Disproving fake Relativity

                   24 contradictions in Einstein's famous theory

                          And an alternative solution

                                 Jos Boersema

       Disproving Relativity
       by Jos Boersema
       First published on 3 Nov 2002

       Copyright (c) 2002 Jos Boersema. You are free to copy.
       Printed on the Internet by J.H.Boersema,
               Wibenaheerd 351, Groningen, The Netherlands

       You may copy and distribute this material anywhere you like,
       provided you leave intact the name(s) of the author(s), make
       clear which changes (if any) are yours, do not limit these
       rights to the people you distribute to, and leave this copyright
       statement clearly visible on your copy. (See the GNU General
       Public License (Internet) for details.)


    Introduction .......................................... 1
    Explaining relativity ................................. 1
    Relativity and Absolutism ............................. 2
    Twenty four contradictions disproving relativity:
     1 Collision contradiction in relativity .............. 6
     2 Interval contradiction in relativity ............... 8
     3 Ballistic-distance/time contradiction in relativity  9
     4 Speed addition contradiction in relativity ........ 10
     5 Engine contradiction in relativity ................ 11
     6 Clock-synchronization contradiction in relativity . 12
     7 Reference-point contradiction in relativity ....... 14
     8 Snapping contradiction in relativity .............. 15
     9 Size contradiction in relativity .................. 17
    10 Chute breaking contradiction in relativity ........ 18
    11 Simultaneity contradiction in relativity .......... 20
    12 Travel contradiction in relativity ................ 22
    13 Twin contradiction in relativity .................. 24
    14 weight contradiction in relativity ................ 26
    15 Cord contradiction in relativity .................. 29
    16 Breaking observer contradiction in relativity ..... 31
    17 Evidence contradiction in relativity .............. 32
    18 Dummy contradictions in relativity ................ 33
    19 Special Relativity is not falsifiable ............. 33
    20 Length-contraction contradiction in relativity .... 36
    21 E=mc^2 contradiction with relativity .............. 38
    22 Angle contradiction in relativity ................. 40
    23 Space bending contradiction in relativity ......... 42
    24 Faith contradiction with relativity ............... 44
    Conclusion ........................................... 46
    Appendix 1 How visual speed illusions work ........... 47
    Appendix 2 Stellar Aberration ........................ 48
    Appendix 3 Light: particle or wave ................... 52
    Appendix 4 Math is experiment-based, not axiom based . 53
    References ........................................... 54
    Pointers/Links ....................................... 54


    Einstein has been a stumbling block for progress in light theory for
    almost one century. If we use the first Michelson Morley experiment
    (MMX), science has failed to accept physical evidence proving light's
    medium to be co-moving with the Earth for 121 years now. First Lorentz'
    Ether Theory (LET) was invented, to hang on to the rigid aether
    (light medium), to be shortly superseded by relativity, an absurd
    variation on it. LET is a no-physical-causes "math-trickery" theory,
    relativity is even self contradictory, which is to be proven by this
    "paper". Often it is claimed that the "dragged light-medium" theories
    (the light medium, whatever it is, locally co-moving with the Earth)
    cannot explain "stellar aberration" (starlight is refracted towards
    the direction of motion of the Earth), however three physical solutions
    are proposed (see appendix and chapter 24). Furthermore the mystical
    duality of light - particle and wave - is probably solved in favor
    of waves in appendix 3, making the case for a classical wave
    theory. But the main point of this paper is to provide enough inescapable
    proof that relativity is a self-contradiction, and therefore formally

                       Explaining relativity:

    Relativity consists of these 4 elements, and one core (unproven) idea:
    the speed of light is the same for all people and objects, even if the
    light beam they observe is the same light beam, and they move at different
    speeds with respects to each other. This leads to the following elements:
    1 If an object is in motion relative to a reference-frame, it is
      length contracted in *that* reference frame due to this relative motion,
      in any other reference-frame it will length contract with another
      factor, or not length contract at all (reference-frame attached to the
      object itself). The length contraction occurs only in the direction
      of motion, with the factor: sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)). v=speed of object,
      c=speed of light in vacuum, 300,000,000m/sec.
    2 In the same way, with the factor 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)), the time of
      the object runs slower.
    3 In the same way, with the factor 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)), the weight of
      the object increases.
    4 Relativity of simultaneity: events do not happen at the same time
      in all reference-frames.

                Relativity and Absolutism

    If the above chapter "explaining relativity" doesn't make sense to
    you, or if your reaction is "this is too difficult for me",
    do not give up yet, because giving it up and leaving it to the
    "experts", is exactly the reason why theories like relativity persist,
    despite being fairly easily disproven.

    Using the right words and working the mind of the students, it is
    apparently easy to make them believe anything you want them to;
    especially if talking from a position of presumed authority, like
    a science teacher does. Is there more to explaining relativity ?
    There is always more. It would primarily obfuscate and lead into a tall
    tale that is so tall that nobody can see beginning nor end to it.
    The increasingly fantastic non-sense is just a house of mirrors
    without scientific substance.  The entry and exit door `but is
    this proven ?' seems to be the one place never highlighted. Usually
    `proof' is supposed to come from "amazingly accurate predictions",
    but on closer inspection there is no substance to these claims either.
    The explanation is kept very short here and to the core issue, and I
    will start disproving it immediately, to avoid readers becoming entranced
    into relativity, and believing that they are "learning a lot" where
    they actually are merely spun in endless circles around an illogical,
    unproven and formally disproven concept (light speed constancy).
    If a small child were to utter a "theory" like relativity, it would
    probably soon be corrected. If it is lucky it wouldn't be thought of
    as having a slow mind. Contrary to myth, relativity wasn't thought-up
    by Einstein.  It is likely a plagiarism where his wife did most of
    the work. The relativity-debate occurred during the chaotic times
    between the two world wars, it wasn't a careful, measured out and
    balanced one-on-one between arguments. By now, science seems to be
    so heavily invested in Relativity and Einstein, that it will be very
    hard to admit Relativity has been so obviously wrong. It would be
    like admitting to a crime.
    Lies in science have happened before virtually on the level of
    relativity. In England a claim was made that the origin lay in
    Britain, perpetrated by leading experts in the field of paleontology.
    What they did was to use a fairly modern skull, filed off key
    evidence from an ape lower jaw (joints, teeth), put them together
    and claimed they had found it like that. This deception has lasted
    for a long time, but not as long as the Relativity deception has.
    Some people seem to think relativity means "everything is relative",
    philosophers may have gone down that road. How superficially
    determined from a hollow but catchy title, and how completely at odds
    with the actual content of Relativity.  Pre-1900 science was already
    "relative" in the sense "Relativity" is claimed to be relative.
    A measuring rod is "relative", relative from where you put 0.
    Relativity is not about "being relative", Relativity is about the
    constancy of the speed of light. If you now think "that must then
    be another theory, not the famous one", you are wrong. "Relativity"
    is about light speed, and general relativity is about another bizarre
    concept, that acceleration and gravity are somehow the same thing,
    which they are not. It is another concept which can be disproven
    and which was merely conjured up probably due to the success of the
    Relativity mind boggle on the (uneducated?) population.

    Science had already realized before Relativity that everything has to
    be measured from an accidental reference-point, hence: "everything
    is relative", relative to a freely chosen point of reference. But
    that is not Relativity and not Einstein's discovery, that is classical
    mechanics and mathematics at its most basic levels. Classical mechanics
    is `relativity theory'.  Conversely, "Relativity" is an absolutist
    theory. It makes the speed of light an absolute constant relative
    to every observer. The speed of light (in vacuum), must always be
    zero. This flies in the face of the simplest of basic observations
    about relative speed. If you move compared to someone else, a third
    object has usually a different speed relative to you then to the
    other person. Such basic concepts are broken in `Relativity'.
    Einstein theory labeled "Relativity" should be more correctly
    termed "Constancy", referring to the central thesis of Relativity:
    that the speed of light is a constant for all observers, always.
    (See literature if you want, nobody denies this.)  Many people may
    just hear the term "Relativity", and make something sensible of it,
    going back to the basics of classical mechanics (which are violated
    by Einstein's `Relativity'). Relativity wasn't termed Relativity
    in the beginning, it didn't have the title which strikes a natural
    nerve in so many people.  The term "Relativity" causes an immediate
    positive reaction of acceptance because ``ofcourse everything is
    relative!''. Yes, ofcourse, and we all know because it is such a basic
    starter in classical physics (life even), but this has nothing to do
    with "Einstein's" theory.
    Einstein's theories waste an enormous amount of important time from
    future physics-talent. Little boys and girls who are forced to score
    marks for this "theory", some of whom might even drop out of physics
    because they can't take the level of logical abuse.  If talent even
    begins a study into physics these days, given its highly ludicrous
    and unproven philosophies of wormholes, bending space etc etc etc,
    which really should provoke a sceptical attitude to (theoretical)
    physics. It attracts the fuzzies, the very fuzzies.
    Is it a coincidence that Relativity is so easily disproven, yet is
    regarded as The Best Of All Science ?

    Relativity is also a public money waster. Directly, and by sucking
    money away from genuine (promising) research in all other departments,
    including real physics.  When relativity is one day exposed for what
    it is, there will yet again be a great loss to science in general,
    as the credibility of science could fall dramatically.  When Einstein
    falls, and the true originators of his theory with him (barely known
    today, though well documented), and the real scientists be elevated
    to their proper status of reverence (sadly in death), much faith in
    science could come down with it. Apparently some scientists weren't
    up to science, and have been given too much credit. As the Romans asked:
    `who watches the watchers ?'. In science, they are expected to watch
    themselves. It does not seem to be working as well as it is supposed to.
    Some scientists in the past found a way back then regarding light, that
    it acted _not_ like they believed and taught. But this contradicted the
    theories of the day. To hang on to the old ways, Lorentz proposed his
    madness. At first other scientists laughed at the absurdities.
    All scientists who could have looked bad because of the new discovery
    end 1800's (known as "MMX") are now dead, but the cover-up story
    made perhaps in an effort to save their honor is still here. Science
    (at least theoretical physics) still has to make good on its promise
    of objectivity "no matter personal issues" on the issue of light
    speed. Yes, "light speed", that sounds awfully real doesn't it,
    given the SciFi culture surrounding Einsteins theories. This is
    physics after all, and it is about reality.
    An odd coincidence is that what is supposed to enlighten us, science,
    logical and rational thinking, is keeping us in the dark about
    the phenomenon "light" itself, both about its speed (Relativity),
    and phenomenon type (wave or particle).  Relativity is an insult to
    modern civilization.

