhere but the very center of the expanding universe. And, with this directional-dependency not showing in any of our present physical observations or even theories, we are inclined to believe that we are at the center of the universe; Earth is where time passes most quickly than anywhere else in the universe. But this contradicts the cosmological principle which states that there are no preferred places in the universe.

Conclusion

The easiest solution to this problem may be that the universe be static. To believe otherwise, leads us to conflict; an expanding or contracting universe cannot be made to obey the special theory of relativity in its original form. Giving it the necessary alteration contradicts the cosmological principle. So, as for the application of the special theory of relativity onto time in distant galaxies in an expanding universe, there is not a readily acceptable conclusion; neither for nor against. We must either alter the theory or abandon it altogether.

On the Gravitational Deflection of Light: In Continuation of Paul Marmet

Introduction

All analogies draw upon the limited similarities between necessarily dissimilar things. By their very nature, they can only be over-simplifications and therefore must be unacceptable reasoning for the purpose of full understanding; they always lead to trouble. This effect of analogy is examined while determining the cause of a contradiction first recognized by Paul Marmet.

A website written by Paul Marmet contains an article with the title “Incompatibility between Einstein’s General Relativity and the principle of equivalence”, which I will briefly explain. Einstein’s principle of equivalence states that light falls in a gravitational field like a comet (material particle) at light speed and in accordance with Newton’s acceleration by gravitation. We will refer to this as Newton’s deflection. But, what was regarded as the first great success of Einstein’s gravitational theory is the prediction of the deflection of light being twice that value, making General Relativity, according to Max Born, acutely different from Newton’s theory. That is, the gravitational deflection at the end of Einstein’s theory is twice the deflection found in Einstein’s principle of equivalence, a basis of his theory. Marmet (1999) is correct in finding General Relativity a self-contradictory theory. Notably, the contradiction is not buried in some obscure mathematical form: it is simply the number two. It is hard to believe that it was first recognized in 1999.

Here, examine the Einstein deflection angle,, such that

The relation between the angle of deflection and any mass is directly proportional and linear. It does not differentiate between strong and weak fields. There is nothing special about the sun; it applies to all masses including Earth. It is simply twice the Newtonian deflection. The next pertinent course is to explore how this two comes to be and what effects it has when found elsewhere in the contemporary view.

One of the concepts in General Relativity that supports a factor of two is the Schwarzschild radius. It is this factor of two that will be examined. This essay will only loosely engage the expression of the variable speed of light, the velocity-dependant potential and the photon sphere, and, many other matters must be ignored for the sake of brevity. Some redundancy must be forgiven.

Body

The confusion of factors

There are similarities and dissimilarities between photons and material bodies. Photons and material particles travel at a finite velocity, which is where an analogy begins. An unspoken basis of this analogy is that light having no mass is not a concern because gravitational acceleration is not mass-dependant for material bodies and, somehow therefore, it does not matter that light is not a material body. The paramount dissimilarity is material particles accelerate in the direction of a mass while photons do not; the common view is that they slow down independent of direction. Elliptical orbits of material bodies are related to the fact that as an orbiting body gets closer to the orbited body it speeds up and slows down while moving away; it is believed light does not do that. So, there can be no elliptical orbits for photons like there are for material particles whether photons slow down or maintain speed in gravitational fields.

For material bodies, four statements have mutual consistency:

Material particles accelerate towards each other. This acceleration is due to a mutually attractive force found by the familiar equation

The circular orbital velocity is

3. The elliptical orbital velocity is

4. The escape velocity is

Our reverence for each of these facts may be partly due to their mutual consistency. The second, third and fourth are corollaries of the first. When the first is not true, the others lose their mutual consistency, which will be shown following direct arguments.

