E=mc^2

[cikljamas]

Einstein has been wrong almost all the time:

1. Michelson-Morley-experiment: http://zaslike.com/files/yuyi9ump6hbcd9wwv6ed.jpg

2. Dayton Miller ether drift experiments: Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments

3. Einstein vs Herbert Dingle: Herbert Dingle Was Correct!

One result of the analysis is the discovery that Einstein’s 1905 paper contains a major blunder. He incorrectly concludes by his method that moving clocks run slow.
The conclusion is that, based on Einstein’s principles enunciated in 1905, the correct conclusion should have been that moving clocks run fast, and not slow as Einstein mistakenly concluded.

4. Einstein vs Alexandar Friedman: Facts about Alexander Friedman: Inventor of the Big Bang Theory

5. Einstein vs E. Hubble's discovery (Hubble's constant): Einstein’s lost theory uncovered : Nature News & Comment

Although Hoyle’s model was eventually ruled out by astronomical observations, it was at least mathematically consistent, tweaking the equations of Einstein’s general theory of relativity to provide a possible mechanism for the spontaneous generation of matter. Einstein’s unpublished manuscript suggests that, at first, he believed that such a mechanism could arise from his original theory without modification. But then he realized that he had made a mistake in his calculations, O’Raifeartaigh and his team suggest. When he corrected it — crossing out a number with a pen of a different colour — he probably decided that the idea would not work and set it aside.

6. Einstein vs Lemaitre: Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Einstein at first dismissed Friedmann, and then (privately) Lemaître, out of hand, saying that not all mathematics lead to correct theories. After Hubble's discovery was published, Einstein quickly and publicly endorsed Lemaître's theory, helping both the theory and its proposer get fast recognition.[25]

In short:

The change in Einstein's viewpoint, in fact, resulted from a tortuous thought process, said researchers in a new article published in The European Physical Journal H.

Harry Nussbaumer from the Institute of Astronomy at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, explained how Einstein changed his mind following many encounters with some of the most influential astrophysicists of his generation.

In 1917 Einstein applied his theory of general relativity in the universe, and suggested a model of a homogenous, static, spatially curved universe.

However, this interpretation has one major problem: If gravitation was the only active force, his universe would collapse - an issue Einstein addressed by introducing the cosmological constant.

He then fiercely resisted the view that the universe was expanding, despite his contemporaries' suggestions that this was the case.

For example, in 1922, Russian physicist Alexander Friedman showed that Einstein's equations were viable for dynamical worlds.

Also, in 1927, Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian astrophysicist from the Catholic University of Louvain, concluded that the universe was expanding by combining general relativity with astronomical observations.

Yet, Einstein still refused to abandon his static universe.

However, in an April 1931 report to the Prussian Academy of Sciences, Einstein finally adopted a model of an expanding universe.

So much about Einstein...

Flat Earth or Flat Universe: Astronomers disappointed after discovering universe is as 'flat as Holland' | Mail Online

I like this (first) comment below article:

Joseph Guidry, Alvarado, United States, 3 days ago
Remember always, you are wrong if you do not agree with them. Now when they are wrong, they do not apologize for demeaning the people that disagree with them. Want to be smarter than a scientist. Simply believe they are wrong. And if you want to be a lot smarter than scientist.... believe they are wrong about everything.

Now, i would like to remind us to this:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ble-light.html


NASA has yet to give us a picture of the Sun and stars that is taken ABOVE the atmosphere (in the vacuum of space) with a regular camera that does not convert these UV rays into the visible spectrum of light. Why not? It's been yeeaaaars since they've been able to go out into deep space. Why not give us a picture with zero enhancements and fancy computer animated colors? Why not let us see how the stars really look like if we were in true space?

If they can't show us a picture of the Sun taken from above the atmosphere with a regular camera lens, which represents what our eyes would see, I will have to question what NASA is (not) telling us about everything.

