Re: Carlos Allende & the Philadelphia Experiment
ANYWAY... THIS is interesting
How so?
I didn't find any of it interesting - its all eminently understandable if you understood my posts above.
It's only "interesting" if you refuse to read comprehend or understand, the answers already provided to you in great detail above.
Then it's "interesting" because you can ponder it in complete ignorance and wonderment & keep yourself "interested' (by lack of knowledge or understanding) for - well who knows - another 60 years maybe as a complete "conspiracy theorist"?
If one understand the new physics - the links you post make 100% perfect and logical sense as did Tesla's discoveries the Philadelphia experiment, and so on.
That's the beauty of a unified field theorem - it explains everything!
These things are only "interesting" if you don't understand the unified field theorem, they are only "unexplainable mysteries" (and "conspiracies") in the absence of a workable Unified Field Theorem (Or GUT = Grand Unification Theorem).
Einstein did NOT discover a unified field theorem that he hid from mankind - he was working towards a set of unified field equations at the time of his death - because, he knew that his special relativity theory was flawed because it produced a paradoxical result (the so called twin paradox which Einstein himself published).
I gave you the clue as to how to resolve Einsteins error above.
Just substitute his fine structure constant Alpha where he has used the universal constant "C" in his relativity calculations and voila - you have the unified field theorem.
But I'll spoon feed you a little more (to prove my point that your to
--deleted-- to understand the answer to your own question even when given it on a plate)!.
“Einstein's Relativity Error
“The physical sciences in 1873 seemed to once again take on an air of stability as James Clerk Maxwell published his, 'Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism.'
In this paper, he discussed electricity, magnetism, and electromagnetism as functions of waves in a fluid space (ether). His theory held popular support until the year 1887 when the two U.S. physicists AA Mitchelson and Edward W Morley performed their historic experiment with light. Their experiment (The Mitchelson-Morley experiment) was designed to use light as a means to determine if space were a 'fluid' as Maxwell's equations had assumed.
The M-M test results, however, appeared to deny the existence of fluid (or ether) space. To explain the 'apparent' failure of the M-M test to detect the ether, Hendrik Lorentz and George Fitzgerald developed their now famous 'transforms' (The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Transforms - 1902) in which length contractions, mass increase and time lag were offered as explanation for the negative test result. Note that the Lorentz - Fitzgerald transforms still treated space as an inertial fluid, one undetectable by known technology.
Einstein, who first began the formulation of his special theory of relativity in 1895, published it in 1905. He seized upon the Lorentz -Fitzgerald transforms and the M-M test results as evidence of a universal axiom: The velocity of light is (to the observer) the limit measurable velocity in the universe, (this does not mean it is the limit velocity in the universe however).
The discipline details
Einstein was faced with an apparent paradox, as to the nature of space. It behaved like a fluid in many ways - yet in others it behaved like an abstract, ten-component Ricci Tensor from the Reimannian model of the Universe. The failure of the M-M test to detect an ether was the final straw. Yet, hard as he tried, Einstein failed to remove the ether from E=MC^2.
The following discussion should illustrate this point.
Diagram One above is a schematic of the M-M test. It was conducted on the basis that if an ether existed, the earth would be moving "through" it. Hence there would be a relative velocity between earth and the fluid of space.
It was reasoned that by splitting a beam of light (F) into two parts; sending one out and back in line with the direction of the earth's orbital path, (to mirror A) from Half silvered mirror (G) and glass plate (D); and recombining the two beams in the interferometer (E) one should be able to detect a shift in the phases of the two beams relative to one another.
This shift could accurately be predicted by knowing the velocity of light (c)
And the velocity (Ve) of Earth through orbital space. Their reasoning was as follows (refer diag. 1, diag. 2a, daig, 2b):
Assuming:
c2 = a2 + b2C = velocity of light = velocity from G to B by fixed extra-terrestrial observer
S = distance GA = GB
T1 = go-return time in-line (GA - AG)
T2 = go return time at right angles (GB-BG)
T = .5 t T2
V1= apparent velocity from g to B by earth observer.
