Tuesday 27 September 2011

Einstein's Relativity Theory crumbles

Proof of NO foreshortening of distance in Einstein’s Relativity
                                          Theory.


I shall use Einstein’s own preferred imagery - with an example nicked from Frank Atkinson's book "Time - the missing parameter in physics":

Consider a train on an embankment.

Mark the place on the rails where the first wheel touches the rail, call it F, and also the place on the rails where the rear wheel touches the rails, call it R.

Place an observer, Jim AlKhalili, on the train and another, Brian Cox, on the embankment.

Now place a trigger mechanism just in front of R (RF) and another just behind R (RB).
Use these triggers to ignite 10 Tons of Semtex, but ONLY if both have been depressed at the same time.


Set the train in motion and observe what happens. When the train’s front wheels hit RB, nothing happens – and nothing happens when the front wheels hit RF.
No surprise there. So far so good. Both Jim and Brian are safe.

Now repeat the experiment and accelerate the train to a speed being a major proportion of the speed of light and ask Jim AlKhalili what he saw exactly when the front wheels hit F.

“Yes, oh wonder, my old pal Einstein told me, that the embankment would shrink as I wuschj past R and F – and indeed it did! When my rear wheels should pass R, they actually hit RB instead and depressed the RB trigger, as the embankment had shrunk a little. And just as importantly: Einstein would have been happy to know, that I didn't observe any shrinkage of the train at all, just as he said”

Then let’s see what Brian Cox had to say.

“Hang on Jimmy boy – my embankment didn’t shrink – it is definitely you, who have shrunk! This confirms the relativity Albert talked about.  I saw it with my own eyes: as your train became a little shorter, the rear wheel didn’t hit R, when you said it hit RB. In fact it hit RF exactly at the moment your front wheels hit F”.

So clearly the train hit RB and RF at the same time, using Einstein’s favourite example.

Did 10 Tons of Semtex send Brian and Jim into orbit and did the unlikely event of the train being in two places at the same time really happen?
Of course it didn’t.

If at this stage you want to use the Lorenz Transformation to prove the above mathematically, be my guest! It will all be confirmed - but I promised to use no maths in this proof.
Quod erat demonstrandum!!!

Guys, face it: Einstein was wrong and Jim AlKhalili is now on his way to Primark to buy edible boxer shorts, as he promised.

Because: as there is no foreshortening of the distance travelled, when we move close to the speed of light, and as we know that such speeds cause a dilation of time, it now looks as though the speed of light barrier has been broken.

Of course, Jim might save an unappetizing meal by claiming, that it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. Pheew –  he is actually right!
Because the observed time depends on the observer. Does that mean that one can travel faster than 300,000 KM/sec when time dilates?
Definitely.

At the end of 2011 scientists were ripping their hair out, because a recent CERN experiment seemed to prove, that Neutrinos could travel faster than light here on Earth.
Yes - but Neutrinos have no mass?
Hmmm - just a tiny little mass, which according to Einstein would have made the whole CERN set-up implode with a big bang?
Ahh - so perhaps there IS a Higgs Boson?
I am afraid not.
It was all down to a mistake in the measuring equipment - a fact that was communicated at a 120 dB lower volume than the original result of the experiment.
Otherwise we would have been  back in almost medieval darkness.
And now the scientists at CERN have  declared, that their search for the elusive Boson might be abandoned.
It isn't there.
Did you hear me? It isn't there!!
Just as elusive or non extant as a cure for the common cold.

And as Dark Matter isn't there either (a bonkers idea in the first place, only invented to explain why our galaxies don't fly off the Universe faster than we can spot them), the only way forward is: Back to the drawing board, all you bright physicists, who are glued to Einstein with Araldite - and let go of 100 year old errors.
Start with

Saturday 24 September 2011

Speed of Light revisited

and the limits of Einstein's E=mc2 revealed.

I knew it!
The Hadron Collider group has verified, that a particle can move faster than the speed of light in certain circumstances.
Well, they may have had their measurements in a twist - but even close to the speed of light is fine for the following purpose.

This means that a particle - even with an infinitesimally small mass - at close to the speed of light did NOT increase its mass to infinity, as predicted by Einstein.

I have mentioned earlier in this blog, that old Albert got it wrong.
In fact he knew it, but preferred to modify his equations and explain, that a train speeding along an embankment would increase its mass towards infinity, as the speed approached that of light.
The simple fact is that mass stays constant. Heureka!!!!
It is the speed of light that varies in the E=mc2 equation, due to the scientifically proven time dilation of the superfast train.
Now it is proven and the scientific establishment simply doesn't know what to do with it.
So they shut up.

