Special and General Relativity Should Not Be Considered Valid

This thread is based on information obtained from The Thunderbolts Project website page "common misconception 9 — who disproved einstein?"

The article addresses the Global Positioning System and the atomic clocks experiment.

At the end of the article, the Michelson-Morley experiment and the supposed nullification of the aether was addressed. A lesser known subsequent experiment by Dr Dayton Miller, in 1933, is mentioned:

In 1933 Dr Dayton Miller concluded more than a quarter-century of investigative experimentation by stating that the original Michelson-Morley data were skewed by the effect of temperature and by adjustment for a preconceived aether wind direction. Factor those out and you get a fringe shift equivalent to 10 km/sec, a figure later confirmed by Miller’s own experiments.

www.thunderbolts.info...

Then, Einstein himself is quoted:

Despite some desperate rearguard action by relativists attempting to discredit his results, they have stood the test of time. Einstein himself conceded variously in correspondence and in Science that should Miller’s data be validated, his (Einstein’s) theories would fail. In July 1925, Dr Einstein wrote in a letter to Edwin Slossen: “My opinion of Miller’s results is the following… Should the positive results be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity, and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid.”

www.thunderbolts.info...

The Einstein quote is from 1925.

In 1998:

. . . the highly respected physicist and Nobel laureate Maurice Allais published a rigorous analysis of Miller’s 1925-26 experimental results in the magazine 21st Century Science & Technology. His conclusion is that Miller’s results are indeed authentic and cannot be attributed to any spurious or fortuitous effects.

Allais wrapped it up thusly: “Consequently, the Special and General Theory of Relativity, resting on postulates invalidated by observational data, cannot be considered as scientifically valid.”

www.thunderbolts.info...

It seems that if Einstein himself saw validation of the aether as invalidation of his theories, mainstream science should recognize that and deal with it appropriately.

. . . the highly respected physicist and Nobel laureate Maurice Allais published a rigorous analysis of Miller’s 1925-26 experimental results in the magazine 21st Century Science & Technology. His conclusion is that Miller’s results are indeed authentic and cannot be attributed to any spurious or fortuitous effects.

Allais wrapped it up thusly: “Consequently, the Special and General Theory of Relativity, resting on postulates invalidated by observational data, cannot be considered as scientifically valid.”

www.thunderbolts.info...

Apparently, Allais was actually an economist with an interest in physics.

From Wikipedia:

His interest in physics

Besides his career in economics, Maurice Allais performed experiments between 1952 and 1960 in the fields of gravitation, special relativity and electromagnetism, in order to investigate possible links between these fields. He reported three effects with respect to these experiments:

An unexpected anomalous effect in the angular velocity of the plane of oscillation of a paraconical pendulum, detected during two partial solar eclipses in 1954 and 1959. This claimed effect is now called the Allais effect.
Anomalous irregularities in the oscillation of the paraconical pendulum, with periodicity 24h50min, which corresponds to the tidal lunar day.
Anomalous irregularities in optical theodolite measurements, with the same tidal periodicity.

Over the years, a number of pendulum experiments were performed by scientists around the world to test his findings. However, the results were mixed.[6]

en.wikipedia.org...

From a website called Marginal Revolution:

Maurice Allais

by Alex Tabarrok on October 10, 2010 at 6:45 pm in Current Affairs, Economics, Science | Permalink

French physicist and economic Nobel Laureate Maurice Allais has died at age 99. Allais is best known among American economists for the Allais paradox but Allais was a polymath with contributions (and JSTOR here) in a huge number of areas many of which were often overlooked because his work was not translated into english (an unfortunate fact which is still true today).

. . . Amazingly, Allais also conducted ground breaking experiments on pendulums which earned him the 1959 Galabert Prize of the French Astronautical Society and which may have revealed an anomaly in general relativity that physicists refer to as the Allais effect.

marginalrevolution.com...

originally posted by: Mary Rose
Apparently, Allais was actually an economist with an interest in physics.

Allais is an interesting figure.