Then the time (T1) is determined by:[s/(c-ve)] + [s/(c+ve))] = t1 which reduces to:
(Eq.1) 2sc/(c2 - ve2) = t1
Also, the time (t2) is determined by first solving for (v1) in terms of ( c ) and (Ve) using the Pythagorean Theorem (c2 = a2 + b2)…. Or, in this instance: (G to B)2 = (G to M)2 + (M to B)2
By substitution, c2 = ve2 + v12
Hence:
(Eq.2) v1= (c2 - ve2).5
Now, solving for the time (t) - which is the same over GM, GB, MB - of the GB trip by substituting s/t = v1 in (Eq.2) , one obtains:
(Eq.3) s/t = (c2 - ve2).5
rearranging:
(Eq.3) t = s/(c2 - ve2).5
Substituting: t = .5t2
Gives: t2/2=s/(c2 - ve2).5
Or:
(Eq.4) t2= 2s /(c2 - ve2).5
by comparing the ratio of the in-line go-return time (t1) to the right angle go-return time (t2) one obtains:
(Eq.5) t1/t2 =[2sc / (c2 - ve2).5 / 2s
which reduces to:
(Eq. 5.) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
Now then, if the light source is at rest with respect to the other, one sees:
(Eq 6.) ve = 0
Hence:
(Eq 7.) t1/t2 = 1/ (1 -0).5 = 1/1 = 1
Such a ratio as (Eq. 7) shows is exactly what each successive try of the linear M - M test has obtained…. (notice: Linear not angular!). Lorentz and Fitzgerald knew there had to be an ether; so they developed their well known transforms - an act which was in essence a way of saying, there has to be an ether…we'll adjust our observed results by a factor which will bring our hypothetical expectations and our test results into accord….
Their whole transform was based on the existence of ether space! Their transform, in essence said that length shortened, mass flattened, and time dilated as a body moved through the ether.
Einstein came along in 1905 saying the Mitchellson Morley test showed the velocity of light to be a universal constant to the observer. Seizing upon this and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms, Einstein was able to formulate his Special Relativity which resulted in the now famous E = Mc2 …the derivation of which follows:
Starting with (Eq.5) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform factor for (Eq.5) becomes (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
(to bring t2= t1) giving t1/t2 an observed value of (1).
Assuming Lorentz and Fitzgerald's supposition to be correct one should look at mass-in-motion as the observer on the mass see's it versus mass-in-motion as the universal observer sees it,…
Let m1 = mass as it appears to the riding observer
Let v1 = velocity as detected by rider
Let m2 = mass as universal observer sees it
Let v2 = velocity as universal observer sees it
Then it follows (from Lorentz and Fitzgerald) that:
(Eq. 9) m1 v1 not = m2 v2
So - to equate the two products. Lorentz and Fitzgerald devised their transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 which would bring m1 v1 = m2 v2 to either observer,… yielding the following extension
(Eq. 10) m1s1/t1 Not = m2s2/t1
or,…
(Eq. 10) m1s1 Not = m2s2
then, by substitution of the transform factor s2 = s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5(assuming time is reference) into (Eq. 10.) one obtains: m1s1 = m2s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
which reduces to:
(Eq. 11) m1 = m2 (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
To re evaluate this relative change in mass, one should investigate the expanded form of the transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 (which transforms t1=t2) It is of the general binomial type:
(Eq. 12) (1- b) -a
Hence it can be expressed as the sum of an infinite series:
(Eq. 13) 1 + ab = a(a+1)b2 /2! + a(a+1)(a+2)b3/3! + …etc
where b2 is less than 1
So - setting a = .5 and b = ve2 / c2
One obtains:
(Eq. 14) 1 + (ve2 / 2c2) + (3v4/8c4) + (5v6/16c6) + etc…
For low velocities in the order of .25c and less than the evaluation of (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
Is closely approximated by, the first two elements of (Eq. 14):
(Eq. 15) (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5= 1+ve2 /2c2
so (Eq. 11) becomes:
(Eq. 16.) m2= m1(1+ ve2 / c2)…where ve less than .25c
developing further,… m2= m1 + m1 ve2 /2c2
(Eq. 17) m2 - m1 = .5 m1 ve2 /2c2
