Why Einstein's relativity theory is plain wrong

[tonyrambler]

Big Breed Theory

Hello all, I've been a bit of a lurker here (although I am a Bedini builder), but seeing the title of this thread I had to add this.

Do any of you know of the Big Breed theory by Ron Pearson? Ron is an English engineer who created this theory. It resolves the internal contradictions of relativity and the big bang, and has been published and lauded by the Russian Academy of Sciences (but not in the west, where after 25 years he still cannot get published, always for irrelevant reasons, it seems - no PHD, no University, not maintaining the status quo, once even due to grammar! Western publications - quote "do not recognise the Russian Academy of Sciences"!)

The Big Breed theory not only ties into quantum theory, which relativity doesn't, but also solves the cosmological constant problem present in the big bang theory. It makes the search for dark energy irrelevant, as this is only happening in order to patch up the errors in the established theories. The Big Breed theory doesn't need this.

If anyone is interested in the details, you can check it out here:
Untitled Document

Ron is a meticulous fellow, and is, understandably, frustrated by the amount of time he has been sidelined, and the impossibility of cross-discipline collaboration, which he initially thought would be welcomed by physicists but seems, in fact, to be outlawed.

[MonsieurM]

Hello all, I've been a bit of a lurker here (although I am a Bedini builder), but seeing the title of this thread I had to add this.

Do any of you know of the Big Breed theory by Ron Pearson? Ron is an English engineer who created this theory. It resolves the internal contradictions of relativity and the big bang, and has been published and lauded by the Russian Academy of Sciences (but not in the west, where after 25 years he still cannot get published, always for irrelevant reasons, it seems - no PHD, no University, not maintaining the status quo, once even due to grammar! Western publications - quote "do not recognise the Russian Academy of Sciences"!)

The Big Breed theory not only ties into quantum theory, which relativity doesn't, but also solves the cosmological constant problem present in the big bang theory. It makes the search for dark energy irrelevant, as this is only happening in order to patch up the errors in the established theories. The Big Breed theory doesn't need this.

If anyone is interested in the details, you can check it out here:
Untitled Document

Ron is a meticulous fellow, and is, understandably, frustrated by the amount of time he has been sidelined, and the impossibility of cross-discipline collaboration, which he initially thought would be welcomed by physicists but seems, in fact, to be outlawed.

‪The Science Of Eternity (Part1)‬‏ - YouTube

death and dying. Do we simply cease to exist or do we pass quite naturally into the next world? Astounding personal encounters with supposedly dead relatives coupled with new scientific evidence based on quantum physics - the study of the invisible part of the universe - suggests that WE ALL SURVIVE death.

Written and presented by Alan Pemberton this 60 minute video features:

Ronald Pearson - This scientist's papers linking survival after death with subatomic physics have been peer-refereed and published by physicists in Russia and the USA.

on a side note:

the interview below is quite interesting

‪akcijak's Channel‬‏ - YouTube

[MonsieurM]

Here is a little speculation on my part:

As Rodin has been saying, "everything is a coil".
That is a pretty profound statement.

which pretty much is the same think as saying everything is a fractal antenna (rodin's coil rated high in military test for antennas ).

If it is so, we should consider the whole universe as a cosmic antenna/coil, logic
now everything inside that cosmic coil is also a coil, so you have star coil, planet coil etc... and they all resonate to this "cosmic Schumann resonance"
or in other words we are all in direct harmonic relations with the rest of the universe, right?

now read this:

John W. Keely

...When these harmonics form unisons or direct harmonic relations the two vibrating aggregates and their chords of vibration are said to be sympathetic to each other. This unison of frequency dictates that what happens to one vibratorily happens to the other simultaneously.

i let you ponder on that...

hint: think of cosmic communication, or Tesla's mars transmission

for illustration purpose:



if you prefer i could give another illustration of the universe, and it also shows you the role played by water

The Universe



water is present everywhere



WATER IN THE UNIVERSE

The Paper

[tonyrambler]

Thanks for the thumbs up and the link to the video MonsieurM, my connection is slow but I'm downloading it to watch later today.

I find it very difficult to follow the technical aspects of things like this (so I find this thread a bit daunting!) but I recently met Ron through a mutual acquaintance and was very excited by his understandings.

Myself and fellow builder, Andrew, took our Bedini SG round to Ron's house last week, something that he knew nothing of before, and Ron is now set on building one after observing it for four hours and measuring this and that in his careful and systematic way. It was an inspiring afternoon for all of us!