    It only takes one contradiction to disprove a scientific theory.
    I have supplied more then 20. For relativity to stay upright, it has
    to credibly disproof all dis-proofs, without resorting to a definition
    of Relativity which says `relativity is true no matter what.'
    Science is and has to be based upon observation.


                   ||    0--    <-- True Relativity: place the
                   ||    1 -           zero wherever you like.
                   ||    2 -           Measure things relative to
                   ||    3 -           whatever, whatever is suiting.
                   ||    4 -
                   ||r   5 -
                   ||u   6 -
                   ||l   7 -
                   ||e   8 -
                   ||r   9 -
                   ||   10--
                   ||   11 -
                   ||   12 -
                   ||   13 -
                   ||   14 -
                   ||   15 -
                   ||   16 -
                   ||   17 -
                   ||   18 -
                   ||   19 -
                   ||   20--
                   ||   21 -


                Collision contradiction in relativity:

           .                                     _________________
             .                                  |         ______  |
               .                      _         |     vv |   |##| |
                 ._                  | |        |     /\ |   |##| |
              |  (a)                 | `--------l-------||   |__| |
             -A-     .              .|          |       |bi    \  |
              | A      .          .  | .--------|-------| |     \ |
                         .      .    |_|        |     \/  \______\|
                           .  .                 |     ^^         \\
                            ..                  |_________________\\
                          .    .                                  ||
                        .        .                                ||
                      .            .                              ||
                    .                .  _                         ||
                  .                    (b)                       / |
                .                  B |   .                      / /
              .                     -B-    .                    |(
            .                        |       .                  l \
          .                                    .          _    /   |
        .                                        .       / \  |    |
      .                                            __   |  |  |    |
                                                  /  \   \_|_/     |
                                             |   ( -- )    /       |
                                            -C-   \\//    /        |
                         o                   |     ==    /         |
                        /|\                      __==___/          |
                         H                      |                  |

    Two balls head towards each other at equal speeds wrt to c, they are
    elastic.  Three reference-frames/points, a, b and c. b Moves with the
    ball going up-left, and stays with ball b even if the ball changes
    direction, a moves with the ball going down-right and continues with
    ball a, c is stationary at the light bulb and the lever. The balls go
    towards each other and collide such that the collision surfaces make
    a 45 degrees angle with their direction of motion. The balls have the
    same weight when not moving.  We can compute this same situation from 
    the three above depicted reference-frames, a, b and c. Classical
    mechanics will yield the same answer for each: the balls will collide
    and skip away at a 90 degrees angle to their former motion.

    Relativity however, changes the weights of the balls depending upon
    their relative motion to a certain reference frame.
    If the speed of the balls is near light speed, the moving ball will
    have a weight going towards infinity "in that reference frame" (as
    computed from that reference-point).

    The results are:
    * Reference-frame c, both balls have the same weight because at the
      same speed relative to this frame, so they will bump away at a 90
      degrees angle.
    ->The lever will be hit by ball b, light goes on, ball a will skip
      away to the left/down.  Light bulb goes on.
    * Reference-frame a, ball b is heavier then ball a, ball a will still
      skip off to the left-down at 90 degrees, however ball b will travel
      nearly unimpeded by the slight bump it received from the lighter ball
      a, and change direction less then 90 degrees (this is how collisions
      work between uneven weighted objects, picture a grain of sand skipping
      off a bowling ball).
    ->Light bulb stays off.
    * Reference-frame b, ball a heavier, ball b will still skip off 90
      degrees to the lever, but ball a will travel on on the same route
      with only a smaller alteration.
    ->Light bulb goes on and gets potentially smashed moments later by a.

    Length contraction and time dilation don't play a part in this
    contradict-ion, except perhaps that the light bulb will not be on yet
    when it is smashed because of time dilation.

    During the off center collision of the two balls in such a way that
    they do not bounce back on their previous track, both balls continue
    to have a speed difference between themselves during the collision.
    This causes both balls to have a different weight as seen from either
    ball, even as the weight difference decreases when the left-right
    component in the speeds disappears and reverses during the collision.
    As seen from ball (a) the ball (b) is heavier, it becomes lighter
    during collision when the left-right speed component decreases to
    zero where it reaches a minimum weight still heavier then ball (a)
    because of the up-down speed which is retained, then ball (b) becomes
    heavier again when the left-right speed picks up.

    If this causes you to think "these people are completely crazy, the
    balls don't change weight at all," then you would be correct, on both
    counts. What you are seeing is the insanity of Relativity Theory.
    Never confuse relativity with reality: it is all fiction, and it is
    all wrong.

    How does an SRist deal with this apparent problem ? Simple !

    What an SRist will do now, is suddenly claim that you can not attach a 
    frame of reference (that is "put the zero anywhere you like, for instance
    on an object that bounces like a ball") to a thing that causes Special
    Relativity to run into a contradiction with itself, like presented here.
    This is what happened when Einstein was presented with a contradiction
    regarding a rotating reference frame: he suddenly claimed that
    Relativity did not "work," or say "apply," to rotating reference frames.
    By making SR not applicable to situations where it shows it is a
    contradictory theory, the SRists avoid talking about such contradictions.

    A good word to describe this way of doing "physics" would be "corruption."


                Interval contradiction in relativity:

         /\_| |_/\     |
         \       /    -A-
        _/   v   \_    |            _______
       |_   >+<   _|               (___*___)             |
         | /////--------------------|-----|--------------|
         / /////-----------------------------------------|
       _ \/-   -\/ _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _ | _   _   _   _
   |\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/|

             1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10  11  12
       <- -B-

    This is a long toothed beam which is driven to the left with
    a cogwheel.  Attached to the cogwheel is a second boom which
    converts the clockwise rotation (in drawing) of the wheel, to a
    rotation along the axis of this beam. At the end of the axis is a
    secondary cogwheel, which teeth are such that they pass through
    the empty space between the teeth on the long beam. Since we are
    dealing with rotations, speeds cannot exceed .5c for the beam,
    but that doesn't mean the effect doesn't happen.  When all is
    running slowly and the Lorentz-factor is negligible, there are no
    problems. Without relativity there are neither fundamental problems
    if we speed this up (logical problems).  However, with relativity,
    if we look at it from the wheel reference-frame -A- (non rotating),
    we have the boom length contract. That means that the teeth come closer
    to one another. This causes no problem with the cogwheel directly
    because that too contracts because it moves at the same speed, so
    the teeth fit. However, between the cogwheel and the second wheel
    on the right, when running slowly there are 12 gaps. When the long
    boom with teeth length contracts, the distance between the cogwheel
    left and right does not change with it. So this means there fit and
    must be more gaps between both wheels now.
    Question: how could this extra gap+tooth slip through the mechanism,
    while for every gap that passes under the left wheel, the right wheel
    passes through one gap ?
    In the reference-frame of the toothed beam, the length does *shorten*
    between the left and right wheel, so there should be *fewer* teeth
    between these two points, which is the exact opposite of the other
    reference frame.
    Here again, how can one of the gap+teeth pass through the mechanism
    cleanly, and get out of the trapped part of the beam. By mounting a
    surface on the rotating beam, a ball would either be thrust a bit to
    the right or left (in drawing), depending on reference-frame. By putting
    a light switch that is hit in one frame and not in the other, an obvious
    contradiction results.
    To make sure the whole thing evens out its stresses after acceleration,
    the beam can be thought of as a very large circle, being accelerated
    through the first cogwheel. Or the beam could have a hinge at every
    cog, so the beam can be looped around back on itself and be fed
    again through the two teeth-wheels.

         Ballistic-distance/time contradiction in relativity:
      __                               -A- A->
     /  \                               |                       -=>
    (   o                                                         _
     \_ / m==     /o\                   -                        / \
     / \/ w'     |   |                                          |   |
    |  / /    ====== |====================###====================== |=====
    ||  /        |   |                    ###    ____           |   |
    |\_/|         \_/                     ###   /    \           \o/
    |   |    |                         >|=###==|  prr |
    |   |   -B-                                |______|          <-=
    A long boom is rotated at high speed, it has attached to it two disks
    each having a hole, a bullet is shot through the first hole aimed at
    the second plate.
    Two reference-frames, -A- and -B-, -A- moves with the bullet, -B- is
    stationary with the man and the machine.
    The following contradiction arises:
    In reference-frame -B-, man/machine:
    * The bullet is length contracted, but this does not provide
      any alterations in the situation because merely the bullet has
      shortened. The bullet is also time dilated, but this does not change
      the situation noticeably either, because now only the bullet turns
      slower around its axis.
    ->The bullet travels along the boom and after a half turn slips through
      the other hole, which is large enough to let a normal length bullet
      at that speed through (this is how we define the situation).
    in reference-frame -A-, bullet:
    * The bullet passes through the first hole, but the boom has length
      contracted, so the other hole is closer, this means that the bullet
      will reach the other disk sooner so that the other hole hasn't yet
      rotated into place. Also, the time is dilated for the boom, so even
      without the shortening of the distance between both holes, the other
      hole hasn't had the time to rotate into place.
    ->If we provided a blockage so that the second hole is only there
      for the bullet when it is rotated to the top, then the bullet would
      hit the plate because the gap isn't there yet.

    Distance disks in -B- = 100m
    Speed of bullet in -B- = .99c
    The time to get to the second disk in -B- = 3.4*10^-7 sec
    Lorentz factor = 7 (rounded for simplicity)
    For the bullet the distance of 100m is contracted to 14 meter.
    For the bullet the time runs slower at the disks times 7, if the disk
    is taken to be a clock, it will run round slower, so the time-number
    reached between the first and second disk passing will be less (then
    without time dilation).
    14 Meter at .99c takes 4.7*10^-8 sec.
    This available time interval for the bullet will even be less in terms
    of disk rotation because for the bullet also the disk run slower,
    (as seen from the bullet) = 6.7*10^-9 sec.
    3.4*10^-7 sec > 6.7*10^-9 sec, but both are a time-number on the
    second disk in turning, the first as computed from the man/machine,
    the second as computed from the bullet computing the disk.  3.4*10^-7 /
    6.7*10^-9 = 51, the bullet gives the second disk 51 times as little
    angle-to-turn as the shooting man.

            Speed addition contradiction in relativity:
     /|\                            |
                                   -A- A->
    | -------------------------------------------------------------------
    ||,','                          '                                     ->
    | -------------------------------------------------------------------
          ##                                                     ##
                                |     o
                               -C-   /|\
                                |     H

       ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
    <-                                  ,                             ,','||
       ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
           ##                           |                         ##
                                   <-B -B-
                                        |                                \|/
    A man stands in a lab with two linear particle accelerators, setup
    in opposing directions, particles are accelerated at near light
    speed. Also two light sources at each beginning of the accelerators,
    shining light towards the end of the accelerator. Reference-frame -A-
    moves with the particles, so does -B- with the other accelerator,
    -C- is stationary with the man.
    - As computed from -B-, the particles in the other accelerator are at a
      speed of near light speed, however, the lab person is also at a speed
      near light speed, the speed difference of the lab person and the
      accelerated particles in the other accelerator is nearing on zero
      when directly compared.
    - As computed from -C-, the particles in both accelerators are at a speed
      difference with him/her-self of near light speed.

    Now the lights: -A- moves with the above light, -B- with the below.
    - As computed from -B-, the light near the other accelerator is at a
      speed of of 1x light speed, however, the lab person is also at a speed
      1x light speed, the speed difference of the lab person and the
      other light beam near the other accelerator is exactly zero!
    - As computed from -C-, the light on both accelerators is at a speed
      difference with him/her-self of exactly light speed.