remembering energy (E) is represented by:
(Eq. 18) E = .5mv2…( where ve less than .25c)
One can substitute (Eq. 18) into (Eq. 17) giving…
(Eq. 19) m2 - m1 = E/c2…(assuming ve = v)
Representing the change in mass (m2 - m1) by M gives:
(Eq. 20) M = E/ c2
Or, in the more familiar form using the general (m) for (M):
(Eq. 21) E = m c2
(Note, however, that (Eq. 14) should be used for the greatest accuracy - especially where ve is greater than .25c)
Looking at the assumption in (Eq. 19)…( ve ) was the term used in the beginning to represent the ether wind velocity… This means Einstein used fluid space as a basis for special relativity. His failing was in declaring the velocity of light an observable limit to the velocity of any mass when it should only have been the limit to any observable electromagnetic wave velocity in the ether . The velocity of light is only a limit velocity in the fluid of space where it is being observed. If the energy density of space is greater or less in another part of space, then the relativistic velocity of light will pass up and down through the reference light wave velocity limit - if such exists.
Do not fall into the trap of assuming that this fluid space cannot have varying energy-density Perhaps the reader is this very moment saying, an incompressible fluid space does not allow concentrations of energy - but he is wrong - dead wrong!
When a fixed density fluid is set in harmonic motion about a point or centre, the number of masses passing a fixed reference point per unit time can be observed as increased mass (or concentrated energy). Although the density (mass per volume) is constant, the mass velocity product yeilds the illusion of more mass per volume per time. Space is an incompressible fluid of varying energy density…in this authors opinion!
The apparent absurdity of infinitely- increasing - mass and infinitely decreasing length as a mass approaches the light wave velocity is rationalized by realizing that space has inertia and as such offers inertial resistance to the moving mass. The energy of the moving mass is transmitted in front of it into the medium of space. The resulting curl of inertial resistance increases as negative momentum to the extent the mass is converted to radiant energy as it meets it’s own reflected mass in resistance. However - to the Star Trek fans, take heart… just as man broke the sound velocity limit (sound barrier) he can also break the light velocity limit (light barrier). By projecting a high-density polarized field of resonating electrons to spoil or warp the pressure wave of the inertial curl, the hyper-light craft can slip through the warp opening before it closes, - emitting the characteristics of a shock wave. Such a spoiler would be formed by using the electro-dynamic, high-energy-density electron waves which would normally proceed before the hyper-light craft, as a primary function of propulsion. When a similar function is executed by hypersonic aircraft, a sonic boom is formed as the as the inertial curl collapses on itself. In space, the light velocity equivalent to this sonic boom would be in the form of Cherenkov radiation which is emitted as a mass crosses the light-velocity threshold sending tangential light to the direction of travel.
Ether Existence Verified.
In 1913, the rotational version of the linear M - M experiment was successfully performed by G Sagnac (see p 65 - 67 of The Physical Foundations of General Relativity by D.W. Sciama, Heineman Educational Books Ltd., 48 Charles St., London WIX8AH) In 1925 Mitchellson and Gale used the spinning earth as their rotational analogue to the linear M - M experiment. It also showed successfully that the velocity of light sent in the direction of spin around the perimeter of a spinning disc (or of the surface of the earth) varied from the velocity of the light sent against the spin. (Refer diagram 3 Below).
The error of the M-M experiment is the test results are also valid for the case where there is an ether and it, too, is moving along with the same relative velocity and orbit as Earth maintains around the Sun.
The Tea Cup Analogy can be used to explain the error.
