(Fig.M) Einstein relativity rejecting medium causing many paradoxes contradicts Sagnac effect where light speed c is changed by observer's motion (= earth rotation ).
Standard explanation says Michelson-Morley experiments measuring the constant light speed c in any directions on the earth denied the luminifeous aether (= light medium ), but this is untrue.
Michelson-Morley experiment did Not disprove the medium moving with the earth ( light travels through this earth medium at the constant light speed c in any directions like the constant sound wave's speed. ) ← This medium (= aether ) moving with the earth is compatible also with stellar aberration and Sagnac effect
Light speed c was originally derived by classical Maxwell electromagnetic theory based on light medium which influences light speed as shown in Fizeau, which is contrary to Einstein relativistic claim.
All experiments results such as light interference, diffraction, refraction, even photoelectric, Compton effects (= light wavelength instead of photon's speed is changed by collision ) show the light is wave traveling through the medium.
Einstein relativity rejecting the real medium for claiming the constant light speed c seen by any moving observers created the unphysical Lorentz transformation and time dilation, which causes many unsolvable paradoxes such as kinetic energy, de Broglie wave, electromagnetic, Ehrenfest, twin paradox.
Einstein relativity is useless, unnecessary, because GPS does Not need the paradoxical Einstein relativity (= many factors such as atmospheric pressure unrelated to Einstein relativity influence atomic clock time ), and PET uses just electron capture, Not the unphysical antiparticles.
No experimental evidence of Einstein relativity in (illusory) time dilation or Doppler effect. The relativistic spin-orbit effect using the contradictory faster-than-light spinning can be explained by non-relativistic factors (= just orbital motion with No unphysical spin ).
Unstable muons (= just other particles ) with higher energies (= faster speed ) can move longer, irrelevant to the (unphysical) Einstein time dilation allegedly elongating the faster muon's lifetime.
In fact, the light speed c is measured to be faster or slower than c by the earth rotation (= observer's motion ) in Michelson-Gale experiment, GPS, and Sagnac effects ( this p.1-lower~p.2 ), which disproves Einstein relativity based on the constant light speed c regardless of observer's motion ( this-abstract ).
So they started to say contradictory things that the earth rotation (= spinning ) is the rotating frame classified into general relativity which allows the light speed c changed by the rotating observers or earth, which disagrees with special relativity.
↑ But as shown in Michelson-Morley experiment, they paradoxically insist the light speed c is unchanged measured by the earth rotating around Sun, which is also rotating frame of general relativity, though.
↑ So this special and general relativity can Not give consistent reasons why the light speed c is changed only the earth spinning, Not by the earth rotating around Sun, nor velocity of GPS emitting light ( this p.18-19,p.31-32 ).
↑ When seen by observers moving with GPS satellites emitting light, the earth are moving in the opposite direction like the earth spinning, but the observed light speed is unchanged by the velocity of satellite emitting light, which contradicts the "relativistic" theory.
The only logical explanation is that the medium (= aether ) is moving with the earth (= through this earth medium, the light emitted by any moving satellites travels at the constant light speed c ), but the earth medium is unfixed to the earth rotation or spinning (= which can explain Sagnac effect of the light speed changed only by the earth spinning ) like the atmospheric molecules moving in various directions.
Relativistic mass or energy was just a copy of classical Maxwell theory based on light medium where faster things with higher energy (= larger mass according to Maxwell theory ) are harder to accelerate by electric field with the maximum light speed c.
Relativistic mass is wrong, causing right-angle lever paradox.
Today's quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) claims the electric and magnetic force is generated via (unreal) virtual photons with imaginary mass which contradicts Einstein relativistic mass-energy relation ( this p.3, this p.4-6 = called off mass shell ), expressed as unphysical Feynman diagram ( this p.9 ).
This unphysical QED cannot be the evidence of Einstein relativity, because QED calculations always give just meaningless infinities which must be artificially canceled to get some finite values by (unreal) infinite bare mass and charge ( this p.4 ) in renormalization.
↑ This ad-hoc unrealistic QED with No ability to predict any physical values ( this p.3-left-(5) ) due to the artificial cancellation of infinities was harshly criticized even by founders such as Dirac and Feynman as "hocus-pocus ( this-1st-paragraph )."
(Fig.P1) Different clock times in different positions.
Here we present a typical example of fatal paradox in Einstein relativity.
In Einstein relativity, a moving ovserver has an unrealistic power to bend even a rigid rod without touching it , no matter how hard the rod is, as seen in Lorentz contraction.
A rigid rod is moving upward at first and then turn to the left horizontally along the rigid square rail in the upper figure.
External forces are always applied to any positions of the long rod uniformly, in both leftward and upward directions (= at first, the rod cannot move to the left, blocked by the vertical rail on the right side. )
Surprisingly, as seen by a moving observer, this originally-straight rigid rod appears to be bent complexly, as seen in the upper figure right.