Cross discipline learning is alive and well at the grass root, of course :-)

[MonsieurM]

Thanks for the thumbs up and the link to the video MonsieurM, my connection is slow but I'm downloading it to watch later today.

I find it very difficult to follow the technical aspects of things like this (so I find this thread a bit daunting!) but I recently met Ron through a mutual acquaintance and was very excited by his understandings.

Myself and fellow builder, Andrew, took our Bedini SG round to Ron's house last week, something that he knew nothing of before, and Ron is now set on building one after observing it for four hours and measuring this and that in his careful and systematic way. It was an inspiring afternoon for all of us!

Cross discipline learning is alive and well at the grass root, of course :-)

Welcome tonyrambler, and Thank you joining F.R.E.E (Free Energy for Everyone), although i'm sure you have been a member for a long time, and also for adding a new piece to this puzzle we are all trying to solve and getting someone as great as Mr Ron Pearson to join the Bedini Wagon ...

Believe me when I say you probably have more knowledge in electrical Engineering than i do, my specialty is data mining, searching for the hidden pattern, and sharing with you the info. You are free to do whatever you want with it as long as you share with the rest This is my Fractal principle or tree of knowledge (a very small tree ) if may say so

Nature has so much to teach us, we just have to know how to read it...

spiderweb example: see post http://www.energeticforum.com/148212-post41.html

[MonsieurM]

I think you guys should listen to this: starting at 9 min

‪Project Camelot interviews Joseph Farrell‬‏ - YouTube

at 29:13 min , he talks about topology (when you watch that part think of a fractal construct... see post: http://www.energeticforum.com/148864-post100.html )

Topology in Fractals

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

--------

At the time of his death, Gabriel Kron was arguably the greatest electrical scientist ever produced by the United States.

The Tom Bearden Website

Open Minds Forum - === The men who stole the future ===

James Clerk Maxwell was the pioneer in Electromagnetic and EM theory. Another man much less known is Charles Wheatstone whose experiment discovered the speed of electrostatic waves. Some might say that Maxwell was the greater of the two contributors but who can weigh such contributions as they seem to be equally important in the grand scheme of things. Dr Wheatsone was better known for a device he created called the Wheatstone Bridge which pales in its significance as compared to the measurement of Electrostatic Waves. His measurement of electrostatic waves yielded a speed of 288,000 miles per second. We realize that modern physics says that C or light speed, 186,000 miles per second is a limit. In truth, C is just a ratio of energy to mass as Einstein's formula stipulates E=MC^2. At the time of Wheatstone's discovery, no one knew or believed that C was a limit. It wasn't until Einstein and General Relativity did C become a limit, a limit which Nicola Tesla and Dr Wheatstone and Whittaker did not agree with.

when a distinguished but old scientist says that something is possible, he's certainly right, but when he says something isn't possible, he's probably wrong - Arthur Charles Clarke -

[lamare]

Tiny Neutrinos May Have Broken Cosmic Speed Limit

Interesting article now in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/sc...peed.html?_r=1

The physics world is abuzz with news that a group of European physicists plans to announce Friday that it has clocked a burst of subatomic particles known as neutrinos breaking the cosmic speed limit — the speed of light — that was set by Albert Einstein in 1905.

If true, it is a result that would change the world. But that “if” is enormous.

According to scientists familiar with the paper, the neutrinos raced from a particle accelerator at CERN outside Geneva, where they were created, to a cavern underneath Gran Sasso in Italy, a distance of about 450 miles, about 60 nanoseconds faster than it would take a light beam. That amounts to a speed greater than light by about 0.0025 percent (2.5 parts in a hundred thousand).

“If it is true, then we truly haven’t understood anything about anything,” he said, adding: “It looks too big to be true. The correct attitude is to ask oneself what went wrong.”

That's right, fellow. You haven't understood anything!

And what went wrong is that you guys never bothered to correct the Maxwell equations after you discovered the particle-wave duality principle, as I posted at the beginning of this thread:


http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post146726

The root of the error can be found in the Maxwell equations in their currently accepted form. These equations are the foundation for our current understanding of the electro-magnetic fields. Maxwell, a mathematician, formulated his theory on electromagnetic phenomena based on the experimental results by Faraday. At some point, he postulated that the fields he was describing mathematically were being caused by so-called charge carriers, matter. The essential mistake with that is that this assumes that the electric and magnetic fields cannot exist without being caused by some kind of particle, while we now know for decades that is not the case, because from QM we know that particles and electro-magnetic waves are one and the same thing and are nothing more than alternating/vibrating electric and magnetic fields.