Schwarzschild considered the notion of the escape velocity for light using Newton’s deflection by gravity. The matter is begun by examining the escape velocity of light, such that,

General concerns should be noted:

Schwarzschild did believe gravitational deflection of light to be what we would find in Newton’s theory for a material particle at that speed, not twice that value as Einstein believed. Otherwise, we would not call c the escape velocity of light; rather, we would call it its circular orbital velocity.
He did not believe the speed of light to vary in a gravitational field; that assertion came later. Yet, this radius is accepted by many who believe the speed does change and perform no mathematical or even contextual alterations.

Einstein’s gravitational theory does not share the context of Schwarzschild’s concept governing his meaning of the escape velocity of light; they contradict each other. All literature known to me is oblivious to this fact.

When considering the Schwarzschild radius, immediately, contemporary literature allows us to believe that there are no mathematical problems. But, there are direct mathematical problems:

By dividing both sides by, we have, . This clearly states that the Schwarzschild radius, the believed point of no return for light, is also the circular orbital radius for a material body moving at less than the speed of light. Here, insisting the Schwarzschild radius to be true, we are forced to believe that material particles and photons do not fall at the same rate, violating the principle of equivalence. This fundamental algebraic operation cannot be directly prohibit or denied.
Literature directs you to expect that any material particle at light speed or less at the Schwarzschild radius must get pulled within it. This is simply false. A particle not having escape velocity for a given point only means it cannot escape the region of the mass with which it gravitationally interacts. At that radius, the material particle moving away (at just .8 c) will continue to move away from the mass as it slows down for its eventual return. We expect that if light gained distance from this radius it would escape because it will not slow down. Again, this is because we believe that light will not accelerate in the direction of matter as does matter. Insisting the Schwarzschild radius is correct forces the belief that photons and material particles fall at different rates, in contradiction with the principle of equivalence. The belief that material particles at less than the speed of light could not pass beyond the event horizon is only an assertion which necessarily violates context governing the meaning of the equation for escape velocity.

Indirectly, another problem and the loss of mutual consistency are examined:

1. When we consider the radius in the escape velocity equation for material bodies, we do not invent an event horizon, at that radius, within which bodies with that velocity or less cannot pass. Yet, if you base your reasoning on the conclusion that Schwarzschild radius is legitimate, you must invent the event horizon for light at that radius. We should examine a material body in elliptical orbit with a velocity near .71c. So, . One cannot exclude some values of r that are less than the Schwarzschild radius or some elliptical orbits that intersect the event horizon, even for material particles moving less than the speed of light. This is inconsistent with most the literature I’ve seen; it considers the event horizon the point of no return for most things that enter, certainly any material body moving less than the speed of light. But, such belief contradicts this equation of motion.

2. For a photon just failing to escape from passing by the Schwarzschild radius, it must take a curved path that is at least that for circular orbit (any path not circular or of greater curvature and the photon will escape), and therefore, the equation for circular orbit cannot be true for photons. This requires the gravitational deflection of light be twice what we would determine by Newton’s deflection. This is consistent with the predictions of General Relativity but supports its contradiction with the principle of equivalence. If we choose the belief that the deflection is twice as great, the Schwarzschild radius is not an expression of the escape velocity for light; rather, it is of the circular orbital velocity of light.

3. Just as we did with the escape velocity of light, we can insert the speed of light into the equation for circular orbital velocity. We have already shown the former being true falsifies the latter. Therefore, the latter being true requires the former be false. This requires the gravitational deflection of light be the same as we would determine by Newton’s deflection. The latter and former cannot both be true, but, we have no justifiable inclination to one over the other; both are over-simplifications. They are both revered under the context of things accelerating towards each other. And they are both mutually true for material particles. Photons near gravitating matter share no such context.