According to relativistic Lorentz transformation, events occurring in different positions (= x = 0, 1 ) at the same time (= t ) seen by stationary observer occur at the different times (= t' ) seen by a moving observer !
By inserting two positions x = 0 and 1 (= same time t by stationary observer ) into Lorentz tansformation, we find a moving observer sees the left end of rod turning to the left earlier than the right end of the rod.
Hence, a moving observer tends to see the future event of the left end of the rod and the past of the right end of the rod. which appears to bend the rod like in the upper figure right.
This occult world is Einstein special relativity.
(Fig.P2) "Block" changes the rod "future" direction.
So in Einstein fantasy relativistic world, a rigid rod "can" foresee the future !
In the upper figure, the right end of the rod (= still existing in the past ) has Not arrived at the turning point, but the left end of the rod (= existing in the future ) has already turned to the left at the turning point.
If someone suddenly puts a new block onto the turning point, the whole rigid rod (= including left and right ends of the rod ) cannot move leftward (= the whole rigid rod cannot turn to the left ), meaning the left end of the rod already turning leftward suddenly changes its past event and its direction (= as if moving upward from the beginning without turning to the left at the turning point ) without touching the rod !
This is paradoxical and impossible, because the right end of the rod (= past ) has Neither arrived at the turning point nor known whether a block is there or not.
But the left end of the rod can automatically predict the future event (= can know whether a new block is put at the turning point without touching it ), and make a decision whether it will bend (= moving leftward ) or bend back (= moving upward without turning leftward ) !
This is one of fatal paradoxes of Einstein relativity which theory proved to be wrong just by this paradox.
Here we suppose external force is always applied to any points of the rod uniformly, so the moment the rod arrives at the turning point without a block, the whole rod starts to turn to the left without delay simultaneously.
See Einstein is wrong in electromagnetic field.
See Einstein relativity de Broglie wave paradox
See Einstein relativity contradicts kinetic energy.
(Fig.M) ↓ Mass (= energy ) change is "relative", NOT absolute value where the moving particle with kinetic energy radiating light energy appears to stop with No kinetic energy seen by other observers, but this stationary particle still radiates and loses light energy despite No additional energy to lose except rest mass = unsolvable paradox of Einstein relativity.
Einstein relativity claims the mass of an object moving appears to be larger than its original mass at rest relative to a observer. ← this causes a serious paradox.
In Einstein relativistic world, there is No such thing as an absolute value, hence everything is relative and appears to be affected and changed by observer's motion ! ← Though the observer does Not even touch an object.
Think about the case when an object A (= or particle A ) is moving relative to another stationary object B (= or particle B ). The rest (= original ) masses of these two objects are the same.
As seen by a observer at rest relative to B, this object A appears to be moving (= A has kinetic energy ) and heavier than the object B according to Einstein ( A > B ).
But as seen by another observer moving with the object A, the object A appears to be at rest (= A has No kinetic energy to lose ), and instead, the object B appears to be moving and heavier than the object A ( B > A ).
So depending on observer's motion, one object appears heavier or lighter than another object. ← This is clearly a paradox ( this p.48-49 ), hence Einstein mc2 is false.
↑ If the object's energy is magically changed as seen by differently-moving observers, we cannot utilize such an unrealistically-changeable, indefinite energy value in actual useful energy source.
When an charged particle is moving and losing its kinetic energy by radiating light wave (or a photon ) seen by one observer K, this moving particle appears to stop and has No kinetic energy to lose, as seen by another observer K' moving at the same speed as the charged particle, hence, this charged particle radiating energy seen by K appears to be stationary with No kinetic energy and unable to radiate or lose light wave energy as seen by K'. ← paradox !
↑ This is clearly one of fatal paradoxes showing Einstein relativistic energy is wrong.
Because one observer K sees the charged particle moving and losing its kinetic energy by emitting light wave energy (= and this emitted light can be detected by the detector ), but another observer K' sees the same charged particle at rest (= with No kinetic energy ) which cannot lose its kinetic energy by emitting light wave (= the emitted light wave is Not detected by the detector ) ! ← The detector can detect the emitted light or not depending on different observers, which is true paradox that can be fixed by using space medium.
Such an unrealistically-changeable Einstein mass energy mc2 was said to be involved in massive nuclear energy as seen in atomic bombs.
But this nuclear energy is a kind of "potential (= Not kinetic ) energy" like Coulomb potential energy which has nothing to do with an object's motion or velocity associated with Einstein relativistic (= kinetic ) energy affected by observer's motion.
Because whether two charged particles are moving or stationary, when the distance between those two charges is the same, Coulomb potential energy is the same, regardless of particles' motion or velocity. ← So the potential energies such as nuclear energy (= mc2 ) or Coulomb energy have No relation to Einstein relativity or Lorentz transformation.