    Math (relative speed of other light beam relative to light beam):
    Galilean speed addition: v'= v + u, -c = v + c, v = -2c
    Relativistic speed addition:
                    v' = (v + u)/(1 + v * u/cc)
                    -c = (v + c )/(1 + v * c /cc)
    -c (1 + v * c /cc) = v + c
       -c - v * cc/cc  = v + c
       -c - v          = v + c
                     v = - c

               Engine contradiction in relativity:

                       -A- A->

               /  #|
              | # #|
              | # # \
      __e____/' - _  |

         /\_| |_/\     |
         \       /    -B- B->
        _/       \_    |
       |_    +    _|
         |   |   |
         /       \
       _ \/-   -\/ _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _   _
    \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/


    If a truck with engine rides on a road, its engine is time dilated
    as seen from the road, which means it makes fewer RPM then it should
    do to have the wheels turn in unison with the road. The engine must
    be turning slower and the wheels consequently be turning slower,
    then there is road coming from ahead.
    If one slows the truck in accordance with its time dilated engine to
    the speed that would be correct for the speed the engine is running
    at, the effect would still be present although at a smaller fraction.
    Only a truck standing still doesn't suffer this contradiction in
    relativity (the engine always runs slower then it should relative to
    the road, it runs all right relative to the vehicle though). Similar
    but simpler, if the road was a toothed surface and the car had a
    toothed wheel with a little marker near its center acting like a clock
    (being a clock), the clock would slow down, but it can't because its
    a toothed wheel which is forced to run in step with the road.

    Length contraction doesn't play a role: as computed from the road,
    the wheels are length contracted at the top, however the wheel-surface
    expands as the wheel goes towards the road and is at a zero velocity
    with the road when touching it, so there is no length contraction at
    the surface influencing the situation. From the truck, the road is
    length contracted and the wheels are all around length contracted at
    the same factor, this also cancels.


           Clock-synchronization contradiction in relativity:

          ////.o...........                         \ /
         ////.o..............                        +   .
         \\\.o.................                     ~ \ .
           \\\...................                  ~   .
             \\\...................   /|          ~   A
               \\\...................| |         ~
                /\\\.................|(t)      ~~   |/
               //  \\\................ |      ~    -A-
              //      \\.............  *     ~     /|
                        \\..........       ~~     /
                          \\.......       ~      /
                            \\....       ~      //
                              \/|_      ~       /
               |              | (t)    ~       /
              -B-             |/ |    ~       /
               |                 *   ~       //
                                    ~        /
                                  ~~        /
                                 ~          /
                              \|/          /
                              -*-         /
                              /|\        /

    This is one of the most problematic parts of relativity: the infamous
    clock synchronization. If you have two clocks synchronized equally
    in two reference-frames (classical absolute synchronization),
    you have disproved relativity because light speed can be measured
    and must come out differently in both reference-frames in motion
    relative to each other.

    Consider a long iron rod, round, which is rolled off a long slope.
    It can be tied to the slope magnetically. The slope has two blocks
    at the end between which the bar just fits, and the clocks have a
    starting button just behind the blocks.

    If in whatever reference-frame, one side of the rod rolls down before
    the other, on its way to touch one clock before the other so as to
    have non simultaneous clocks and save relativity, the rod will roll
    down to one side of the slope, towards one block, hit it, and the
    synchronization will be a failure and a contradiction when it does
    (supposedly) succeed in another reference frame.

    If the rod however goes past the blocks, it must do so synchronous
    or else it would have gotten off center.

    All right, if the rod went down in a straight line, it must have each
    end-of-rod pass each block simultaneously, reach two buttons of two
    clocks simultaneously, synchronizing them.

    With the clocks synchronized in all frames, the speed of light can
    be measured using a light detector at each clock and stop the clock
    when a light pulse goes past. If it is 300,000,000 m/sec relative
    to one reference-frame, it cannot be 300,000,000 m/sec relative to
    a reference frame in motion relative to the first in or against the
    direction of the light being measured.
     -B- If the speed of light is measured 3e8m/sec from left to right,
         and the speed of light is also measured 3e8m/sec from right-far
         to left-close (the same time interval for both directions), then
     -A- relative to a, even though the distance between the clocks is
         contracted and the clocks run slower, a light beam should take
         less time from left to right (with the motion of -A- relative
         to which the speed of light is added in that frame), then from
         right to left.

    The elaborate clock synchronization is necessary to be able to say
    anything definite about used time interval, relativists are known to
    exploit the signals necessary to synchronize the clocks to manipulate
    the situation, usually using light signals there to "synchronize"
    the clocks.


           Reference-point contradiction in relativity:

    \ | /
    --*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --->
     /|\                                                     |
    / | \        |                                          -A- A--->
                -B-                                          |

    Relativity says that light's speed is the same in every reference-frame,
    however when we attach a reference-frame to a moving light front, its
    speed can obviously not be light speed, but should instead be 0.

    This simple problem is unsolvable in modern science. What is the speed
    of a light beam from a reference-point that moves with the light? it
    cannot be answered in relativity:

    The law for relativity speed addition is:
    v' = (v + u)/(1 + v * u/c^2)
    u  is the speed of the secondary reference frame relative to 'us'
    v  is the speed of the object in question relative to the secondary
    v' is the speed of the object relative to 'us'

    When u = c, and v'= c as well, what is v ?

                      v' = (v + u)/(1 + v * u/c^2)
                      c  = (v + c)/(1 + v * c/c^2)
                      c  =  v + c
    c * (1 + v *   /c  ) =  v + c
         c + v *  c/c    =  v + c
         c + v           =  v + c
         c + v           =  v + c
    This is always true for whatever value of v, v can be anything.

    The answer we were looking for ofcourse is 0, easily arrived at by the
    Galilean speed addition formula:
        v'= v + u
        c = v + c
    c - c = v
        0 = v


               Snapping contradiction in relativity:

                    * * *

                * # # * # # *

             *  *           *  *

           *  *               *  *
           *  *               *  *          -A-
             *  *           *  *

                * # # * # # *

                    * * *

                    * * *
                * # # * # # *                |
             *  *           *  *            -B-
           *  *               *  *           |
           *  *               *  *
             *  *           *  *             B
                * # # * # # *                |
                    * * *                    v



                 * *     * *

                * *       * *
                * *       * *               -C- C->
                 * *     * *



    When a glass ring is physically deformed in the above ways by some
    real force, it will snap.
    If relativity was about illusions this would be no problem, but all
    senses (including touch) are involved, which means the glass ring is
    "really contracted". The illusion of a lake in the desert is an illusion
    because you can't drink it, or bade in it, however if all senses are
    involved including testing with experiments, it becomes a real lake
    even though you may call is an illusion.

    At .99c, the Lorentz factor is 7. for a rest-circular glass ring of rest
    radius .1meter, the length contraction will deform it to a .1meter
    radius at a right angle to its motion, and a .1meter/7 = 0.014meter
    radius in the direction of motion.

    Having the ring contract at the same time in both directions in multiple
    reference-frames is also impossible, the only solution is illusions,
    but everything is involved in relativity, all senses and experiments.


                Size contradiction in relativity:

                     |                                       |_
    ( ((|)) )                 ~~~~~~~~~~~                    |*|
        |                     <--------->>                   |_|
        N                      l=/=0, v=c

    The Lorentz factor is infinite at light speed, so things should
    contract infinitely, this means a light wave should be contracted
    to zero size, and a radio message should arrive at a receiver in a
    single flash because it is length contracted. But that doesn't happen:
    experimental disprove of relativity!
                          |                      /....\...\...\...\
                         -B- B->                /........\...\...\.

         |                 ->|<- the universe

    Light moves at light speed, but that means that the universe is
    contracted to it to a zero size, and the size of the light wave is
    infinitely longer then the entire universe. How can such a light wave
    "be" anywhere in this universe, break on a surface or refract from a
    surface, it is pinning through the entire universe in one direction
    already. The Lorentz factor is infinite here, so time is standing
    still in the universe, and the mass in the universe has increased
    to infinity.

    This is pseudo-solved in relativity by forbidding one to look at it.
    You "must not put a reference-frame to a light beam", and this is
    justified with (the circular): "because relativity forbids massive
    objects to travel at light speed". However, reference-frames are not
    massive objects, they are imaginary and can go at any speed or in
    any direction however someone desires.


             Chute breaking contradiction in relativity:

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -B- B-> . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . .|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
     . . | . . . . . . ./\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . \ . . . . . ./{ .\. ___|\____ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
     . . . . . . . . .({{. . ]___--____> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . / . . . . . `\{ ./. . .|/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
     . . | . . . . . . .\/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . .|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
     . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . .|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
     . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -A-
    . . .|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
     . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . /|\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
     . /.0.\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    A rocket has a hook, when passing through a hole in a screen it pulls
    out a breaking chute.
    - reference-frame -B-, the rocket: the gas in which to break is
      heavy per particle so the rocket will break more then adequately,
      the weight of the rocket is normal.
    - reference-frame -A-, the gas: the gas has normal weight per
      particle, but the rocket is much heavier per particle so the rocket
      will be ploughing through more gas particles before stopping, more
      gas particles means more distance.


    air resistance is:
    f = .5 * c * a * p * v^2
    f = force
    c = shape, we use 1 for chute = 1
    a = surface area = 10m^2
    p = density air = .05kg/m^3
    v = velocity = .99 * 3e8m/sec = 297,000,000m/sec

    Since we are only interested in _comparing_ distances, we will pretend
    the air resistance force doesn't drop off with lowering speed, so
    we get: f = .5 * c * a * p * vstart^2, and we will pretend that the
    densities of the object's doesn't gravitate towards the same factor etc
    (the Lorentz factors equal out over time because of the breaking of the
    rocket, but the difference in breaking distance is already made then,
    and there is no more differences when the Lorentz factors are equal
    because the rocket would have come to a stop).

    rocket's mass = 100 * 1/(1-vv/cc)^.5 = 100 * 7.0888 = 708.88 kg
    rocket's time = irrelevant, chute pulled open against sheet
    rocket's length contraction = irrelevant
    gas weight = .05kg/m^3
    f = .5 * 1 * 10 * .05 * (.99 * 3e8)^2 = 2.205225*10^16 newton
    2.205225*10^16 = m * a
    2.205225*10^16/708.88kg = a = 3.1108*10^13m/sec^2
    That slows down (.99 * 3e8m/sec)/3.1108*10^13m/sec^2 = 1/104742.5 seconds.
    1/104742.5 seconds at an average (.99 * 3e8m/sec)/2 = 1417.78meter.
    which is 10,050.4 of b's meter-sticks.

    rocket's mass = 100 kg
    gas length contraction = 1/7.088th its length (packing the gas, now there
                            are more gas particles per meter).
    gas weight = .05kg/a's-meter^3 * 7.0888 * 7.0888 = 2.51kg/meter^3 (notice
                 the double gamma factor, particle number increase per meter
                 and particle-weight increase)
    f = .5 * 1 * 10 * 2.51 * (.99 * 3e8)^2 = 1.108*10^18 newton
    1.108*10^18 = m * a
    1.108*10^18/100kg = a = 1.108*10^16m/sec^2
    that slows down (.99 * 3e8m/sec)/1.108*10^16m/sec^2 = 1/37311557.78
    seconds 1/37311557.78 seconds at an average (.99 * 3e8m/sec)/2 =
    3.98 meter.  which is in a's meter: 28.21meter.