Earth's atmosphere & ionosphere is a converter. When the UV waves interact with the atmosphere; light & heat is produced and that is what we experience here on Earth. Travel into space and it becomes dark and freezing cold. Therefore, the Sun is NOT a giant ball of burning gas and fire. Mainstream science needs to go back to the drawing board about the Sun's properties.. or maybe they are lying to us on purpose. 2011's comet Lovejoy, entered the Sun's corona and made it out alive and scientists are baffled. If the Sun is burning at millions of degrees; this should be impossible.

And now for those who still think that Moonlight is just reflection of Sunlight watch this:

http://www.pxleyes.com/images/contes...56c5_hires.jpg

Panoramio - Photo of Oops..They get caught....moon and sun together

An interesting experience:

So, this morning, husband and I were driving for breakfast tacos, and husband pointed up to the sky to tell me to look at the sunlight shining through the clouds. Just cuz it looked cool. I saw the bright light, but then also saw the moon right next to it. Like clear as day, no doubt in my mind it was the moon. I told him, but he couldn't look back up (was driving) and told me that wasn't possible, as moon normally is in different part of the sky at this time. I'm not good with directional stuff in the sky (not an idiot, love astronomy, but I just get mixed up West and East when I'm out and about). Anyways, a few minutes later the sun was clearly visible and there's no way I could see the moon, even if it was nearby, at this point.

Not saying anything's "off" or wrong, was just truly curious how I could have seen this.

We were driving in northwest direction in Austin, TX a little after 830 AM when this happened.

Read this:

http://zaslike.com/files/q3qdzebtpcbnv8j434le.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/5kpbgvjbf4k384egmg.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/e3glfyzsg4aev4xgjd9.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/crhrhdfwiqtqarom04o0.jpg

And start to use your own head, finally!!!

Cheers!

P.S. @ Ben, either you use "expanding universe theory" (which is wrong) or you use "ether - extra dimension - counter space - converter theory" (which is right), in both cases you have to admit that Energy is NOT conserved and that Zero Point Energy is more than just a theory.

[thx1138]

By way of introduction I'd like to say I've spent the last three years studying the works of Nikola Tesla. I have not, by any stretch of the imagination, read everything that he said so I may have missed a few things.

On a separate front, the inventor stated that the impulses transmitted from his turn of the century Wardenclyffe wireless transmitting tower would also travel at velocities in excess of the speed of light. He likened the effect to the moon’s shadow spreading over the Earth.

I did read thsi article but I don't see how this relates to the speed of light since the earth nor the moon nor the sun are moving at the speed of light. One of many things I didn't undertand at the time.

Concrete proof that relativity can be violated can be found in George Gamow’s watershed book Thirty Years That Shook Physics. Gamow, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, tells us that in the mid-1920’s, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck discovered not only that electrons were orthorotating, but also that they were spinning at 1.37 times the speed of light. Gamow makes it clear that this discovery did not violate anything in quantum physics...

I'm not sure I beleive there's any truth in quantum physics either. It seems to be based only on faith, or as Hotson put it, "Like the White Queen in Alice, quantum physicists must “believe six impossible things before
breakfast.” My problems with are those of the simpleton I guess - the particle/wave duality, being in multiple places at the same time, etc.

...what it violated was Einstein’s principle that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light.

That's not the way I understand Einstein's principle. The way I understand it is that no physical thing, which is different than "nothing", can travel faster than the speed of light. Forces are things but not physical things, hence "spooky action at a distance."

Paul Adrian Dirac studied the problem.

Which is the basis of D. L. Hotson's work - taking Dirac's equation literally and not the corruptions that others derived from it.

No physicist talks about this anymore. What this means is that the entire evolution of 20th and nascent 21st century physics is evolving ignoring this key Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck finding.

IMO, they are talking about it again but now they call it dark matter and dark energy so they don't get run out of town. What's interesting is that the justification for dark matter is that it must be there because if it weren't their science doesn't work. So rather than saying the last 100 years of physics was a mistake they invent dark matter/energy out of whole cloth. They are saying it must exist or else we've been wrong.