There is a 5 page .pdf hosted on the 21st Century Science and Technology website entitled "The New Physical Field of Maurice Allais":

Maurice Allais’ physical researches are often viewed as a counter-position to Einstein’s relativity theory. Professor Allais indeed presented compelling evidence that the speed of light is not independent of its direction, and that therefore this precept, which is at the foundation of the special and general theory of relativity, renders the theory invalid. That shocking possibility much intrigued me in 1998, when I first learned of the work of this French genius whom I later came to know both as a friend and a source of scientific inspiration.

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com...

In addition to Allais' analysis of Miller’s results, his own experimentation with a paraconical pendulum call into question Einstein's theories:

The Paraconical Pendulum

Let us rather go directly to certain experiments with a unique sort of pendulum, conceived in 1953 and carried out by Professor Allais and assistants from 1954 to 1960 in a laboratory in Saint-Germain, and during part of one year simultaneously in a quarry at Bougival, some kilometers distant. The idea for these experiments had come from Allais’ conviction that the propagation of the gravitational and electromagnetic actions requires the existence of an intermediate medium. It would not be precisely the ether as conceived by Augustin Fresnel early in the 19th Century, but a modification of it, for this ether could not be motionless in relation to the fixed stars, as had earlier been assumed.

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com...

Yes, Allais did some interesting stuff. Afaik there have been attempts to replicate his observations (Allais effect) with no conclusive results unfortunately.

So declaring SR and GR as invalid might be a bit premature...

originally posted by: moebius
Yes, Allais did some interesting stuff. Afaik there have been attempts to replicate his observations (Allais effect) with no conclusive results unfortunately.

Who?

Attempts in good faith?

originally posted by: Mary Rose
This thread is based on information obtained from The Thunderbolts Project website page "common misconception 9 — who disproved einstein?"

The article addresses the Global Positioning System and the atomic clocks experiment.

At the end of the article, the Michelson-Morley experiment and the supposed nullification of the aether was addressed. A lesser known subsequent experiment by Dr Dayton Miller, in 1933, is mentioned:

1933?

What about all the subsequent experiments? They have been conducted as recently as 2009.

Who?

Look for solar eclipse anomalies.

journals.aps.org... -> positive result
journals.aps.org... -> negative result
link.springer.com... -> negative result
journals.aps.org... -> positive result

There might be a few more.

Attempts in good faith?

Ah, you still seem to have issues understanding how science works.

a reply to: moebius

I know how science works in the real world.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: moebius

I know how science works in the real world.

You clearly don't. What you do is credulously accept anything that supports your beliefs and dismiss all evidence to the contrary.

a reply to: moebius

The eclipse anomalies have always been interesting to me as a potential experimental indication of something beyond standard physics.

The inconsistency of the results may be a consequence of not fully controlling for various effects, which is understandable because the unknown physics, if any, is not yet known.

Also consider this unusual effect, seasonal variation of radioactive decay rates.

news.stanford.edu...

These are serious scientists and apparently have attempted to control for many effects.

There were some countering articles saying that there was no variation, but I don't find them fully convincing because not all radioactive decays are alike. Something mediated by electroweak may interact entirely differently with purported unknown physics versus strong-force interactions.

a reply to: mbkennel

Gravity is an Aetheric effect. Einstein said for general relativity to work there must be 'an aether', which is called the gravity field. Einstein hated (with good reason, with absolute reason) the idea (or lack of an idea) of spooky action at a distance.

When object A


1) A




b

2) A






b

4) A








b

5) A


Moves through space, it is something about what A does to the surrounding space, that makes object B, 'become dragged along' with it. So this proves that the Gravity field has its own intrinsic energetic quality, it is the physical nature of the gravity field, and how a body effects the physical nature of the gravity field locally surrounding the body, that causes a less massive body, to be effected by the physical nature of the gravity field.


So were michel and morleyson experiments trying to disprove the existence of the medium that is causing 'object b' or for example, the moon, to move through space at its trajectory?

Is the hierarchy like this; The black hole starts the main gravity well for a galaxy. The star/sun starts the main gravity well for the solar system. The earth is the main gravity well for the moon.

The massive bodies are the cause for the gravity well (local disturbances in gravity field). But the gravity field is the direct cause of the force/working of what we know of as gravity.

Im not necessarily arguing with anyone, just seeing if this is the most accepted view.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
So were michel and morleyson experiments trying to disprove the existence of the medium that is causing 'object b' or for example, the moon, to move through space at its trajectory?