So, essentially the error is that the same fields that cause electromagnetic waves (and thus particles when alternating/vibrating in a certain way) supposedly cannot exist without being caused by some kind of electromagnetic waves (particles). Or, the Maxwell equations say electromagnetism and thus electromagnetic waves are caused by particles while at the same time QM says particles are nothing but electromagnetic waves.

And you simply cannot have it both ways at the same time. Either particles cause the electro-magnetic fields, or the electro-magnec fields cause the particles, but not both.

Another quote from the NYT aricle:

John Learned, a neutrino astronomer at the University of Hawaii, said that if the results of the Opera researchers turned out to be true, it could be the first hint that neutrinos can take a shortcut through space, through extra dimensions. Joe Lykken of Fermilab said, “Special relativity only holds in flat space, so if there is a warped fifth dimension, it is possible that on other slices of it, the speed of light is different.”

And remember, Tesla already had it right in 1937:

Tuks DrippingPedia : Tesla Prepared Statement80st Birthday

According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible.

[nueview]

i think this all needs a point for perspective if i am standing on a high voltage transmission line and it is my ground any voltage readings are mute as to time and wave occurance and values and any circuit will only have some reference to itself.
in short i am not connected to the bigger picture of all that is occuring.

this is the state of our connection to the globe so it would have to be considered first before any actions could even be considered.

in short it is all a part fo the understanding we need to come to.

even in so many scope displays i have seen the effects of this background field effect and they are never spoken of.
such as why do hairpin circuits seem to fade at times is it because we are acting with some other field we are connecting with like two magnetic fields out of phase with each other or is it charges displaced by our circuit that changes the local value and in some way tunes to the phase action of these fields as they pass by either from the sun or from somewhere else in space.

i have seen something lately i cannot explain and it is really bothering me because it is an occurance where power grows in effect by octave levels and at the same time is suppressing the magnetic making it smaller by note levels and i have no math that is making sense of this.


Martin

[lamare]

Do you dare challenge Albert Einstein?

Just re-discovered this article, which

Do you dare challenge Albert Einstein? « Physicsof2012's Blog

Albert Einstein – 1879 – 1955. He is considered one of the greatest minds there ever was in physics. His theories are considered some of the greatest achievements in human thought. His theories have been apparently rigorously proven and reproved, cornerstones of western physics. He is an idol to many, and most people would refuse to think otherwise solely based on the fact that everyone loves to follow the crowd. Not many will give this article fair consideration because emotions will cloud logical thought, however there will be some that dare to question the norm.

The magnitude of a scientific achievement can be graded on its impact on the world, the REAL world. What does Einstein have to offer anyone besides theories. What has he done for the world? He only has theories. He did not even actually invent the atomic bomb. All he did was “discover”, “describe” and somehow “revolutionize” . You would expect the greatest minds to have made an impact on the way we live – our quality of life. Tesla invented AC, the current that runs through your house. Tesla invented the AC motor, powering a large percentage of motorized equipment. Tesla developed efficient power distribution systems that feed your homes today. Tesla even developed radio communications. He envisioned television and indirectly discovered phenomena such as X-rays on his path. Yet he doesn’t have half the credit Einstein has. But Why? Has society been brainwashed into thinking Einstein’s theories are actually useful? It’s actually quite sad. All they do lately is repeatedly “prove” Einstein’s theories over and over again. Are they in denial? Shouldn’t a theory at some point stop being “proven” and be put to use – if it has a use… There are so many paradoxes in Einstein’s theories that its a miracle that its become so entrenched in physics today, let alone survived superficial scrutiny. This is probably because most members of the scientific community are blind followers of what their superiors preach.

First we will take a brief look at what exactly his theory actually entails. For some this will be the first time they ever understand what Einstein was trying to say since they took his supposed intellect and theories for granted since everyone else was doing the same. These are just some of the paradoxes in his theories.

According to Einstein a body will shorten in the direction of movement as it increases in speed. He also said that mass increases with speed. This presents an interesting paradox. At the speed of light a ball is then supposed to have zero thickness and infinite mass. This is not physically possible therefore that statement is incorrect.

Einstein also stated that time could be slowed down and sped up. Time does not have physical reality. It is a concept to keep track of a sequence of events, nothing more. You cannot slow down or speed up something that does not even exist in the first place, therefore his theory is incorrect again. If this is not convincing enough then think about the steps needed to create a time travel device with multiple levels of detail so that an actual model can be built and engineered. One will come up with nothing (maybe more theories) because it’s not physically possible. With time travel we could violate the laws of conservation of energy by shuttling energy from the past to the present.