In an obscure paper I discovered on the web published by M. Shapkin but supposedly written by Tesla, Shapkin/Tesla states that the reason why light only travels at one speed, 186,000 mph, is because the ether, its medium of transfer, slows down photonic energy to that rate the same way air slows down sound to its constant speed.

There is some work being done now that is exploring the idea that the speed of light is not constant. That throws a monkey wrench in the works for sure.
The existence of the photon seems dubious to me based on my problems with the wave/particle duality. So if the photon doesn't exist and light is always a wave and its speed is variable based upon the density of the medium through which it is traveling (which agrees with the analogy of sound through air) then a total rework of physics is required or there needs to be a new science of forces, forces not being phyical at all, as implied by the word "physics".

Which brings me back to my original post - there is no such thing as a vaccuum, other than a theoretical concept in men's heads. Nature has no such state and therefore "the speed of light in a vacuum" is nonsense when trying to explain physical reality - other than the possibility of light shining into some scientist's ear and out the other which seemingly produced quantum mechanics.

As Tesla said, “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

More later. Chores to do today.

[mr.clean]

...from the man himself...

My brain is in a loop. Please help me out.

If c is speed of light in vacuum then shouldn't the mass-energy equivalence be Energy in vacuum equals mass in vacuum times speed of light in vacuum? It isn't in a vacuum if it has mass in the same vacuum, is it? Or am I just going senile?

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/80.../imag0773o.jpg

[mr.clean]

oh... why didn't you just say so LOL

Hi Aaron
I am looking for something to build that has proven to be generating energy and that can power my home.
So far I haven't been able to find one that is actually able to do so. I came across many promising designs, 'almost there' statements, semantic discussions, confusing definitions of COP and 'work', polarizing name calling statements, banning of critics and all kinds of smoke screens and mirrors (entropy being the latest).

In my view the COP of this discussion is -10 and I am quite disappointed and totally fed-up with it. I don't know what your problem is, but I do know this is not the way to achieve anything against the well organized and structured conventional science.

Best of luck to you all!

LOL dont dispair, this is legit...

-multiple independent electrician verification,
-Self-Runner, in closed loop trajectory,
-based on Tesla US patent #390,414 Dynamo Electric Machine 1888 and improvement Pat. #511,916 1896

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgEsSOphlp8

Original modern designer James Robitaille now instructing Taiwanese in China AS WE SPEAK...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c0tDRZiz24

10 KW schematic / parts list...

http://hopegirl2012.files.wordpress....al-3-25-14.pdf

how do you like that? all on one silver plate for ya

Im going to be working on this very soon, and seeing what solid state options may exist

[Ben2503]

600W, 10 KW or 40 KW???

LOL dont dispair, this is legit...

-multiple independent electrician verification,
-Self-Runner, in closed loop trajectory,
-based on Tesla US patent #390,414 Dynamo Electric Machine 1888 and improvement Pat. #511,916 1896

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgEsSOphlp8

Original modern designer James Robitaille now instructing Taiwanese in China AS WE SPEAK...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c0tDRZiz24

10 KW schematic / parts list...

http://hopegirl2012.files.wordpress....al-3-25-14.pdf

how do you like that? all on one silver plate for ya

Hi mr. Clean.
I surely hope so.
It would be the best thing to happen to us. In my country you get paid when you feed your excess electricity into the grid. So I would be looking for a 40 KW version. But up to now I haven't seen any well documented tests that were convincing enough to make me invest > $3000. It isn't even clear if these units will deliver 600W, 10KW or 40KW.

Where did you see the "-multiple independent electrician verification, "?

[mr.clean]

Hi mr. Clean.
I surely hope so.
It would be the best thing to happen to us. In my country you get paid when you feed your excess electricity into the grid. So I would be looking for a 40 KW version. But up to now I haven't seen any well documented tests that were convincing enough to make me invest > $3000. It isn't even clear if these units will deliver 600W, 10KW or 40KW.

