Re: What is TIME exactly?
“WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG
Finding the Virtual Velocity of Light,
Solving the Mystery of the Failed Michelson-Morley Experiment
In 1887, two scientists Michelson and Morley did an experiment to measure the velocity of light and confirm the basic laws of nature.
They sent light beams along the direction of the earth's travel as it went around the sun. The earth moves about 67,000 miles per hour around the sun, which is a small but measurable percentage of the velocity of light. Their experiment was to show that a beam of light sent in the direction of the earth's travel should be the speed of light PLUS the speed of the earth. While a beam sent backwards should be the speed of light MINUS the speed of the earth.
No matter how many times they and many other scientists repeated that same experiment, it always failed.
The measured speed of light was always the same in any direction”.
• Authors Note – recall that the described slight variations in the two results – that were dismissed by Mitchellson & Morley as “statistically insignificant” – but which in the context of this discussion ARE significant in this authors opinion.
“For 20 years modern science was in a quandary. Were Newton's easily provable laws of physics wrong?
In 1905 Albert Einstein thought he had found a solution - but he was wrong.
Earlier in 1873, the noted Scotsman mathematician/scientist James Maxwell wrote his famous four equations.
His equations have become a gold-standard in science and are still accepted without changes or doubt.
While integrating his differential equations, Maxwell had to add the mathematically required integration constant. In math, the integration constant is usually called "C."
Maxwell's equations relate the static electric attractive force of an electron to the same magnetic attractive force of a moving electron traveling in a circle or a coil of wire. To make the equations match the experimental measurements, the integration constant C had to have the units of 186,000 miles per second.
Everyone made the incorrect assumption that C was the "velocity of light."
Today, science still calls the velocity of light C.
But not so.
It was only an “integration constant” to make Maxwell's equations match the measurements.
What the 19th century scientists, including Einstein, did not know nor have any experience with, was something which we now know as "time zones."
Time zones relate time to distance.
Even today most of Europe is in the same time zone. None of the 19th century European scientists had ever experienced the need to change their watches as they traveled from country to country.
Today as we travel around the earth in fast jet planes we need to adjust our clocks and watches to the new time zone at the rate of 1 hour for each 1,000 miles of travel.
This "virtual velocity" is not real, but simply the commonly accepted rate in "miles per hour" for calculating by how much we need to adjust our wrist watch as we travel.
This "virtual velocity" could be called the "C" of time zones.
This "virtual velocity" or time conversion constant could be any arbitrary number, as long as we all accept the same number.
What is the "C" of time zones on Mars or the moon?
It's not the same as on earth.
A proper analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment shows that there are actually
*four* possible explanations for the null or failed result.”
• Again Authors note – recall that I postulated 3 possible interpretations of the Mitchellson Morley experiment.
“Most scientists, including Einstein, who had no experience with time zones, only saw three possibilities.
Many scientists in 1905 could not, and some still do not, fully accept Einstein's choice among the three possibilities, - since his theory clearly violates our sense of reality, and Newton's laws of physics.
Einstein's Relativity Theory also produces a series of well-known paradoxes.
In mathematics and logic, whenever a syllogism, system of logic, or theory, produces a paradoxical result, it is almost always the result of an incorrect premise.
That fourth possibility for explaining the mysterious result of the M-M experiment falls directly from the result of the failed Michelson-Morley experiment itself.
That new fourth possibility is that the "virtual velocity" of light is infinity, while the "actual velocity" seeming to come from Maxwell's equations is 186,000 miles per second.
This is the same as when we travel in jet planes. We can measure our "actual velocity" or local velocity on the jet plane as 350 miles per hour.
But we must add or subtract the "virtual velocity" of one hour for each 1,000 miles of travel, or the change in time zones, to make the answer match reality when we arrive at the destination.
That's not hard or difficult to do. And we often do the calculation in our head.
Add three hours to your watch as you travel the 3,000 miles from Los Angeles to New York.
This possibility of the "virtual velocity" of light solves the dilemma of the repeatedly failed Michelson-Morley experiment.
If the "virtual velocity" of light is infinite, the "actual velocity" or apparent velocity 186,000 m/s will always appear to be the same, regardless of the motion of the light source.
Infinity PLUS the velocity of the earth is always the same as Infinity MINUS the velocity of the earth.
Infinity plus or minus any number is always infinity.
Thus the Michelson-Morley experiment was not a failure.
It proves that Dr. Einstein was wrong!.
Was Special Relativity a Hoax Accidentally Perpetrated on Science?