Note:

Many free energy inventors believe that they can violate the laws of conservation of energy. The is untrue. We really live in a sea of energy and their devices tap the kinetic energy of the ethers or tap into the sea of electrons in which we live. Violating the conversation of energy laws means that something can come from nothing which is impossible since they are opposites.

Einstein said that the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe. Why? Did anyone bother to ask why? Well someone did and the answer was that mass was infinity at the speed of light so nothing could go faster. That doesn’t solve anything. All it does is shift the focus to a new problem. Now I ask why does mass increase with speed? No answer. Also, if something has infinite mass at the speed of light then why does light itself not have infinite mass. Our daring physicists have come to the rescue by saying that light has no mass! If light had no mass then it would have no inertia. If it had no inertia, then it would not be able to displace electrons as per the photoelectric effect or even bounce off a surface. Therefore a photon does have mass. Anything that has mass obeys the fundamental laws of mechanics. His concept is incorrect here again and there should be no reason something can not go faster than the speed of light.

Einstein said that light’s velocity is an independent value. This means that if I shone a torch, those photons would be going the same relative speed as the photons coming from a torch in a moving vehicle. This violates the fundamental laws of mechanics and suggests that light is disconnected from the phenomenon producing it. This violates Newton’s laws of action and reaction, a fundamental universal law. Therefore this statement is incorrect too.

It was ironic that Einstein denied the existence of an ether since the transverse theory of light depends on it. A wave is a disturbance pattern in a certain medium. Light can travel through space so what medium exists there? No air or water as a medium to carry a wave, but an ether!

Einstein stated that E = MC^2. This is apparently one of his greatest achievements since the atomic bomb makes a really big bang so it must be right. Wrong!. To understand why the E = MC^2 equation is incorrect we must first understand what energy and mass are. Mass is physical matter, occupying 3 dimensional space. Energy is motion of mass. That’s why E = 1/2.M.V^2. How can mass become motion of mass? That’s like saying apples can become bananas. They are completely different things.

One of Einstein’s most illogical propositions was the existence of spacetime. Space is nothingness and time is not physical so its like saying he proposed the existence of “nothing-not-real”, while insinuating it was completely real. How did he keep a straight face? He said that the shape of this spacetime affected a wide variety of things. How can nothing have a shape? Space is a vacuum, a vacuum cannot have form or shape since only matter can have shape. It would be impossible to imagine otherwise. Spacetime or “nothing-not-real” is also somehow holding us to the surface of our Earth. If it is then why can we not detect it with simple experiments. If it interacts with matter, then by the law of action and reaction, matter should be able to easily interact with it.

The reason Einstein’s theory has stood the test of time so long is because it has been apparently reproved so many times. Multiple interpretations can be placed on all of those results. When a person wants to believe something so badly they will be convinced by anything. In order to realize a better physical understanding Einstein’s illogical concepts need to be immediately abandoned. They have done nothing for the real world and won’t be doing anything anytime soon.

My comment over there:

“Einstein said that the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe. Why? Did anyone bother to ask why? Well someone did and the answer was that mass was infinity at the speed of light so nothing could go faster. That doesn’t solve anything.”

Someone else also did. Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill:

Dr Charles Kenneth Thornhill

According to Thornhill, Einsteins theories are based on a fundamental error. EM waves are described by exactly the same wave equations as sound waves trough a liquid. In order to describe such waves from the point of view from an independent observer, one has to make a coordinate transform that expresses the relative position / movement of the observer with regard to the observed phenomenon, the wave.

Now if you ditch the idea of an eather, you have no independent reference frame, so in order to make a general applicable description of the phenomenon, you need a special transform, the mathematically correct Lorentz transform, which only works when the speed of light is fixed.

So, the question is: why oh why do we use two different kind of transforms to describe the same kind of phenomena (waves) depending on the medium?

And, we *know* the speed of light is not fixed, that is why prisms and lenzes work. And scientists have been able to slow down light to a crawl, so it is actually very far fetched to maintain that the speed of light in vacuum must be fixed.

So, IMHO Thornhill is right and Einsteins general relativity should go down the drain.

However, that has some far stretching consequences, because all our measurements of the location and speed of stars are based on the assumption that the speed of light is fixed. So, these are unreliable, which means that the floor drops underneath the whole big bang idea. And that might be a bit too much for the mainstream to swallow…..