Where did you see the "-multiple independent electrician verification, "?

ok sure, the witts guys have 2 or 3 different channels, but the independant testimonies are on their channel, here's some...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyuUFfvilzc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZcOD106yN0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObId...A6B18F3F39E0FE

the list goes on. anyway there was a lot of controversy because they had been asking for money ($300 donations)

Im not sure if that is still the case, but it has now been officially made public information,

We will see, but it would be a shame to not try. and i think the cores and rotor could be made easier. Im not sure if the rotor is magnetic though, or if it serves as a moving flux path for somehow altering the MH of the core? hmm

From the windings and shorted capacitors, and sparking exciter coil, multilayer output coils, the sound of the world ending... it is so "Kapanadze"

Oh and one of the videos is titled 40KW ..becaaaause... they had connected it to the primary of a 40 KW Pole Pig transformer (power line service) ... and their generator fried the windings, hence "40KW capable"

[Ernst]

One result of the analysis is the discovery that Einstein’s 1905 paper contains a major blunder. He incorrectly concludes by his method that moving clocks run slow.
The conclusion is that, based on Einstein’s principles enunciated in 1905, the correct conclusion should have been that moving clocks run fast, and not slow as Einstein mistakenly concluded.

People should pay more attention to the facts instead of just parroting what they have heard.
The ether theory which existed prior to relativity produced the Lorentz transformations which predict that moving clocks run slower. The only thing Einstein did was give an alternative explanation.
The fact that clocks do run slower has been experimentally verified in a number of ways. And in fact, it is used in GPS. So the proof can probably even be found in your car.

I did read this article but I don't see how this relates to the speed of light since the earth nor the moon nor the sun are moving at the speed of light. One of many things I didn't understand at the time.

Then you are missing the point. Tesla proofs that certain effects can expand at a FTL-velocity. I have been trying to explain this many times, and in various ways, but unless I am speaking face 2 face with someone, I just can't seem to get my point across.
One more try, then?
Imagine a machine sending an electrical impulse through the Earth from the North pole to the South pole. You are taught that this impulse travels through the outer skin of the Earth 20,000 Km, but this is not true. The impulse travels through the centre of the Earth 12,732 Km. The electrical effects however can be felt/measured on the outer skin of the Earth, in a circle that has the travelling impulse in its centre. Thus the apparent velocity on the surface is c/sin(angle source(=machine) - centre of the Earth - apparent impulse at the surface). It varies between infinite near the poles and c at the equator. While the true velocity, that is through the centre of the Earth, is constant and equal to c. This is where the ridiculous PI-over-2 crap comes from. The real impulse does NOT travel at a speed of PI-over-2 times c, it just takes a short cut.

So if the photon doesn't exist and light is always a wave and its speed is variable based upon the density of the medium through which it is travelling (which agrees with the analogy of sound through air) then a total rework of physics is required or there needs to be a new science of forces, forces not being physical at all, as implied by the word "physics".

This is exceptionally close to what Tesla says.
Light is a wave in the ether, light always travels through the ether. Ether, being incompressible always has the same density... BUT there is interaction between the air and the ether (as I have shown in my video - although it can barely be seen in the video, in real life it is quite visible) it is this interaction that dampens the wave and slows it down (a tiny little bit).


Ernst.