No, they were about properties of electromagnetic propagation not gravitation, and whether there was some hidden mechanical-like properties supporting propagating EM waves in analogy to fluid mechanics, where there is for sound. With light, there isn't.

As it turned out the Maxwell equations were 'relativistic' at birth, and Einstein unified them with mechanics in the logical way forming special relativity. There's a reason the title of that article is "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

Fun fact. There is no relativistic transformation on electric charge. Charge is what it is always.

originally posted by: mbkennel


No, they were about properties of electromagnetic propagation not gravitation, and whether there was some hidden mechanical-like properties supporting propagating EM waves in analogy to fluid mechanics, where there is for sound. With light, there isn't.

Would the hidden mechanical like properties supporting propagating EM waves be the EM field? Is the EM field ONLY the totality or sum of all EM radiation at any given moment? Or does EM field exist where there is no current charged particle caused EM radiation?

Fun fact. There is no relativistic transformation on electric charge. Charge is what it is always.

Meaning the electric charge produces its local effect at the speed of light and relativity does not effect the speed of light, and all relativistic transformations are calculated as comparisons to the hierarchy of possible rates of space and speed and time with the speed of light being the highest?

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel


No, they were about properties of electromagnetic propagation not gravitation, and whether there was some hidden mechanical-like properties supporting propagating EM waves in analogy to fluid mechanics, where there is for sound. With light, there isn't.

Would the hidden mechanical like properties supporting propagating EM waves be the EM field? Is the EM field ONLY the totality or sum of all EM radiation at any given moment?

Yes. The 2nd is what is implied, that the EM field is fundamental, and not a composite effect of motion of something else.

Or does EM field exist where there is no current charged particle caused EM radiation?

Yes.

Fun fact. There is no relativistic transformation on electric charge. Charge is what it is always.

Meaning the electric charge produces its local effect at the speed of light and relativity does not effect the speed of light, and all relativistic transformations are calculated as comparisons to the hierarchy of possible rates of space and speed and time with the speed of light being the highest?

No, it means that even though Newtonian mechanics needed to be modified when considering relative reference frames close to speed of light, resulting in transformations on momentum, energy, distances and time, you don't need to do anything for charge when changing reference frames. Electric and magnetic fields do transform into one another & change in difference reference frames, i.e. what may be purely electric in one reference frame will look like a combination of electric and magnetic fields to somebody who is whizzing past quickly.

originally posted by: mbkennel




Yes. The 2nd is what is implied, that the EM field is fundamental, and not a composite effect of motion of something else.

Hm I was a little confused by this.

Im wondering like this. Imagine 5 electrons in a vacuum, and then all of the sudden they are accelerated once, so they each cause radiation.

From the moment of electron acceleration to the end of radiation infiltration exploration, is every planck length of that vacuum 'covered' in radiation?

This is what I meant is that radiation the EM field. Or in a vacuum with NO radiation, is the EM field there too?

No, it means that even though Newtonian mechanics needed to be modified when considering relative reference frames close to speed of light, resulting in transformations on momentum, energy, distances and time, you don't need to do anything for charge when changing reference frames. Electric and magnetic fields do transform into one another & change in difference reference frames, i.e. what may be purely electric in one reference frame will look like a combination of electric and magnetic fields to somebody who is whizzing past quickly.

So does the electric field travel have the speed of light and magnetic field travel half the speed of light?

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel




Yes. The 2nd is what is implied, that the EM field is fundamental, and not a composite effect of motion of something else.

Hm I was a little confused by this.

Im wondering like this. Imagine 5 electrons in a vacuum, and then all of the sudden they are accelerated once, so they each cause radiation.

From the moment of electron acceleration to the end of radiation infiltration exploration, is every planck length of that vacuum 'covered' in radiation?

Well, radiation is gradients in space and time in the fields. So outside of the 'light cone', i.e. a sphere from each charge which started moving larger than c*t, the fields would be static.

You can compute the fields from the Lienard-Wiechert portential.

en.wikipedia.org...

And all of them use the 'retarded' time, meaning that to compute the potentials (and hence fields) "here" you look increasingly back "in time" to add up the influence of charges when you go further out in distance.