[nueview]

part of the einstien formula is always omitted as it is assumed to be universally understood the formula as i was shown is E=mc^2/L and assumes that the speed ofthe fields actions cannot excell by the mass greater than the speed of light but that the field propagation through the mass can

this leads to tacions or faster than light energys and slower than light particles so i am told.

Martin

[lamare]

FYI: I have published an article on this subject on my website and a pretty big alternative news site (in Dutch):

Tuks DrippingPedia : Puinhopen 96 Jaar Einstein Relativiteit
De puinhopen van 96 jaar relativiteit

Today, an interview with me was published in TC Tubantia, which is read by about 308.000 people in the area where I live, according to their website:

Verspreidingsgebied en bereik De Twentsche Courant Tubantia

My site is mentioned in the article, which might help to eventually bring this subject to a wider audience. We'll just have to wait and see.

[lamare]

I now have a translated version of my article in English up:

Tuks DrippingPedia : Ruins 96 Years Einstein Relativity

Please feel free to spread it whenever and wherever you can!

[MonsieurM]

This eventually lead to the erroneous relativity theory, as is proven in this article. It is therefore no exaggeration to state that the scientific establishment is going to have a religious experience.

Amen started reading it ....

[lamare]

Poste this over here:

VES theory: Gravity depends on distance through object

Very interesting subject. Gravity. I wrote some on that in my article disproving Einstein's relativity theory:
Tuks DrippingPedia : Ruins 96 Years Einstein Relativity

"Subsequently, the work of Hans Jenny is very interesting. He published a number of breathtaking videos which show what you can do with sound waves, eg in a bowl of water (parts 1, 2 en 3). He shows that many kinds of geometric shapes can be formed using standing sound waves in the fluid, whereby matter flows together naturally to certain areas and stays away from other areas. And that's also what happens in the ether. So, gravity is simply an electrostatic phenomenon caused by longitudinal standing waves in the ether, which determines the geometry of the solar system, our galaxy, and so on. Everything is connected to everything through these standing waves."

As an Electrical Engineer, I consider reality based on what I know from physics. I have been on an interesting journey, during which I studied quite a lot of material on free energy and Tesla technologies.

Over the years, it became clear to me that it is entirely possible to create energy in abundance, as much as we like, basically for free. This is because the electric and magnetic fields emitted by each and every charge carrier in the Universe contain energy. Literally a flow of energy pours out of each and every particle in the Universe. A flow of energy that we can use and is free for the taking.

No more burning fossile fuels, no more pollution, no more nuclear power. All that by making use of an invisible energy source that already powers all the electrical systems that have ever been used or will ever be used in the Universe. It's just that we don't know about it, as Lt. Col Thomas E. Bearden (retd.) says it:

Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

"For more than a century, our misguided engineers have thus used a type of circuit that takes half of the energy it catches, and uses that half to destroy the source dipole that is actually extracting the EM energy from the vacuum and pouring it out of the terminals for that power line to "catch" in the first place! The other half of the "caught energy" in the powerline is used to power the external loads and losses."

From all this, I became interested in ether Physics and discovered the site of the late Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill, who explains where and when science went bazirk for over a hundred years:
Dr Charles Kenneth Thornhill

With ether physics and the understanding of the nature of the electric and magnetic fields, we can describe the whole Universe in terms of simple fluid dynamics within a medium we used to call ether, or aether, with fluid-like properties. That's almost all you need. You also need to throw vortex fluid dynamics into the equation, because matter is some kind of localized wave in the ether. Matter is a dynamic structure in the ether, which rotates, and has a number of vortices going trough the center. This structure can occur in many variations, but it can be described with fluid dynamics.

Now if there is a real, physical ether after all, gravity would be nothing other than the electric field. It's one and the same thing! Both "static" forces are a steady-state flow of ether, the DC component in Electrical Engineering terms. And gravity can easily be overcome with high voltages, as proven by TT Brown.

So the point is:

THERE IS NO GRAVITY!

IT DOES NOT EXIST!

ALL THERE IS, IS VORTEXES, WAVES AND STEADY STATE (DC) FLOWS IN A FLUID

GET IT?

[nueview]

Lamare
i agree with what you are saying but it took me a while to understand that the fields within what would be termed matter the old timers called Aether and the fields external and free moving in the space between they called Ether it came to me because of a paper were tesla was talking about energy and he used the two terms in a sentance were there was no way they could be the same as " i shall use the ether and the aether reaction to derive my power".
it opened so many doors and made me reread so many papers but it was well worth it.
Martin