Removing the factor of 2 by choosing, instead, to dignify the circular orbital velocity for light appears to save General Relativity from this self-contradiction, because, at least at this radius material particles at light speed and photons share the same trajectory, under these considerations. In that case, the deflection is consistent with the principle of equivalence and Newton’s deflection. With that, the gravitational effects on space-time are found by the orbital velocity in the field. We don’t have a direct reason for removing the 2; we have a reason based upon a conclusion preferred. You can’t stop anyone from reinserting the factor of 2 by insisting that it is as justifiable, where the gravitational effects on space-time are meant to be found by the escape velocity in the field. You must choose to save the gravitational deflection of light in Einstein’s theory or his principle of equivalence: they can’t both be true, which is no indication that either is. We can say that the entertainment of the Schwarzschild radius is consistent with this contradiction in Einstein’s theory. So much data exists in support of Einstein’s theory. For that reason, removal of this factor of 2 must coincide with a very small change; that is,

Antitheses and responses

Now, we should address the photon sphere, the velocity-dependant potential and the variable speed of light. They elicit concern, although less than immediately.

I don’t have the derivation for the photon sphere, so, I can only comment on its conclusion. Some literature has it at 1.5 times the Schwarzschild radius and states it is the point of the circular orbital radius for light, which, is contrary to the statements about the circular orbital velocity for light made here earlier. Assuming the photon sphere is true, two of many comments rise to view:

1. The photon sphere contradicts the principle of equivalence; photons and material particles would fall at different rates.

2. For material particles of the same velocity near the same mass, the circular orbital radius is within the radius for escape. According to the photon sphere, it is the opposite for light. Therefore, photons and material particles in a gravitational field are dissimilar experiences. With that in mind, you must find great unease when entertaining the Schwarzschild radius while the analogy between such dissimilar experiences lays in its basis.

As for the variation of light speed in a gravitational field, there is something called the space-time interval,, such that

Under conditions where the space-time interval is zero, operations can be performed such that

Somehow, the v is interpreted as the speed of light is a gravitational field. Allow a gravitating body to be at rest. I believe Marmet (1999) is the first to examine the velocity at the Schwarzschild radius; the limit of this form there is

This states that, as a photon approaches the Schwarzschild radius, its velocity diminishes toward zero. Of course, there are problems here:

1. There exists a great deal of literature declaring that light falls into a black hole. That is clearly unsupported here. It cannot be, yet, said here that light even reaches the event horizon. We must, here, alter the meaning of the Schwarzschild radius; we no longer share the context under which it was conceived. The speed of light there is zero, which, is the escape velocity.

2. Material particles have no such restrictions on their velocities. In strong gravitational fields, they pass photons even they themselves emit or reflect. If we put such restrictions on material particles, we must find them quite stationary near the event horizon, inconsistent with any literature I’ve seen. Note: This does not suggest the speed of light in the vacuum most removed from gravitational fields is not the cosmic speed limit.

Another component of some contemporary views is the notion that the gravitational potential is velocity-dependent such that

At high velocities, material particles and photons in Einstein’s theory share similar trajectories but not in accordance with Newton’s deflection, therefore contradicting the principle of equivalence.

Consequences for energy-mass relation

What is to follow will be based on the following: that which falls in a gravitational field and carries momentum, must gravitate or violate Newton’s third law. Without insisting that photons have mass, similarities can be drawn between photons and material bodies in motion as both being particles. In that respect, we accept the momentum, p, of a photon to be

and

p=mv.

The particle nature of a photon is similar to that of a material particle having finite velocity, v=c, and defined momentum, as if it had a defined inertial mass,

It must now be stated that gravitational deflection of light produces no dispersion: the deflection is not frequency dependant. This would also be consistent with photons of different mass-likeness falling at the same rate in the same gravitational field. Now, assuming material particles and photons fall at the same rate and in accordance with Newton’s theory, we have

and

A common description concerning Einstein’s equation for the equivalence of mass and energy is as follows: Imagining a box with mirrors inside, if photons are then to reflect back and forth off the mirrors, you would find an apparent increase of the weight of the system, by the equation