    This is what Galileo/newton say (in this simplified version):
    f = .5 * c * a * p * v^2
    f = force
    c = shape, we use 1 for chute = 1
    a = surface area = 10m^2
    p = density air = .05kg/m^3
    v = velocity = .99 * 3e8m/sec
    f = .5 * 1 * 10 * .05 * (.99 * 3e8)^2 = 2.205*10^16 newton
    f = m * a
    2.205*10^16 = 100 * a
    2.205*10^16/100 = a = 2.205*10^14m/sec^2
    That takes to a stop (.99*3e8m/sec)/2.205*10^14m/sec^2 = 1/742500 seconds.
    In that time at an average of (.99*3e8m/sec)/2 -> 200 meters.
    This is the same as computed from both reference-frames, because weight
    doesn't change.


               Simultaneity contradiction in relativity:

         xxxxxxxxxxxx                           xxxxxxx
    x xxxXXXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxx       \\      xxxxxxx       xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
     xx                             \\                          \
          xxXXXxx                   / \                         /
           xxxx x          ._  __ /     \                      /_
                             /            \                      \
                           /                \
                         /                    \___/\
                       /                      /     \
                  )--/                       /        \
                   /  \                     /           \
               ___/    \                   .              \
            __/\       /\                 .                 \
           / /  .     /                  .                    \
            /\__                        .                       \
           /   /      o                                          \
     o    .   o o ooOooooOooooo OO o ooooo  oo    ooo oo o       /
       o     /          o   o Oooooo  Oo  oooo oO  oO   OoOo    /__
            /__                                            ,,  .  /\
      ...___._/__ ___.____ ___.____ ____.___ ___.____ _  ,-||_   /  .
         |*  * *|_|*  * *|_|*  * *|_|* *  *|_|*  * *|_|`-'X---) /

    bbbbbbbbbbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbrrrrrrrr 1st
    bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr 2nd

    Consider a train driving towards the right being struck with lightning
    in front and back, leaving traces of impact on rail and train. The
    question is, did these two events happen at the same moment if we
    are on the train and if we are on the tracks ?

    We can create a tube with fine detectors that detect sound and
    direction of sound, that will secrete a blue ink on receiving
    left-to-right sound and a red ink to the opposite direction, and
    we place it next to the railway. When there is a lightning flash,
    then the result will be like shown above.

    It can be absolutely determined (give/take precision) if the flashes
    were simultaneous or not if we know the wind speed. Assuming it is
    zero relative to the tracks, if the point where the blue ink on top
    changes into the red ink on top is the middle between both points
    on the track where the lightning impacted, the flashes happened
    simultaneously (using the sound of the impact of the flashes).

    We can weld such a device on the top on the train exposed to
    open air, and that should give the same answers. For a closed
    tube things will be determined relative to the train, and since the
    air is dragged, the sound is also dragged, so we can use the markings
    on the train in a similar fashion as above to determine simultaneity.
    If the distance towards both marks on the train is the same from the
    point where red/blue ink is on top changes, they were simultaneous.
    If the flash in front happened before the other, then the place
    where the marks change top-color will be more to the back, the distance
    from front-impact to the color-change point will be longer then from
    back-impact to color-change point (obviously).

    Einstein claims that if flashes happen simultaneously "in the rail
    world", the front flash happened first "in the train world". But this
    is potentially contradictory because we are talking about the same air
    and the place of meeting for both directions of sound can't be in two
    places. However, relativists claim sound to be moving at different
    speeds in either direction depending upon which reference-frame you
    use, even though talking about the same air!

    So, we weld an open-air sound-direction device with the red/blue-ink
    configuration on the train, the sound on both devices should meet
    up in the same point point on the train as on the track. The problem
    with relativity is that on the train the front flash happened sooner,
    so sound from the front impact is already underway in the air, which
    means the two sound-directions will meet up farther to the back of
    the train before the point where they should meet when the flashes
    happened simultaneously. If the train fired a bullet to mark the
    place where the sound met on the embankment, the bullet would end up
    before the place on the embankment where both sound directions would
    meet for a simultaneous flash.

    However, if the sound speed from the front travels slower to the back
    in the air then the sound from the back, both sounds will meet up ok

    The way around the already far-fetched defense of the relativists
    is to have the sound-detectors react to the point in the sound wave
    that has made exactly one wavelength. Sound is motion of molecules
    back and forth, in the direction of the train and against it. So,
    the molecule going with the train may be fast, and then it may be
    extra slow when traveling back to its original point and past it
    to the other extreme, and be slow again towards its original point,
    this motion as a whole suffers both effects equally: the speeding up
    of objects in the train frame who go with the motion of the train,
    and the slowing down of object that go against the motion of the
    train, so that the net result is that the point when the molecules have
    made a full back and forth swing will travel with the same velocity
    in either direction, with or against the motion of the train. When
    the detectors are thus set up, they do not fall for the different
    speed of sound in either direction. The directional capability of
    the detectors doesn't suffer from relativity either because it can
    employ the same technique, use two sound signals from its two 'ears',
    and wait for the one-wavelength-past point and use that for comparing
    results from both ears to determine direction.


                Travel contradiction in relativity:

                       rocket->                                     -B-
      oO                                                             |
      __OOOO         _|\__                                          __
     /pl\ ooOOOOoooo]_--__>=*                                   )))/pl\
    (anet)OO          |/      ...                                 (anet)
     \_1/ o                                                        \_2/
                     -A- A->

                                                                <-B -B-
      oO                                                             |
      __OOOO         ______________|\____________                   __
     /  \ ooOOOOoooo]______________--____________>==============)))/  \
    (    )OO                       |/                             (    )
     \__/ o           |                                            \__/

                        (<-elongated view of rocket frame->)

    For a rocket traveling near the speed of light, it could attain the
    length of an entire galaxy or solar system, a rocket could launch
    with a boom and hook it into its destination, then slowly retract
    the boom inwards while breaking and letting the universe expand again
    while maintaining being locked into its destination. By this method
    it could jump at speeds far in excess of light speed relative to the
    planets it is moving to and from, because it only needs to achieve the
    high speed, if that happens the hook can be attached and the ship can
    immediately break again without any intermediate trip. The boom can
    be a long beam that is clamped when it reaches the destination when
    the universe shrinks around the rocket. Suppose it takes the rocket 2
    days to accelerate towards its speed in the home reference-frame, that
    means the ship is about 1 light day away. However, suppose it reached a
    very high speed close to light speed it is now for instance long enough
    to hook itself into the Andromeda galaxy somewhere and start slowing
    down, suddenly the spaceship jumps towards the Andromeda nebula pulled
    in from its boom that can be attached at those speeds there.

    An other issue is that the rocket can carry a letter in its nose
    that is delivered when touching the other planet, this provides faster
    then light messaging service, also thought impossible in relativity.

     ooooo                                                    clamp+breaking
      __ooo                                            __|\___      __
     /  \ o                                           ]__--___>=)))/  \
    (    )o                                              |/       (    )
     \__/ oo                                                       \__/
          ooo                     ftl ->


     ooooo                               faster then light message delivered
      __ooo           __|\___                                       __
     /  \ o          ]__--___>==                               *)))/  \
    (    )o             |/      ...                               (    )
     \__/ oo                                                       \__/


                  Twin contradiction in relativity:
                            /\/            ------------------_________
       oooO                 |l'
      o                    .     .    .     .
                    .                             .
                *              Oo                     *
             *                 |                         *
          *                                                *
        o                                                    o
      o               o o                                     o
     o  __--_       ooOooo                                     o
    o   -o-o-      ooOO|Oo/Oo                                  o
    o  __---      oOoO\OO/ooo                                  o
    O  -o-o-        oOO_|ooo         ______                   O
     O                c||  o        |free  \                 O
       O             c-__a_         |running>              O
          O         (_)\|(_)        |course/
             0          '     _    _                  0
                 0            O    Q              0
                        0  0T/|\  /\T0   0

           uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
    --------------------_____/\____________              \ /
                            /\/            ------------------_________
       oooO                 |l'
      o                    .     .    .     .
                    .                             .
                *              Oo                     *
             *                 |                         *
          *                                                *
        o                                                    o
      o               o o                                     o
     o  __--/ o     ooOooo                                     o
    o   -o-o- C    ooOO|Oo/Oo                                  o
    o  __---      oOoO\OO/ooo                                  o
    O  -o-o-        oOO_|ooo         ______                   O
     O                 ||           |free  \                 O
       O               ||           |running>              O
          O           _||_          |course/
             0         /\ o   _   _                   0
                 0            Q ? O                0
                        0  0 /\TT/|\  0   0
                             /> T <\

    Two men will run around on the same track and meet up again afterwards
    at the starting point.
    They will both experience the same forces in corners on the elliptical
    track, so we can cancel these forces out against each other.

               A's "frame/world"     B's "frame/world"     C's "frame/world"
    clock A     normal                behind                behind
    clock B     behind                normal                behind
    clock C     behind                behind                normal

    Length contraction formula: (time-interval x 1/(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5), to be
    computed from every reference-point towards all other objects.

    (Galilean/Newtonian physics has none of these problems.)


                weight contradiction in relativity:
                                   <--A -A-
                  *.........................* \
                x-)>...................o....|  i
                  *__.....________..../l\...*  |
                 //  \___/        \....H....|  |
                *( ></  /__________\........*| |
                 \\_|  .______prrr__|.......|v |
                  *.|   \__________/........*  |
                x-)>.\____/.................|  |
                  *.........................*  |
                 |(========================)|  |
                 *--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*  |
                   \            <--            |
                                       \..\     |
                                        \..\   -B-
              _--__                      \..\   |
              o---o                       \_/

    On a platform elevated on a pillar, a strip of elastic rubber
    connecting heavy steel ball bearings is rotated around its edges. If
    all ball bearings have the same weight and the same distance to each
    other, the whole thing is balanced.
    - Reference-frame -B-: all ball bearings have the same velocity in
      this reference-frame, so they all have the same weight increase. Also
      all rubber bands and balls suffer from the same length contraction
      (absorbed by the elastic material), so the strip tightens because of
      length- contraction, but that doesn't change the balance because it
      is perfectly distributed around the entire edge.
    - Reference-frame -A-: the balls moving with -A- are not extra heavy
      because they are at rest relative to -A-, the balls on the opposite
      side however are moving, and thus are extra heavy. In addition to
      this, the balls on the already heavier side are also length contracted,
      this sucks more balls to this section because the tension in the entire
      band equalizes, putting more extra heavy balls on the track that moves
      against the motion of -A- (which is in and off itself a contradiction
      too, because in b's frame the number of balls per side is equal).

    In -B- things will stay balanced, but in -A- the tower becomes unstable
    with extra weight on one side.


                         *................| |
                       x-)>............o..* |
                         /__....___.../l\.| |
                        */  \__/   \...H..| |
                       (( ></ /_____\.....* |
                        \\_| .___pr_|.....| |
                         *.|  \_____/.....| |
                       x-)>.\___/.........* |
                         *................| |
                        |(===============)| |
                        +---+---+---+---+-+ |
                         \                 ||
                               .  . \.\    |
                                   . \.\  -B- B-->
                    _-_         .     \ \  |
                    o-o  vROEM         \/

    Mutation: change the balls to buckets with a valve on the bottom,
    have at the left and right the buckets be filled with water, and when
    the buckets go around the next corner, have a time-ticker time a short
    interval after opening the valve and draining the water out. In this
    manner, all three things that change at higher speed work together
    to make one side heavier, the time dilation makes that it will take
    longer before the valve opens relative to -A- on the counter-moving
    side then on the co-moving side.  Now there are is more, heavier and
    longer weight on one side then there is on the other, all effects
    working in unison to bring the tower down in the direction of whatever
    happens to be the counter-moving stretch to the chosen reference-frame.