One hundred years ago, in 1905, Dr. Albert Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity.
It has become the basis for much of modern physics.
"Why is it that modern science for 100 years has believed a theory which is based on a simple math error?"
The answer is simple.
It was a mistake in the normal "peer review" process used by the prestigious physics journal in which Einstein's Special Relativity paper was first published. In 1905 the famed peer-reviewed German journal "Annalen der Physik" published Einstein's first paper on the Quantum Solution to the photoelectric problem.
That unique and widely acclaimed paper had just won Einstein the Nobel Prize. To win the prize, obviously many esteemed physicists had reviewed that paper and established its reality and correctness. But also in that very same journal issue, Einstein published several other avant-garde theoretical papers, including his "Special Theory of Relativity" which contained the math error.
Why did no one catch the obvious error?
It was simply because chief editor, Max Planck or co-editor, Wilhelm Wien, had made the fateful decision not to send Einstein's Relativity paper out for the usual in-depth peer review. That Relativity paper, along with Einstein's other papers, were published without any scientific review.
Both of the young editors, Planck and Wien, later won Nobel Prizes themselves.
They had made the editorial decision for "Annalen der Physik" that since Einstein had already just received a Nobel Prize, his prestige and popularity meant that his papers did not need to be peer reviewed.
It could be that Planck and Wien felt that publishing anything written by Einstein would enhance the popularity and circulation of the journal. But using the usual peer review process would slow down publication of the exciting new Einstein papers until the next year.
Or it could be that Planck and Wien were so overawed by the genius of Einstein that they felt Einstein had no "peers."
For whatever reason, the journal editors, with their high regard for the Nobelist Einstein, simply "broke the required rules" for publishing new theories in the "peer reviewed" physics journal.
It seems from the historical record that none of the other scientists around the world in the physics community knew that the journal had broken its own publication rules. The other scientists all assumed that since "Annalen der Physik" was a strictly "peer reviewed" journal, that Einstein's Relativity paper, with the simple math error, had already been reviewed and approved by a team of highly esteemed elite scientists.
But not so.
Thus in the early 1900's no scientist would dare to point out the obvious math error in the Relativity paper. To have done so, the scientists thought, would be the same as calling the esteemed reviewers, the greatest minds of physics, a bunch of dribbling idiots and drooling dolts.
Not a good thing to do if you want a future career in physics.
Because of the surreptitious and momentary Annalen der Physik change in editorial policy, no respectable scientist would dare to proclaim, "Look, the King has no clothes." It seemed to everyone that the whole scientific community was all ooohing and aaahing over the "King's invisible royal raiment" and how well it all seemed to match his new Nobel Prize.
In their competitive scramble to get along and go along within the physics community, the scientists simply could not see the truth of what was in front of them.
By the 1960's, the Relativity Theory had already been widely "accepted" for so long and republished in so many advanced college textbooks, that most professors simply could not see the obvious math error. They couldn't see it, because it "must not" exist. Too many famous scientists, who were much smarter than they were, such as Bertrand Russell and George Gamow, had already proclaimed the theory to be true, therefore the simple math error can't exist.
For them, the error was invisible, even when it was pointed out to them.
And what was that Simple Math Error?
It's so simple even a child could figure it out.
It was a matter of re-interpreting the meaning of the negative results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Einstein had interpreted the negative results as meaning that C is the constant velocity of light which nothing can exceed.
That "fact" actually has never been proved and was and still is only a "hypothesis" stated by Einstein.
He then set the speed limit at 186,000 mi/sec.
I have long disagreed with that method, since to make that work, Einstein had used the equation called the Lorentz Transform. This is both mathematically and logically incorrect.
The Lorentz Transform
The Transform seems to give the numerical or arithmetic "right answer," but mathematically it is false.
The Lorentz Transform uses the square root of the velocity squared divided by C squared.
Mathematically all square roots have two answers, the positive and the negative root.
Einstein, in his paper, seemingly without telling anybody, had arbitrarily tossed out the negative root as not having any physical meaning.
But that is a mathematical and scientific "no-no" and means that the original premise of Einstein's Special Relativity Theory must be incorrect.
Under the Lorentz Transform an object will travel at V = 1,000 mph East, and also -V = 1,000 mph West, at the same time.
That clearly is paradoxical.
This is equivalent to Einstein stating in his theory that the square root of four is equal to two.
For most people, those numbers seem absolutely correct. But actually that is false, since the square root of four is equal to both plus two AND minus two.