If one stirs a cup of tea which has some small tea leaves floating on it's surface, (obviously before the invention of the ubiquitous tea bag!) one notices some of these tea leaves orbiting the vortex in the centre of the cup. The leaves closer to the centre travel faster than those father from the centre (both in linear and angular velocity).
Now, one must imagine oneself greatly reduced in size and sitting upon one of these orbiting leaves. If one were to put his hands over the edge of his tea leaf on any side, would he feel any tea moving past?…No! The reason is that the motion of the tea is the force that has caused the velocity of the leaf. One could not detect any motion, if both himself and the tea were travelling in the same direction and the same velocity. However, If one had arms long enough to stick a hand in the tea closer to either the centre or the rim of the cup - where the velocities were different to his own then he would feel tea moving faster or slower than himself (respectively).
Also, if one were to spin his tea leaf at the same time as it orbits about the centre, placing his hands into the tea immediately surrounding his leaf would show inertial resistance against the spin moment of his leaf.
Solar Tea Cup
In the preceding analogy, the centre of the spinning tea (or vortex centre) represented the sun, the leaf: the earth; The tea: The ether; and the riders hands: the light beams of the M - M test. In essence, what Mitchellson, Morley, Einstein and many other scientists have said is that the M - M test showed the volocity of light was not affected by the earth's orbital motion.
"Therefore" they have said, "we have one of two conclusions to draw";
1. ) The Earth is orbiting the sun and there is no ether, or,
2. ) The Earth is not orbiting the sun and there is an ether but since the earth is not moving through the ether, the ether "wind" cannot be detected. Obviously, this conclusion is negated by the Earth's observed helio centric orbit.
However, their reasoning should also have incorporated a THIRD option.
3) The Earth is orbiting the sun…and so is the ether; therefore, no ether wind could be detected in the orbital vector immediately in the vicinity of Earth.
In other words, the test results cannot prove or disprove the existence of an ether…only whether or not the earth is moving relative to the ether!
C Not Constant
Remember, in 1913, G Sagnac performed his version of the M-M experiment and corrected the inconclusive results which Mitchellson and Morley's test had obtained. In Sagnac's rotational analogue of the M-M test the velocity of light was shown to vary. Aalso in 1925, Mitchellson and Gale verified Sagnac's results with their own rotational analogue. Even more recently, similar verification has been made using a ring-laser system to detect the rotational velocity of the Earth, relative to the ether,
Relativists Discard Evidence
By the time the ether wind was proven to exist, Einstein's theories were already winning strong support on the merits of celestial observations which closely agreed with Einstein's predicted values. As a result the scientific community decided to explain the ether wind phenomenon as a result of Earth's spinning in it's own ether blanket which Earth was apparently dragging through space. No explanation was ever agreed upon as to the origin or extent of this ether blanket. It was simply a way to sweep a discrepancy under the carpet.
Einstein Admits Error.
In a biography written just before his death, Professor Einstein, is quoted as admitting he had a fundamental error in Relativity. It was he said, one which-when corrected-will explain how light - an obvious wave form - can be propagated across an apparently non-inertial space. Einstein also stated that the discovery of the solution to this error would probably be the result of some serendipitous discovery in the 1960's.
However, before he died, Einstein did manage to partially correct his error, With the help of the well known Dr Erwin Schrodinger, Dr Einstein, was able to construct a 'total theory' for existence. It was called the "Unified Field Theory". Although Dr Einstein was able to lay the basic framework before his death, it is reasonably certain that a more readily useable version of the "Unified Field Theory" was only completed by other physicists after Einstein had died.
One of the more promising contributions toward a useable unified field theory was offered by Dr Stanley Deser and Dr. Richard Arnowitt. They took the General Theory of Relativity which Einstein had devised and constructed a "bridge" or "creation tensor" to link the energy of nuclear fields with that of gravitational fields by co-variant matrices. The basic relationship of General Relativity which they used as a basis for their system is:
Ruv- .5guvR = 8(pi)kTuv
Ruv = Ricci's ten-component sub-Riemannian space, curvature tensor
guv = the metric tensor
R = the selected Ricci scalar components
K = a universal constant: proportional to Newton's gravitational constant
Pi = the usual constant 3.14etc
Tuv = the components (potentials) of the energy stress tensor
Although Deser and Arnowitt's proposed equations were quite difficult to work with, it is rumored that subsequent linear variations have been developed - allowing major leaps in science and technology to develop.