                                    ^ |
                                    ^ |
                        tick... tock^
            __                ----> ^            __
        |  {__}        -U-U-U-U-U-U-U-u-u       {__}  |
        |___||__      |(===============)|      __||___|
        |>>>>>>>\      v................||    /<<<<<<<| water
        |------vv\   x-)>...............v|   /vv------|
        |       \v\    /__....__........||   |v|      |
        |       |v|   v/  \__/  \.......||   |v|      |
        |       \>>>>(( ></ /____\......V<<<<<</      |
        |             \\_| .__pr__|.....||            |
        |              v.|  \____/......||            |
        |            x-)>.\__/..........V|            |
                       \            vtt ||
                                |.| vcc
                           .  . ....vkk
                               .  \.v    |
                            .      \v\  -B- -->
                    _-_             \.\  |
                    o-o oops         \/

    This contradiction has all relativity effects working with each other
    to create a complete triple enforced contradiction, there's /more/
    buckets on one side, carrying the water over a longer percentage of
    the side before it is ejected, and the water involved on that side
    is more kilograms per liter.

    Relativity formula's that lead to this contradiction:
    weight-when-moving = stationary weight * 1/(1-(v/c)^2)^.5
    length-when-moving = stationary length / 1/(1-(v/c)^2)^.5
    time-when-moving   =   stationary time * 1/(1-(v/c)^2)^.5


                 Cord contradiction in relativity:

                                       o o ooOooooOooooo OO ooo o
                                                 o   o Oooooo  OoOo
                                  _*--*--\o                       ,,
    -*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*-___.____K___.____ ___.____ _  ,-||_
    -*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*\|O  O O|_|O  O O|_|O  O O|_|`-'X---)

       |                           |      |
      -C-                         -B-->  -A--->
       |                           |      |

    A man walks from the back of a train to the front, with a cord with
    knots at every (rest) meter in his hands, dangling it behind the train.
    At the last carriage just such a rope is held by a second person.
    At a certain second point the cords are cut loose, and the knots in
    between are counted.
    -A- relative to the man on top of the train, there should be more knots
     of the other person's rope between the marks, because the other fellas
     rope was contracted relative to his which wasn't contracted.
    -B- relative to the man in the carriage at the back, there should be more
     knots of the man on top of the train between the points because that
     person was moving relative to him and his rope would have length

    cord:                         reference-frame:
                  man-on-train      man-in-train      embankment
    walked cord  | x knots      |   more then xx    | much more xxx |
    pulled cord  | more then xx |   x knots         | more then xx  |
    still cord   | much more xxx|   more then xx    | x knots       |

    or in drawings:
                                      o o ooOoooOoooo OO ooo o
                                                o  o Ooooo  OoOo
                                   ******\o                    ,,
    *******************************__.____J__.____ __.____ _  -||_
    *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-\|O O O|_|O O O|_|O O O|_|`-X---)
       -C-                        -B-->  -A--->
        |                          |      |

                                        o o ooOooooOooooo OO ooo o
                                                  o   o Oooooo  OoOo
                                   _*-*-*-\o                       ,,
    *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*___.____k___.____ ___.____ _  ,-||_
    --*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*\|O  O O|_|O  O O|_|O  O O|_|`-'X---)
     <--C-                        -B-     -A-->
        |                          |       |

                                      o o ooOoooOoooo OO ooo o
                                                o  o Ooooo  OoOo
                                   _*--*-\o_                   ,,
    --*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*-__.____K__.____ __.____ _  -||_
    *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-\|O O O|_|O O O|_|O O O|_|`-X---)
    <---C-                      <--B-    -A-
        |                          |      |

    length-interval = length-interval-when-moving * (1-(v/c)^2)^.5.).
    We can cut the ropes at point p2, and weight until one rope loses tension
    at p1 and then cut them both there.


             Breaking observer contradiction in relativity:

    (                           <*>                            )
    |                          source                          |
    (                                                          )
    receiver                                            receiver

    (                       <---<*>--------------------------->)
    |                                                          |
    (                                                          )
    receiver                                            receiver

    observer stopped
    |                                                          |
    (-->                         <-----------------------------)
    receiver                                            receiver

    If a light signal is generated at the midpoint between two receivers,
    a moving observer will have one of the receivers receive it first
    because light travels at the same speed in all directions for this
    observer (central relativity error from which all other errors follow
    is light speed constancy). The answer back to the source will travel
    "slowly" from that first receiving receiver so that the answer from
    both receivers ends up coming back at the midpoint simultaneously,
    because the signal from the other has arrived later at the other
    receiver, but travel faster towards the original source (dragged with
    the frame we are using). Please note this nonsense is relativity,
    these are not my ideas. However now a problem: when the observer
    moves to the right or left and stops before the answer is back
    at the source from the receivers, the signal from the receiver
    that receives the signal first, will get its answer to the
    source sooner then the answer from the other receiver, because now
    the signals are not dragged anymore with the observer but move at the
    same velocity on all directions relative to the receivers and source
    (and now observer).

    To make this more problematic: if a bomb goes off in the receiver
    if not both signals arrive at the same time, then a different universe
    results in either frame-of-reference.


               Evidence contradiction in relativity:

        _                          |
       (_)      [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX] -A-
         \|/     v             v   |
      __ /|\     ^             ^
     /##\       [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]---->
     \##/                      |

        _                          |
       (_)      [XXXXXXc?XXXXXXX] -A-
         \|/     v             v   |
      __ /|\              ^             ^
     /##\                [XXXXXXc?XXXXXXX]---->
     \##/                               |

    A theory needs to prove its merit, and relativity is based upon the
    idea that light speed is constant, for whomever measures it, at least
    in a vacuum.

    However, there has never been done any test on one light beam, using
    two sets of speed measuring equipment at a large relative velocity
    in space, to confirm this most outrageous claim. This means that the
    experimental basis for the core of relativity is completely absent.

    Meanwhile relativity is called the most secure theory ever.


                Dummy contradictions in relativity:

                            -A- ->
           |*|----------------*-------------------|*|    |
           |________________________________________|   -B-
           | |/             \o\                  \| |    |
            \|                \                   |/
            /                 <\                   \

          /-------------------*---------------------|\       |
         |*|  ____________________________________  |*|  <- -B-
         | |/               \o\                    \| |      |
         | |                  \                     | |
         |/                   <\...                  \|

    This (pseudo)paradox goes as following:
     A barn has two doors facing each other, someone might run through
     the barn with a longer rod then the barn is wide, but still the
     doors could be both slammed shut around the pole at a certain moment
     because length contraction contracts the pole to fit into the barn
     while allowing room for movement. However "what should happen in
     the reference-frame of the running boy with pole?". This is then
     "explained" by saying the doors don't slam shut at the same moment
     in the reference-frame of the pole, the situation allows for this
     explanation. Sometimes this paradox is put out in different mutations
     (race car, cookie-cutter...).

    The barn-pole paradox is an example of a paradox that has a solution
    in relativity. Another would be "throwing a hand grenade", length is
    contracted for the grenade so it would perhaps explode further, however
    time is also dilated from the ground on the grenade making it explode
    later=further as well.

    Having people focus on things that in reality are contradictory or
    problematic, but "in relativity" have a solution, it desensitizes
    people on relativity's self contradictory parts, and discourages anyone
    to find them.


                Special Relativity is not falsifiable

     Modern thinking demands that a scientific theory must allow for
     an experiment to proof it wrong. If there is no such experiment
     possible, the theory is declared as having no (useful) meaning. 
     An example would be the theory that says "in every space in the
     world where nobody is looking, the magical Kobukobu lives; but
     it is very illusive and disappears when you want to detect it."
     This theory does not allow for any experiment to disproof it.
     Whatever you do, the Kobukobu knows you were trying to find it,
     and disappears. The Kobukobu theory will therefore formally
     disqualify as being science: `no experiment can disproof it.'

     Special Relativity is such a theory. It says that "light travels
     for every observer with the same speed, in a vacuum." The
     catastrophic problem with this is: a true vacuum does not exist.
     When you do perform an experiment that shows light not to
     go with the demanded speed of c for an observer, the SR theory
     will simply rebuff: "but the light was dragged by a substance, it
     was not a true vacuum, therefore, and SR did not say anything
     about that situation and you haven't disproven it." It simply
     claims not to apply, just like the Kobukobu claims not to apply
     to certain crucial situations "when you are testing." Interestingly
     it does make the reverse claim: when light could have (very
     likely in fact) been dragged by local substances, it claims SR
     is correct "because light always travels the same speed with 
     respect to all observers."

     Looking a little closer at the meaning of "vacuum" is interesting.
     First of all we can not suck absolutely all air out of any
     space, there is always a residue left. It is therefore not a
     "true" vacuum, SR does not apply, and can not be disproven by
     light speed experiments in any Earth lab. Between the planets we
     find the solar wind: gas streaming from the Sun. Notably this
     gas is ionized, creating localized electro/magnetic effects by
     definition. Between the stars there is interstellar gasses, and
     even between galaxy's we might find some gas too, even though it may
     be extremely diluted. But it is far more then just gas that spoils
     the vacuum: magnetic and gravity fields permeate space, subatomic
     particles travel through space. We may not know what gravity and/or
     magnetism is being made off, but "it is going through space",
     spoiling a potential perfect vacuum where SR would apply.

     Simply put: nowhere in the visible universe can we find the
     required vacuum. The only place it exists is ... in someone's
     head, in a "thought experiment". SR therefore only applies to
     a "thought environment". Because its required field of
     application "true vacuum" can never be truly created, any
     experiment to falsify it is doomed before it began. SR can not
     be falsified within this physical reality, and is therefore not
     a scientific theory. It is a philosophical construct, a mind
     twister (good one at that, though!).

     Einstein seems to have made a little child fantasy: flying
     through the air at light-speed, and looks at himself in a mirror.
     "He then asks himself", the story goes, "do I see myself or not."
     The story continues that "he realized that he had to see himself,
     and that therefore the light speed must be the same for all
     observers." The answer this paper is suggesting is rather more
     down to Earth: when Einstein moved with the mirror, he would see
     himself because he is in a bubble of air and everything that
     usually permeates this air. He is dragging his local medium with him,
     into which the light travels at c relative to him.  If the air and
     everything usually permeating it, is moving with c between him and
     the mirror, he would not see himself. Einstein found his vacuum
     in the only real place it can exist: in his head, in a "thought
     experiment." Einstein can never be made to fly through a real vacuum,
     none can be found and none can be created. SR does not apply to
     our universe.