Infinity is a strange thing, that we can only express mathematically, but not comprehend.
An infinite Universe.
An infinite mass.
Time that always was and always will be.
All rather esoteric for the human brain.
But try 1/0 (one divided by zero), or rather 1/0.0000000000000000000000000001 and you get the point.
Yes - a very big number.

A train with an infinitely great mass is a very heavy matter.
But a quantum sized particle at the speed of light would be an equally heavy matter, according to Einstein, as infinity remains infinity.

Can anything go faster than the speed of light?
Probably not (!!) - this is the limit in the time dimension in which it is measured.
Can anything go faster than 300,000 Km/sec?
Absolutely - if time can dilate or contract it all depends upon who is watching and measuring, as a second is not a second any more.
Time dilates
- close to a great mass (Galaxy),
- at very high speeds and
- at high temperatures
Otherwise it contracts.
This is an accepted, measurable fact today.

As
Speed = d/t,
where d= distance, t=time
even mathematically challenged people can see, that with a constant d and variable t, speed varies.
Einstein tried to circumvent the limit of 300,000 Km/sec by saying, that at speeds close to that of light, d would become shorter.
Rubbish - it is easy to prove this can't be the case, actually using Einstein's own arguments.
I shall return to that later, ramming a big, wooden stick through the Relativity Theory.

Once Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox, Jim Al Khalil and the other celebrity phycisists, who have stayed glued to Einstein, are forced to look scientific facts in the eyes (and they will have to sooner rather than later) a veritable revolution will take place, as we have to start with Newton again and scrap all the rest - - - or something to that effect.

Does E=mc2 work at all?
Yes it does - as a practical approximation as long as we stay within our Earthly time dimension.

Once the Earth was flat and the Sun circumnavigated the Earth.
Copernicus was ridiculed for his heliocentric postulate, which surely didn't make the Earth flatter or helped making the Earth continue to be the centre of the Universe.

The truth in science is never decided by majority votes.

I look forward to the cosmological revolution coming up.

Sunday 4 September 2011

Simested Aa (River), North Jutland

Many years ago I took a photo of an almost undisturbed Bronze Age landscape in the north of Denmark.
A small river winding its way through a meadow, backed by Bronze Age tumuli - a refreshing sight, compared with the disappearance of waterways through drainage or canalisation.

Ripe for a painting - and here it is.
An early summer evening with a full moon:
.
Simested River, oil on canvas, 50x70cm, Jorgen Faxholm 2011

Les Vendanges 2011

Spotting a sunny gap in the rain and facing  a wet weather forecast for the next 7 days, I decided to pick my grapes Saturday 3 Sept.
The year had started promising with the warmth and sun in April and May, but June and onwards put paid to all hope of an abundant 2011, concluding with the wettest and coldest August in living memory.

The Triomphe d'Alsace in the front garden fought a brave battle and saved the day.
Triomphe d'Alsace grape bunch Sept. 2011
It played the role of General Bluecher, coming to the rescue of the otherwise lost battle of Waterloo in the patio, where constant rain and little sun caused the Brant grapes to be either green and unripe or downright rotten.
The best of the grapes held about 18 Oechsle - not like last year's 21!
The front vine produced no less than 2 full buckets of grapes and they were in excellent condition.
My refractometer told me: 23 oechsle  (sugar scale) - that is as good as it gets!

And here's what a typical Triomphe d'Alsace from the front garden looked like this year.

I will have to do something serious about the Triomphe d'Alsace in the patio, though.
Most grapes were small, even dry and with few exceptions not well developed .
Perhaps it is fighting another losing battle with roots that can't find a way under the Yorkshire slabs?
Normally vines are pretty good at sending their 'suckers' deep down - in Chateau Neuf du Pape up to 10m, but something is seriously wrong here.
Further investigation will have to wait till late autumn.

Once the condition has been clarified, I will try my luck with 3 Chardonnay vines, replacing 3 of the Triomphe d'Alsace branches. I have them prepared in pots at the moment.
Apparently Chardonnay is a late ripener, but I put my trust in the global warming, although this seems to have stopped around 1998.

A mix of Triomphe d'Alsace and Chardonnay is nice: a white grape with structure and character mixed with a red 'teinturier' - it must be a winner, if we can get them to become ripe at the same time.

So far 12.5 litres of must is bubbling away for the next 4 days.
This should produce 15 bottles, if 2 litres of pips and grape skins are taken into account.
Not good, but not too bad either.