Photons carry momentum, so, their deflection is a change in momentum, a force for which there must an equal opposite. When gravity deflects them, they gravitate. Any system gaining electromagnetic energy will also increase in mass, an indication of how much it gravitates, and therefore weighs. But, the preceding equation and description is only consistent with Newton’s deflection. If these internal photons were to undergo twice the gravitational deflection, the change in their momentum is doubled, the force between them and the gravitating body will be doubled, and therefore, their weight is doubled. So, now we’re stuck with

Three problems should be mentioned:

This is not close to the value presently accepted by experiments.
This violates Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence relation. The previous explanation of mass-energy equivalence requires the deflection of light to be consistent with Newton’s deflection not Einstein’s. It appears the intention of this explanation is to explain that or how light transforms into matter. Clearly, we do not yet believe that such matter falls to Earth at 2(9.8)m/ss.
The force associated with the acceleration of the inertial mass (transformed from light) is now only half the value of the weight of the same matter placed in gravitational fields associated with the same acceleration. For mass associated with electromagnetic energy, . This violates the contemporary view of their one-to-one equivalence relation. Einstein’s deflection angle contradicts the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass, under this description.

You must choose to save the gravitational deflection in Einstein’s theory or this explanation of the mass-energy equivalence relation along with the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass: the first has proven incompatible with both notions that followed. Newton’s deflection angle is acceptable there.

Conclusion

In concerning most of these theoretical concepts, Newton’s deflection is most consistent, which is necessarily violated by the Schwarzschild radius being the point of escape for light. It has not been proven what the gravitational deflection of light is; it has been proven certain widely held beliefs concerning it clearly violate verified physics and contradict each other. The memorization of assertion or conclusion does not constitute understanding and mathematical models are not proofs; mistaking each as so is yet pervasive. Accordingly, many advocates of Einstein’s theory of light deflection did not understand it, including Einstein. Their method here, taking the equations concerning the motions of material particles and abandoning their meanings to then use them to support assertions about the motion of photons, is clearly folly. People deny the notion of such prestigious theories existing so long in such obvious error. The factor of 2 is directly problematic but fundamentally a symptom of a mistake not numerical. The experimental success of Einstein’s theory is made more exceedingly profound by the error of its reasoning being so elementary: analogy.

Amidst my confusion concerning analogies, my English professor asked, “So, life is like a game of chess, right?” Following my affirmation, he continued with, “O.K., if you think life is a game of chess, you’re in trouble.” The solution here requires a theory showing all experiences of electromagnetic waves and material particles as manifestations of the same thing. Such a theory resembling Einstein’s is beyond view.

References

[1]P. Marmet and C. Couture, Physics Department, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, On. Canada, K1N 6N5
This paper is an extract of a paper in Physics Essays, Title: "Relativistic Deflection of Light Near the Sun Using Radio Signals and Visible Light" Vol: 12, No: 1 March 1999. P. 162-174.

Preface for the Final Three Essays

The simple algebraic nature of this matter lends its self to undeniable proof; if something is wrong here, we’re easily going to get to the bottom of it, soon. This is true for all my statements here. It is not up for debate that these matters are strictly algebraic. Simple algebra is not up for debate here. This is not a site for debate at all; one can’t wiggle a way out of simple algebra. Perhaps, so many being so obviously wrong makes these writings harder to believe. There is such thing as simple mathematical proof. So far, empiricism trumps logic or math. But, we still haven’t seen a contradiction in logic or math that is somehow empirically acceptable.

The dissenter carries the burdens of proof and brevity. Even the simplest of dissent tires the reader, challenging character; brevity is a virtue. That is a protocol for dissent under which I operate. It must be read and digested slowly, hence, confirming the value of brevity. For that reason, I must add no more to this site, and I recommend reading the essays one at a time in the order that which interests you most.

In summary, I prove the Lorenz transformations very simply stipulate Einstein’s postulates are wrong and that his and his proponent’s claim, though accidental, that the number two equals the number one is folly. This doesn’t sound hard and it isn’t. I have concerned your time and attention only with the best I have to offer. Thank you for yours.