     Dragged light

     A difference between SR and the light-medium (whatever it is)
     theory is, that SR claims to say something about all light in the
     universe, it all travels with "the observer". The light-medium
     theory says that light only travels with an observer, if this
     observer is dragging his/her own medium with it. Both claim that
     light being measured by any observer, always travels at c. The
     light-medium theory predicts this, because the measuring devices
     will be affecting the light medium locally, at least there is
     a good chance on that depending on the set up.

     It was discovered (experimentally), that light is not dragged
     by an atomic substance for 100%. If air is made to move, sound 
     waves (pressure waves in air) are being dragged 100% by this air.
     Make the air move 100 meter per second to the right, then sound
     going also to the right, travels exactly 100 meter per second
     to the right faster. It goes the same usual speed relative to the
     air it is traveling through. That light does not behave this
     way, seems to indicate something about the medium light travels
     through. For instance that this medium is only partially affected
     by the moving atoms, the medium is partially dragged by moving
     atoms/molecules. However, light is being dragged 100% by
     the proximity of Earth (where its speed has been measured so far).
     This can mean, for instance, that Earth has a defining impact
     on all things permeating local space that are relevant for the
     speed of light (light medium).
     Perhaps the Earth magnetic field is a first good candidate, since
     Earth has such a field, and atoms / molecules very locally affect
     it. Atoms/molecules are made up of charged particles, which create
     electric/magnetic effects.  The drag of light is apparently depending
     on the refractive index of the moving substance. That seems to fit,
     because the more dense an object is, the more light usually bends
     when entering or exiting it. The more dense an object is, the more
     the molecules and atoms are close together, affecting the light medium
     more severely.


           Length-contraction contradiction in relativity:


         |           <______2_____>
    _____|__________________    ____________    _________________________
    ________________________>  <_______3____>  <_________________________


                                                    ____________    |
                                                   <_______5____>  -B-
                                                                    |  B

    A hole in a plate let's through a plate of the same dimension as the
    hole in the reference-frame of the gap, if the plate is moving sideways,
    will be contracted in the proper direction.

    ________                _____________________________________________
    ________>       5      <_____________________________________________

    ________________                _____________________________________
    ________________>       4      <_____________________________________
                             ________________    |
    _________________________>        3     <____|_______________________

    __________________________________                ___________________
    __________________________________>        2     <___________________

    ___________________________________________                __________
    ___________________________________________>       1      <__________
                A  |                            -->contract<--
    In the frame of the plate, the hole is contracted.
    -A- frame: plate is contracted, fits through.
    -B- frame: gap is contracted, plate doesn't fit.
    Result: two different world scenario's depending upon reference frame
    chosen to describe the situation.

    To prevent a defense that wants to change the situation radically
    in order to make the plate get through by tilting left upwards or
    something like that, a spherical ball can be hung in the path of the
    plate somewhere and be connected to the plate-with-gap:

                                   /  \
                         ,--------(    )--------.
                         |         \__/         |
                         |                      |
    _____________________|___                ___|_______________________
    _________________________>              <___________________________

    If the plate is coming in flat, it will first strike the utter below
    point of the sphere, if not it will strike beside that point and this
    can be noticed from the sphere (paint, sensors, impact marks etc.).

    As a matter of math, the plate's angle is really changed in each
    reference-frame because of length contraction, meaning this is actually
    more a sphere-hitting contradiction then a gap/place contradiction.


                 E=mc^2 contradiction with relativity:

                                      /  }}}}}}  \
                                     /   {{{{{{   \
                           (            ./{{{{\.            )
                              ( ( (   ( /{}{}{}\ )   ) ) )
      o)                       ( ( ( \ /(((())))\ / ) ) )
     (|                          ( ((((((((())))))))) )
      A                                  ------
                                             |    |
                                             | -=-|
                             /                                    \

    In the popular belief system, Einstein is the man that made the bomb
    happen. However, his theory of relativity associated with this, has
    nothing to do with reactions between individual molecules and atoms
    on the periodic table, or fusion and fission. These matters are all
    rooted in chemistry. All Einstein ever had to do with it was writing
    one letter about the atomic-bomb to the USA government on the urging
    of /other/ /physicists/, who were lesser media stars then him at the
    time, asking the USA to start working on it.

    While Einstein was in the USA, he did not work on the bomb and was not
    allowed in the labs. If his theory was a major part in this effort
    (in any way), if he was so smart and ingenious, and if there was
    so much hurry with the bomb, why wasn't he working on it "to defeat
    the Germans to it" ? He had already urged the USA to build it, he
    clearly wanted it done.

    Atomic power and the bomb were from the line of research started
    by madame curie (who became the first person to die from radiation
    inflicted leukemia in 1934), the discovery radioactivity and all that,
    Rutherford and others. Nothing to do with Einstein (Einstein even
    thought in 1934 that the idea of usable atomic energy was silly).

    There seems to be a conflict of interest between science, and the
    maneuvering of states for power and domination in the world, using
    the threat of atomic weapons. The states that posses atomic weapons
    usually wish to eliminate the capability of other states to acquire them.
    For this reason, such states would not want bright students to make
    it into physics in other countries, have an interest in diverting
    all scientific attention in this field to whatever nonsensical theory. 
    Trying to make sense of nonsense, this somewhat conspiratorial theory
    seems to fit a number of items.  The fact that Einstein has never been
    good at science, but has remained prominent beyond doubt to this day,
    having the unquestionable support from world media, science, science
    journals. This theory receives funding without ever producing results.
    How can this much corruption last for so long, without there being a
    `good reason' for it. In the interest of non-proliferation and
    non-development of the next generation of atomic weapons, those few
    people who weren't fooled, might instead have voluntarily kept their
    mouth shut. Better have a limping physics then a destroyed Earth.
    The idea that Relativity theory is maintained in the interest of petty
    geopolitical struggles for `world domination', shifts Einsteins famous
    remarks about war and peace, into almost an apologetic light. As
    if these remarks apologize for Relativity Theory, as being `in the
    interest of peace'. The `dedicated peace activist' rapes physics while
    on a peace campaign, to safe the world from nuclear proliferation.
    This view might explain some of the cultural myth that surrounds
    Einstein as a person, and it could explain why he has (famously) said
    the people were stupid (``Two things in this world are infinite, human
    stupidity and the universe, and about the latter I'm not certain'').
    His remark that the people were infinitely stupid, might suggest
    he knew Lorentz' theory to be nonsense, while he played the poster
    boy for it. He would indeed have had a unique insight in how stupid
    people can be ...  revering him as a God given higher intelligence,
    while he was selling the most absurd nonsense, and knowing it.
    The fact that Relativity Theory has been adopted during the tensions
    leading up to World War 2, the time when the atomic-bomb was under
    construction, places this conspiracy theory in a time frame where spy
    and counter-spy was a game played all over the world. Incidentally,
    the party which rejected Einstein's and Lorentz' mathematical
    impossibilities was defeated (Germany), leaving the field open for
    the USA to impose its will; the country where Einstein lived and
    creator of the first nuclear weapon. As the saying goes: ``truth is
    the first casualty of war.''

    It isn't hard to imagine that such arguments to silence science may
    hold true for some people even today. To expand: it is conceivable
    that `quantum mechanics' also plays a part here, since it has the same
    illogical feel that Relativity has (although I have not investigated
    it), was created in the same time, and is actually dealing with things
    relevant with respect to atomic bombs (sub atomic particles).
    Countries today seem to primarily want atomic weapons to be able to
    defend themselves from those that have them, who are violating their
    obligations to destroy these weapons, which was the basis for fairness
    of the non-proliferation agreements. With sarcasm, non-proliferation
    of nuclear weapons agreements which are being violated by nuclear
    states, are being used by some of those states, to justify war on
    non-nuclear states, and in such wars nuclear materials are being used
    (notably depleted Uranium) and threatened (atomic bombs), to force
    non-nuclear countries to adhere to these agreements while in fact,
    those targeted were doing so and credible information to that end
    was being collected. The illogical Relativity Theory seems to have
    found its equal in politics. If politics has been the main sponsor
    of SR, the fact that Relativity is illogical and wrong makes sense.
    Few things seem more illogical and self-contradictory then politics.

                  Angle contradiction in relativity:

                                             rocket's view:     __
                                                               / |
                                                ______________/  |_  _
                                             _,-                   |/ |.o.oo.o
                                          _,--/-|------------------|- |ooooooo
                                        `-_------------------------|/ |.o.oo.o
                    ( ((o)) )a a a a a a a a-_. . . . . .,----\__|-|- |ooooooo
                        -->                 a `-________.__________|\_|.o.oo.o
                                             a         .
                                              a       .
                                               a     .(Aide line, connecting
                                                a   . position of ball without
                                                 a .  rocket-collision to
                                                  o   actual position, creat-
                                                      ing balls view.)

    classical mechanics, ball's view:         __
                                             / |
                              ______________/  |_  _
                      <--  _,-                   |/ |.o.oo.o
                        _,--/-|------------------|- |ooooooo
                      `-_------------------------|/ |.o.oo.o
           . . . . . . . o-_----------------\__|-|- |ooooooo
            .           b   '-___________________|\_|.o.oo.o
    (Aide    .         b
    line,     .       b
    rocket's   .     b
    collision   .   b
    point, con-  . b
    nected with   o
    ball, creating
    rocket's view.)

    So far so good, this is all classical mechanics and it works out
    perfectly. The ball is pushed to the left-down as seen from the ball,
    and to the right down as seen from the rocket because the rocket
    itself is moving fast to the left.

    However, in relativity, in the balls view the rocket is length
    contracted. What this does is squeeze the whole rocket flat in
    its direction of motion, and consequently changing the angle on the
    nose. In the balls world, it will be pushed away at a different angle,
    in the direction of motion of the rocket mostly and only slightly down
    (depending on speed, the down-factor could become very small):


    relativity, balls' view:
                    <--   |-||.o.
         o b b b b b b b o|-||ooo

    This is at completely at odds with what happens in the rocket's world,
    where the ball is pushed down, depending on the cone-shape, the speed
    of the ball could even be mostly down with only a small forward component.
    Let's make this a qualitative contradiction:

    rocket's world:
    ------------_____________                      pointed rocket cone
                                ( ((o)) )
                  __               ..
                 /  \              ..
                ( !! )             ..
                 \\//              x. slow speed compared to rocket,
                  ==                  mostly downward.
    Suppose there is a pressure plate beneath the ball that it will hit and
    switch on a light bulb at this angle, we are now looking at a qualitative
    contradiction because in the balls world:

    ball's world:                          contracted rocket
      ..................<-------( ((o)) )  |ooo

      High speed compared to rocket relative to original frame,
      mostly in the direction of motion of the rocket.
                 /  \
                ( -- )
    lightbulb stays off


            Space bending contradiction in relativity:

      | |     | |     |      .|       |       |       |       |
      | /-----|-/     |       |.      |       |       |       |
      |       |       |       |    .  |       |       |       |
      |       |       |       |      .|       |       |       |
      |       |       |       |       |  .     \      |       |
      |       |       |       |       |   .     \     |       |
      |_______|_______|_______|_______|__  .     ) ___|_______|
      |       |       |       |       |  \____._/_/   |       |
      |       |       |       |       |        / .    |       |
      |       |       |       |       |       |      .|       |
      |       |       |       |       |       |       |.      |

    When space-"itself" `bends', everything `bends' with it, or
    everything except light for unknown reasons (magic ?). This idea
    has some problems:
    - If all bends when space bends, then all should unbend beyond the
    everything-bend, and everything would be as if there had been no
    bending: if a region of space were "bend" around a star, and a light-
    beam crosses into the bend space, then when exiting out of that
    region, the light also is set back on its original track. So bending
    of space in this way is nothing, it could exist or not, no way to
    tell either way because it can leave no measurable trace.
    - If light is not bend when space bends everything else, what is it
    about "space-itself" that selects that light must not bend with it.
    Since in actuality the light bending property of bend-space was claimed
    to be proven for light passing the Sun, isn't it more likely that gases
    or other non-philosophical reasons are to blame for lights bending ?

