SRT Falsified

CONCLUSION: SRT Falsified

In conclusion, in the sun’s frame, as used by JPL in space probe analysis and as used by others to convert the electromagnetic pulses from a pulsar into a precise clock, all clocks are seen to slow as a result of velocity in the sun’s frame and all clocks are seen to vary as a function of the sun’s and earth’s gravitational potential. However, in the earth’s frame, when we assume the speed of light is isotropic on the earth, the velocity with respect to the earth and the gravitational potential of the earth affect the clocks as expected. But, there is no discernable effect of the sun’s gravitational potential. It is easy to understand that there is no discernable effect from the average (at earth’s center) of the sun’s potential since it affects all clocks equally. But SRT has no valid way of explaining why the clocks do not seem to be affected by the gradient of the sun’s gravitational potential. By contrast, MLET and Lorentz ether theories in general can explain the absence of the effect. The effect is still there it is simply absorbed into the clock bias required to convert the Selleri transformation into an apparent Lorentz transformation.

The requirement that the sun’s gravitational potential not be applied to clocks resident or moving in the earth’s inertial frame gives very strong support to the MLET theory. But even more significant, it clearly invalidates the SRT.

The clear invalidation of SRT should have at least one desirable effect. Specifically, it should make the intellectual climate more open to alternative theories. Numerous quotes in the latter half of the 20th century can be cited to show that Einstein has been accorded the status of a “God of Science,” and to question his theories has been anathema. I illustrate this with several quotes:

James Gleick [1]: “There will never be another Einstein …Einstein’s genius seemed nearly divine in its creative powers. He imagined a certain universe and this universe was born.”

Carl Lanczos [2]: “He (Einstein) wrote his name in the annals of science in indelible ink which will not fade as long as men live on the earth. There is a finality about his discoveries which cannot be shaken. Theories come, theories go. Einstein did more than formulate theories. He listened with supreme devotion to the silent voices of the universe and wrote down their message with unfailing certainty…he was never deceived by appearances and his findings had to be acknowledged as irrefutable.”

Paul Davies and John Gribben [3]: “All the implications of special relativity…have been confirmed by direct experiments. There are still people who believe it is ‘just a theory.’ But they are wrong.”

Isaac Asimov [4]: “No physicist who is even marginally sane doubts the validity of special relativity.”

Clifford Will [5]: “Special relativity is so much a part not only of physics but of everyday life, that it is no longer appropriate to view it as the special “theory” of relativity. It is a fact…”

These quotes show why virtually all main-line magazines will not accept any paper questioning Einstein’s theories. The situation needs to change. It is anti-science. Einstein himself was never so pretentious, as the quote from Banesh Hoffman [6] shows: “To Solvine who had written congratulating him on his seventieth birthday, he wrote in reply on 28 March 1949, saying in part: ‘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,…’”

A second desirable effect is hoped for. A critical experiment could easily be performed to verify or refute MLET. The MLET receives strong support from the fact that the sun’s gravitational potential is absorbed into the Lorentz transformation clock bias. However, as developed in a prior paper [7], there are very significant implications for all of physics when the concepts of MLET are pursued to their logical conclusion.

For example, there is substantial evidence in favor of the MLET gravitational scale factor in place of the GRT scale factor. If the MLET gravitational scale factor is correct, we find that the gravitational force deviates from an inverse square law and becomes significantly weaker than the inverse square law would predict near large masses. In fact, because the gravitational force is self-limiting, “Black Holes” are ruled out. This same weaker gravity causes the mass of large stars to be underestimated because the inverse square law is used to measure the mass. This effect can explain the anomalous redshift of type OB stars. The red shift is gravitational. The mass has simply been underestimated. This same underestimation of the mass implies a greater force at long distances. This greater force may explain the excess rotation rate at the edges of galaxies and do so without WIMPS, MACHOS or any other form of strange mass. A critical refutation or verification of the validity of the MLET force law could be obtained by launching a drag-free spacecraft to carefully measure the gravitational force as a function of the distance from the sun.

REFERENCES

 

  • Gleick, James (1992) Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, Pantheon Books, New York, p 43.
  • Lanczos, Carl (1979) “The Greatness of Albert Einstein,” in Albert Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity: 60 Years of its Influence on Man and the Universe, Gerald Tauber ed., Crown Publishers, New York, p 16.
  • Davies, Paul and John Gribben, (1992) The Matter Myth, Simon & Shuster, New York, p 85.
  • Asimov, Isaac (1993) “The Two Masses,” The World Treasury of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, Timothy Ferris, ed., Little Brown & Co., Boston, p 186.
  • Will, Clifford, (1986) Was Einstein Right?, Basic Books, New York, p 246.
  • Hoffmann, Banesh (1972) Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel, Viking Press, New York, p 257.
  • Hatch, Ronald R. (1999) “Gravitation: Revising both Einstein and Newton,” Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp 69-75.