When the correctly formulated Unified Field Theory is finally released to the public it wil be recognised quite easily; for it will have explained why the proton is exactly 1836 times the gravitational mass of an electron…why there is no neutral mu-meson of mass 200,…why (h) is a constant…and why hc/e2 is always equal to (137).”
Another author, Marshall Smith – also wrote a great deal about Einstein’s Relativity Error, more recently than Deyo – however they both appear to be “on the same track” as it were with regard to the speed of light constant compared to the Alpha fine structure constant – that might have been more appropriate for Albert Einstein to use instead of the speed of light constant C in his E = MC ^2 theorem.
Marshall Smiths article in two parts appears below.
“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 Stan Deyos work reproduced above 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 above Stan Deyo, postulates 3 possible interpretations of the Mitchellson Morley experiement.
“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.
I should add that I have a degree in physics
For years, I confounded my professors by working out complex problems in relativistic mechanics in my head. They said I was mostly exactly correct but at extremely high velocities near 99.99999 percent of the velocity of light, my answers were just a tad bit too big, compared to Einstein's equations. I said, that's because Einstein was wrong. I still got the physics degree anyway. I should also add that recent experiments and measurements over long time periods or distances, such as the two Pioneer spacecraft which recently left beyond the edges of our solar system, seem to show that Einstein's equations give answers which are just a tad bit too small.
WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG (Part 2)
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. In 1959 I read his paper and found that it contained a simple arithmetic error, therefore the theory must be false.
Years later as a college physics student I told my professors about my discovery of the math error.
They didn't believe me, even when I showed them a much simpler way to solve advanced physics problems.
My solution was so simple that I could solve most of the problems in my head.
Today as a senior physicist, I ask,
"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. It would take the innocence of a child to state the obvious. I was 14 at the time when I found the obvious math mistake in Einstein's paper. I was then too young and naive to know that winning a Nobel Prize would automatically and magically correct math errors in physics papers.
So I told what I had discovered to my teachers and professors.
This had several unintended consequences.
As a student I told my chemistry and physics teachers what I had found.
Within days, I became widely known around campus as "The kid who proved Einstein wrong."
I was unanimously elected president of the Special Science Group for advanced students.
I was the "wunderkind" at school and district board meetings, who made outrageous financial requests, backed by grants I had gotten from local Silicon Valley corporations, for advanced school science projects. Projects such as wiring up the school for TV, the year before cable TV was invented. I later met the man who invented cable TV, so I know. I also clearly noticed that the usual number of requests from the really cute girls had precipitously dropped to a nerdy zero.
For an "active" teenager, this simply wouldn't do.
I began a curious double-life.
I might whisper after school to my teachers about new science projects I was working on, but then not a word to my fellow students. "Sorry, Donna, what? Einstein? Never heard of him. Wanna see my first place gold medal for 400-yard relay?" What two-faced cads teenage boys can be. The curious double-life continued for decades. I found it difficult to find jobs in business and industry, even with multiple degrees in physics and engineering, with the appellation "The kid who proved Einstein wrong." I never mentioned it during job interviews. Otherwise, I often did not get the job because I was "way too over-qualified."
Jobs in academe were impossible. In the university environment, not being a professed "believer" in Relativity Theory, was considered the near equivalent to being a heretic, blasphemer, or bomb-throwing anarchist. 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 which I had found. 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.
For example:
(1) All dogs have four legs,
(2) All four legged animals are cats.
Therefore:
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,
Dr. Hendrik 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;
the nuclear,
electric,
magnetic,
and
gravitational forces,
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.”