    But we save the most fun argument for last: if one says space has
    bend, then one has defined a first and a second "space": one is an
    unbend "secret" space, from which we say that the other "space" has
    become bend. If space itself were bend, one could not say it were
    bend because from what "straight" were one to say that space has
    bend ? In order to say "space is bend here like 1 degrees per 100
    km", one has to make a straight line over 100 km, and judge the bend
    in space from it. Where is this "straight" line coming from, it is
    coming from a secondary "straight" space. So to say that space is
    bend is at least to say that there exist two spaces: the ordinary
    straight one, and the wobbly bend one. We call the bend one "real",
    and the straight one "imaginative", forgetting that "straight lines
    of a coordinate system through space" are already imaginative lines.
    Straight space itself is an imagination, a useful imagination because
    it provides useful coordinates which are predictable because they
    are regular and defined in a way that they are simple to use. Furthermore,
    there is no such thing as "straight" or "bend" space, unless we are
    talking about two dimensions. A bend in 3 dimensional space is simply
    incomprehensible to the human mind. It might exist, who knows, but we
    cannot know because there is no experience with a bend in space. Bend
    itself is a word denoting something about the 3 or 2 dimensional world
    which we can understand. 3D space however cannot be bend like that,
    it is not a line or a flat surface in 3D space, it is 3D space itself.
    To fantasize we can, is to reduce 3D space to 2D space, and pretend it
    is still 3D space. But it's not.

    When one looks at the original scene where "space bending" became
    accepted scientifically (the chaotic time between both world wars in
    Germany), one can appreciate the amateur approach that science
    had back then early this century. Simply because an expedition to
    a far-off country comes back with a closer prediction of bending
    starlight during an eclipse then someone else (a feat still heatedly
    contested today, and possibly a fabrication of evidence, because in
    those days the desired precision could probably not be attained by
    contemporary instruments), the far reaching idea of space-bending
    around the sun to account for starlight bending close to the sun is
    accepted as scientific fact. The whole discussion isn't played out
    in science journals, not at all, it is played out in the mass media
    as a great spectacle for the general public. No doubt because of the
    attention of the mass media, the science has suffered considerably
    in terms of quality, and the amount of thought going into arguments
    either way.  The general public probably isn't interested in a
    careful consideration, it is more interested in wild things. We
    might even have to thank newspaper sales figures in those days,
    for the relativity "nonsense" (my opinion, though it is generally
    accepted that relativity is `counter intuitive, counter common sense',
    which is a nice way of saying "no-sense", "non-sense") to this day.


               Faith contradiction with relativity:

    o/                        __|______
      o/      o              /__A_____ /
    />\o_    |\$            |_________|/
    >\o_    />                 |man|| N
    \o_  o _o      />\o_       |of || O
    /> o /> \  _               |the|| B
    o_    _  /> o              |1OO|/ E
        /> o/>\o_ >\o_               Lforlightparticlemodel
       _o/>\o/>\o_ >\o_
      > \/>\o_/>\o_ >\o_
       />\o_   />\o_ >\o_

    At the time that other scientists declare Einstein at least a
    superhuman genius, when he's probably the only physicist to ever
    been asked to just pop in as prime minister, when he is called man
    of the century after his death and just about everyone worships him,
    he is in much doubt about everything he has "done":

    "You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction.
     But from nearby it looks quite different.  There is not a single concept
     of which I am convinced it will stand firm"
        -- Albert Einstein on his 70th birthday in a letter to Solvine

    "Since the mathematicians have attacked the relativity theory,
     I myself no longer understand it anymore."
        -- Albert Einstein, I.R.W.Clarck, "Einstein, the Life and Times",
           World Publishing Company, USA, (1971),p.122; source "Einstein,
           the incorrigible plagiarist", C.J.Bjerknes.

    Meanwhile, the scientist with which experiment it all began, ironically
    another Albert, Albert Abraham Michelson (USA naval officer born
    in Poland, ultimately also receiving a Nobel prize (for optical
    instruments)), believed in an Earth local co-moving light medium until
    he died, regarding his 1881 and subsequently improved light speed
    experiments as proof (called the MMX experiments, Michelson Morley
    eXperiments). This was the same experiment that prompted Lorentz's
    Ether Theory (length-contraction) to save the then popular rigid aether
    theory by changing it, hypothesizing a bizarre length-contraction
    to occur when moving through the aether, a phenomenon that could
    not physically be explained as to why it would occur (because if
    the aether was to move through bodies, then these bodies would be
    compressed at the front-half, but be elongated at the aft-half).
    LET-mutations later appeared after also this LET-mutation of the
    rigid aether was disproved experimentally (by additional altered
    MMX experiments). Now LET was added with an ad-hoc time dilation to
    save it again, again an effect that could have no direct physical
    cause. These were mathematician tricks that had little to do with real
    forces or physics.  Then the SR mutation of LET appeared around 1905,
    mixing in varies "notions": relativity of simultaneity and a light
    medium in every reference frame, and even weight increase besides
    the already existing length contraction and time dilation.

    Michelson's believe consisted simply of an Earth-locally co-moving
    light medium, much like sound is dragged around with the Earth
    through the Earth's atmosphere.  No length contraction necessary,
    no time dilation, weight increase or "relativity of simultaneity"
    absurdities, no ``acceleration and gravity are the same thing'',
    and no magical explanations for phenomenon like light bending around
    the sun (just gas and other real phenomenon), no changing of atomic
    clock rates in space or during motion because of magical/mystical
    time-change (clock's parts are thrown off their calibration because
    of altered gravity/inertia), no mystical speed limit (simply a
    result of thrusting particles with a phenomenon that has a relation
    with light speed: electromagnetism, electromagnetic waves travel at
    light speed), no time dilation on muons (these particles are not at
    oblivious rest when they are moving very fast, they are influenced
    by this by passing matter and electromagnetic force-fields etc).
    Evidence that has been focussed on to (supposedly) "prove relativity",
    it can and should be explained by other non relativistic means,
    because relativity is self contradictory. Self contradictory theories
    just aren't good explanations, even if there is no alternative.
    The original argument against the Earth local-co-moving aether was
    that stellar aberration couldn't go with it, but that argument was
    disproven in the 1881 experiment. It had been presumptuous in any
    case because principally we cannot know *a-priori* (before observation)
    what should happen at the light-medium boundary's of Earth and
    inter planetary space, and the solar system and inter stellar space,
    apparently the stellar aberration phenomenon occurs. Stellar aberration
    also would occur due to the Earth atmosphere deformation because of
    its motion around the Sun against gas pressure. But even if these
    solutions don't work out, a solution must be something sensible, not
    something self-contradictory.

    Earth local co-moving light-medium:


    This ends this series that shows relativity to be self-contradictory.
    A viable alternative is already accepted as common knowledge: the local
    Earth co-moving light medium. As you can guess, related to or the same 
    thing as the Earth (electro-)magnetic field, and/or the gasses that
    fill space (which also produce electric fields themselves).



    Relativity is false. Relativity can only be consistent if it admits
    it is a theory about multiple worlds, where the current world splits
    off into as many worlds as there are differently moving objects per
    infinitely small measure of time, because each reference-frame has
    its own world-events which differ from other reference-frames (as
    proven in most of the above chapters). This proposal was however not
    accepted by proponents when I proposed it to solve relativity's
    inconsistencies. Therefor, relativity as it exists today has been
    disproven. It's consistency can only be saved by making outrageous
    (and unproven) claims, on level with outrageous and unproven claim of
    the "constancy of the speed of light as measured from anything".

    So we can conclude, that light is moving like other objects in our
    world are moving: when we move into a light beam going with light speed
    over the floor, the speed of that light beam is slightly higher for us.
    Just as all other objects do. This doesn't even seem to be a function
    of the object (that it adjusts its speed to be slower to us then to the
    floor if we run away from a light beam or object over a floor), but to
    be a function of us that the object has a different speed to us when
    we change movement. Einstein (and the scientists who actually believe in
    him) should go back to kindergarten and play some more with toys, maybe
    that will teach them something about relative speed.

    This also means that there is no light speed limit. Things can go
    faster then the speed of light as far as we know, there is no known
    barrier. Boats can travel faster then the lateral wave-speed of water,
    airplanes can move faster then the speed of shock waves in the air they
    are traveling through ? Light can be expected to provide minimal
    resistance. One day perhaps, we will think of light speed as terribly
    slow. But I'm guessing we need comprehensive science and technology
    to do it, Light-speed-is-constant Theory isn't helping.

                              Appendix 1

                   How visual speed illusions work.

    Here a little bit about visual illusions and speed in the same scheme
    of things: understanding helps the anti-relativity (pro sensible
    science) -cause. The more you know, the better.

    Visual speed illusions:

    1. When an object is moving towards you below light speed, you will
       have the illusion as if a clock on the object is running fast.
    2. When an object is moving away from you, you will have the illusion
       as if a clock on the object is running slow.
    3. When an object is moving towards you below light speed, you will
       have the illusion as if the object is longer in the direction of
    4. When an object is moving away from you, you will have the illusion
       as if the object is shorter.

    These are /visual illusions/, they are purely contained within the
    "actions of light itself and how it is received", and have nothing to
    do with the length of the object, or time on the object. Time and
    length are normal everywhere.

    1. Because every next second the clock is closer and the image of the
       clock needs less time to reach you.
    2. Because every next second the clock is further away and needs extra
       time to reach you.
    3. Because at the moment the image from the back of the object is emitted,
       travels past the object to the front and joins the front in a full
       picture of the object to be received by the receiver, the object has
       moved closer so the image of the front is emitted closer to you then
       only the length of the object, causing the appearance of lengthening.
    4. Because at the moment the image from the front (part pointing away
       from 'you') is emitted and hooking up with the image of the back, the
       object has traveled further away so the image from the back is emitted
       further away from you then the distance difference between front and
       back would otherwise have it.

    When an object is traveling with light speed, the illusionary
    length contraction when moving away will be 1/2 of the length of the
    object: for an object 1 light day long, light from the front takes
    1/2 light day to reach the back, so the object seems to be 1/2 its
    normal length. It's time will seem dilated at 2 times as slow as normal,
    because for every second, the clock-image needs to travel a full light
    second extra distance.
    When it is traveling at light speed or above towards 'you', it will not
    be visible until passing, presumably one would see the front emerge and
    in passing - when it transits into going away - the whole object appears
    at the point of passing, and grows to a visual illusion of half its
    length (must be fun to watch).
    All these effects are quantitatively different from the Lorentz-factors
    for length contraction and time dilation. For instance in the above
    exemplified case (light speed moving away), time would stand still and
    length would be contracted to 0 (or nearing at those numbers when nearing
    on light speed if one wants to be rigorously correct).