On a False Claim of Special Relativity: The Misuse of Mean Time

Abstract A fundamental flaw in Einstein’s and Lorenz’s view is exposed; their literature states the speed of light to be constant while their math sets only the average speed constant and the instantaneous speeds not constant. An experiment, apparatus-A, is then proposed proving the flaw is not merely academic. It is then that Special Relativity is reexamined to find where we must except the matter be rectified, if so.

Introduction For a theory that the speed of light be a constant, the term mean time for the journey of a beam should be bothersome. The time dilation and the spatial contraction are defined in terms of a mean time. This mean time arises from the average of two instantaneous speeds which differ by virtue of their dependence of the direction of the observer’s motion with respect to a beam of light.

Should you ride in the back seat of a car and measure the mean time, time light leaves from your flashlight reaches the rear view mirror plus the time it returns to you, Lorenz would agree the time of the total journey will be unchanged regardless the speed or direction of the vehicle. This is in accordance with the values of time dilation and spatial contraction, both of which are also directionally independent. But, consider a passenger next to you who only observes the individual times or instantaneous speeds for the journeys to and then from the mirror separately. Neither of these speeds is equal to the mean speed, when the car is in motion. Using Lorenz transformations the observed speeds of light are not constant. This is because both the contraction and dilation are directionally independent, so is the mean time, however, these two different instantaneous speed values are directionally dependent. This will be explored mathematically. First, we need now describe how one could observe these instantaneous speeds separately to prove this is not strictly academic. We can then attempt to rectify.

Consider an axel rotating while discs are attached at each end with a hole in each to determine the speed of light. An observer rests near the first disc while light passes through the hole in the closer disc on through the hole in the second disc, hits a mirror, is reflected 90 degrees, travels a distance to avoid the disc then is reflected back to the observer. We are not concerned with the time of the return journey, rather, only under what conditions the beam returns at all. The data with apparatus-A is in terms of instantaneous speed, not the mean speed. The time of the journey through
the holes while the apparatus is moving is

be the distance between the discs. The velocity of the apparatus moving is in the direction of the beam and c the speed of light. By constancy of the speed of light, we set this time equal to the time light travels between the holes with apparatus-A in motion to the time it does so when apparatus-A is at rest,

being the distance between the holes with apparatus-A at rest.

This is not the value declared by Lorenz.

Observing this apparatus now moving opposite the direction of the beam gives a different value,

Then the alteration of spatial intervals now depends on the direction of motion with respect to the beam, which is highly unpalatable. But, the remaining will show Lorenz’s view to share similar flavor.

We will not, here, argue Lorenz’s view of the M&M interferometer to be wrong. It is the view of a constant speed of light being called into question. They are different matters.

Body We need mostly examine the arm of the interferometer that is parallel to the motion and in that direction. The time it takes for the beam to travel to the mirror at the end of the arm and the time it takes to return from, is often given as Eq. M.1,

where l is the arm length and v is the velocity of the interferometer. The quantities c-v and c+v indicate the velocities of the beam to and from the mirror respectively. The different velocities are used to produce a mean time, expressed as

The mean time is used while explaining why the rotation of the interferometer displaces no interference pattern. This mean time is set equal to the time,

for the journey of the beam in the arm perpendicular to the motion. For the arm parallel to the motion, the squaring of the velocity ratio on the right side of Lorenz’s coefficient arises from a mean time. For the arm perpendicular to the motion, the squaring of the velocity ratio has nothing to do with mean speed. It and the square root about the value arise from Pythagorean arguments. In the hypothetical relation between the parallel and perpendicular arms of the interferometer in motion, only the square root differentiates the times of the journeys. These times are set equal and it is by that declared the space is contracted. Before dilation, Lorenz knew contraction alone does not reduce to the principle of relativity. The spatial contraction alone provides for the equal times of two different journeys equal for an interferometer in motion. To complete the transformations the time interval is divided by the coefficient, which, is mathematically identical to squaring the spatial contraction coefficient. This final transformation results in the equation to read,

The inclusion of time dilation along with spatial contraction sets the average time for a moving interferometer equal to the time of the same interferometer at rest. But again, his math dealt with average time, not instantaneous.