At this point it should be becoming clear now the 3 above quoted authors/physicists:-
T.E. Bearden,
Stan Deyo,
&
Marshall Smith
Are all essentially saying much the same thing – that Albert Einstein was essentially wrong in his claims that E = MC^2.
The error would appear to be in the selection of the mathematical constant “C” as the correct constant to apply (Rather than Plancs universal constant h found in the Alpha fine structure constant ) and the assignation of the value 186,000 miles per second as the limit velocity of light in a vacuum too the mathematical integration constant “C”.
It appears in summary that the equation E = MC^2 gives a close approximation of the required result BUT that it falls short by a small amount in test results from both light observed form large distances across the universe (which appears phase shifted toward the red spectrum), and with results from the two pioneer spacecraft which have left our solar system on their journey into the cosmos.
It would appear the answer may lay within the use of the fine structure constant Alpha, within Einsteins’ original 21 equation solution of Mitchellson – Morley speed of light experiment.
So, for a moment, let us just assume, that we agree with the idea that Einstein might have been wrong…
Where does this lead us?
Here is where we depart a little from the 3 previous quoted authors & onto the findings of myself with regard to relationships between Mass and Time domain – in terms of energy potentials.
The question I found myself asking was fundamentally this:-
In the larger world context, -( rather than what might also equally apply in spatial circuits at the atomic & sub atomic level), what exactly can we learn, at the macroscopic level, about this domain of Time as a form of energy (if anything)?
The preceding 3 authors, and many great scientists before them - have all said much about Time as have a great many philosophers before them – so I thought it might at this point be handy to summarize a few of the attributable quotes about what time is and isn’t into a brief list to “jog our memories” and get us all back onto the same page again in our collective thinking about time generally.
To first order, time seems to have the same energy density as mass does.
So time is actually highly compressed energy.
It turned out that all 3-space energy comes from the time domain anyway, being time converted into 3-space energy. And it also returns from 3-space back to the time domain, in an ongoing "circulation" in 4-space.
Time, as such, in a continuum of such magnitude is equally relative!
'Time' Is NOT an absolute dimension in reality. The ONLY absolute is energy.
Time is a ratio of changes in energy density.
Time on an atom passes much faster than time at the earth level does.
I found in Tom Bearden’s writings an interesting finding that intrigued me a lot.
Tom states this in the first quote about time above, i.e. To first order, time seems to have the same energy density as mass does. And I’ve seen him express this phenomenon as an equation not unlike A Einstein’s as:-
E = Delta TC^2
Or expressed as “Energy Equals Change in Time, times the universal constant C (speed of light) squared.
It occurred to me that perhaps we COULD learn something valuable about Time – by comparing (resolving) the two equations for a Time & Mass relationship, as follows:-
If
E = MC^2 (Einstein)
& also
E = Delta TC^2 (Bearden)
Then it necessarily follows that:-
MC^2 = Delta TC^2
Further multiplying each side of the equation by 1/C^2 leaves
M = Delta T
Or it can just be expressed simply as
Mass equals Change in Time.
In energy terms – we are being told exactly what Tom Bearden and Stan Deyo said all those years ago.
There is as much energy trapped or compressed within the time domain as there is within Mass (think the atom & splitting thereof – or nuclear explosions – a whale of a lot of energy in anyones terms).
Tom Bearden even tells us how much potential energy is available in just one second as 9 x 10 ^ 16 joules of energy.
Marshall Smith in his 2 articles above about Einstein’s error summarizes this for us very neatly when he wrote:-
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;
the nuclear,
electric,
magnetic,
and
gravitational forces,
were all simply variations of the same force.
Again we find this very concept reinforced by Stan Deyo in his statement:-
'Time' Is NOT an absolute dimension in reality. The ONLY absolute is energy.
Here we find ourselves then, asking a simple and logical question, even though we know that the answer basically is just another form of energy – “just what the heck is TIME?”.
Herein lies a big part of the problem, because so few understand what time really is and how it is measured.
Now a great many will tell you all about chronometers and clocks and the measurement of time and nuclear clocks and so on….