For the mathematically challenged, that is equivalent to Einstein claiming that two plus two is equal to five (2 + 2 = 5).
And that same mind-boggling math error is published in every modern advanced physics textbook on Relativity Theory.
But since, supposedly it was published in a respected "peer reviewed" physics journal, who would dare to argue with it?
The usual problem with producing a hypothesis based on a "false" premise is a paradoxical result.
(1) All dogs have four legs,
(2) All four legged animals are cats.
All dogs are cats, AND/OR All cats are dogs!
Which premise is false?
With the Special Theory of Relativity, the resulting paradox, was called the "twin paradox" along with several others which were discovered later.
Amazingly, no theoretical physicist quickly tossed out Einstein's Special Relativity Theory as false, even though it produced a paradoxical result - indicating a false logical premise.
The simple fact that Einstein himself published the "twin paradox," should have been a strong warning or at least a first clue that the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong.
Actually, one noted physicist did toss it out and exactly for that reason. It was Einstein's own professor, Dr. Lorentz, who never accepted Relativity as a valid theory.
Dr. Lorentz had developed the Lorentz Transform as a classroom demonstration tool in an attempt to explain the negative M-M experiment.
He taught it to his students in advanced physics classes, including Einstein, as a simple "curiosity" which produced the seemingly correct arithmetic answer.
But it did not produce the correct logical mathematic or scientific answer.
Dr. Lorentz already knew that the Transform must be false, for the reason I just mentioned.
He already knew that his young student, Albert Einstein, using the Lorentz Transform, which Einstein had seemingly "lifted" out of his college class notes, had produced a false "Theory of Relativity."
Dr. Lorentz never accepted, nor called it the "Theory of Relativity."
For the rest of his life, Lorentz always referred to it, in mock derision, only as "the Einstein theory" since he knew it must be false, because it produced the obvious paradox.
Clearly, Lorentz did not get to "peer review" his student's paper.
That Relativity paper would never have made it through a real and proper "peer review" process.
There actually is another simpler way to explain and solve the mysterious negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
It uses the simple physical constant called "alpha," the Fine Structure Constant.
It was the genius Einstein himself, who introduced the Fine Structure Constant in his first Nobel Prize winning paper about the Quantum nature of the photoelectric effect.
If Einstein had only used his own "alpha" as the basis for solving the M-M Experiment, instead of the Lorentz Transform in his Relativity paper, he would have found that all the forces of nature;
were all simply variations of the same force.
Why is it that in the "time zone" of the nucleus of an atom, "time" seems to "slow down" so that the "measured velocity" of the electron appears to be only 1/137th the speed of light? But the electron's behavior seems to be that it is everywhere around the atom at the same time, or has a "virtual velocity" of infinity.
The physical constant alpha turns out to be equal to 1/137.
It is as if the free energy of the electron has been gravitationally red-shifted by a nucleon-sized black hole.
This changes all observed measurements of time and distance.
The amount of time dilation or gravitational red-shifting of the electron in its ground state compared to the masses of the electron and proton are defined by the universally measured constant called "alpha."
The relationship between the "virtual" and "actual" velocity, meaning distance to time, of the electron is "c."
The relationship of mass/energy to time, meaning gravity, is hidden within Planck's Constant "h."
The relationship of electrical charge "e" to time and gravity is found in the "alpha" definition.
Attempting to produce a complete system of universal science based only on the triumvirate of "measured constants" e, c, and h, has proven to be insufficient and incomplete.
It turns out that a minimum of four constants are needed to define all the properties of time and space.
All the tools needed to solve the mystery of the M-M Experiment problem are found in the definition of "alpha."
No paradoxical square root of squares Lorentz Transform is needed.
But 100 years ago, before the common use and experience of "time zones" to measure the passage of time in different locations around the world, nobody could see it.
All the natural forces of the universe, using Einstein's "alpha" could be described with a single equation.
It was the "Unified Field Theory" which Einstein and many other esteemed theoretical physicists had long sought, but somehow had eluded them. Instead, for 100 years, a simple editorial mistake in a "peer reviewed" physics journal has led science astray.”
Cheers - apols for the red text - for some reason this forum won't let me change it to white! I've just edited every lines html color script from red to white manually lets see if that fixes it?
Madness takes its toll - please have exact change handy!
The primary manifestation of Time is Change
Ee does NOT equal Em Cee Squared!
M = Δ T
Last edited by Ian Moone : 08-26-2011 at 02:00 PM.