[Ben2503]

uneasy

ok sure, the witts guys have 2 or 3 different channels, but the independant testimonies are on their channel, here's some...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyuUFfvilzc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZcOD106yN0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObId...A6B18F3F39E0FE

the list goes on. anyway there was a lot of controversy because they had been asking for money ($300 donations)

Im not sure if that is still the case, but it has now been officially made public information,

We will see, but it would be a shame to not try. and i think the cores and rotor could be made easier. Im not sure if the rotor is magnetic though, or if it serves as a moving flux path for somehow altering the MH of the core? hmm

From the windings and shorted capacitors, and sparking exciter coil, multilayer output coils, the sound of the world ending... it is so "Kapanadze"

Oh and one of the videos is titled 40KW ..becaaaause... they had connected it to the primary of a 40 KW Pole Pig transformer (power line service) ... and their generator fried the windings, hence "40KW capable"

I find the WITTS videos quite convincing but I am a bit puzzled about the following:

If I owned such a great machine, I would install it in my basement and hook it up to the electrical installation in my house, using a power meter. Next I would have it run for 24 / 7, to reduce my electricity bill as much as possible. Make a video of that and post it.
So I wonder, why are these demo's always about prototypes, installed in shed, lofts and what have you?

If I was asked to independently verify one of these machines, I would at least measure and record: voltage, amps, frequency and cos(phi) of the output and input; DC power to the drive motor;voltages across the inductors and capacitors, RPM's. Make scope shots of input and output wave forms..
I would make these measurements during start-up and under various load conditions.

For proper prototype testing I would also measure noise and vibration levels; the temperatures of the coils, core, the prime mover and electronics and increase the load until the machine stops or fails.
I would like to know how this machine would respond to a short-circuit or a sudden loss of load.

It seems to me this machine is generating energy and therefore most likely not stable when in a loop-back configuration. So what does the control system look like?

With a report like that and a good working prototype, you will be able to raise the all funds you need to bring this to the market.

[Ben2503]

cuckoo clocks?

People should pay more attention to the facts instead of just parroting what they have heard.
The ether theory which existed prior to relativity produced the Lorentz transformations which predict that moving clocks run slower. The only thing Einstein did was give an alternative explanation.
The fact that clocks do run slower has been experimentally verified in a number of ways. And in fact, it is used in GPS. So the proof can probably even be found in your car.


Then you are missing the point. Tesla proofs that certain effects can expand at a FTL-velocity. I have been trying to explain this many times, and in various ways, but unless I am speaking face 2 face with someone, I just can't seem to get my point across.
One more try, then?
Imagine a machine sending an electrical impulse through the Earth from the North pole to the South pole. You are taught that this impulse travels through the outer skin of the Earth 20,000 Km, but this is not true. The impulse travels through the centre of the Earth 12,732 Km. The electrical effects however can be felt/measured on the outer skin of the Earth, in a circle that has the travelling impulse in its centre. Thus the apparent velocity on the surface is c/sin(angle source(=machine) - centre of the Earth - apparent impulse at the surface). It varies between infinite near the poles and c at the equator. While the true velocity, that is through the centre of the Earth, is constant and equal to c. This is where the ridiculous PI-over-2 crap comes from. The real impulse does NOT travel at a speed of PI-over-2 times c, it just takes a short cut.



This is exceptionally close to what Tesla says.
Light is a wave in the ether, light always travels through the ether. Ether, being incompressible always has the same density... BUT there is interaction between the air and the ether (as I have shown in my video - although it can barely be seen in the video, in real life it is quite visible) it is this interaction that dampens the wave and slows it down (a tiny little bit).


Ernst.

GPS utilizes a number of satellites that orbit the earth. These satellites are equipped with a very accurate atomic clock; a very navigation system and encrypted radio modem.
The satellites continuously transmit their position in lat,long and height and the time stamp.
The GPS receiver in your car uses these data of at least 3 satellites to determine its location on earth. The encryption keys are used to control the accuracy and for military purposes.

My clock goes faster when I feed it and stops when the cat is around
New relativity part 2

I think what puzzled Einstein, was the fact that displacement and speed are relative with respect to a reference, and thus all energy is relative as well.
The term energy is very confusing. If you sit next to a dead guy which is heavier than you, this guy has more kinetic energy then you.
I think Einstein assumed that the ether is stationary and thus the speed of light is constant. But as the ether couldn't be detected, he called it the vacuum or space. Ether just became 'political incorrect'. So now we have 'nothing' that has some EM properties
Next they have invented 'dark matter' to patch-up some of the theories.
Or is mass (or inertia) also a property of the ether?