                                 Appendix 2

                             Stellar Aberration

    While writing the following message to Usenet i realized what could
    explain stellar aberration without resorting to a stationary light
    medium or relativity, but with the entrained aether hypotheses, it is
    reproduced here because it is a good explanation of the idea.
    Stellar aberration is the phenomenon that light from the stars is
    coming from the direction of where our Earth is moving. Traditionally
    this was explained as "walking in the rain", and hypothesizing a
    stationary light medium through which the Earth moves.


    I suddenly realize my earlier analysis of stellar aberration must be
    combined with the odd shape of the aether (electro-magnetic field)!
    Suppose an aether that streams behind the Earth like this:

                    / /
                  /_  /
                 ((_)/ earth

    Then the stellar aberration does occur by pure dragging for light in the
    center portion of the midnight-sky, right?
    The light wave that comes in from on the sun-earth line from the night
    side will have its right-hand side waves hit the Earth medium, it then
    continues to move down (in drawing), but that point down is also where
    the Earth medium is going to, so waves and medium intercept each other
    sooner then if the medium was stationary (not dragged). Since the
    intercept is sooner, the wave has spread out its energy into the moving
    medium quicker, a fast medium activation should mean that the wave
    is going to refract towards the medium border. I thought that was the
    case because if you have a portion of air in a train, and the air gets
    activated with sound along a window faster then the speed of sound because
    the train is moving towards the sound, then the sound will start along
    the window fast, if the train goes very fast the window will have the
    sound across the window nearly instantly, which would mean the sound
    is coming from the near normal off the window; so i figured: sooner
    activation means refraction towards the normal, later activation means
    refraction away from the normal.
    With the above shaped aether (which is qualitatively how the Earth
    electromagnetic field is situated) you have waves at midnight, from
    about 45degrees left (wow this works out!), all the way to the 90
    degrees right aberration in the direction of the movement of the Earth!
    With a shape of the aether like this:
                  | |
                 | _ |
           <-    |(_)| earth

                   *sun                                              48
    Light coming in from the left hemisphere is all going *towards* the
    Earth, and giving their angles at the night sky (between up and left
    in drawing), they will all be met with the moving aether sooner
    along their wavefronts, so they will refract towards the normal
    of the moving medium, which means they all refract to the left/down,
    which is the direction of motion of the Earth.
    All light coming in from the right hemisphere is going to catch up
    with the Earth, so their wavefronts will reach the Earth moving medium
    *slower* then without a moving medium, which means their wavefronts
    get refracted away from the normal of the moving medium, which means
    since this light is all coming in from the right/up quarter, and given
    the shape of the medium-boundary there, that they will *also* be
    refracted towards the direction of motion of the Earth.

    And this shape of medium is EXACTLY the shape of the Earth magnetic field!!!

    We cracked this thing! :-))).

    The difference with the Earlier analysis is that now the parts of the
    aether that make the light refract away from the direction of motion
    of the Earth (see earlier post couple of days ago), which happens for
    light that hits the medium from the right at below the normal on the
    medium is below the horizon! Only near the morning and near the evening
    might there be a very small portion that is nearing this shift in
                          |  |
                          |  |
                          |  |
                         |    |
                         |    |
                         |    |
                        |      |
                        |      |
                        |      |
                       |        |
                       |   __   |
                       |  /  \  |
                       ( (    ) )
                        \ \__/ /


                         l || l
                         l || l
                         l || l
          aberration     l || l      aberration
          towards        l|  |l      away from
          the normal     l|  |l      the normal
              _           |  |           _
               -_        |    |        _-
                 -_      |    |      _-
                   -_    |    |    _-
                     -_ |      | _-
                       -|      |-
                        |      |                  ____________
      ---------_______ |        |_______----------
                       |  /  \  |
                       ( (    ) )
                        \ \__/ /

      everything has aberration towards direction of motion!

    We got it!
    ps (I already had the feeling i virtually had it already, and that there
        were physicists here who knew it. The Hubble is not outside our
        magnetic field :-)) )
    pps (Maybe this is not right, so someone better diffuse it now, thanks.)
    It is 100% correct, because the light visible at the morning to the
    right, is light that will have aberration away from the normal, in the
    opposite direction of what comes from the up-right quadrant, so this
    is light that will be have aberration towards the left-down, however given
    the direction it is coming from (left-down quadrant), it also
    has aberration towards the direction of motion of the Earth.
                         l || l
                         l || l
                         l || l
          aberration     l || l      aberration
          towards        l|  |l      away from
          the normal     l|  |l      the normal
              _           |  |           _
               -_        |    |      <-_-
              <- -_      |    |      _-
                   -_    |    |    _-
                     -_ |      | _-
                       -|      |-
                        |      |                  ____________
      ---------_______ |   \    |_______----------
    ___________________|   _\   |_______________________________
                       |  /  \  |
                       ( (    \ )
                        \ \__/ \-_
                         \____/   -_
                                    -_   aberration away from
                                   <- -_ normal
                                        -_                           50
    [end quote]
    This does however work for almost all light, but not for what
    is coming from exactly 90degrees to the direction of motion of
    the Earth. However, we have now identified the solar-gas swirl as
    potentially defining the light-medium, since it has the desired shape
    of a tear-drop pointing away from the Earth, and interestingly, it
    should have a high-pressure front, and a low-pressure area, as the
    Earth moves through the solar wind. If the high-pressure side has a
    boundary which is closer to 90-degrees on the direction of Earth's
    motion then the low-pressure boundary, for light reaching the Earth,
    light will be refracted towards the normal on that boundary when coming
    into the high density gas, but since the low-density boundary has
    another angle, the light would be refracted less away from this normal
    then would be necessary to restore its original direction, causing a
    stellar aberration effect (refraction direction motion of the Earth).
    On the other side, light enters directly into the low-pressure area,
    if this area has the correct boundary, light being refracted away from
    the normal in the lower density will curve towards the direction the
    Earth is moving in.

                       |X//  \..|
                       (X(    ).)

    This diagram might not be perfect, but it is a start.

    So, as it turns out, there are 3 effects that will in fact happen,
    or might happen, all of which might account for (some) stellar
    - atmosphere pushed out of shape against solar-wind pressure
    - speed-change refraction in tail-like light-medium
    - solar-gas pressure and low-pressure area's, and their boundaries

                             Appendix 3

                      Light: particle or wave.

    The photo electric effect can be explained qualitatively by means of
    hypothesizing electron resonance. The light _waves_ bring electrons
    that are caught between appropriate forces in motion, because light is
    an electro-magnetic wave, and the electron is a charged particle. When
    the electron is in the right position, receiving the right wavelength
    of light, it goes into resonance, and ultimately it may eject from
    the metal because of this increase in motion. It takes 100 wavelength
    of light of visible wavelength only a fraction of a second to pass
    past an electron, explaining the near instantaneousness of the
    electron emission. Below a certain wavelength, no electrons are in a
    position with a long enough resonance frequency to go into resonance,
    explaining the cut off where no electrons get emitted below a certain
    light frequency. At a higher frequency, electrons are emitted faster,
    this can be explained because electrons that resonate with a faster
    frequency will be in a crammed position, and will therefore eject
    with a higher velocity.

    Compton scattering is also qualitatively wave behavior (a water wave
    hitting a buoy will push the buoy back, and scatter with a lower
    frequency). Black body radiation caused by changes in the atom like
    jumping to new positions by electrons will cause short light waves to
    be emitted by these electron (charged body) motions, naturally. The
    "energy-package" of the phenomenon if it exists at all, can be
    completely contained within the electron-motions causing them.

    In light of this, it seems that light is a wave, and not a particle.
    If it was a particle, it is probably no more a particle then a burst
    of sound uttered through a short tube will be a "particle" - in a
    defined area, and not a continues spherical wave; or a short flick of
    a laser is a light "particle". Light therefore needs not to be seen
    other then a wave phenomenon, and not a particle phenomenon. This
    is in agreement with the fact that light is widely accepted to be an
    electro-magnetic wave, which is in agreement with its speed not being
    dependent on the speed of the source. Light being a wave is coherent
    with the offered explanation for stellar aberration (see appendix 2),
    with the MMX experiment which has light near the Earth move with the
    Earth as a direct measurement (regardless of mathematical trickery
    (without physical basis) to cover this up), with with an alternative
    but obvious explanation for Compton scattering, with the photo
    electric effect (electron resonance), and with black body radiation
    (charged particles creating waves).

    The reason to see light as a particle originated from mathematical
    models for the photo-electric effect and black body radiation, but
    the above rationale make it clear that the photo-electric effect and
    black-body radiation do not need light to be a particle, both effects
    do well with light as a pure wave, where the 'odd' effects are to
    be explained from the materials (electron motions), and not from
    "backing up into light", mystifying it.

                             Appendix 4

               Math is experiment-based, not axiom based.

    Modern scientists/mathematicians/physicists think/teach math is
    axiom-based. That 1+1=2 because we defined it as such, and we could
    define it differently. However, this is wrong, because *+*=** and
    **+***=***** because experiment tells us this. Furthermore A+B=B+A
    because experiment tells us this, not because it is an "axiom".
    Put 3 beans in your right hand, 2 in your left, combine in any order.
    The result will be 5 beans, therefore A+B=B+A; same for multiplication
    and other basic math components. It shouldn't perhaps come as a
    surprise that a science that has left its basics unguarded, will
    eventually end up with postulated and contradictory theories like

    An outgrowth of this is for instance the name of Pythagoras' *discovery*,
    which is erroneously called a "theorem". Its not a definition, it is
    a discovery. Ultimately things must be defined as experience encounters
    them: a straight line is a short rope under tension in the air, and this
    is in fact how children learn these concepts. All geometrical problems
    can in principle be build and measured. They are not axiomatic or "pure
    thinking", they are from direct experiencing.

    Collected papers of Albert Einstein; M.Janssen,
            R.Schulmann,J.Illy,C.Lehner,D.Kormos Buchwald
    Einstein's Miraculous Year - five papers that changed
            the face of physics, princeton university press.
    Relativity, Albert Einstein, ISBN 0-415-25384-5
    Classical dynamics of particles and systems, Marion & Thornton
                                                ISBN 0-03-098967-1
    Einstein en het heelal, Nigel Calder ISBN 90 246 7021 7
    Relativity Simply Explained, Martin Gardner ISBN 0-486-29315-7
    Albert Einstein the incorrigible plagiarist, C.J.Bjerknes
                                                ISBN 0-9719629-8-7
    Het Heelal, P.Moore & I.Nicolson ISBN 90-10-05447-0
    The World's Great Minds, Jack Meadows, ISBN 0-75370-020-4
    Calculus, Tom M. Apostol, ISBN 0-471-00006-X

    Pointers, Links:

    www.antidogma.ru Sergey N. Arteha, Russia

    Problems with Relativity Tom Hollings

     (Tom Hollings found a mistake in the original contradiction #1

     here, contradiction has been corrected.)........................















    Latest update: Sat Feb  2 09:12:27 CET 2008