For example, when two protons at rest are separated by the distance r, these two stationary protons have only their rest mass energy (= 2×m0c2 ) with No additonal kinetic energy or relativistic energies.
But Coulomb repulstive energy (= e2/4πε r ) is working between these two stationary protons, hence, the total relativistic mass or energy must be greater than two rest mass energies of protons, which means this additional energy caused by Coulomb repulsion must be stored in the space (or medium ) between two protons, which contradicts Einstein relativity rejecting any medium in space.
Einstein relativistic energy mc2, mass, momentum relation causes serious unsolvable paradoxes in Lorentz transformation of forces and the unphysical right-angle lever which could be rotated or not depending on observers seeing it.
Einstein unreasonably rejected space medium, so to explain electromagnetic force, it neads unreal virtual photons with imaginary mass, which disobey Einstein relativistic mass. ← self-contradiction
Einstein paradoxical relativistic mass mc2 just copied Maxwell true mc2 with no paradox.
See Twin paradox is real, Einstein is wrong.
See GPS doesn't use relativity.
(Fig.U) Driving force to expand universe is dark energy ← NOT diluted ? Unreal negative pressure ?
Big Bang and expanding universe are just fantasy.
There is No evidence indicating our universe is expanding so rapidly, as seen in the fact that our solar system is Not expanding at all.
The current cosmology claims the entire universe is expanding by fictional dark energy with unreal negative pressure, which is said to be Not diluted even by the space expansion ( this 2nd-paragraph ). ← Dark energy is Not a real thing !
They baselessly conjecture that universe is expanding only from the fact that light emitted from more distant stars is redshifted (= longer wavelength ), which can be more naturally explained by lights from more distant stars tend to lose their energies, elongate their wavelength by being scattered by more dusts and or by oscillating other molecules while light is traveling an extremely long distance.
The most conclusive evidence of fantasy Big Bang is said to be an uniform cosmic microwave background (= CMB ) which is unrealistically misinterpreted as a remnant of the beginning of our universe.
But it's impossible for each microwave to keep an intact state of very ancient light wave from the early universe for as long time as 13.8 billion years !
So it is more natural to think that the uniform cosmic microwave filling all space is an evidence of uniform light "medium (= slightly oscillating at 3 K )" filling space.
The current astronomy focuses only on fictional science saying this cosmic microwave may indicate fantasy parallel universes. ← nonsense.
Astronomers often cite "Olber's paradox (= why night sky is dark )" as a reason for the (fictional) expanding universe or BigBang, but this Olber's paradox does Not justify the expanding universe at all.
According to Olber's paradox, if the universe is static and infinite filled with luminous objects (= stars ), every sight line from the Earth will eventually intersect a bright object, it means the night sky will be bright, hence, the universe should be finite and expanding (= BigBang ) to solve this paradox and make the night sky dark.
And they misleadingly claim that even if dusts or debris in the space could absorb the light, they heat up and eventually reradiate the same light towards the Earth (← this is wrong ), hence the existence of dusts doesn't solve this Olber's paradox ( this resolution ).
↑ But this logic of expanding universe intentionally avoids the case where many dusts and objects in the space block and reflect the light back to the stars, as seen in the solar eclipse ( this 5th-paragraph ).
In conclusion, Olber's paradox is caused by forgetting the case of light reflection, and the expanding universe and BigBang are false.
(Fig.G) ↓ Black hole, gravitational wave are illuson.
Gravitational wave is also unreal, too weak, so useless and meaningless forever.
Furthermore, gravitational wave itself contradicts Einstein relativity, so wrong.
Gravitational wave is too weak. They say too weak and dubious gravitational wave could slightly change 4-km arm only by 1000-times smaller than a proton = only one atom displacement in Sun-earth distance ( this last paragraph ) ! ← Too small change to detect correctly.
The wavelength of laser light to detect gravitational wave is far longer than arm's change. Longer light cannot detect smaller change ( this p.16, this p.3 ) !
This p.12-last-paragraph says
"The lengths of each arm
in the LIGO detectors is around L ~ 3 km, meaning that we have to detect a change
in length of L ~ 10-18 m. This seems like a crazy small number: it’s smaller than the
radius of a proton, and around 1012 times smaller than the wavelength of the light used
in the interferometer" ← It's impossible to detect such a tiny gravitational wave effect by seeing the interference of light wave whose wavelength is 1012 longer the target tiny change (= so interference itself does Not occur ).
Einstein general relativity has basic defects, it cannot conserve energy or carry wave ( this p.5-last, this p.5-last-paragraph, this p.2-(2) ).