What if there are two waves? one traveling through the center of the earth and one following the surface. then this should give 2 pulses at the receiver side, or an interference pattern, right? are these somewhere observed and reported?
The difference in speed, if any, would be most interesting.

take care!
Ben

[Ernst]

You'll have to dig a bit deeper into the GPS... proof is there, among other places.

I think Einstein assumed that the ether is stationary and thus the speed of light is constant. But as the ether couldn't be detected, he called it the vacuum or space. Ether just became 'political incorrect'. So now we have 'nothing' that has some EM properties
Next they have invented 'dark matter' to patch-up some of the theories.
Or is mass (or inertia) also a property of the ether?

I'm impressed, really!
Mass (or inertia) can not be a property of ether for ether creates it.
You can not be what you create, because you have to be, before you can create.
So if ether creates mass/inertia then ether was there before any mass/inertia existed and so ether does not have any mass/inertia.
But this is a very tricky issue because ether interacts with mass.
Einstein tried to think of ether as just any media, so it should have a mass, density and state of motion. But ether is (for above mentioned reasons) not an ordinary media, and that is, in my opinion, the reason why Einstein failed and all properties that actually do belong to ether have been transferred to empty space. Which is a totally absurd thing to do.
Well in my opinion anyway.
BTW, I have an experiment (and again) that does show ether action.
BTBTW, when you think of it, a magnet attracting another magnet in a vacuum already proves it. So does light propagation, gravity and the very existence of mass.

What if there are two waves? one traveling through the center of the earth and one following the surface. then this should give 2 pulses at the receiver side, or an interference pattern, right? are these somewhere observed and reported?
The difference in speed, if any, would be most interesting.

Tesla did write about his experiments with this, but not in great detail...
I have observed resonance at the exact frequency Tesla mentioned, but I have not yet had a chance to experiment far beyond that. I hope to be able to do so soon.

Ernst.

[Ben2503]

You'll have to dig a bit deeper into the GPS... proof is there, among other places.

I'm impressed, really!
Mass (or inertia) can not be a property of ether for ether creates it.
You can not be what you create, because you have to be, before you can create.
So if ether creates mass/inertia then ether was there before any mass/inertia existed and so ether does not have any mass/inertia.
But this is a very tricky issue because ether interacts with mass.
Einstein tried to think of ether as just any media, so it should have a mass, density and state of motion. But ether is (for above mentioned reasons) not an ordinary media, and that is, in my opinion, the reason why Einstein failed and all properties that actually do belong to ether have been transferred to empty space. Which is a totally absurd thing to do.
Well in my opinion anyway.
BTW, I have an experiment (and again) that does show ether action.
BTBTW, when you think of it, a magnet attracting another magnet in a vacuum already proves it. So does light propagation, gravity and the very existence of mass.


Tesla did write about his experiments with this, but not in great detail...
I have observed resonance at the exact frequency Tesla mentioned, but I have not yet had a chance to experiment far beyond that. I hope to be able to do so soon.

Ernst.

This how GPS was presented to me some 20 years ago during an introduction course. Accoording to this Global Positioning System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia it still works the same. Key in the performance of GPS is the atomic clock.
I can imagine that a pendulum clock or any other clock that uses a sting / mass combination, will be sensitive for changes in gravity and other accelerations. But there it stops for me. But please proof me wrong

I mentioned earlier that Robert Distinti https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sUe...nhhTicspymWThP is doing a great series on ether mechanics, which even I can understand.