Problem is – we now know that Time is an energy force, equally as powerful as nuclear energy, and clocks etc don’t explain much about that energy force or make it available to us to convert easily into other forms of energy with which we can do work.
So, let us get this right from the start, just what do clocks measure?
Well – obvious answer is they measure the earths spin about it’s own axis for a full rotation of the earth involving one day and night, and this takes about 24 hours (depending where you are on the earth’s surface).
To make this point – I always like to quote the old stand up comic’s line about the homicide detective in Alaska’s Yukon, who asks his murder suspect, “And can you account for your whereabouts on the night in question - of June 15th to December 24th!”
….usually gets a good laugh!
So – yes Time as MOST people understand it, is all about clocks and days and nights, periods of 24 hours and minutes and seconds etc.
We however – being a little better educated by now should realize that – TIME is an energy force, and just what “force” are we measuring with the earths’ spin about its own axis?
Yes – We are measuring part of the force of GRAVITY, with our clocks and watches and nuclear clocks etc.
This has NOTHING whatever to do with the potential Energy of the TIME domain!
So – again the simple question, what the heck is TIME and how do we measure it IF watches and clocks etc are actually Gravity meters and have little if anything to do with TIME?
OK – those of you who are awake – will realize that CALENDARS measure time – because Time is the Earths Passage in an annual elliptical orbit about the sun, Calendars measure the seasons, which is all about the earths axis tilt in relation to our orbit about the sun where we get two solar equinoxes and two solar solstices in our annual orbit about the sun….
This is TIME – the earths passage thru space in an annual elliptical orbit about the sun, taking 365 & ¼ days (gravity spins about the earths own axis) to complete, (or thereabouts) combined with the angular torque force of earths cork screw passage thru space orbiting the sun which is itself orbiting the black hole at the center of our universe at it's event horizon at a velocity of some 48 million miles per second.
And what energy force are we thus talking about for this earthly Time domain?
Believe it or not – it is an angular torque momentum force of kinetic energy potential. Yes – the earths MASS times the earths Velocity thru space gives us a kinetic energy potential, angular torque momentum force.
This is the Energy Force of the Time Domain for those of us here on the Earth time domain reality!
So - all you need do - is, starting at equation 7 above of Einsteins 21 equation proof equation set for "special relativity" is insert Einsteins very own Fine structure constant 'h' from Alpha, where HE inserts the universal constant C and then erroneously ascribes the near earth space value of 186000 miles / second.
That shouldn't be too hard for you.
In fact you can do it right here and be the first person on earth to "officially publish" the "grand unification theorem" or GUT that the world has sought for so many years now.
That very GUT will answer every single one of your questions about Tesla and what he knew, the Philadelphia experiment, and so on.
Not only will it answer your questions? - you will then be able to answer with some authority - other peoples seemingly "interesting" and "mysterious" questions based on your new understanding of the grand unification theorem.
Remember me, when you give your Nobel prize for Physics acceptance speech!
You can just call me HAL!
Cheers
Carlos Allende & the Philadelphia Experiment, US Navy, US Army, N. Tesla & ALTERNATING current, Einstein, W. Reich & Orgone Energy, "cloud-busting", STAR-GATE, US ARMY (AGAIN), CIA. ALL "connected", based on my R & I (Research & Investigation). "Google" CARLOS ALLENDE; PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT to begin... 
Naw, we start with N. Tesla and ALTERNATING current; MANY inventions, and after he died, US gov't seized MOST of his "working papers"; SOME went to his homeland, across the "little pond". THEN, you have A. Einstein, and HIS many theories, with the UNIFIED FIELD theory (NOW, replaced by the NEW physics)... resulting in his work on the MANHATTAN PROJECT, which superseded US NAVY research on the "invisible force field". BETTER to kill many enemies with ONE or TWO A-BOMBS, than send an "invisible military force" which would STILL result in US KIA, and MANY injured/MIA.
8) (SUNNY out... 
)
8)