It can be appropriate to average the instantaneous speeds and call it a mean speed. For the M&M interferometer, they are justifiably unconcerned with the instantaneous speeds. Attempting to do this in reverse is unacceptable; if I drive one direction at 100mph, and return at 40mph, it can’t be declared I drove 70mph the entire time. However, this is what the proponents of this theory are stating, without knowing it. The mean time, the time from the beam splitter to the mirror and time from the mirror to the beam splitter are each unequal to one another. We have completed our review of the transformations. We now judge if time dilation will rectify the matter of apparatus-A.

Consider the equation Eq.M.1. It is agreed that Lorenz’s length contraction be the same for each journey, but, known the speeds of the journeys are different and there is only one variable left, time. Asserting a constant speed for light, it is here mathematically impossible to claim more or less than two different time dilations for this journey. We see, with any attention to the denominators, the times to the mirror and then from the mirror are given respectively,

The dilation of time depends on the direction of motion with respect to the beam: quite unpalatable indeed. No use of Lorenz coefficients can make these times equal.

Conclusion In short, Lorenz transformations state that for a system in motion the average time for a journey of light, from the beam splitter, to and then from a mirror to the beam splitter, is a constant and equal to the time for the same interferometer at rest. But in addition and in no uncertain terms, the two directionally-dependant instantaneous speeds of light for those journeys are never equal to that directionally-independent average speed, never equal to each other and are not constants, while including the Lorenz transformations or not.

For Lorenz transformations and the M&M interferometer, the observation was concerned with the mean time alone. Einstein claimed Lorenz transformations can be deduced from his postulates, the second of which states the constant speed of light. But, the transformations and the postulates are mutually exclusive. With the postulates, the speed of light is a constant, accordingly so is the average speed. With the transformations it is not constant; only the average speed is. Either case yields null results for the interferometer, but they are not the same conditions, and, not compatible. Lorenz transformations or Einstein’s postulates, not both, is consistent with the M&M interferometer result. With the postulates, we would never take the average speed as the transformations do, also, we would never attempt the M&M interferometer and we don’t need the transformations.

Einstein’s theory carries the unspoken underlying assumption that the interferometer universally covered all types of observation. However, the operational elements of apparatus-A constitute a different observation, it is also different than Fizeau’s method. Should apparatus-A produce null results, it must do so under different conditions (omitted by brevity) than Lorenz transformations provide for the M&M interferometer. Without null results, the second postulate fails. With null results, the transformations fail. So, there is no point in doing the experiment for our purpose here. This is the sort of thing contradiction produces, two assumed truths found to be mutually exclusive. Perhaps, it is exiting news we have not yet resolved this mystery, the apparent constancy of light speed. The blatant retrograde misuse of mean time is the folly here.

Contradiction by Total Energy Evaluation: In Continuation of Paul Marmet

Abstract One contradiction in General Relativity is restated. We are not concerned with its consequences, rather, what step creates it. It is shown producible from the escape speed of light.

Introduction An early attempt at defining light being deflected by gravity, after Newton, was conducted by Soldner. He simply regarded light to be like a comet moving at light speed. He declared it to be what one would determine from Newton’s theory of such a comet; we will call this Soldner’s value.

In what is considered a great achievement of General Relativity, results during a solar eclipse “verified” Einstein’s theory, which was to be twice Soldner’s value. But, Einstein’s principle of equivalence, a foundation of his very same theory, declares Soldner’s value [1]. General Relativity declares two angles for the gravitational deflection of light (Einstein’s and Soldner’s). How this blatant contradiction escaped us for so long is not an issue here.