I watched all your utube videos and really enjoyed them. The last two are too dark to really see the effects.
I didn't quite grasp how you arrive at the conclusion that the movements of the surface are caused by the ether. Please enlighten me.

best regards,
Ben

[Ben2503]

Tesla

Tesla did write about his experiments with this, but not in great detail...
I have observed resonance at the exact frequency Tesla mentioned, but I have not yet had a chance to experiment far beyond that. I hope to be able to do so soon.

Ernst.

We have to keep in mind that Tesla didn't have the measurement equipment we nowadays commonly use. If he would have lived today, he probably just hooked up an oscilloscope and looked at the received signals.

[indio007]

GPS confirmation of relativity is a myth.
It is disingenuous at best to claim a system with a 2-3 meter accuracy, confirms what would be a millmeter correction in position.

Position computed using Newton vs Einstein is at most a 1% correction to the margin of error.

First. All clocks are fundamentally oscillators.

A change in a clocks position within a gravitational potential will change the rate of oscillation because there is a non-uniform force gradient.

The entire path of the oscillatory motion would have to be uniform for there to be zero change in speed of motion.

How can you make a uniform force on an oscillator for the duration of an oscillation?

The path of motion must be perpendicular to the gravitating object through all points of space.

Good luck doing that experimentally with a inhomogeneously dense sphere as the gravitating object.

Even an spherical object of uniform density would be exceedingly difficult.



The path of an oscillator need to exactly follow the dashed line to experience zero time error.

If the path doesn't follow the dashed line, the oscillator motion will experience a different acceleration or deceleration.

There is time dilation..... when compared against an ideal clock which never existed.

Space time stretching fails Occam's razor

[Ben2503]

lost

Dear Indio.
You totally lost me
could you explain a little bit further?
Thanks
Ben

[cikljamas]

No matter how much evidence I present for my unified field or against the standard models of gravity and E/M, my critics prefer to ignore everything I have said up to now and concentrate on things I haven’t yet discussed. Physics is such a huge field that they feel confident in their ability to misdirect the argument forever. In this, they are probably right. As long as they want to run, they can keep finding new places to hide. But they miscalculate in one important way: every new hiding place they find gives me another chance to exhibit my targeting systems. With each new round in the game, my weaponry is made to look more and more formidable, and their caves are made to look less and less sheltering. Always they must search for deeper and darker dwellings.

Gravitational lensing is another of these shallow caves. Although lensing has been around as a theory since Chwolson’s mention of it in 1924, it wasn’t “confirmed” until 1979, with the so-called Twin Quasar Q0957+561. The Twin Quasar has many problems as the proposed effect of a gravitational lens, beginning with the fact that no one knows what a quasar is. This “quasar” has a redshift of 1.41, which, following standard procedure, would put it at about 8.7 billion lightyears. But that is assuming this quasar has no velocity relative to universal expansion, which is a very big assumption. This means that the real distance of the lensed object is unknown.

The lensing galaxy has the same problem. It is said to be about 3.7 billion lightyears away, but that distance is just as theoretical. We don’t know the local velocity of the galaxy. But even if we did, our ability to measure at that distance is poor. Our ability to measure within our own galaxy is poor, as astronomers were forced to admit in 2006. when mainstream news sources dropped the bomb that we were off at least 15% in ALL distance measurements. If we were 15% wrong about nearby objects--objects about which we know much more--then these distance estimates at billions of lightyears must be taken with a grain of salt.

All this is very important, because it means that gravitational lenses aren’t offered as proof of light bending by gravity, they are offered as possible examples of bending. To stand as any sort of proof, we would have to have some math. But without distances, you can’t have math. We are never told what the gravitational forces are, because we have no idea.

The standard model of lensing wants us to believe that very imperfect lenses could focus light from that distance here upon the Earth. Two beams of light are focused, but each beam is bent a different amount. Anyone who knows anything about lenses knows that is highly unlikely.

Clearly, then, this twin quasar is a poor candidate for a lens, and we should be surprised that the standard model of lensing leads with it. I would say that the inverse square law is fatal to it, since we shouldn’t expect more bending at a greater distance.