So the fields now depend on where charges "used to be", and the further away, the further back in time you measure the position of charges.

This is what I meant is that radiation the EM field. Or in a vacuum with NO radiation, is the EM field there too?

A static EM field is considered to have no radiation. Radiation is a type of movement/change in the EM field.

So does the electric field travel have the speed of light and magnetic field travel half the speed of light?

No. Other than there being no known magnetic monopole charges (and this is a fact of particle physics), electromagnetism is symmetric in electric & magnetic fields. The interaction with real atoms is not, because atoms are more complicated.

Actual quote from Albert Einstein:

What led me more or less directly to the special theory of relativity was the conviction that the electromotive force acting on a body in motion in a magnetic field was nothing else but an electric field.

In 1900, that's an extraordinary insight.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Looking at the Wikipedia article I don't see where any conclusions were reached for those experiments listed.

a reply to: ConnectDots
The relevant experimental result is in the right hand column and is explained somewhat in the article:

Michelson–Morley experiment

They set a limit on the anisotropy of the speed of light resulting from the Earth's motions of Δc/c ≈ 10^−15, where Δc is the difference between the speed of light in the x- and y-directions.[31]

As of 2009, optical and microwave resonator experiments have improved this limit to Δc/c ≈ 10^−17.

That 10^−17 means the anisotropy is either zero or so close to zero they can't measure it, and that's the limit on what the experiment should be able to measure if there was any.

Of course if you really want to know experimental details you have to follow the links to the actual experiments. It's unreasonable to expect the wiki to provide any more than the summary of results which it does provide.

OK so the experiments have been repeated with better equipment, but even microwaves are just EM waves at a lower frequency than light. If the commonly held theory that the aether behaves like a fluid is correct (and most research indicates it does) then it would seem correct that the Earth is dragging some aether along with it, so the relative speed (close to earth) is the same.

Maybe if they bounced a laser or microwave beam from a mirror some distance out in space, they might get different results.The moon is tide-locked to the earth, so no point looking there either.

I am not completely convinced of the whole EU theory, they assume that the energy coming into the sun is electric charge from outer space...well with that much energy flowing in we should be able to detect it.

Secondly, while i agree that Einstein is bunk, i see that even the bright guys at Thunderbolts seem to have overlooked a few matters of some importance. Namely that nuclear fusion is not only possible in a plasma (especially so since plasma is highly magnetic & conductive) but it is possible at relatively low temperature & pressure.
It hase been done right here on earth.

Nuclear reactions, gravity & electrickery are all different aspects of the same animal.
They did admit that the results of the (yet to be performed) SAFIRE project could show that thermonuclear fusion in a CME was likely, well maybe they are not so dumb after all....if they plan to do this in a lab, they have to watch out for some very fast neutrons exiting the chamber in bunches, not very healthy at close range

Also there is no credence given to rotation as a possible gravito-electric energy transfer medium, which has been largely overlooked, except when the Thunderbolt team thought Eric Laithwaite had got it wrong when he said inertia & momentum were 2 separate things, depending on the rotation of the protons & electrons, they obviously are. Mass itself can be 'neutralised' electrically.

Only one experiment i know of, a long time ago in France shortly after the revolution, tried a daring experiment using a fast turning but highly charged disk, i leave the reader to guess what happened to it.......

One last conundrum for you; In quantum theory, the eternal law defying spin of the electron is required, applied to the macro scale as (for exampe) a Bedini-type overunity machine, it is described as impossible.

The only thing that I can see being wrong is, what is currently understood as the warping of space and time. If the math fits the observations, then we know that our predictions will most likely be correct. But just because the math says space is warping, doesn't mean it isn't some other effect instead. Our understanding of time could be flawed too. physicists can't give a proper description of time anyway. Time could be an illusion. The theory leads to crazy time travel paradoxes, which logically make no sense.

People will say that gravitational lensing is proof of space warping. That's not true. To my knowledge, no one has successfully been able to measure the fabric of space itself move. It's always an assumption that space is bent because the beam of light is bent. How do we know it's not something else inducing that?

Personally, I think this is the most likely answer. Remember that Einstein didn't start from scratch, he expanded off of Newton. We must also do the same, throwing the whole thing out would be stupid.