Body Such a contradiction (or the similar) can be explained by means of three statements:
1. The energy of a photon is declared.
2. The momentum of a photon is declared.
3. The escape velocity of a photon is declared.

When discussing the escape velocity of a material particle, the kinetic energy is set equal to the gravitational potential energy by total energy set to be zero in the field at infinity with a velocity of zero,

The mass of the material particle has canceled out; the mass of the material particle does not matter. With the absence of mass-dependency, it is argued that light not being a material particle doesn’t matter. The said argument removes this equation from the context wherein it is revered and valid:
1. The number two is not present in the denominator of the energy for a photon.
2. By gravitation, material particles accelerate towards other material particles, photons do not by account of any literature I’ve seen.

Without hesitation, the speed of light is placed in for the escape velocity. A retrograde evaluation of the total energy of zero finds us with

We now have two notable issues:
1. Naturally, the two gets stuck to the gravitational potential energy. We are not dealing with the same gravitational potential in Newton’s context. The photon and the material particle cannot associate equal potentials with the presence of matter; the associations differ by the number two. This makes some initial sense; the energy of a photon is twice as great as a material particle of the same mass and velocity. For the total energy to be zero the potential must, now, associate twice the work as is associated to a material particle at the same point in space.
2. No one did mean to stipulate that the total energy of the system to be zero by the velocity of a photon to be zero at infinity. So far, the photon should not have zero velocity at infinity; this distribution will have kinetic energy at infinity. Whatever reason one uses to make the energy zero, it does not equally apply to material particles. So, this analogy has here met its death.

To avoid the absurd, we cannot proceed without inventing a particle that can at least be discussed. Allow a material particle to have the energy and momentum of a photon and by equal expression. This particle does accelerate in the gravitational field, and, can be set to rest. We place this particle along side a classical particle at infinity in the field with velocities of zero, where again, the new particle encounters twice the work, in the same field. The particles are of equal mass. After an eternity, they both reach the escape radius, but, at the same time. The gravitational deflection of this new particle is twice the work as it is for a classical particle while not twice the deflection. Someone determining a general solution might let that slip by. In addition, these arguments concerning the change in momentum would still stipulate that the force is not doubled, requiring even more carefulness; the force concerning the change in momentum and energy are not simply equal, definitely outside Newton’s context.

Similar arguments occur with perfectly elastic collisions. The remainder of this diversion belongs in an appendix, but, brevity demands its omission. I will send this appendix to anyone who asks.

Conclusion The assertions of the escape speed of light and the energy of light double the gravitational potential. If we allow that to double the deflection, we violate the escape speed or energy that brought us to the doubling. It is plausible only this is why General Relativity mistakenly gives two angles. The escape speed of light with its place at the foundation of contemporary view is unacceptable.

The claim that visual light deflection supported General Relativity is an example of the deception about this matter; the scientific data never supported that. And, the success of radio wave observation stipulates that the principle of equivalence (a foundation of the very same theory) is wrong [1]; deception continues. Let me add that we are not dealing with utterly dishonest people; they have deceived themselves.

References
[1]P. Marmet and C. Couture, Physics Department, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, On. Canada, K1N 6N5
This paper is an extract of a paper in Physics Essays, Title: “Relativistic Deflection of Light Near the Sun Using Radio Signals and Visible Light” Vol: 12, No: 1 March 1999. P. 162-174.

The Apollo Mission

Abstract Arguments concerning special relativity made earlier here are translated into the context of the Apollo missions in response to a question asked about my position on the matter. We will assume the astronauts returned from the moon with clocks behind those on Earth. This essay will show that in fact special relativity contains elements (Lorenz transformations) that declare in no uncertain terms relative motion is not meaningless. This is of course in spite of Einstein’s first postulate.