Even more fatal to it is that this distance analysis reveals a peculiar outcome of gravitational bending. According to the theory, there should be a distance beyond every edge of every galaxy and every star where the light behind is bent just the right amount to reach us here on Earth. All objects that we can see have other objects behind them. Every star we see has stars and/or galaxies behind it, and many objects we see are eclipsing objects of considerable brightness. If bending and lensing were true, we would expect every single object in the sky to be fully haloed. No, more than that: we should expect the entire sky to be filled with bent light.

Every object we see has an object behind it or near it, and every object has a distance of bending beyond every edge where the angle would be right to bend the light to us. Therefore the night sky should be filled from corner to corner with multiple images. According to the theory of light bending, there shouldn’t be a dark dot in the sky.

We can see this just by looking again at the Twin Quasar. As the light from the quasar filters through all those galaxies in the cluster, as well as through the globular clusters between, it will be bent in an infinite number of ways. Each distance from each galaxy or cluster causes a different bend, which then gets rebent by the next galaxy or cluster. Before long the image should be completely randomized, so that we see not a quasar or two quasars, but a giant patch of diffuse light. There is simply no way to explain the fairly discrete images we see given the theory of bending.

You can see that astronomers have been unbelievably sloppy in their presentation of the Twin Quasar as a candidate for bending. They have put it forward as proof of General Relativity, when in fact it is proof of nothing. If anything, it is proof against the current interpretation of GR, and of curved space.

Einstein’s cross, another famous candidate, is equally weak. Here you can see four distinct images, all said to be the same quasar.

Einstein’s Cross flagrantly contradicts the fundamental theory in many places.

It might be called folly to try to explain four unequal images as the result of lensing. When those images vary from year to year, it is even more foolish. When those images are stretched radially, the whole effort becomes a farce.

While I am not agreeing with Arp that these four quasars have been ejected from this galaxy, I do think he and others have found many fatal flaws to the lensing hypothesis. Every time anyone takes a close look at the theory and at the offered examples, they discover that the numbers don’t add up.

The truth is, the lensing hypothesis has no strong proof. It doesn’t even have circumstantial evidence that looks convincing, as I have shown. Prima facie, the hypothesis is weak, and the more one studies the examples, the weaker it gets. The theory is never defended in a cogent manner, it is simply asserted, and all anomalies are ignored. The Twin Quasar and Einstein’s Cross are not strong examples, but every page on gravitational lensing leads with them. This is itself a tip-off, for if stronger examples existed, we would not need to hear of the weak examples. Critiques, in the few instances they pop up, are also ignored or suppressed, as we have seen with Halton Arp. This is how the standard model operates, on all questions. There is no possible defense of its nebulous hypotheses, so its only hope is to reject announcements and papers, to browbeat anyone who sits still for a moment, and to pre-empt discussion by a constant professional patter of propaganda.

Even before I showed the logical inconsistencies of the theory of lensing, it was much more likely and plausible that rings and arcs and multiple images were caused by refraction than by gravitational bending. Astronomers assigned the phenomena to gravity only because they were already in search of such “proofs.” They needed the bending to be caused by gravity, so they ignored the more likely explanations. As in so many other instances, they let the theory determine the data. Instead of having data, and then developing a theory to contain it, they had a theory, and then went in search of data to support it. The science of the hysteron proteron.

Read more: Against Gravitational Lensing

1 000 000 $ award for guy who reasonably and sanely explain possible reason for Full Moon (in next picture) illumination using main stream arguments: http://www.pxleyes.com/images/contes...56c5_hires.jpg

Don't forget: Moon is supposedly 500 times closer to Earth than Sun!

How to catch two objects (positioned 180 degree to each other) in the same frame (if they are not positioned even closely to 180 degree to each other than how come there is Full Moon at next picture):
http://zaslike.com/files/sq5pkqpbl7py7bo52mxu.jpg

Special Hello to RationalSkeptik22!!!