This is why physicists had to artificially introduce unphysical concepts called "pseudo-tensor (= Not real tensor of Einstein relativity, this 4-6th paragraphs, this p.1-right-middle )" as doubtful gravitational wave which contradicts Einstein theory ( this p.13-14, this p.1, this p.1-middle-3rd~5th-paragraphs ).
Gravitational wave pseudo-tensors is said to unrealistically vanish seen from different coordinates or observers ! this p.1-3rd-paragraph, this p.19-last-paragraph, this p.2, this-intro-1st-3rd-paragraphs )" contradicting Einstein original relativistic tensors.
↑ Because when some observers may detect gravitational wave (= fictitious pseudo-tensor ) at the detector on the earth, other observers moving differently can Not observe the same gravitational wave (= pseudo-tensor ) even by using the same detector, due to gravitational wave unrealistically vanishing seen by some observers, which is fatal relativistic paradox.
Physicists can artificially create and choose many different forms of gravitational wave's pseudo-tensors ( this p.2-lower, this p.8 ), which means the artificially-created gravitational wave (= unphysical pseudo-tensor), which contradicts Einstein relativity, cannot be used to test Einstein relativistic prediction.
The idea of predicting the existence of (doubtful) gravitational wave just by measuring light pulse (= there is No evidence these light pulses called pulsars are emitted from unseen distant neutron stars, these pulsars probably originate from simple vibrating dusts or debris reflecting light waves emitted from other stars somewhere else ) is baseless, because it's impossible to know the precise orbital motion (of imaginary neutron stars ) only from light pulses due to uncertain inclinations or precession of the (unseen) distant star's orbits.
↑ Observed light pulses are irregular and chaotic due to being scattered by various interstellar medium (= precise estimation of this interstellar medium's random light scattering is impossible ), so astronomers have to introduce artificial noise model or modify the irregular pulses called de-dispersion ( this p.6, this middle ) so that they look like regular pulses, which artificial manipulation and unpredictable interstellar noise make the prediction of pulsars unreliable.
↑ Research on (imaginary) gravitational wave emitted from the distant pulsars PSR 1913+16 relied on many freely-chosen parameters ↓
This p.438-Table 2 mentions many free parameters of pulsars' orbits, which are different depending on artificial models.
This p.439-left says many unmeasurable parameters such as artificially-chosen two pulsars' mass M=m1+m2, which are directly unmeasurable.
This-left-1st-paragraph says parameters are different depending on chosen models.
Table 5 shows various freely-chosen parameters including instrumental parameters.
As a result, there is No evidence of gravitational waves, and even if gravitational wave existed, it contradicts Einstein relativity which cannot carry real energy and momentum.
The 1st, 7th, 9-10th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"A team of physicists has developed a method to detect gravity waves with such low frequencies that they could (= just speculation, detecting too weak gravitational wave is impossible ) unlock the secrets behind the early phases of mergers between (imaginary) supermassive black holes." ← meaningless research on fictional distant objects.
"Their new method of detection is based on analyzing pulsars and neutron stars that emit radio waves at highly regular intervals (= untrue ). Dror hypothesized that searching for a gradual slowdown in the arrivals of these pulses could reveal new gravitational waves (= Indirect detection of gravitational wave by seeing pulsars is doubtful, subject to many free parameters and models )"
" not much is known about their origin. There are two theories. The leading idea is that these waves are the result of a merger between two supermassive black holes.."
"The other main theory is that these waves were created by some sort of cataclysmic event early in the universe's history.."
↑ No matter how many times physicists claim the (too weak, useless) gravitatinal wave may originate from the distant (imaginary) black hole or early universe, it is meaningless and waste of time, because we can Neither go to such unrealistically-distant universe nor confirm them.
In fact, guessing (imaginary) gravitational wave by measuring radio waves allegedly emitted from (hypothetical) neutron stars or pulsars is irrelevant to prediction by Einstein relativity due to their reliance on many free fitting parameters and models.
↑ This research paper also says ↓
p.2-left-3rd-paragraph says "The list of model parameters used is extensive and
pulsar-specific "
p.2-right-1st-paragraph says "remind the reader that the best-fit parameters are not
equal to the true physical parameters"
p.2-right-last-paragaph says "These uncertainties make any extraction of a GW (= gravitational wave ) signal on a pulsar-by-pulsar basis impossible"
p.3-left-4th-paragraph says "However, the current uncertainty on P is too large to detect their values for old millisecond pulsars. Models of magnetic dipole.."
↑ As seen here, research on (imaginary) gravitational wave and black holes depends heavily on artificially-chosen models and fitting free parameters, which are completely irrelevant to Einstein relativistic theory full of fatal paradoxes.
This-left-2nd-paragraph (= about pulsar allegedly emitting gravitational wave ) says
"Two such parameters exist for the DDGR model, while the BT model has three, EH and H88 each have four,.. as well as the number of instrumental free parameters."
Feel free to link to this site.