Introduction There is some confusion compelling attention; often, people believe that subjectivity and relativity are synonymous. They make statements such as “Motion is relative.” as if it is of some great concern or conclusion to special relativity. There, the relativity of motion is not in contention. (Perhaps, Galileo faced arguments concerning this relativity of motion but Einstein did not). These people mean to say that relative motion is subjective. That means, given a relative velocity between us either of us may declare either to be in motion, arbitrarily, without consequence. This view is consistent with Einstein’s principle of relativity. It is not consistent with all his statements.

Neglect the expansion of the universe for now, and, accept that in our earthly laboratory time dilation is not directionally dependant. Time slows down for systems in motion as they move either to or from the lab and equally in any direction. And of course, the greater the velocity is, the slower the relative time passes. Accordingly, we expect the clocks of the Apollo astronauts to be behind the clocks in our earthly lab upon returning from the moon. Problem: The astronauts agree! They do not return and regard the Earth to have been in motion, whereby, earthly clocks should be behind theirs.

Body Indeed, everyone in the universe agrees to the dilation of the astronaut’s time. This is not a subjective relativity; it is objective relativity, whereby, all declare the astronauts in motion and not Earth. The astronauts divide their spatial interval by the Lorenz coefficient in order to relate to spatial interval on Earth, because, the astronauts are in motion. However, earthly observers multiply their space interval by this coefficient to relate their spatial interval, because, they are not moving. Only the relative velocity between them is not enough information. This element of special relativity, the twin paradox, was never subjective: It has always been governed by agreement with what reference frame is in motion and which is at rest, despite the spirit of this theory and literature. We were not here lied to; they really haven’t notice their emperor is naked.

The objectivity of relative motion has consequences to the meaninglessness of motion:
1. The principle of relativity seems to allow the belief that an astronaut without windows will not be able to know the direction of travel. This is consistent with notion that subjective relative motion is meaningless. If the traveling, moon bound, astronaut were to push his clock into the direction of travel, he would see that it slows down. However, pulling the clock in the opposite direction changes his observation. The faster he does so, the more the clock speeds up as it becomes more at rest with respect to the Earth than he and the ship actually are. When the clock is finally moving faster in the opposite direction as the ship with respect to the Earth, the clock begins to slow down again. This all occurs objectively. Therefore, the astronaut without windows can determine his direction of motion, and, everyone in the universe agrees. This is contrary to any theoretical meaninglessness of motion and accordingly Einstein’s principle of subjective relativity.
2. We have already accepted the directional independence of time dilation for the earthly observer. Naturally, two ships leaving at the same time, with same velocity and the same return time but in opposite directions must exhibit the same dilation. That is, even given a relative velocity, between them, there is no time dilation. The subjective relative motion produces no time dilation as it normally does by some claims, and, objective relative motion must be considered to determine the relation of time intervals. Again, given only a subjective relative velocity is not enough information. Special Relativity cannot be applied to expanding distributions in general, neither the universe, nor the lesser.

I should introduce a principle here. We will call it the principle of objective relativity, which, is as follows: Considering the twin paradox in its simplest form, the multiplication or division of intervals by the Lorenz coefficient is universally determined by which reference frame moves and which rests, whereby the laws of the universe are not in simplest form for reference frames in motion.

Conclusion The calculation of time dilation is impossible without stating which reference frame is moving; only a relative velocity between two systems is not enough information. This contradicts Einstein’s principle of (subjective) relativity, exposing this self-contradictory element of this theory. Successful prediction of time dilation for astronauts does not outweigh the fact that elements of the very same theory predict that such a thing cannot happen. Einstein’s first postulate asserts relative motion to be subjective. Lorenz transformations, to the complete contrary, model the relative motion being objective.

Experiment to prove relativity is wrong. Experimental proof relativity wrong. Misinterpretation of Lorenz transformations. Transformations wrong. Einstein’s deflection wrong. The nonconstant speed of light. Constant speed is yet wrong. Relativity incomplete. Mathematical proof relativity wrong. Why light speed not constant.

Brian Carlisle bactrans825@msn.com